21 replies to this topic

[Righty007]

13 James Bond novels were released between 2000 and 2009. In this past decade, which novel do you think is the best?

Note: The Moneypenny Diaries trilogy isn't a traditional James Bond novel but it is a licensed IFP property so I included it in the poll. I also wanted to avoid the inevitable complaints from the hardcore Moneypenny fans.

[Double-Oh Agent]

Righty, I'm glad you included The Moneypenny Diaries trilogy as well as the Young Bond series and the novelization in this thread and the novelizations in the 1990s thread. In my opinion they all deserve to be considered. To me, no Bond literary list is complete without them (nor are they without Colonel Sun, John Pearson's 007 biography, and Christopher Wood's novelizations.)

Anyway, for my money, the best Bond novel of the 2000s is Raymond Benson's Doubleshot. It's another break from the 007 formula which is done in an interesting and believable and suspenseful way, this time with Bond injured. This book and Scorpius are the two Bond novels that I found myself liking more and more in the days (and weeks) after I had read them and appreciating what the authors did in their efforts. Certainly more so than any of the other 007 novels. Regardless, Doubleshot is a unique and exciting Bond adventure and a must read by any Bond literary fan.

[sharpshooter]

Blood Fever gets my vote.

[Loomis]

Well, I haven't read them all, but I voted for THE MAN WITH THE RED TATTOO as the best of a bad bunch.

The Higsons? Fascinating in concept, but I wasn't exactly blown away by the execution, and I've never understood the claim that they feel closer to Fleming than any of the other continuation novels. They're Flemingian only in that they chime with Fleming's timeline. As books, they read like what they are: children's yarns written in the twenty-first century. If old Ian had turned his hand to Young Bond, the results would have been nothing like Higson's works.

DEVIL MAY CARE? Faulks is a literary giant - a truly brilliant writer. His last two novels, ENGLEBY and A WEEK IN DECEMBER, are as good as anything else that's out there. DEVIL MAY CARE, however, was a colossal, crashing disappointment - the INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL of Bond novels.

For a good old-fashioned adult Bond romp, packed with vivid travelogue and the Flemingian Element of the Bizarre™, pick up THE MAN WITH THE RED TATTOO. To be sure, it's not remotely in the same league as the Fleming novel to which it stands as a sequel, YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE (which I'd cite without hesitation as the greatest Bond novel ever), but it still outclasses all the other recent pretenders.

[OmarB]

Gotta be Blood Fever. We get a good look at James as a person, meet more of his family. See an exotic location which turns out to be pretty tough too. James going through torment (the flies), the villain had a great lair, the villain was also awesome. Amazing pacing.

[Matt_13]

Double or Die for me, but honestly all of the YB's are a treasure. Can't wait to get my hands on BRC.

[AMC Hornet]

I'm glad you posed this question, Righty. It made me realize - I wouldn't vote for any of them.

In my considerable opinion, High Time To Kill was the last Bond novel to really impress me. Everything that has come out since reeks of fan-fiction (don't get me wrong - I've read some fan fiction that I'd place above some of these entries).

I give credit to Kate (Weinstien) Westbrook for at least coming up with something original, although I can't single out one of her trilogy to deem the 'best.' They were only Bond novels in an oblique sense.

I long for the return of the annual adult novel, crafted with care by an author with the right pedigree who can imagine like Fleming and who gives a damn about the reader. It's a tough combination to find (and no, I'm not nominating myself).

[Qwerty]

A very, very good idea for a poll. Should be interesting to see where the votes split amongst the authors.

I actually had a very difficult time choosing between Higson's Blood Fever and Samantha Weinberg's The Moneypenny Diaries: Secret Servant and The Moneypenny Diaries: Final Fling. Ended up going with Blood Fever today, but truly--if you haven't given those Moneypenny books a chance yet, pick them up.

[Jeff007]

I went with By Royal Command

[quantumofsolace]

Lots of good stuff here, far more than the 90's. It's amazing to think that a book by an author as brilliant as Faulks is, apart from the one novelization here, the weakest. So hard to choose as both the YB series and the MP diaries have both been brilliant (although SF is definitely the weakest of the YB's). Went for BF, but it was close - as Qwerty says 'if you haven't given those Moneypenny books a chance yet, pick them up.'

[marktmurphy]

The Higsons? Fascinating in concept, but I wasn't exactly blown away by the execution, and I've never understood the claim that they feel closer to Fleming than any of the other continuation novels. They're Flemingian only in that they chime with Fleming's timeline.

Nah; he's the only author to capture the sadism and twisted glamorful grimness of Fleming- he's got so many wonderfully nasty ideas!

So with that I went with Double or Die; I know it's generally not the most favoured of the Higsons but I enjoyed it greatly. But I found it hard to choose between them; I think they're all great.

Devil May Care wins for best title, but it's a boringly standard Bond book. It is at least competently written though, so it beats all of the Bensons.

[sharpshooter]

So with that I went with Double or Die; I know it's generally not the most favoured of the Higsons but I enjoyed it greatly. But I found it hard to choose between them; I think they're all great.

Double or Die has my upmost respect. For me, Blood Fever, Double or Die and By Royal Command, ranked in that order, are Higson's big three - and the best of their decade.

[Qwerty]

So with that I went with Double or Die; I know it's generally not the most favoured of the Higsons but I enjoyed it greatly. But I found it hard to choose between them; I think they're all great.

Double or Die has my upmost respect. For me, Blood Fever, Double or Die and By Royal Command, ranked in that order, are Higson's big three - and the best of their decade.

I'd agree that those are the best of Higson's bunch. Personally, Double or Die is neck-and-neck with Blood Fever as my personal fave.

[clinkeroo]

Great...Benson's worst (killer midgets, sexy twins, and Che Che coming back from the dead?), Weinberg's nearly Bond-less Moneypenny romances, and the no sex, no smoke, no alcohol adventures of Higson.

I'm going to have to think about this one. I enjoyed Higson's #2, #4, and #5, Weinberg's last two were quite good for what they were, and Red Tattoo would have been great without rabid Mini-me.

Faulks made me want to retch. I could not believe that this was the same guy who demonstrated such depth and maturity with Birdsong. Condescending, dumbed down, tripe, much like another great writer who wrote Bond novels in the two prior decades.

[Skudor]

I only read one of those (the awful DMC), so I won't vote. But I must say I'm shocked at the number of titles - for some reason I thought most of those were from the 90s!

[Loomis]

The Higsons? Fascinating in concept, but I wasn't exactly blown away by the execution, and I've never understood the claim that they feel closer to Fleming than any of the other continuation novels. They're Flemingian only in that they chime with Fleming's timeline.

Nah; he's the only author to capture the sadism and twisted glamorful grimness of Fleming- he's got so many wonderfully nasty ideas!

Perhaps, but I don't think his prose is Flemingian in the slightest. Neither do I find it very well-written or interesting on its own merits. I don't dispute that Higson has good ideas and plots, but I find his books lacking in flavour, or at least the flavour I'm after.

Now, obviously, no one writing for children in the twenty-first century would mimic Fleming's elitist, digressive drawl of the 1950s (let alone go anywhere near his casual racism, sexism or homophobia) - it would be commercial suicide. However, when it comes to Bond novels, what I want most of all is that distinctive Fleming "voice" with all its unimpeachable patrician authority. So I guess I should stick to Fleming, and by and large I do.

Another thing I don't like about the Higsons is that Bond is always referred to as "James". It's distracting and, worse, unBondian. Yes, I know he's a schoolboy, but I'm somewhat certain that boys at Eton in those days were usually referred to by all and sundry (even each other) by their surnames alone. In any case, I want the author of a Bond novel to call him "Bond", never "James", even if he's an infant.

[marktmurphy]

Perhaps, but I don't think his prose is Flemingian in the slightest. Neither do I find it very well-written or interesting on its own merits. I don't dispute that Higson has good ideas and plots, but I find his books lacking in flavour, or at least the flavour I'm after.

Fair enough; I suppose we're all after something a bit different from these. It's a problem with doing a continuation novel, really: i.e.- what's the point? Do we want something that echoes Fleming exactly, in which case it's always going to be inferior simply because no-one's as good at being Fleming as Fleming (looking at you, Faulks!); or do we want Bond done in a slightly different way- a way Fleming wouldn't and couldn't do, in which case does it cease to be Bond? Is Bond Bond without Fleming?

Tricky question to answer. I like Young Bond because it isn't really trying to be Fleming too hard (none of that awful strained 'scar over one eye, twenty quick press-up and twenty slow until his muscles screamed; three gold rings; cold grey eyes' etc. that post-Fleming writers always feel they have to shove in) and yet the world of Fleming's Bond, that nasty, twisted world where everyone has an interesting disfigurement and there are so many new ways to die, is excellently captured. He's got the tone just right, and in most cases these baddies are worse than those in Fleming because they want to kill a kid!

Another thing I don't like about the Higsons is that Bond is always referred to as "James". It's distracting and, worse, unBondian. Yes, I know he's a schoolboy, but I'm somewhat certain that boys at Eton in those days were usually referred to by all and sundry (even each other) by their surnames alone. In any case, I want the author of a Bond novel to call him "Bond", never "James", even if he's an infant.

I think I've seen him mention this: he did it to distance them from the Flemings and also, I think, because he tried calling him 'Bond' and just found himself picturing the adult Bond in there as a result.

[Loomis]

Perhaps, but I don't think his prose is Flemingian in the slightest. Neither do I find it very well-written or interesting on its own merits. I don't dispute that Higson has good ideas and plots, but I find his books lacking in flavour, or at least the flavour I'm after.

Fair enough; I suppose we're all after something a bit different from these.

It's also a matter of how one chooses to view the character of Bond. I like to think that he led a pretty uneventful life prior to becoming a spy - that the incident with one of the boys' maids was just about the most exotic episode in his life prior to his becoming a Double-O. Going by Higson, though, he's been risking life and limb on incredible adventures and foiling dastardly plots ever since he was a schoolboy! (Adult missions like CASINO ROYALE and MOONRAKER now seem rather small beer compared to some of the stuff he got up to as a kid!) Which was never my idea of James Bond, and it's surprisingly tricky to suddenly alter one's lifelong impressions of Bond when one is in one's thirties! But the fault is mine, of course, and not Higson's.

On the other hand, I do recognise, respect and applaud the way Higson knows his Fleming and put an awful lot of care and attention to detail into his books. They're certainly not cheap, worthless cash-ins (unlike certain other "Bond novels"). I'd take any of 'em over, say, HIGH TIME TO KILL. Or indeed DEVIL MAY CARE.

I just wish I---- well, that I liked them more. I've tried, but perhaps I need to make more effort in putting my Fleming's "voice" purist hangups to one side.

[marktmurphy]

It's also a matter of how one chooses to view the character of Bond. I like to think that he led a pretty uneventful life prior to becoming a spy - that the incident with one of the boys' maids was just about the most exotic episode in his life prior to his becoming a Double-O. Going by Higson, though, he's been risking life and limb on incredible adventures and foiling dastardly plots ever since he was a schoolboy! (Adult missions like CASINO ROYALE and MOONRAKER now seem rather small beer compared to some of the stuff he got up to as a kid!) Which was never my idea of James Bond, and it's surprisingly tricky to suddenly alter one's lifelong impressions of Bond when one is in one's thirties! But the fault is mine, of course, and not Higson's.

Yeah, it's horses for courses. I don't really see Bond as a real person with a proper biography: he's just a sort of conduit to adventure for me. There are other characters who do see in that way; but not Bond- there are too many versions of him (and too many continuity messups in Fleming alone) for me to worry about reconciling them all.
I take it the Gardners and Bensons happening in the 80's and 90's aren't an issue then? Or even Fleming's date fudging?

On the other hand, I do recognise, respect and applaud the way Higson knows his Fleming and put an awful lot of care and attention to detail into his books. They're certainly not cheap, worthless cash-ins (unlike certain other "Bond novels"). I'd take any of 'em over, say, HIGH TIME TO KILL. Or indeed DEVIL MAY CARE.

This is true. I don't get the praise High Time gets either: it's dreadful: two bad books mushed together to make a worse one. Yeah, it's slightly different, but different isn't always good.

I just wish I---- well, that I liked them more. I've tried, but perhaps I need to make more effort in putting my Fleming's "voice" purist hangups to one side.

Hey that's fair enough: they're only bits of entertainment; no need to try and force yourself to enjoy them.
I like them because they do have a sense of Fleming to them, but they're also rollicking 30's adventure yarns. They're something other than Bond, but with a Bond flavour. Kind of like a really nasty version of Tintin or how Indiana Jones might fair at Eton!

[Loomis]

I take it the Gardners and Bensons happening in the 80's and 90's aren't an issue then?

They probably would be if I read those authors, but I pretty much ignore them.

Or even Fleming's date fudging?

No. Because I don't demand strictly adhered-to continuity (that way fanboy madness lies).

This is true. I don't get the praise High Time gets either: it's dreadful: two bad books mushed together to make a worse one. Yeah, it's slightly different, but different isn't always good.

HIGH TIME TO KILL is simply abysmal. Words fail me, in fact.

Hey that's fair enough: they're only bits of entertainment; no need to try and force yourself to enjoy them.

Well, true, but it's just that I get the feeling I'm missing out. I haven't read most of the Gardners and a couple of the Bensons, but I don't get the same sense of passing up something that a lot of intelligent people think is good, solid fare. (The Higson books kind of broke out of the Bond fandom bubble and wowed people in the wider world, in a way that neither the Gardners nor the Bensons did.)

[[dark]]

I can't quite decide between Blood Fever and The Moneypenny Diaries: Final Fling, but I think I'll root for the underdog and support Samantha Weinberg's superb trilogy-closer.

[TheREAL008]

Blood Fever. because out of all the continuation authors who have tried to copy Fleming, Higson got it perfectly right in this novel.