51 replies to this topic

[Double-Oh Agent]

Well said Bill, and I completely agree with you.

As for the captain/commmander designation, in the novel Win, Lose Or Die John Gardner wrote M saying that the promotion to captain was only temporary. However, in the remainder of his tenure, Gardner kept Bond at captain. Raymond Benson remembered that and of course preferred commander so he changed Bond back although he never stated a reason why in his novels, he just did it.

[Bill]

Thanks for the clarification, Double-Oh Agent. It has been a good twenty years since I read Win, Lose or Die (my favorite of the Gardner books, by the way!)

Edited by Bill, 30 May 2010 - 07:32 AM.

[Trident]

With all due respect to those who want to throw continuity out the window, think about what you are proposing.

The James Bond series, books and films, do not have a tremendous amount of elements which have been strictly adhered to. Basically, it amounts to a handful of characters--Bond, of course, M, Q (Boothroyd in the books), Moneypenny and Bill Tanner in MI6, Felix Leiter, and only a few Gardner creations (Flicka, Beatrice and Ann Reilly). Truthfully, the presence of MI6 characters should not hinder any novel, as their role may only be limited to a few sentences (aside from M). Indeed, I would argue that they MUST be in the book--at least M and Moneypenny, and Boothroyd should equip him. After all, their presence is a comfort to the reader in signifying that he is indeed reading a James Bond book.

It should have no effect whatsoever on the overall plot of the book, and Jeffrey Deaver should have no problem in telling the story he wants to tell.

Sorry, but I have to disagree there. Strongly even.

The reader should primarily be aware of reading a Bond adventure by Bond being present, not any number of holy cows the series has accumulated over the years (and most of them, on closer observation, more rooted in the films than the books, at that!), be it Moneypenny, Boothroyd (both not characters Fleming relied heavily upon) or whatever else. First of all, Bond must be there, that's imperative for me.

If then a few familiar elements see a (re-)appearence, ok, I won't complain, although I feel the risk of a written-by-numbers forgettable retort adventure is growing with every unnecessary ounce of ballast the piece has to carry around. Keeping the dosage to a minimum is the way IMO.

And for me this has nothing to do with showing respect or not enough of it. It's simply a question of what works and what does not.

[marktmurphy]

Quite. I hate it when an author feels they have to sling in all of the old baggage to 'prove' it's a Bond novel; cold grey eyes, comma of black hair, twenty slow press-ups, boiled egg, cotton island shirt blah blah. It never feels natural; it's always forced-in because Fleming did it and it just feels like they're recycling Fleming rather than writing a new book. Boothroyd, May (!), Felix, Mathis; all are disposable. Why would he always be bumping into the same people? And one is a bleedin' housekeeper! Who cares? The MI6 staff are slightly more important: M is indisposable of course (even if it's a different one), and there's not much point in getting rid of Moneypenny, Goodnight or Tanner. They shouldn't be forced in, but if there's a role they're required to play you may as well use them as they're as good as anyone else.

[Trident]

Quite. I hate it when an author feels they have to sling in all of the old baggage to 'prove' it's a Bond novel; cold grey eyes, comma of black hair, twenty slow press-ups, boiled egg, cotton island shirt blah blah. It never feels natural; it's always forced-in because Fleming did it and it just feels like they're recycling Fleming rather than writing a new book. Boothroyd, May (!), Felix, Mathis; all are disposable. Why would he always be bumping into the same people? And one is a bleedin' housekeeper! Who cares? The MI6 staff are slightly more important: M is indisposable of course (even if it's a different one), and there's not much point in getting rid of Moneypenny, Goodnight or Tanner. They shouldn't be forced in, but if there's a role they're required to play you may as well use them as they're as good as anyone else.

My feelings exactly. I even think one could find a way to get around the typical M-briefing-scene. If it gets Bond more quickly into the plot, why not have him being contacted abroad, with M's orders just coming as a deciphered signal? It worked for FAVTAK and other cases saw Bond in the middle of his own affairs (GF/OHMSS) at the beginning, so I daresay the standard setup need not always be the best option.

[sharpshooter]

Agreed. I think the book will need some restructuring to eliminate the feeling of sameness. With Deaver suggesting a fast, thriller pace, eliminating the expected office scene would be a wise move.

I don't buy Bond being briefed in the office each and every time. Have Bond briefed in the back seat of a car, on the way to the airport ala TND. Or as suggested above, perhaps have Bond receiving a message in the field. Just do something different. Variety is good.

Just don't throw these things in just because. As marktmurphy said, when the Fleming routine is referenced, and to be honest, plagiarised, it doesn't feel like we're getting anything new. The only thing really distinguishing between them is the plot.

[David Schofield]

Agreew ith all the above, chaps.

Apart from the ubiquitous M's office scene, how many times did Fleming even mention most of the cliches - the comma, the eyes, the bloody type of shirt, May, even Tanner and Moneypenny (though she contrived a novels eries of her own)?

Most of the these were mentioned very infrequently by Fleming. Yet the continuation authors - one in particular - have made them stock accessories, quite unneccesarily .

James Bond is the star, not his cowlick. And the fact he has a lady who cleans for him has rarely been the highlight of any book.

Deaver could do with ignoring them. Which would make him more like Fleming than Fleming's immitators...

[CasinoKiller]

The reason I included May was mainly cuz including her offers an insight into Bond's homelife, something which can only be glanced at in the books

[Bill]

Maybe you all don't understand my basic point.

Any Bond author should be free to write the story he wants--but still stay within Bond's world.

Look at Charlie Higson. To be honest, when I first read about the plans for a Young James Bond series, I was a bit surprised, and, perhaps illogically, dismayed that they would be set so far in the past. But then the more I thought about it, the more I realized that if stories were to be told about Bond as a teenager, there was no choice but to set it in the original timeline that Fleming established. Now, as I am reading By Royal Command, after meeting Charlie at Books of Wonder in New York on Wednesday (what a nice guy! I am surprised that there were only about three "Bond nerds", as Charlie described us--and making sure to elaborate that he also counted himself as one--in the audience), it is once again clear that there was no other way to do it. The fact that the books sell so well is proof that there was no need for a retooling of continuity, putting Young Bond in a world of I-Pods and video games to show that the world that Fleming established can truly stand the test of time.

The adult Bond should still be in that world. Given that Raymond Benson's Bond was left in 2002 the last we saw him, Jeffrey Deaver's Bond should pick up right where he left off, if the book is indeed to be contemporary. That also means that the basic continuity elements I mentioned in my initial post in this thread should still be kept.

Bond interacts with the others in the series on a constant basis, and we get a better view of his character in witnessing that interaction.

Perhaps the most recent and overt example of this is in the Moneypenny Diaries. I have read only the first book so far, but Ms. Weinberg does a spectacular job of really fleshing out Fleming's Bond and the other characters he created. Her depiction of the MI6 structure would do Fleming proud. The fact that Bond himself is not the central protagonist does not make the book any less worthy as an excellent Bond adventure, despite the "reality" of the book.

Once again, Jeffrey Deaver should be allowed to do what he wants to do with Bond. But Bond should be Bond--keeping the physical description that Fleming had (and why anybody would think that is shoehorned in by non Fleming authors is beyond me--that is who Bond is!) along with the characters who inhabit his world.

I do understand the argument that the one constant in the series is Bond. However, what does that mean?
There is a certain structure of the books and films, with the films more strict in the adherence to it. Not all the boxes need be checked, but to throw out just the few elements--namely the characters I mentioned--for the sake of being bold and different and fresh make me wonder that those who advocate doing so would be happier reading adventures of a totally different character.

Edited by Bill, 30 May 2010 - 05:20 PM.

[DouglasJ]

I don't feel that returning characters necessarily mean that the book is bad, or 'trying to hard'. Just because historically it has seemed to be that way does not mean it will continue to be so.

I think the problem is that several of the authors have thought "oh well, let's put XXXXXXX in here, that'll be a cool fan-boy moment" rather than reintroducing them when it is natural and inkeeping with the story they are telling. If we get an author who can bring these characters back without it feeling forced, than I'm all for it.

I do think the first novel, if it does indeed continue on from the previous series, should be relatively continuity-free, so as to establish itself before bringing in other elements. Like the Doctor Who revival - it should wait a while before bringing in old characters.

[Trident]

Maybe you all don't understand my basic point.

Any Bond author should be free to write the story he wants--but still stay within Bond's world.

Look at Charlie Higson. To be honest, when I first read about the plans for a Young James Bond series, I was a bit surprised, and, perhaps illogically, dismayed that they would be set so far in the past. But then the more I thought about it, the more I realized that if stories were to be told about Bond as a teenager, there was no choice but to set it in the original timeline that Fleming established. Now, as I am reading By Royal Command, after meeting Charlie at Books of Wonder in New York on Wednesday (what a nice guy! I am surprised that there were only about three "Bond nerds", as Charlie described us--and making sure to elaborate that he also counted himself as one--in the audience), it is once again clear that there was no other way to do it. The fact that the books sell so well is proof that there was no need for a retooling of continuity, putting Young Bond in a world of I-Pods and video games to show that the world that Fleming established can truly stand the test of time.

The adult Bond should still be in that world. Given that Raymond Benson's Bond was left in 2002 the last we saw him, Jeffrey Deaver's Bond should pick up right where he left off, if the book is indeed to be contemporary. That also means that the basic continuity elements I mentioned in my initial post in this thread should still be kept.

Bond interacts with the others in the series on a constant basis, and we get a better view of his character in witnessing that interaction.

Perhaps the most recent and overt example of this is in the Moneypenny Diaries. I have read only the first book so far, but Ms. Weinberg does a spectacular job of really fleshing out Fleming's Bond and the other characters he created. Her depiction of the MI6 structure would do Fleming proud. The fact that Bond himself is not the central protagonist does not make the book any less worthy as an excellent Bond adventure, despite the "reality" of the book.

Once again, Jeffrey Deaver should be allowed to do what he wants to do with Bond. But Bond should be Bond--keeping the physical description that Fleming had (and why anybody would think that is shoehorned in by non Fleming authors is beyond me--that is who Bond is!) along with the characters who inhabit his world.

I do understand the argument that the one constant in the series is Bond. However, what does that mean?
There is a certain structure of the books and films, with the films more strict in the adherence to it. Not all the boxes need be checked, but to throw out just the few elements--namely the characters I mentioned--for the sake of being bold and different and fresh make me wonder that those who advocate doing so would be happier reading adventures of a totally different character.

Oh, I absolutely do like to read about Bond's adventures. I just so happen not to need all that supporting cast to turn the thing into a mini-soap; neither do I need to be constantly reminded what Bond looks like. And - surprise, surprise - apparently Fleming also didn't, as he kept the description fairly sparse and low key and after FRWL there is only very little mention of Bond's looks to be found, IIRC. Things like Quarrel's remark that Bond looks as if he'd been ill recently in DN, or his strained looks when he reappears brainwashed in TMWTGG. Domino's assessment of Bond in TB is by far the most detailed and the black comma doesn't feature in it. I daresay the feature most often mentioned are the blue-grey eyes.

Also on closer inspection one may find that Fleming's originals are far more diverse in their structure (not always to their advantage, granted) than intro/PTS - briefing with M - 1st gunfight - gambling scene - 1st close quarters fisticuffs - car chase and so on. In FRWL Bond doesn't turn up himself until page 91, GF sees Bond at the end of an assignment, taking on a small sidejob as P.I., OHMSS opens actually two times, with Bond vacationing. And TSWLM is not really around Bond as main character.

So, overall I'm afraid here we'll just have to agree to disagree, no problem.

[Brisco]

As far as the description goes, I think it's important to remember that each time a new author pens a Bond book, the audience they're going for is not just us, who have read them all, but everyone. And if someone's reading about a character for the first time, they do expect some sort of description. I'll grant that the comma is overused (particularly annoying in DMC because it seemed cut and pasted from Fleming), but it's not like Fleming gave people too much to work with, so not wanting to contradict him, I think some continuation authors latched onto it. If Deaver writes more than one book, hopefully he won't feel the need to describe 007 every time. (Which is no doubt why Fleming didn't feel the need to mention it too often; he knew he had a cadre of loyal readers.) But I think he could be forgiven for doing it once (if he does), as he's got to assume that the majority of his readers are coming to the character for the first time. Furthermore, he may want to use a description to clarify to these readers that he is not writing about Daniel Craig or Sean Connery, but a specific literary character who predates them both.

[Double-Oh Agent]

Agreew ith all the above, chaps.

Apart from the ubiquitous M's office scene, how many times did Fleming even mention most of the cliches - the comma, the eyes, the bloody type of shirt, May, even Tanner and Moneypenny (though she contrived a novels eries of her own)?

Most of the these were mentioned very infrequently by Fleming. Yet the continuation authors - one in particular - have made them stock accessories, quite unneccesarily .

James Bond is the star, not his cowlick. And the fact he has a lady who cleans for him has rarely been the highlight of any book.

Deaver could do with ignoring them. Which would make him more like Fleming than Fleming's immitators...

How many times did Fleming mention Bond's supporting cast? I think you'd be surprised how often if you looked it up. Felix Leiter co-starred in in six novels and Rene Mathis in two. May was only sporadically mentioned, maybe three times. Same with James Molony, Loelia Ponsonby, Mary Goodnight, and Boothroyd. But Moneypenny is mentioned in just about every full-length novel although usually for not more than a paragraph or two. Bill Tanner is in every full-length novel, I believe, and in just about all of them is more than a passing reference. M of course is used the most and the most often.

But again, in literary Bond, one easily can omit May, Bond's secretary, Molony, Leiter, Mathis, and even Boothroyd or similar Q-type character for whatever story they want to write. But Moneypenny, Tanner, and M--particularly the latter two--are virtual staples and Bond's interaction with them help show who he is.

Us continuity types aren't saying all the Bond stock characters have to be used all the time, rather that they shouldn't be eliminated from here on out just for the sake of change. The real thing we're getting at is that you need to have (some) continuity but the key is how and where you use the characters and that they are done well and with respect. When that occurs everything flows smoothly like it should as Ian Fleming would have wanted.

[CasinoKiller]

Maybe you all don't understand my basic point.

Any Bond author should be free to write the story he wants--but still stay within Bond's world.

Look at Charlie Higson. To be honest, when I first read about the plans for a Young James Bond series, I was a bit surprised, and, perhaps illogically, dismayed that they would be set so far in the past. But then the more I thought about it, the more I realized that if stories were to be told about Bond as a teenager, there was no choice but to set it in the original timeline that Fleming established. Now, as I am reading By Royal Command, after meeting Charlie at Books of Wonder in New York on Wednesday (what a nice guy! I am surprised that there were only about three "Bond nerds", as Charlie described us--and making sure to elaborate that he also counted himself as one--in the audience), it is once again clear that there was no other way to do it. The fact that the books sell so well is proof that there was no need for a retooling of continuity, putting Young Bond in a world of I-Pods and video games to show that the world that Fleming established can truly stand the test of time.

The adult Bond should still be in that world. Given that Raymond Benson's Bond was left in 2002 the last we saw him, Jeffrey Deaver's Bond should pick up right where he left off, if the book is indeed to be contemporary. That also means that the basic continuity elements I mentioned in my initial post in this thread should still be kept.

Bond interacts with the others in the series on a constant basis, and we get a better view of his character in witnessing that interaction.

Perhaps the most recent and overt example of this is in the Moneypenny Diaries. I have read only the first book so far, but Ms. Weinberg does a spectacular job of really fleshing out Fleming's Bond and the other characters he created. Her depiction of the MI6 structure would do Fleming proud. The fact that Bond himself is not the central protagonist does not make the book any less worthy as an excellent Bond adventure, despite the "reality" of the book.

Once again, Jeffrey Deaver should be allowed to do what he wants to do with Bond. But Bond should be Bond--keeping the physical description that Fleming had (and why anybody would think that is shoehorned in by non Fleming authors is beyond me--that is who Bond is!) along with the characters who inhabit his world.

I do understand the argument that the one constant in the series is Bond. However, what does that mean?
There is a certain structure of the books and films, with the films more strict in the adherence to it. Not all the boxes need be checked, but to throw out just the few elements--namely the characters I mentioned--for the sake of being bold and different and fresh make me wonder that those who advocate doing so would be happier reading adventures of a totally different character.

I'm a little confused about exactly what you mean by 'Bond's world' over here...because you seem to be alluding to the world of Ian Flemming's Bond, where Bond was born in the 1920's and was active as a spy in the 1950's and 60's, and yet you speak of Benson's Bond, who, at least continuity wise, cannot be Flemming's Bond. In fact I've often heard that Benson's Bond was more in line with the films.

Benson's Bond may have loosely shared the same continuity as Flemming's but he still can't have been THE Flemming's Bond who defeated Le Chiffre in 1951 at the card tables

[Trident]

Us continuity types aren't saying all the Bond stock characters have to be used all the time, rather that they shouldn't be eliminated from here on out just for the sake of change. The real thing we're getting at is that you need to have (some) continuity but the key is how and where you use the characters and that they are done well and with respect. When that occurs everything flows smoothly like it should as Ian Fleming would have wanted.

The question (to me at least) would be, do we need those characters for a Bond? And I think, no, not necessarily. What we need is Bond, period. There are a number of continuations around that feature lots of traditional Bond-folklore from books and films alike, all those trademarks, gadgets, gimmicks, signature drink, signature lines, signature signatures. But still lack Bond in them, which in the end makes the whole effort trite.

It's like all of those threads around here, which car, cloths, location, gun, atomic cocktail for the next film/book/game. All that is detail, some of it even interesting detail. But none of those threads makes a good Bond film or novel. And neither will the quality of the next book by Deaver depend on incorporating Moneypenny, Tanner, Leiter or whomever. If it's a ritual just for the sake of it, then it's lost any meaning and should be well left alone.

Bond is an agent working for the SIS and he should live through some kind of adventure, but beyond that the plot should be the main focus, not a 'traditional' series of elements that in the end don't help the thing along very much. Banter with Moneypenny may be seen by now as 'traditional', but did anybody ever read a Bond for the banter-with-Moneypenny scenes? When it was announced that Faulks would let Bond drive his old Bentley I was pleasantly surprised. What a great comeback, I thought. Did it make DMC one tiny little iota better? Or any of the seemingly 35.000 or so other references, returns, reminiscences, reminders, recollections, remembrances, retrospections...?

Of course Bond doesn't exist in thin air. He's got a background, hazy at times, but nonetheless existing. Still, use as little as possible.

[David Schofield]

Do any of us want a book though that:

Starts with Bond waking in his comfortable flat off the King's Road

Getting out of bed and going through his daily excercise routine.

Showering, putting on his dark blue suit, arranging his comma which refuses to stay in place. Looking at the super-clear blu grey eyes in the bathroom mirror.

Going through his breakfast routine, item by item, which has been brought in by May, his elderly, redoubtable, etc Scottish housekeeper.

Motor through London to MI6 HQ.

Going to his office, riffing with little concealed desire with LP or MG, before getting stuck into a pile of paperwork, which, of course, he hates.

Being summoned by M, going up to the top floor, sort of ignoring Moneypenny who breathes heavy, 50s style school girl passion after him, as he arranges lunch with "Bill" at Scotts (a date he will not, of course, be able to keep as he is needed to fly around the world to save it).

Walking through the double padded doors into M's office, above which the lights change colour.

This is checklist, Bond pastiche, of course.

But doesn't it sound silly as well - because it ahs all been done - so well - before.

Avoid at all costs.

[Trident]

Do any of us want a book though that:

Starts with Bond waking in his comfortable flat off the King's Road

Getting out of bed and going through his daily excercise routine.

Showering, putting on his dark blue suit, arranging his comma which refuses to stay in place. Looking at the super-clear blu grey eyes in the bathroom mirror.

Going through his breakfast routine, item by item, which has been brought in by M, his elderly, redoubtable, etc Scottish housekeeper.

Motor through London to MI6 HQ.

Going to his office, riffing with little concealed desire with LP or MG, before getting stuck into a pile of paperwork, which, of course, he hates.

Being summoned by M, going up to the top floor, sort of ignoring Moneypenny who breathes heavy, 50s style school girl passion after him, as he arranges lunch with "Bill" at Scotts (a date he will not, of course, be able to keep as he is needed to fly around the world to save it).

Walking through the double padded doors into M's office, above which the lights change colour.

This is checklist, Bond pastiche, of course.

But doesn't it sound silly as well - because it ahs all been done - so well - before.

Avoid at all costs.

Seconded.

[Bill]

Casino Killer:

I respectfully disagree. Raymond Benson's Bond is Fleming's Bond (as well as the same Bond in the books by Amis, Gardner, Higson and Faulks.) If you have not read the Benson Bond books, I suggest you do so. The original editions may be out of print, but the Union Trilogy is available on Amazon or other sites. They are all excellent, and worthy of your time. His other three original Bond novels are also going to be published in a collected edition--just check CBN! The books are clearly a continuation of the exploits of one single spy who was indeed active in the 1950s and 1960s. No code names or reassigned 00 numbers or any other nonsense. Remember, the books are fiction, and one simply ignores the passage of time.

Good points from all the contributors to the thread--and all valid. However, without wanting to belabor this point too much, I do not want the next novel to be a pastiche. Having said that, it should still include the initial elements I suggested--and there are not all that many of them--to reassure the reader that he is still reading a Bond book. Given all that has been said about Mr. Deaver--he seems to be more then able to write such a book.

Edited by Bill, 01 June 2010 - 03:24 AM.

[CasinoKiller]

Casino Killer:

I respectfully disagree. Raymond Benson's Bond is Fleming's Bond (as well as the same Bond in the books by Amis, Gardner, Higson and Faulks.) If you have not read the Benson Bond books, I suggest you do so. The original editions may be out of print, but the Union Trilogy is available on Amazon or other sites. They are all excellent, and worthy of your time. His other three original Bond novels are also going to be published in a collected edition--just check CBN! The books are clearly a continuation of the exploits of one single spy who was indeed active in the 1950s and 1960s. No code names or reassigned 00 numbers or any other nonsense. Remember, the books are fiction, and one simply ignores the passage of time.

Good points from all the contributors to the thread--and all valid. However, without wanting to belabor this point too much, I do not want the next novel to be a pastiche. Having said that, it should still include the initial elements I suggested--and there are not all that many of them--to reassure the reader that he is still reading a Bond book. Given all that has been said about Mr. Deaver--he seems to be more then able to write such a book.

I must admit that I've never read the Benson books and I don't deny that they're certainly very well written (judging by the few extracts I've read and all the positive reviews)...I was just talking about how the Cold War setting of the 50's and 60's is integral to the character everyone calls 'Flemming's Bond' and how Benson's version of the character certainly cannot have been part of that setting logically. That does not stop Benson's Bond from being a MODERNIZED version of Flemming's Bond

Actually I do concede that all this is highly subjective

[Righty007]

According to Dr. Shatterhand's interview with Jeffery Deaver, PROJECT X is going to feature a male M! But will he be Miles Messervy? Only time will tell...

[Trident]

Logic would dictate it was Messervy. X is obviously meant as restart with the original characters around Bond modernised.

[Harry Fawkes]

Most certainly Sir Miles Messervy. And that's fab news.