Having just read the item on the main page, and not having had the time to read the myriad reactions on this subject, I do not know exactly how to react.
As I said in my earlier post on the issue of who should be M in this book, the news that a Young Bond series was commissioned was met with some concern by me, at first. The timeline was a concern. However, Charlie Higson really had no choice but to set it within the Fleming timeline, and having just completed By Royal Command this week, I am happy to say that all five of his books are brilliant--an excellent contribution to the literary canon. And five books that fit neatly into continuity with all the rest of the series, from Fleming to Benson.
Pearson's James Bond: The Authorized Biography of 007 and The Moneypenny Diaries are interesting in that they do not fit into quite the same framework as Fleming and the prequel and continuation novels. Making Bond "real" (and certainly mentioned in the Obit in YOLT) was a conceit that those other novels never dealt with (again the couple of sentences in YOLT notwithstanding) as it would have been incredibly problematic. Still, I enjoyed the regular novels and the "real" Bond books on equal footings, two different ways of looking at Fleming's enduring hero.
Thus, having said that, I think that we will have to view Project X as a third way of looking at the literary Bond. A new continuity. As those of you who may have read my postings in the past, particularly with regard to the 2006 CR reboot, I am not in favor of the concept of rebooting Bond. I always saw him as a timeless hero. The film series kept him going for 40 years, well beyond any realistic way for an agent to be viable, but it worked. I still don't think that Bond had to be rebooted in the film series, and given the uncertainty of that series' future at this point, I do not know if the next Bond film will continue with the Craig continuity.
Thus, there is no real need to make Bond a child of the 80s. That is, unless Project X is also meant to see Bond as an agent just starting out, perhaps amateurish and learning along the way. The curious thing is that aside from Young Bond, whose purpose was to do just that, none of the novels really take Bond on a tremendous learning curve, aside from CR. In other words, he does not make many mistakes in the books. He is certainly a more seasoned agent as the series progresses, to the point where Sir Miles asked him to take over the SIS in SeaFire, but the things that happen to him only enhance his status as a professional--they are just gravy on an already great steak. This is not to say that events do not occur to him which would give him more emotional weight (Tracy in particular--YOLT and the frequent mentions in the Gardner and occasional Benson books), and sometimes allowing him to toy with resigning from time to time, but they do not really impact his professionalism.
Truthfully, if they want to stop Bond's smoking which, aside from DMC [which really should not count as it is set before the Gardner novels] I do not think Bond has actually smoked since the early Gardner books, I have no problem with that. It simply need not be mentioned at all. Obviously, from that brief interview there seem to be more changes. Still, on their face, none seem to be fatal.
The fact is that if the Fleming Estate wanted to make M a man, just have Mawdsley retire, and bring Sir Miles out of retirement, or replace her with a new man. Problem solved. The same goes for Moneypenny--I do not remember if her age difference with Bond is ever specifically referenced. And as for a Pakistani manservant, again, just have May retire and be replaced.
Obviously, there is more afoot in this then just these characters, because these changes could be wrought with just a few sentences and have no effect on the thrust of the narrative. If they are rebooting the series to allow Bond to be more of an anti-terrorism expert and making MI6 a more ruthless organization, again, there is no real need to do so--just put something in the book mentioning the fact that Bond has had a little more different training as part of his job--Gardner always had him brush up on things--(although SPECTRE is the granddaddy of all terrorist organizations, and Gardner had no problem updating them with Islamic ties, without having to change Bond one iota), and I never thought that Bond ever doubted that he was expendable--that the mission was more important then him.
I realize I may be rambling here, and it is now 1:16 AM and I have to go to work in the morning, but I just wanted to post my early thoughts. I saw elsewhere online that Raymond Benson has vouched for Jeffrey Deaver. That alone gives me hope. That, and the fact that Mr. Deaver is a true Bond fan does as well. Thus, any fears of a repeat of the Devil May Care mediocrity do not seem to be necessary. Still, the fact is that aside from the ambiguity of the American presence in the novel, DMC does still fit into continuity. This book, by design, will not, and will set its own continuity. The real test is will the continuity that it puts into place feel like James Bond, or will it just be a facsimile 007--a Bond in name only? I guess only time will tell.
Bill
Edited by Bill, 07 June 2010 - 05:57 AM.
