Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Post Deaver


108 replies to this topic

#31 0077

0077

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 57 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 30 March 2011 - 05:43 PM

Exactly my point Omar. Deaver should have been contracted by IFP to write more than just one novel, IMO. I for one, want this reboot to work and be a success. For another, I'd like it to surpass Gardner and Benson's efforts, mainly Benson's on account of him thinking that his stories didn't stink when in fact Gardner and Amis wrote circles around him.

I see X as a great opportunity to begin again from square one and build up from there. But it has to be done correctly. What worries me is what will happpen AFTER Carte Blanche. Will the next writer pick up where Deaver left off and make a worthy novel? Or could it potentially flop like Devil May Care?

Edited by 0077, 30 March 2011 - 05:43 PM.


#32 Jump James

Jump James

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 293 posts

Posted 30 March 2011 - 05:56 PM



I'm glad someone brought up the Markham bit because I've been saying that since DMC. We all knew the deal with Faulks, just like we know the deal with Deaver so if it's going to be a revolving door they should use the out they created all those years ago and bring back Markham.
As for who could follow Deaver. I like Gayle Lynds and Charles Cumming.

A woman pen a Bond novel?


And why not? Gayle is pretty damn good. Also, if we are talking authors to come in and continue a storyline, I think we are talking the type of author who is good on their own, but also good working on other people's characters (or even another author's plot). She's written on Ludlum's Covert One series, both from stories plotted out by Ludlum before he died and completely originals. I see this becoming something like that, like the "Robert Ludlum's" or the "Tom Clancy's" where there's an established character/style and they bring in people who can write to that (kinda like Ray Benson in Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell).

Truth be told, some of those guys are actually pretty damn good writers in their own right. Ludlum's Covert One series, Clancy's numerous series, etc have produced some good stories and some of those authors wrote really great stories (admittedly outlined, researched and plotted by the name author). If they want to go complete "series" with it they could have snapped up one of these guys.

But ideally I would love for Deaver to have done 5. That's enough to write a pretty good arc, 2 self contained stories, one giant trilogy in the middle. That would have established the style, pace, feel for X-Bond totally concrete for whoever comes next.


I am not against it, never say never. I looked her up after your post on the matter. If Ludlum's estate got her on board she must be good. Fresh idea OmarB. Did she mimic Ludlum or place her own stamp on the series thus far?

Also 0077, I see your point. More than one from JD would have it's advantages. Will the one off work? Time will tell.

#33 zencat

zencat

    Commander GCMG

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 25814 posts
  • Location:Studio City, CA

Posted 30 March 2011 - 05:58 PM

Exactly my point Omar. Deaver should have been contracted by IFP to write more than just one novel, IMO. I for one, want this reboot to work and be a success.

You don't seem to understand that Deaver couldn't be contracted for more than one novel. He has set commitments for other books for his other publishers. But he said he could come back at some point and do another. This is the price of getting big name writers to do Bond. Doesn't bother me. I actually like the idea of multipal authors.

#34 OmarB

OmarB

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1151 posts
  • Location:Queens, NY, USA

Posted 30 March 2011 - 06:18 PM

I don't think he means "should" in that sense Zen. I'm sure we are all grown ups who understand contract issues. What would be great is to hear about a contract for the first with an option for more or maybe advising. If they are gonna use his book as the launching point one would assume they want the same feel/thrust throughout the series and I think that he can establish all that in one book. But if he did 5, an opening book leading into a second book, leading into an epic trilogy.

Jump James - Gayle Lynds is a great writer, I'm surprised you didn't know her. She's of that same mold as many of the other thriller writers many of us are fans of. In fact, the same day I met Benson I met her at the International Thriller Writers convention. http://thrillerwriters.org/ She wrote in Ludlum's style for his books and she did it damn well, that's the reason I even started reading her solo efforts. But Ludlum has a huge bibliography of exactly that type of novel, we all know the style and feel of a Ludlum novel, it's like a really slick action movie and moves at a good pace. With his plots (he had plotted out the first 4 of the Covert One series before he passed) all she had to do was the research and then write.

With Deaver I think one novel is may not establish it concretely enough that the next books slot neatly into place stylistically. But if he did 5? It's just like TV, look at Barry Sonnenfeld who is a movie director but was closely tied to the production of Pushing Daisies and directed the first few and last few episodes to establish the look, feel, color palate, tone, etc of the show for the other directors to follow. One can bring up similar examples all over the place like 24 with Jon Cassara or CSI Miami (using Michael Bay's Bad Boys 1 & 2) to establish the look, feel and editing style, or any Star Trek series.

#35 0077

0077

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 57 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 30 March 2011 - 06:19 PM

Your right Zen. I had missed that. Thanks for correcting me.

#36 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 30 March 2011 - 06:30 PM


Exactly my point Omar. Deaver should have been contracted by IFP to write more than just one novel, IMO. I for one, want this reboot to work and be a success.

You don't seem to understand that Deaver couldn't be contracted for more than one novel. He has set commitments for other books for his other publishers. But he said he could come back at some point and do another. This is the price of getting big name writers to do Bond. Doesn't bother me. I actually like the idea of multipal authors.


I think one-off entries could even make the task more attractive for interested writers. Some would not want to be chained to something indefinite. Book-by-book contracts make the thing much more manageable and give all sides a maximum of freedom, while a return at a later point would always be an option. I believe Ken Follett expressed his interest some time ago, he might be a candidate someday. But I doubt he'd want to do three or five or ten. He has an ambitious project of his own on his schedule and I don't see a writer of that calibre putting his own work aside for perhaps several years, that would simply be too much to ask.

#37 zencat

zencat

    Commander GCMG

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 25814 posts
  • Location:Studio City, CA

Posted 30 March 2011 - 06:36 PM

Your right Zen. I had missed that. Thanks for correcting me.

Oh, sorry, I didn't mean to come off as if I was correcting you. That sounds mean. JD spoke a lot about how he couldn't do more than one at some of his Burning Wire signings. But I went back and looked and I don't think we ever really reported that. I think we just talked about it in the main Carte Blanche/Project X thread. So you had no way of knowing unless you were deep in the weeds on that thread. But, yeah, that's why it's a one booker for now.

I really like the idea of a rotating set of established writers. We would all develop our favorites. Very much like the Star Wars books. And, hopefully, this would open the door to Charlie Higson doing one at some point. Or maybe a real event, like getting Stephen King to do one.

#38 OmarB

OmarB

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1151 posts
  • Location:Queens, NY, USA

Posted 30 March 2011 - 07:46 PM

It's great you brought up the Star Wars books because I do have favorites (Zahn, Crispin, Crispin, Perry, Stackpole). Now if a rotating group came into play it could be interesting.

#39 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 30 March 2011 - 09:59 PM

Do you see this Carte Blanche affair as some kind of attack on Fleming and his creation? What's troubling you about it?


Well, I can't answer for David, but personally I'm not sure that having "Fleming's Bond" in a series of contemporary novels is either possible or desirable.

Now, by no means am I knocking Fleming, so please don't take this the wrong way, but his Bond is an antique: a chainsmoker and borderline Bendzedrine junkie with some very non-PC views and an idea of exercise that apparently involves nothing more than touching his toes several times.... To put it kindly, he was very much a creature of his time, and you can't just take him and plunk him down into 2011 without it looking like the unthawing of Austin Powers.

Bond must therefore be reinvented. For someone like Deaver, the challenge, I think, is not to think "Now, how can I make my hero chime with Fleming's Bond?", but to ask himself "If that Bond had a grandson currently serving in British intelligence, what would he be like?" and then create a new character from the answers to that second question.

#40 David Schofield

David Schofield

    Commander

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3026 posts

Posted 31 March 2011 - 08:09 AM



And yup, Benson chucks in a number of Gardner refs in his early novels, but in publicity at the time he made it clear he was BRING BACK Fleming's Bond and not continuing Gardner's more sanitised 80s'90s version.

:)


Sanitised? My impression was you are rather fond of Gardner's efforts?

Apart from that I get the impression you regard this whole business of Bond as a kind of *issing contest where writing and standing are concerned. I don't get this at all. The only author claiming to be "writing as Ian Fleming" has probably had enough reason to regret this particular piece of PR campaign since. Nobody else did before or after (and personally I doubt any man/woman in his/her right mind would do so again).


Gardner? I have no strong feelings either way. When the books were published in early 80s and 90s I got every one on the day of publication, was glad to have a version of lit Bond. Soon came to realise he wasn't comfortable with the subject matter and that writing wise he was no John Pearson or Chris Wood, but came to acknowledge he was better than Benson, Weinberg, and Faulks, and no worse than Higson.

Sanitised - yeah, any James Bond that drinks less and smokes less is sanitised from the Fleming original, wouldn't you say?

As I think it is essential to have top quality writing - if only as a tribute to Fleming - and therefore you view this as a pissing contest, fair enough.

How much Bond have you read? The Flemings for sure but what about the continations: have you read Pearson and Wood - both show what top quality writing and understanding of the Fleming original can achieve.


Do you see this Carte Blanche affair as some kind of attack on Fleming and his creation? What's troubling you about it?


Well, I can't answer for David, but personally I'm not sure that having "Fleming's Bond" in a series of contemporary novels is either possible or desirable.

Now, by no means am I knocking Fleming, so please don't take this the wrong way, but his Bond is an antique: a chainsmoker and borderline Bendzedrine junkie with some very non-PC views and an idea of exercise that apparently involves nothing more than touching his toes several times.... To put it kindly, he was very much a creature of his time, and you can't just take him and plunk him down into 2011 without it looking like the unthawing of Austin Powers.

Bond must therefore be reinvented. For someone like Deaver, the challenge, I think, is not to think "Now, how can I make my hero chime with Fleming's Bond?", but to ask himself "If that Bond had a grandson currently serving in British intelligence, what would he be like?" and then create a new character from the answers to that second question.


Dustin, Loomis' ideas have articulated everything that troubles me about the potential outcome of CARTE BLANCHE.

As I joked with Loomy in an earlier post, if that's what you want from CARTE BLANCHE, save yourself the wait until late May and go buy some Any McNab books. Then, with a pencil, carefully cross out the name "Nick Stone" where ever it appears and in its place write "James Bond".

#41 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 31 March 2011 - 09:28 AM




And yup, Benson chucks in a number of Gardner refs in his early novels, but in publicity at the time he made it clear he was BRING BACK Fleming's Bond and not continuing Gardner's more sanitised 80s'90s version.

:)


Sanitised? My impression was you are rather fond of Gardner's efforts?

Apart from that I get the impression you regard this whole business of Bond as a kind of *issing contest where writing and standing are concerned. I don't get this at all. The only author claiming to be "writing as Ian Fleming" has probably had enough reason to regret this particular piece of PR campaign since. Nobody else did before or after (and personally I doubt any man/woman in his/her right mind would do so again).


Gardner? I have no strong feelings either way. When the books were published in early 80s and 90s I got every one on the day of publication, was glad to have a version of lit Bond. Soon came to realise he wasn't comfortable with the subject matter and that writing wise he was no John Pearson or Chris Wood, but came to acknowledge he was better than Benson, Weinberg, and Faulks, and no worse than Higson.

Sanitised - yeah, any James Bond that drinks less and smokes less is sanitised from the Fleming original, wouldn't you say?



Not necessarily, no. I'd say it was a Bond right in the tradition of the first few chapters of TB. And of course TMWTGG.

"He lit a cigarette. Nowadays he was trying to keep to twenty and failing by about five."

So Gardner didn't really start the trend, he merely extrapolated it into his present. By the same way I think one could drop the smoking entirely. Not by emphasising what a filthy habit it is and how disgusted Bond reacts to tobacco smoke. Just by not mentioning it any more. It's not as if there would have to be a cigarette per chapter/page/paragraph to make it a Bond novel.






As I think it is essential to have top quality writing - if only as a tribute to Fleming - and therefore you view this as a pissing contest, fair enough.


Well, in my opinion writing should always be the best one can come up with. But quality - top quality - writing has as many definitions as there are readers, depending on expectations, preferences, background and so on. Even age; I've read books ten years ago and been ecstatic about them but could hardly understand, what enchanted me so at the first read. Some books don't age well and some do not call for a reread.

But I think it's necessary to understand that Fleming's aspirations hardly ever went much further beyond the initial goal to be bought and be read. He had the ambition to write thrillers as literature and his most daring project TSWLM nearly succeeded (which might have changed the map of the thriller drastically, had Fleming won the recognition he secretly craved). But his initial intention was always to make warm-blooded heterosexuals in trains and airplanes turn the pages. And he would not have wanted to get critical acclaim without having that of his readers. Thus he returned to the more familiar terrain after TSWLM.

But these words of Fleming reveal perhaps a very important detail. To get to all those warm-blooded people Fleming had to have a feel for their pulse, for the things they crave and dream of. In other words, he had to be up to date with his surroundings and his society. Nothing else tried Gardner by giving Bond that Swedish car and the lights cigarettes. And I think nothing else is intended with Carte Blanche and further books. The only thing that's different is the time gap that has to be bridged.




How much Bond have you read? The Flemings for sure but what about the continations: have you read Pearson and Wood - both show what top quality writing and understanding of the Fleming original can achieve.


Interesting, isn't it? The film tie-ins (not a subgenre renown for its literary ambitious projects) to two of the entire film series most OTT landmarks happen to be amongst the best of what the continuations offer, I concur. But it has to be noted that these books (and Pearson's) were written at a time when the gap between them and their source material was still relatively small. That's hardly the case with Gardner's last few and Benson's books. I've read all Gardners at least once (although it's been years ago and some are currently missing on my shelves) and all but one Benson.






Do you see this Carte Blanche affair as some kind of attack on Fleming and his creation? What's troubling you about it?


Well, I can't answer for David, but personally I'm not sure that having "Fleming's Bond" in a series of contemporary novels is either possible or desirable.

Now, by no means am I knocking Fleming, so please don't take this the wrong way, but his Bond is an antique: a chainsmoker and borderline Bendzedrine junkie with some very non-PC views and an idea of exercise that apparently involves nothing more than touching his toes several times.... To put it kindly, he was very much a creature of his time, and you can't just take him and plunk him down into 2011 without it looking like the unthawing of Austin Powers.

Bond must therefore be reinvented. For someone like Deaver, the challenge, I think, is not to think "Now, how can I make my hero chime with Fleming's Bond?", but to ask himself "If that Bond had a grandson currently serving in British intelligence, what would he be like?" and then create a new character from the answers to that second question.


Dustin, Loomis' ideas have articulated everything that troubles me about the potential outcome of CARTE BLANCHE.

As I joked with Loomy in an earlier post, if that's what you want from CARTE BLANCHE, save yourself the wait until late May and go buy some Any McNab books. Then, with a pencil, carefully cross out the name "Nick Stone" where ever it appears and in its place write "James Bond".


Oh, I see. I must say I found Loomis' idea not at all troubling, to the contrary. If say, one was tasked to write a Three Musketeers novel set in modern day, well the approach would have to be pretty much what Loomis proposed: Where would they be now, what would the modern equivalent be, how would D'Artagnan fare in a modern world?

But surely whatever it would turn out to be, it could hardly impair on the original, could it? So I have absolutely no fears about Carte Blanche and whatever may follow. I mean, take a look at what Bond has already been through. It hardly matters and won't change a single word Fleming has written. And Pearson is indeed a good example for in my view he took the most liberties with his book. He wrote the marriage of Bond's parents as a tragic drama, gave Bond (the typical only child) a brother, mentioned Bond's liability to obesity and yellow teeth, took all sorts of bends and hurdles to fit his idea of Bond as real world person telling a series of anecdotes and his version of affairs. And Pearson succeeded brilliantly, didn't he? Despite his liberties and all the things he changed? Im my opinion because he changed so much.

#42 Jim

Jim

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 14266 posts
  • Location:Oxfordshire

Posted 31 March 2011 - 09:46 AM

This is a very interesting discussion, and nice to read. Thanks folks.

#43 David Schofield

David Schofield

    Commander

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3026 posts

Posted 31 March 2011 - 09:54 AM





And yup, Benson chucks in a number of Gardner refs in his early novels, but in publicity at the time he made it clear he was BRING BACK Fleming's Bond and not continuing Gardner's more sanitised 80s'90s version.

:)


Sanitised? My impression was you are rather fond of Gardner's efforts?

Apart from that I get the impression you regard this whole business of Bond as a kind of *issing contest where writing and standing are concerned. I don't get this at all. The only author claiming to be "writing as Ian Fleming" has probably had enough reason to regret this particular piece of PR campaign since. Nobody else did before or after (and personally I doubt any man/woman in his/her right mind would do so again).


Gardner? I have no strong feelings either way. When the books were published in early 80s and 90s I got every one on the day of publication, was glad to have a version of lit Bond. Soon came to realise he wasn't comfortable with the subject matter and that writing wise he was no John Pearson or Chris Wood, but came to acknowledge he was better than Benson, Weinberg, and Faulks, and no worse than Higson.

Sanitised - yeah, any James Bond that drinks less and smokes less is sanitised from the Fleming original, wouldn't you say?



Not necessarily, no. I'd say it was a Bond right in the tradition of the first few chapters of TB. And of course TMWTGG.

"He lit a cigarette. Nowadays he was trying to keep to twenty and failing by about five."

So Gardner didn't really start the trend, he merely extrapolated it into his present. By the same way I think one could drop the smoking entirely. Not by emphasising what a filthy habit it is and how disgusted Bond reacts to tobacco smoke. Just by not mentioning it any more. It's not as if there would have to be a cigarette per chapter/page/paragraph to make it a Bond novel.






As I think it is essential to have top quality writing - if only as a tribute to Fleming - and therefore you view this as a pissing contest, fair enough.


Well, in my opinion writing should always be the best one can come up with. But quality - top quality - writing has as many definitions as there are readers, depending on expectations, preferences, background and so on. Even age; I've read books ten years ago and been ecstatic about them but could hardly understand, what enchanted me so at the first read. Some books don't age well and some do not call for a reread.

But I think it's necessary to understand that Fleming's aspirations hardly ever went much further beyond the initial goal to be bought and be read. He had the ambition to write thrillers as literature and his most daring project TSWLM nearly succeeded (which might have changed the map of the thriller drastically, had Fleming won the recognition he secretly craved). But his initial intention was always to make warm-blooded heterosexuals in trains and airplanes turn the pages. And he would not have wanted to get critical acclaim without having that of his readers. Thus he returned to the more familiar terrain after TSWLM.

But these words of Fleming reveal perhaps a very important detail. To get to all those warm-blooded people Fleming had to have a feel for their pulse, for the things they crave and dream of. In other words, he had to be up to date with his surroundings and his society. Nothing else tried Gardner by giving Bond that Swedish car and the lights cigarettes. And I think nothing else is intended with Carte Blanche and further books. The only thing that's different is the time gap that has to be bridged.




How much Bond have you read? The Flemings for sure but what about the continations: have you read Pearson and Wood - both show what top quality writing and understanding of the Fleming original can achieve.


Interesting, isn't it? The film tie-ins (not a subgenre renown for its literary ambitious projects) to two of the entire film series most OTT landmarks happen to be amongst the best of what the continuations offer, I concur. But it has to be noted that these books (and Pearson's) were written at a time when the gap between them and their source material was still relatively small. That's hardly the case with Gardner's last few and Benson's books. I've read all Gardners at least once (although it's been years ago and some are currently missing on my shelves) and all but one Benson.






Do you see this Carte Blanche affair as some kind of attack on Fleming and his creation? What's troubling you about it?


Well, I can't answer for David, but personally I'm not sure that having "Fleming's Bond" in a series of contemporary novels is either possible or desirable.

Now, by no means am I knocking Fleming, so please don't take this the wrong way, but his Bond is an antique: a chainsmoker and borderline Bendzedrine junkie with some very non-PC views and an idea of exercise that apparently involves nothing more than touching his toes several times.... To put it kindly, he was very much a creature of his time, and you can't just take him and plunk him down into 2011 without it looking like the unthawing of Austin Powers.

Bond must therefore be reinvented. For someone like Deaver, the challenge, I think, is not to think "Now, how can I make my hero chime with Fleming's Bond?", but to ask himself "If that Bond had a grandson currently serving in British intelligence, what would he be like?" and then create a new character from the answers to that second question.


Dustin, Loomis' ideas have articulated everything that troubles me about the potential outcome of CARTE BLANCHE.

As I joked with Loomy in an earlier post, if that's what you want from CARTE BLANCHE, save yourself the wait until late May and go buy some Any McNab books. Then, with a pencil, carefully cross out the name "Nick Stone" where ever it appears and in its place write "James Bond".


Oh, I see. I must say I found Loomis' idea not at all troubling, to the contrary. If say, one was tasked to write a Three Musketeers novel set in modern day, well the approach would have to be pretty much what Loomis proposed: Where would they be now, what would the modern equivalent be, how would D'Artagnan fare in a modern world?

But surely whatever it would turn out to be, it could hardly impair on the original, could it? So I have absolutely no fears about Carte Blanche and whatever may follow. I mean, take a look at what Bond has already been through. It hardly matters and won't change a single word Fleming has written. And Pearson is indeed a good example for in my view he took the most liberties with his book. He wrote the marriage of Bond's parents as a tragic drama, gave Bond (the typical only child) a brother, mentioned Bond's liability to obesity and yellow teeth, took all sorts of bends and hurdles to fit his idea of Bond as real world person telling a series of anecdotes and his version of affairs. And Pearson succeeded brilliantly, didn't he? Despite his liberties and all the things he changed? Im my opinion because he changed so much.


A few thoughts in reply (I don't know how to do this fancy insertion of my replies to your text where they should be)


1. Fleming's nonsense about his limited writing ability was all based upon his false modesty, and inadequacy in teh company of great writers. History has proved the true standing of Fleming's literature.

And, of course, just knocking out a thriller that might sell to Bond fans because of the latent appeal of its content permits the literary inadequacies of Benson and Faulks. I do not.

2 I don't think Gardner's Bond would ever say to May, "Bugger it, fetch in the drinks tray" after someone tried kill him in TB. Fleming's Bond used booze, in differing degrees, as a calming compensation. Gardner's did not; it might have impaired his health.

I would be quite happy for X Bond in CARTE BLANCH NOT to smoke, like you.

3. I don't mind change. The progression made by Bond through Flemings canon, even Gardner's brief but abandoned attempt to age him.

But I need to see he started off as the character Fleming created, not just a man called James Bond. Or Nick Stone

#44 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 31 March 2011 - 12:02 PM

But surely whatever it would turn out to be, it could hardly impair on the original, could it? So I have absolutely no fears about Carte Blanche and whatever may follow. I mean, take a look at what Bond has already been through. It hardly matters and won't change a single word Fleming has written. And Pearson is indeed a good example for in my view he took the most liberties with his book. He wrote the marriage of Bond's parents as a tragic drama, gave Bond (the typical only child) a brother, mentioned Bond's liability to obesity and yellow teeth, took all sorts of bends and hurdles to fit his idea of Bond as real world person telling a series of anecdotes and his version of affairs. And Pearson succeeded brilliantly, didn't he? Despite his liberties and all the things he changed? Im my opinion because he changed so much.


Exactly.

#45 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 31 March 2011 - 12:13 PM

But I need to see he started off as the character Fleming created, not just a man called James Bond. Or Nick Stone


But I honestly don't see how he can be the character Fleming created without the chainsmoking, the Benzedrine and the Alf Garnett attitudes. No one expects Deaver's Bond to have had his testicles mashed by a carpet beater, to have loved Tracy or to harbour bittersweet memories of the song La vie en rose, so I'm curious as to how you think it would even be possible for Deaver to give us Fleming's Bond. I know you don't believe he should literally give us Fleming's Bond, a refugee from the early 1950s - you want the spirit of Fleming's Bond in modern clothing.

(By contrast, the reboot/update with Daniel Craig in the Eon film series works because, even way back in the 1960s, the movie Bond was never more than a very occasional smoker, never used Benzedrine, wasn't shockingly non-PC, and was never really the dinosaur that Fleming's Bond is.)

But surely without all of the elements I've mentioned (and others I've for the moment forgotten), which aren't possible to have in CARTE BLANCHE, you get Nick Stone or some generic Andy McNab action hero by default.

I guess what I'm asking is: what does it take to make "James Bond" in a modern novel suitably Flemingian? What needs to be included? I mean, if Deaver were to mention, say, the incident with the boys' maid, the thin vertical scar down the cheek and maybe a couple of other things, would that satisfy you?

#46 Santa

Santa

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6445 posts
  • Location:Valencia

Posted 31 March 2011 - 12:28 PM

It's at times insinuated that Deaver would aim for changing Bond into what's often referred to as chav, but I can't see why this should happen. I don't remember any hundreds of pages where Bond reminisced on his days of playing wall game or spending weekends shooting grouse. There is perhaps a slight tendency to overemphasise Bond's background in the light of Deaver being American. I don't recall such concerns with Faulks.

I don't think there were any such concerns with Faulks, but then he didn't talk about Pakistani maidservants or Bond visiting Dubai, or Bond driving a footballer's car...

I think one could drop the smoking entirely. Not by emphasising what a filthy habit it is and how disgusted Bond reacts to tobacco smoke. Just by not mentioning it any more. It's not as if there would have to be a cigarette per chapter/page/paragraph to make it a Bond novel.

That is by far my favourite way of dealing with it. Don't make a big thing of it, just ignore it.

#47 David Schofield

David Schofield

    Commander

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3026 posts

Posted 31 March 2011 - 12:29 PM

I guess what I'm asking is: what does it take to make "James Bond" in a modern novel suitably Flemingian? What needs to be included? I mean, if Deaver were to mention, say, the incident with the boys' maid, the thin vertical scar down the cheek and maybe a couple of other things, would that satisfy you?


Arrogant privatly wealthy old Eton prone to periods of louche slothfulness and ennui - CHECK.
You want to mention the maid/death of parents thing - fine BUT NOT ESSENTIAL
You want to do the scar/height/hair colour stuff - fine BUT NOT ESSENTIAL (leave it out totally for me - if some readers want to picture short, buffed blondy Dan or slicked 60s Sean, that's up to them)
Former naval commander - CHECK
List of old friends/appearances by same or list of "former ops" and or female conquests - TOTALLY UNNECESSARY
Married to Tracy/affair with Vesper - TOTALLY UNNECESSARY; JD should be able to describe Bond's, er, passions and vices without naming names.
Bentley? - IF you must but NOT ESSENTIAL
Messervy-M - WHY?
Moneypenny/Goodnight - WHY?
Smoking - if you wany but NOT NECESSARY
Drug use? - WHY NOT we all have to relaz one way or another. My particlular vice of choice is booze.
Age - IDEALLY unspecified late 30s; DEFINATELY not a kid inb his 20s.

That do for a start? Not too Fleming checklisty and giving Deaver plenty of scope, but essential starting off with a privately wealthy Etonian orphan loner.

#48 Jump James

Jump James

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 293 posts

Posted 31 March 2011 - 12:50 PM

Food is another important factor is it not? Lobster drenched in butter, that sort of thing.

Also someone should have a mouth that's described as being "cruel".

#49 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 31 March 2011 - 01:22 PM

A few thoughts in reply (I don't know how to do this fancy insertion of my replies to your text where they should be)



No problem, it is a bit tricky.

1. Fleming's nonsense about his limited writing ability was all based upon his false modesty, and inadequacy in teh company of great writers. History has proved the true standing of Fleming's literature.


I wouldn't call that false modesty. Fleming could at times hint that he "of course could write a serious book" or something to the effect. And in my opinion he's certainly proven that. But Fleming simply had set his priorities and literary acclaim always came second to financial gain.

To understand that decision one has to look at Fleming's background. While he came from a rich family he never was of independent means, as most of his fellows at Eaton Eton or Sandhurst. And, on top of that, the wealth was not old money but earned by his grandfather (who apparently had to graft and slog away like most of us mortal humans do every day). Fleming was a member of the nouveau riche, and that class could be ten times the snobs the old money and aristocracy they aspire to be ever were. Yet he had to depend finacially on the goodwill of his mother, who refused to marry again (which would have given the Fleming boys their share of the family funds) and, ironically was known as "Em" to the boys.

Fleming's first M figure: a mother! Now I wonder, what do people complaining about Dench's mother figure in the films make of that?

Fleming's mother was a demanding and domineering character and he never could quite live up to her expectations, to the example of the successful older brother or to the WWI superhero father. While far from ever having to turn every penny, it's perhaps justifiable to suspect Fleming wasn't exactly a happy character in his younger days, constantly competing with larger-than-life adversaries. Adversaries he couldn't beat, not for the life of him; not even overcome in his later days. The groundwork for Fleming's passions, that would become Bond's one day, was laid in the childhood and youth of a talented but unhappy youth.

I think it's fair to say Fleming would have wholeheartedly agreed with the words of one of his characters. Not Bond's. Not M's either, or any of Bond's allies or few friends. I think of Hugo Drax, that Nazi who regarded the war as "Those were the great days...". For Fleming it sure was true, for he had found a place and an opportunity to make a difference. He was at a post that allowed him enormous insights and called for his talents where imagination and fantasy were required. It was maybe for the first time he was cut loose from the ties his mother represented and he wasn't merely a scallywag waiting for the next cheque from his family. His journalist days already had given him a whiff of what it could mean to stand on his own, but that was of course no occupation for a member of the Fleming family. This time he was concerned with the destiny of millions, in and out of Britain, and nobody could call his duty a folly or not fitting for his family. Ironic, given it was probably very much intended as a means to get a somewhat black sheep a post at base to keep him away from the front.

Bond, and all that came with Bond, was very much a way for Fleming to digest all of this. Not just his war time memories, or the numerous operations that came to his desk from all sides. It worked also as a therapy for the other themes in Fleming's life (as maybe writing does for most of us, in some form or other).

Fleming has found a way to use all this and entertain other with it. Entertain them so much they paid him money to get more of it. Yes, Fleming could have written some epitome of the post-war English literature of the mid-20th century. And I believe he knew that he could have. But he chose to write thrillers, and for all he or anybody of his contemporaries knew, they'd be forgotten since 1985 or so. He never knew his work would stay with us for so long.

And, more importantly here, he didn't care.


And, of course, just knocking out a thriller that might sell to Bond fans because of the latent appeal of its content permits the literary inadequacies of Benson and Faulks. I do not.


Most thrillers are knocked out to sell them to Bond fans. Not Bond fans as such, mind you. But a Bond fan usually happens to be also a thriller fan in general. So there is a fair chance that among thriller readers you will find a vast majority of Bond fans (casual, fairly-well and fanatic, and all sorts in-between). Inadequacies is indeed a concern. But, as in all businesses, there are some catering for different sectors of the market. Quality is only an issue in relation to competition, businesswise. But it can only ever come from the writer, and only if the market appreciates it. The publisher will sell the thing regardless.



2 I don't think Gardner's Bond would ever say to May, "Bugger it, fetch in the drinks tray" after someone tried kill him in TB. Fleming's Bond used booze, in differing degrees, as a calming compensation. Gardner's did not; it might have impaired his health.

I would be quite happy for X Bond in CARTE BLANCH NOT to smoke, like you.


Oh, Bond did have his Lagavulin in LR, if memory serves (picking up another of the often overlooked details of Bond's world, the "when in rome"-rule). We probably both know why Gardner didn't go into greater detail with Bond's alcohol intake in the books.

But Bond used to smoke in his bed, staring at the ceiling and pondering events past and present. I must say, while it wasn't mentioned as such in Fleming's books, to me this seems to be an incredibly "Bond" thing to do. It's very in character I think.


3. I don't mind change. The progression made by Bond through Flemings canon, even Gardner's brief but abandoned attempt to age him.


Do you happen to know Travis McGee? That's a character who works a different sector of the thriller range, yet he is quite detailed and, for want of a better expression, as conchise as Bond. He was around for 20 years and he did age, although not in real time. But that is why his Korea war experieces became his Vietnam war experiences. And probably would have become his Lebanon/Panama/1st Iraq/2nd Iraq war experiences, had he been around much longer.


But I need to see he started off as the character Fleming created, not just a man called James Bond. Or Nick Stone


In my opinion Fleming created a number of Bonds. Or one Bond flexible enough to incorporate a number of facettes that usually would be found in different characters. Yes, of course his creation is a child of its time. But it could as well be a child of our time. In my view, if I deny this I'd deny Bond any place in our time. Not just a re-invented or re-booted or re-styled Bond, but Bond altogether, period.

Edited by Dustin, 31 March 2011 - 03:50 PM.


#50 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 31 March 2011 - 01:33 PM


I guess what I'm asking is: what does it take to make "James Bond" in a modern novel suitably Flemingian? What needs to be included? I mean, if Deaver were to mention, say, the incident with the boys' maid, the thin vertical scar down the cheek and maybe a couple of other things, would that satisfy you?


Arrogant privatly wealthy old Eton prone to periods of louche slothfulness and ennui - CHECK.
You want to mention the maid/death of parents thing - fine BUT NOT ESSENTIAL
You want to do the scar/height/hair colour stuff - fine BUT NOT ESSENTIAL (leave it out totally for me - if some readers want to picture short, buffed blondy Dan or slicked 60s Sean, that's up to them)
Former naval commander - CHECK
List of old friends/appearances by same or list of "former ops" and or female conquests - TOTALLY UNNECESSARY
Married to Tracy/affair with Vesper - TOTALLY UNNECESSARY; JD should be able to describe Bond's, er, passions and vices without naming names.
Bentley? - IF you must but NOT ESSENTIAL
Messervy-M - WHY?
Moneypenny/Goodnight - WHY?
Smoking - if you wany but NOT NECESSARY
Drug use? - WHY NOT we all have to relaz one way or another. My particlular vice of choice is booze.
Age - IDEALLY unspecified late 30s; DEFINATELY not a kid inb his 20s.

That do for a start? Not too Fleming checklisty and giving Deaver plenty of scope, but essential starting off with a privately wealthy Etonian orphan loner.


Well, if all you're insisting upon is an ex-Royal Navy old Etonian lone wolf orphan of private means, then.... well, that's not all that much. I'm not sure that that's all it takes to make Fleming's Bond.

(To nitpick, though, I don't recall it stated in any of the books or films that Bond is privately wealthy, but I may be wrong.)

In any case, the days of "savouring at Sardi's" with a new Bond novel are long gone - other than Fleming, you've only got Amis and maybe Pearson and Wood (never read Wood, but I'm always thinking I ought to pick up his two novelizations, since by all accounts they're the best thing since sliced bread, particularly TSWLM).

All the rest are cases of "munching at McDonalds" - Faulks could and should have been in the Sardi's category, but, sadly, DMC was, as we all know, a washout. I doubt that Deaver's book will be anything particularly special (although I'm hoping it to be an entertaining read with some decent twists and turns), but my instinct tells me that CARTE BLANCHE is most likely to succeed if he refrains from genuflecting at "Fleming" and truly goes his own way with the material. If this makes Bond a Guardian-reading vegetarian born in Islamabad in 1983 with ginger hair and a secret addiction to Snickers bars, so be it.

#51 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 31 March 2011 - 02:19 PM


It's at times insinuated that Deaver would aim for changing Bond into what's often referred to as chav, but I can't see why this should happen. I don't remember any hundreds of pages where Bond reminisced on his days of playing wall game or spending weekends shooting grouse. There is perhaps a slight tendency to overemphasise Bond's background in the light of Deaver being American. I don't recall such concerns with Faulks.

I don't think there were any such concerns with Faulks, but then he didn't talk about Pakistani maidservants or Bond visiting Dubai, or Bond driving a footballer's car...


Sure, but I think much of that was really not all too important. I could see reasons for a Pakistani housekeeper as well as I could see reasons for a German or Soth African one. Or a Scottish. At the moment I doubt Deaver lives under the impression that most British households of a certain income employ Pakistani help. It's perhaps really just a detail that may have no further significance beyond that.

Dubai I think is a most generic setting, even if it's just for part of the novel. But then again so would have been Vienna in the cold war, yet it had a definite role in those days and many novels and films used it. It could well be that Dubai, due to the specific plot of Carte Blanche, had to feature in some form.

With the footballer's car I'm not sure who came first here. In my opinion it's not so much Deaver's Bond driving a footballer's car than footballers emulating a James-Bond lifestyle. And that's hardly surprising, them being the only ones who can afford to do so. But I of course get what you mean. I suppose there's been an urge to keep the Bentley tradition with Bond, in whatever form. I think the limited edition of DMC with the Bentley model proved there is a healthy relationship between IFPP and Bentley (or is that VW now?). So maybe the question was just which model Bond would drive.





I think one could drop the smoking entirely. Not by emphasising what a filthy habit it is and how disgusted Bond reacts to tobacco smoke. Just by not mentioning it any more. It's not as if there would have to be a cigarette per chapter/page/paragraph to make it a Bond novel.

That is by far my favourite way of dealing with it. Don't make a big thing of it, just ignore it.


I don't really get why they mentioned it at all. But that was probably inevitable, being one of the first questions any journalist worth his money would ask with a modern reboot of the series. Some fans are really quite vocal about their wishes to see Bond smoking again. At times you could get the impression the Tea Party Pentagon in the Ozarks is planning a nuclear strike against the headquarter of PC-Bond-dom at Eon City if they don't comply to their demand for a sixty-a-day puffing Bond within the next 12 months. Wonder what will happen after the ultimatum?

No, had I been in a position to decide anything I'd simply have ignored the thing at all. If your Bond happens to smoke, ok, it happens in your mind. No reason to hit anybody over the head with it. But overall I doubt it will be an important topic. Fans tend to be much more fussy than the average reader, but I have yet to see anybody claim "it was such a bad book, Bond didn't smoke a single one".

#52 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 31 March 2011 - 02:46 PM


I guess what I'm asking is: what does it take to make "James Bond" in a modern novel suitably Flemingian? What needs to be included? I mean, if Deaver were to mention, say, the incident with the boys' maid, the thin vertical scar down the cheek and maybe a couple of other things, would that satisfy you?


Arrogant privatly wealthy old Eton prone to periods of louche slothfulness and ennui - CHECK.
You want to mention the maid/death of parents thing - fine BUT NOT ESSENTIAL
You want to do the scar/height/hair colour stuff - fine BUT NOT ESSENTIAL (leave it out totally for me - if some readers want to picture short, buffed blondy Dan or slicked 60s Sean, that's up to them)
Former naval commander - CHECK
List of old friends/appearances by same or list of "former ops" and or female conquests - TOTALLY UNNECESSARY
Married to Tracy/affair with Vesper - TOTALLY UNNECESSARY; JD should be able to describe Bond's, er, passions and vices without naming names.
Bentley? - IF you must but NOT ESSENTIAL
Messervy-M - WHY?
Moneypenny/Goodnight - WHY?
Smoking - if you wany but NOT NECESSARY
Drug use? - WHY NOT we all have to relaz one way or another. My particlular vice of choice is booze.
Age - IDEALLY unspecified late 30s; DEFINATELY not a kid inb his 20s.

That do for a start? Not too Fleming checklisty and giving Deaver plenty of scope, but essential starting off with a privately wealthy Etonian orphan loner.



This is a most interesting list, daresay there is a lot of freedom there. Surely not the worst base for a reinvention. But these few basics of course also imply they are defining in a way for Bond.

Eaton Eton - well, Eaton Eton wasn't mentioned until YOLT, quite late in the canon. One might of course argue that, while unmentioned, the Eaton Eton background always was present with Bond; at the very least per proxy via Fleming, fair enough.

The RN commander - that one came only in Moonraker. Prior to that Bond was just Bond, no military/naval background mentioned. As with Eaton Eton one might argue the rank had been there all along, hidden between the lines. Ok, only Fleming apparently thought about making Bond a Colonel, according to the manuscript of MR. So I'd argue the rank and naval background isn't all that essential. I even got the impression the early Bond was supposed to be 100 per cent Secret Service bred.

The age - that's probably always in the thirties. But I could well live with 28-thirties if necessary. At some point Bond must have been 28. And he wouldn't have been an entirely different character just for a few months missing, would he?

Apart from that I'm completely with you, particularly where friends, acquaintances and other Fleming lore is concerned. Best kept to a minimum of zero.


Edited due to unforgivable spelling errors

Edited by Dustin, 31 March 2011 - 04:19 PM.


#53 Jump James

Jump James

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 293 posts

Posted 31 March 2011 - 03:07 PM

Eton Dustin, Eton. Perhaps the most prestigious school in the world. For £9000 per term it better be. I'd say Eton is quite vital to Bonds background.

#54 Jump James

Jump James

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 293 posts

Posted 31 March 2011 - 03:18 PM

Eton Dustin, Eton. Perhaps the most prestigious school in the world. For £9000 per term it better be. I'd say Eton is quite vital to Bonds background.


Or is it? Back in Fleming's day it was perhaps quite important to have a good education to work as a spy, now not so much. As long as you have a few GSCE's A-Levels you would be in.

#55 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 31 March 2011 - 03:47 PM

Eton Dustin, Eton. Perhaps the most prestigious school in the world. For £9000 per term it better be. I'd say Eton is quite vital to Bonds background.



Sorry, still not fully operational with the iPhone. Auto-correct keeps interfering.

#56 Jump James

Jump James

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 293 posts

Posted 31 March 2011 - 04:25 PM

No apology needed Dustin. I was being a bit of a twit.

It's been a pleasure to read this thread with some very civil and intelligent discussion.

Edited by Jump James, 31 March 2011 - 04:27 PM.


#57 0077

0077

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 57 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 31 March 2011 - 05:05 PM

Thanks for bringing up age. I'd rather have Bond be in his early thirties. 33-34. That works fine for me. Besides, a commander in the RNVR is a bit of a stretch isn't it?

#58 Jim

Jim

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 14266 posts
  • Location:Oxfordshire

Posted 01 April 2011 - 07:48 AM

Does the RNVR still exist, in these defence-cutty times?

Anyway, splendid discussion, throwing a lot of interesting points out there.

#59 David Schofield

David Schofield

    Commander

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3026 posts

Posted 01 April 2011 - 07:52 AM

Does the RNVR still exist, in these defence-cutty times?

Anyway, splendid discussion, throwing a lot of interesting points out there.


Dunno, James.

But my reference to Bond being a commander was really only intended as an acknowledgement of his rank given by IF, rather than Deaver converting him to, say, Ensign, Loooootenant, or Coronelllll.

I'm sure the RNVR is a thing of the past and must be left there. Just as Bond's two kills to attain his 00 status by knocking off a Japanese and a German (or was it a Dane working for the Germans?) can't really be used in CARTE BLANCHE; after all, we Brits aren't still taking revenge in 2011 on our WW2 enemies, are we???? :o

#60 Jim

Jim

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 14266 posts
  • Location:Oxfordshire

Posted 01 April 2011 - 08:05 AM


Does the RNVR still exist, in these defence-cutty times?

Anyway, splendid discussion, throwing a lot of interesting points out there.


Dunno, James.

But my reference to Bond being a commander was really only intended as an acknowledgement of his rank given by IF, rather than Deaver converting him to, say, Ensign, Loooootenant, or Coronelllll.


Hmm. Wouldn't it be Captain rather than Colonel? - already done by Mr Gardner so not too worrying I suppose. Lootenant would be a bit off.

I'm sure the RNVR is a thing of the past and must be left there. Just as Bond's two kills to attain his 00 status by knocking off a Japanese and a German (or was it a Dane working for the Germans?) can't really be used in CARTE BLANCHE; after all, we Brits aren't still taking revenge in 2011 on our WW2 enemies, are we???? :o


Not yet.