I wonder, though, how the "James Bond but in name only reboot" will work with the initial serious reviews, and subsequently the book buying public.
If the book doesn't taste of Fleming, if Deaver has gone for a decks-cleared reboot, he will get filleted by the likes of The Times, The Daily Telegraph and other British publication who get advanced copies. Regardless of what his supporters feel, Deaver IS only an airport doorstop pulp merchant; he does not carry one inch of the literary kudos of Ian Fleming - or Sebastian Faulks. It is not just British James Bond fans who are protective of our literary heritage.
Further, many American reviewers (okay, pre-BP) have a fond, perochial view of lit Bond, rather like Sherlock Holmes. Fleming's version embodied a Britain they were comfortable with. SImilarly, many of these might not need a non-Brit-traditional reboot, they may be happy with their own heroes - Wyatt Earp, John Wayne, Rambo, JB's Bourne and Bower - without making the original JB indistinguishable from the other two.
Bad reviews, potential ridicule, and I don't see even Deaver's best-selling reputation saving the Christmas turkey coming in May and it missing out on the best sellers lists.
I hope these consequences have been considered.
David, I really think this won't be of any much consequence, not a matter at all. The reviews X will get will be by the very same people that ordinarily review Deaver. It's the 'good reading fun'-desk of the various publications and thus will be the criteria X will be measured against. The same that review Dennis Lehane and Ian Rankin, Stephen King and Dan Brown. The prime criterium will be if it's entertaining, suspenseful and gripping. This is what readers choose their plane-fodder after and this is also what Fleming wanted to achieve.
Project X is placed on a decidedly different spot on the literary spectrum than DMC was. There a literary master had a go at 007, his critics were raving and look how that turned out to be. It was the work of someone who never had to write 'genre' and criminally underestimated the task. His reviews were positive nonetheless, because those reviewing DMC had the nebulous notion, this would be what a thriller would most probably read like; if they ever happened to read one, that is.
X on the other hand is far from claiming to be Fleming. Or from any higher aspirations on literary value one might associate with names like Amis or Faulks. It's exactly what many lesser adventure series have done long since with their property, from Ludlum to Clancy to Cussler. It's franchising the creation on a professional basis and in effect it's only really what the films have done long ago. The books have even followed that example. From LR the Gardners' cover read "Ian Fleming's Master Spy James Bond in... by... ".
Apart from that, I feel sure it won't be an 'in name only' affair. While tempting perhaps, I doubt the product of X will be so far from Bond as to be unrecognisable. X will have to bring fresh blood to the franchise, both creatively and in terms of audience potential. Yet it will also have to keep the hardcore fanbase happy.
