2121 replies to this topic

[[dark]]

Haven't had a chance to weigh in on this yet.

It's fantastic we're finally getting a new entry in the lit Bond canon. While I've never read any of Jeffery Deaver's work, the praise he's garnering around these parts - particularly as a bona fide thriller writer - is hugely encouraging. I'm also glad that neither the press nor the fans seem hung up on his being an American (though Benson paved the way).

All hugely exciting, and the only bit I'm hesitant about is the contemporary setting. It's an interesting decision, particularly as IFP have gone to such huge lengths over the past several years to establish the literary Bond within Fleming's timeline. My best guess, though, is that we'll be looking at a quasi-reboot - a novel that won't directly mention the events of the Fleming novels - or any of the previous continuation novels - but will contain the DNA of Fleming's creation. Realistically, it's the only way to reconcile Ian Fleming's Cold War spy with a contemporary setting.

[Trident]

Haven't had a chance to weigh in on this yet.

It's fantastic we're finally getting a new entry in the lit Bond canon. While I've never read any of Jeffery Deaver's work, the praise he's garnering around these parts - particularly as a bona fide thriller writer - is hugely encouraging. I'm also glad that neither the press nor the fans seem hung up on his being an American (though Benson paved the way).

All hugely exciting, and the only bit I'm hesitant about is the contemporary setting. It's an interesting decision, particularly as IFP have gone to such huge lengths over the past several years to establish the literary Bond within Fleming's timeline. My best guess, though, is that we'll be looking at a quasi-reboot - a novel that won't directly mention the events of the Fleming novels - or any of the previous continuation novels - but will contain the DNA of Fleming's creation. Realistically, it's the only way to reconcile Ian Fleming's Cold War spy with a contemporary setting.

Largely what I thought too, and actually what I was hoping for, despite my initial preference for period Bond. There has to be some kind of movement for this series and this to me now looks like the most promising way to do it.

[marktmurphy]

I'm also glad that neither the press nor the fans seem hung up on his being an American (though Benson paved the way).

Well, a few of the UK papers reports have used that to hang their story on, but none of them seem much bothered beyond the 'New 007 writer is American!' headline.

[sharpshooter]

I'm stating to warm to this idea of a literary Bond reboot.

Ideally I'd like a brand new, separate universe of continuity.

If this is an ongoing series, a true reboot would be a good entry point for many new readers. Forget about referencing Fleming and messily tying into past plots. Don’t bother with 'the Bond of 1953 wakes up in 2011’ angle. Have unlimited creative freedom and start out again with a black slate, like Fleming did with Casino Royale.

Hell, have a semi-young Bond coming out of the navy, ready to take on the threats of today. Re-introduce all the supporting characters as if we're meeting them for the first time. Most could resemble their classic representations, but you could Algernon-esque Q's and such.

[jamie00007]

Well thats a hell of an anti-climax, as predicted. A new Bond book by an established author is of course always good news, but also nothing particularly exciting. I had been hoping for a new series or something.

Edited by jamie00007, 28 May 2010 - 01:52 PM.

[Mr Twilight]

I'm easy to please. I'm just happy there more books. Well thats my biggest question for now; is this is one-off or do he have a contract for more novels?

[zencat]

I'm stating to warm to this idea of a literary Bond reboot.

Ideally I'd like a brand new, separate universe of continuity.

If this is an ongoing series, a true reboot would be a good entry point for many new readers. Forgot about referencing Fleming and messily tying into past plots. Don’t bother with 'the Bond of 1953 wakes up in 2011’ angle. Have unlimited creative freedom and start out again with a black slate, like Fleming did with Casino Royale.

Hell, have a semi-young Bond coming out of the navy, ready to take on the threats of today. Re-introduce all the supporting characters as if we're meeting them for the first time. Most could resemble their classic representations, but you could Algernon-esque Q's and such.

We are in sync on this, sharpshooter. The contemporary setting was the one thing that gave me pause about this, but the more I think about the idea of a fresh lit reboot as you describe above, the more I think it can really work.

[Santa]

What very pleasant news to wake up to. I've never read any of his books but my boss has some and is going to bring them in for me, so until I've read them it's hard to know what we're dealing with. Really it's just nice to have some Bond news.
Truthfully, I'm automatically cautious about the idea of an American author doing Bond, but then I thought Faulks was a great choice and look how that turned out , so I'm not going to get too hung up on it. Equally the modern setting is not something I would have chosen but it's not going to put me off. I can't wait for this.

[David Schofield]

Noooooooooooo.

An American. Writing a modern day James Bond adventure.

....was my original reaction.

But let's give it a chance. Am greatly looking forward to it. (And I will not be test driving Deaver to get a sense of his style. Just hit me with Bond, Jeff).

On the reboot thoughts, I can't see it be allowed. You can't just have the "flavour" of Fleming and a bunch of new adventures about a bloke called James Bond (Well, you can, I suppose - the existential approach would have been better suited for Seb Faulks). You need the man who tackled Le Chiffre, Goldfinger and the rest. Up front and present.

So I suspect - hope - we'll get Fleming's perennial 38 year old in 2011. Otherwise, some will slag this guy worse than Benson. Hey, he is, after all, an American.

Play it with a straight bat, Jeff.

My tuppence there for you, then.

[zencat]

Interesting decisions.

That's it?

[MattofSteel]

Intriguing news. I'll have to check out some of Deaver's works, have to admit I'm woefully underexposed to his thrillers.

Great post on the Amazon video interview, Zen. Definitely seems like he'll bring a well thought and meticulous approach to the novel. Can't say my own technique is far from similar.

[golrush007]

Naturally I'm delighted that a new Bond novel is in the works. I'm also happy that they've hired a well liked thriller writer, and Ian Fleming fan to do it. I really hope it isn't a one off though. A new series would be great.

I'm happy to see Deaver assert that he won't be doing a Fleming pastiche like Faulks did a couple of years ago. I'm not at all familiar with his work, but based on the good buzz around him, I'm sure Deaver will bring strong elements to the table, whilst still being respectful to Fleming's work.

This is good news.

[Skudor]

I'm in a positive frame of mind about this - seems a better fit than the novel best forgotten.

[sharpshooter]

To be honest, I don’t want another straight bat approach. The Fleming timeline has lingered on long enough. Frankly, it ended in 1966. I think the time is right to move on. The continuation novels are their own beast anyway. They just have this obligatory baggage hanging over them. It’s more or less tokenism. Let these books completely be their own beast.

A rebooted literary Bond would be no less Bond, or no less legitimate, than the character Craig played in the last two films. That Bond had no fanciful connection to the Connery or Brosnan adventures. James Bond is James Bond. And as for supporting characters, you can revise them without losing their core. Look at Heath Ledger’s Joker. Or Q'ute for that matter.

I'm all for postmodern twists like the gun barrel seguing into the CR titles. Some could say it's stomping on sacred ground, but at the same time, it breathed new life into the franchise. And since then, it hasn’t looked back.

I enjoy the literary Bond, but I'm not overly sentimental about it. But perhaps that is what the series needs - someone clinical to make these decisions. Otherwise it’s just business as usual and nothing progresses.

[marktmurphy]

On the reboot thoughts, I can't see it be allowed. You can't just have the "flavour" of Fleming and a bunch of new adventures about a bloke called James Bond (Well, you can, I suppose - the existential approach would have been better suited for Seb Faulks). You need the man who tackled Le Chiffre, Goldfinger and the rest. Up front and present.

I genuinely can't see it making a difference either way. Bond is Bond is Bond, isn't he? If it were a new series, as sharpshooter said above, where we follow his new personal history and watch him changing: sure that'd make sense. But in a one-off I can't see how a 50's Bond in the present day or a 21st century Bond would make much difference. Obviously he'd have the right knowledge of the day and would be vaguely reconstructed, but we had that with the 50's Bond Gardner gave us (less gold bands on his cigarettes; up to date on technology).

[TheREAL008]

Lit Reboot would be awesome, hopefully it'll go that way.

[zencat]

I suspect Deaver won't put too fine a point on Bond's age or background, just as Fleming didn't. I think his Bond will simply exist in the here and now. No "memories of Tracy" with every woman he looks at, nor will we get "the old pro called back for one more mission." Like Craig, I think he's going to be Fleming's James Bond 007 in all his essence...but a modern version who just gets on with the mission. The more I think about it, the more I think this is how it should be.

[David Schofield]

I suspect Deaver won't put too fine a point on Bond's age or background, just as Fleming didn't. I think his Bond will simply exist in the here and now. No "memories of Tracy" with every woman he looks at, nor will we get "the old pro called back for one more mission." Like Craig, I think he's going to be Fleming's James Bond 007 in all his essence...but a modern version who just gets on with the mission. The more I think about it, the more I think this is how it should be.

Fleming's perennial 38 year old then in 2011.

And no rememberences, or clunky name-checking of the Fleming novels and character.

That's my ideal, anyway.

Other than that, Deaver's Bond would have to be one ing fit 91 year old.

[zencat]

Yes, me too.

Someone send the meno to JD please.

[golrush007]

I suspect Deaver won't put too fine a point on Bond's age or background, just as Fleming didn't. I think his Bond will simply exist in the here and now. No "memories of Tracy" with every woman he looks at, nor will we get "the old pro called back for one more mission." Like Craig, I think he's going to be Fleming's James Bond 007 in all his essence...but a modern version who just gets on with the mission. The more I think about it, the more I think this is how it should be.

Agreed, I definitely think this is how it should be. I would be disappointed if any major references were made to Fleming characters such as Tracy. Every time I read something like that, it always seems to smack of fan fiction somehow.

Edited by golrush007, 28 May 2010 - 04:51 PM.

[Loomis]

I would be disappointed if any major references were made to Fleming characters such as Tracy. Every time I read something like that, it always seems to smack of fan fiction somehow.

Exactly. I just want Bond to be Bondian and to be told a good story.

[Navy007Fan]

I just read some of the comments Mr. Deaver made on the Projext X site, and I am optimistic about this project. It seems he respects the character and will carry that respect into his work.

[MattofSteel]

I've never really had trouble with the idea of Bond being the same basic 'guy' across all the films (or, separately, the novels) - I've just always considered the character independent of time.

So, the 'story' of OHMSS (film) might have happened to Brosnan's Bond just as it did with Lazenby's, but when I watch Pierce, I just imagine that story as having happened to him in 1992, or something. And I sort of adjust my thinking each time a new actor comes in.

The problem with the novels (and as would have been the problem with the films, had they not rebooted continuity with CR) is that since 1991 I've considered Bond to be in a vague, post-Cold War sort of "haze" - namely the idea the Wall had come down fairly recently and the ensuing adventures are simply within a reasonable period after the fact.

It's never bothered me particularly. Even when Benson's literary Bond once referred to the 'Thunderball' case in a novel purported to be set in the 90s, I just pictured that as a reference to the Thunderball novel actually happening to Benson's Bond say, again, in 1992 or something.

What if we're all slightly off the mark, and the actual intent is to have Bond's historical background deliberately vague in Project X, beyond what we generically know - so that it might be vaguely connected to the Craig film continuity?

[zencat]

So how committed are IFP to this new contemporary Bond? Could this mean they won’t now consider a Young Bond Series 2? And what about War Bond? Seems like there was still so much more that could have been done. (BTW, I may have the answer to this. Just throwing it out there to chew on.)

[doublenoughtspy]

Agreed, I definitely think this is how it should be. I would be disappointed if any major references were made to Fleming characters such as Tracy. Every time I read something like that, it always seems to smack of fan fiction somehow.

My love of OHMSS aside, I don't think a reference to Tracy makes it seem like fan fiction.

I'm not sure how mentioning a character from one of the previous books is somehow bad.

So it shouldn't have M or Tanner or anyone else other than Bond then either?

Is it a case of, yes, you can mention characters that appear in multiple novels - M, Felix Leiter, etc. - but if the character appeared for only a single novel - Dr No, Tracy, etc. then they are off limits?

I agree that gratitutous references to previous characters or situations that seem forced or unnatural are bad, but I think that references to Bond's universe, especially created by Fleming, if done correctly, are great.

[Righty007]

Agreed, I definitely think this is how it should be. I would be disappointed if any major references were made to Fleming characters such as Tracy. Every time I read something like that, it always seems to smack of fan fiction somehow.

I agree that gratitutous references to previous characters or situations that seem forced or unnatural are bad, but I think that references to Bond's universe, especially created by Fleming, if done correctly, are great.

I completely agree.

[Guy Haines]

That title has got to change - "Project X"? It reads as if it belongs to a 1950s B movie science fiction tale, not a contemporary James Bond novel.

Also, let us suppose the book is written and Mr Wilson and Ms Broccoli want to film it. We would have a problem with the title song immediately (plus the inevitable red top tabloid nonsense, which I could write already - "X factor winner for Project X theme song" and so on. ).

I'm intrigued, though, by the choice of Jeffrey Deaver. I listened to his interview on the BBC Radio 4 "Today" programme this morning. He sounds respectful of Fleming and Bond, having been brought up on the Fleming books as a child. (he said his parents censored what he could watch at the cinema and on TV, but allowed him to read pretty much what he wanted - little appreciating some of the "adult" content in the Bond novels!) I'm prepared to give him a chance. I just hope the "fast paced" story he promises holds together rather better than that confected by his predecessor as Ian Fleming's successor, Sebastian Faulks.

[Righty007]

That title has got to change - "Project X"? It reads as if it belongs to a 1950s B movie science fiction tale, not a contemporary James Bond novel.

Also, let us suppose the book is written and Mr Wilson and Ms Broccoli want to film it. We would have a problem with the title song immediately (plus the inevitable red top tabloid nonsense, which I could write already - "X factor winner for Project X theme song" and so on. ).

I'm intrigued, though, by the choice of Jeffrey Deaver. I listened to his interview on the BBC Radio 4 "Today" programme this morning. He sounds respectful of Fleming and Bond, having been brought up on the Fleming books as a child. (he said his parents censored what he could watch at the cinema and on TV, but allowed him to read pretty much what he wanted - little appreciating some of the "adult" content in the Bond novels!) I'm prepared to give him a chance. I just hope the "fast paced" story he promises holds together rather better than that confected by his predecessor as Ian Fleming's successor, Sebastian Faulks.

Project X is the novel's codename.

Under "title" on the official website it says: "Information about the content of the book remains top secret."

[Brisco]

True. And he's just been to Dubai, could we see Bond venturing to the Middle East? Dubai is a great unused Bond location.

Dubai. Oh, baby, yes!

But it looks like here was there to speak at an event. Besides, we did just get Middle East in DMC.

He also attended the Westminster Dog Show in NYC. I could see a villain into that. He loves his dogs, but when he blows a special whistle, they kill!

That was the plot of a Kim Possible episode!

[Brisco]

I'm 100% positive (or maybe just as positive as I am cynical) that the driving force for IFP and/or Deaver choosing a contemporary setting is an ill-founded desire to have the book filmed. Remember, the Bond producers politely gave the excuse of its period setting as the reason they wouldn't be adapting Devil May Care. (Never mind that they'd already successfully updated Casino Royale from 1952 to the present!) It won't make one iota of difference. Perhaps EON will change their long-standing policy of not adapting continuation novels eventually, but if they do it won't have anything to do with when the novel is set. It will be because the story is too good and too popular with readers to ignore. In my opninion, some of Gardner's and Benson's were good enough (Nobody Lives Forever, Doubleshot) but not popular enough, and Faulks' may have been popular, but it sure wasn't good. And obviously the producers recognized that it would make a terrible movie storyline, and they'd have to change it so much that they might as well not shell out a bunch of money for just the (admittedly good) title and do their own thing. It's got nothing to do with when it's set.

All that said, I'm really NOT cynical about this project! I'm really excited! I think Deaver's off to a good start by saying all the right stuff and proving up front that he's a real Bond and Fleming fan, unlike Faulks who insulted Bond and Fleming in every interview he gave and always had to remind the literary establishment that he was just slumming for fun, and was still a "real" writer. (Ugh.)

It doesn't really matter too much to me about the setting. I hope if IFP continue to do a series of one-shot novels by high-profile authors, they leave it up to each author when to set the novel. I like that it kind of "unsticks" Bond from time and continuity. It will make it easier for all of us to lighten up about that stuff! 007 transcends any particular time period.