Post Deaver
#61
Posted 01 April 2011 - 09:34 AM
#62
Posted 01 April 2011 - 09:38 AM
By the way, in the original draft of Moonraker, where Bond's military rank was first mentioned, our man was introduced at Blades as Colonel Bond.
#63
Posted 01 April 2011 - 09:39 AM
Good points David, you have highlighted how much Jeffery Deaver has got to sink his teeth into. Not an easy task this time round I'd say. Looking forward to see how he has developed this new Bond world. Maybe this Bond will be draw from the 90s conflict with Iraq?
I really think Deaver can make the job fairly straightforward for himself.
IF he keeps it simple and just writes a new story about a 30-something old-Etonian former naval commander with ennui issues now working for MI6 as a licenced assassin, he should be fine. No need for any other backstory, characters, or additional Fleming clutter.
Whether he will or not is what's keeping us all so damn intrigued.
#64
Posted 01 April 2011 - 10:20 AM
#65
Posted 01 April 2011 - 11:53 AM
There wasn't all that much background on Bond in the first few books to begin with. Much of that only came once Fleming decided to tailor Bond after his own. I think in CR Bond was a lot less defined, likewise in LALD. MR was really the book that got a heavy dose of Fleming injected for good measure. Such as the paperwork, the rank, The affairs with several married women and so on.
That’s true, but Deaver hasn’t got the luxury of writing that many Bond books. If it's the first initial one then he has a lot to work in. And even if Fleming didn’t give us the full picture until well into the series it's still managed to present us readers with a full-ish picture of the man Bond and we all have are ideas of who that man was/is. So can Deaver manage to keep everyone happy?
At the end of the day, hasn’t it got to feel like, yes, this is James Bond were reading about here? Essence of Bond isn’t something you can pick out of the spice rack.
#66
Posted 01 April 2011 - 01:04 PM
There wasn't all that much background on Bond in the first few books to begin with. Much of that only came once Fleming decided to tailor Bond after his own. I think in CR Bond was a lot less defined, likewise in LALD. MR was really the book that got a heavy dose of Fleming injected for good measure. Such as the paperwork, the rank, The affairs with several married women and so on.
That’s true, but Deaver hasn’t got the luxury of writing that many Bond books. If it's the first initial one then he has a lot to work in. And even if Fleming didn’t give us the full picture until well into the series it's still managed to present us readers with a full-ish picture of the man Bond and we all have are ideas of who that man was/is. So can Deaver manage to keep everyone happy?
At the end of the day, hasn’t it got to feel like, yes, this is James Bond were reading about here? Essence of Bond isn’t something you can pick out of the spice rack.
I'm not so sure Deaver will go into so much detail with the background. And I think I wouldn't even want him to. I'd rather not have the feeling of seeing one of those tv pilots, where the cast and the basic conflicts are presented in the first half of the feature, all with that air of 'Do you get it, dear audience? This is going to be important!' Carte Blanche should perhaps avoid such forced groundwork, even if it were the first of a concept that's much more detailed than I dare dreaming of. I'd like a slow build-up that doesn't explain all and sundry of Bond's world. Carte Blanche would be well-advised to leave some of it for exploration further down the way. And instead concentrate on a plot worth reading. Ideally the picture would become clearer along the ride, with much of it not told but shown.
#67
Posted 01 April 2011 - 02:08 PM
#68
Posted 01 April 2011 - 04:08 PM
#69
Posted 01 April 2011 - 04:08 PM
#70
Posted 01 April 2011 - 04:29 PM
If that's the case Dustin then it might just be great. How's Bond going to cope with Starbucks and all these bloody frapa.....frapacenz........frappaza....cold coffee's etc?
I'd think Bond is very much a Slow Food guy. And surely not a fan of to-go mass products. I could see him frequent a tiny store where very high quality sandwiches are freshly prepared from top quality ingredients and foods.
But certainly none of that prefabricated mass dreck that passes for food in our times.
And no, that's not a commie thing. Some people refuse to be fattened like pigs. Bond is one of them.
Edited by Dustin, 01 April 2011 - 05:26 PM.
#71
Posted 01 April 2011 - 04:36 PM
#72
Posted 11 April 2011 - 05:24 PM
I'm not familiar with the entire Holmes canon, but in my book the episode succeeded in rebooting the traditional characters and their interactions while respecting their source. I certainly didn't have the feeling the Doyle tradition got into undue proximity to the boot while watching. I'd think if it's possible to depict a 130 year old literature icon - whom most of us obsessively and stereotypically picture with deerstalker, Inverness cape and curved pipe - as a modern day character, then it should be possible to do the same with a fictional character half this age.
Edited by Dustin, 11 April 2011 - 05:26 PM.
#73
Posted 11 April 2011 - 05:34 PM
#74
Posted 11 April 2011 - 06:04 PM
That's funny, I was just thinking yesterday how Deaver's Bond could work like the BBC's Sherlock. If it works as well, we're in for a treat.
Indeed. I was very sceptic when I heard about that production for the first time. Now I have to admit they've done not half bad. Rather splendid, in fact. Of course I haven't seen more than that first entry, but that one surely didn't shame the team and cast. I'd be more than a little satisfied if Deaver's book would depict a similar spirit. And from what I've heard so far, even Holmes fans much more dedicated than I could ever bother to be expressed favourable views of the effort. It would be a success if Carte Blanche could win similar resonance.
#75
Posted 02 May 2011 - 02:52 PM
I'd have Forsyth and Follet at the top of my list. I have to say my list for those I wouldn't want to do one is much longer.
For a wild card, I'll throw out Martin Amis. Wouldn't that be interesting?
#76
Posted 02 May 2011 - 03:37 PM
If the next author would not be an American I could imagine Ian Rankin. If he's prominent enough in the US, that is.
Edited by Dustin, 02 May 2011 - 03:41 PM.
#77
Posted 02 May 2011 - 04:25 PM
#78
Posted 02 May 2011 - 06:02 PM
If IFP sticks to the category Deaver indicates then I'd think people like Michael Connelly, Dennis Lehane, Peter Robinson, Simon Beckett, Cody McFadyen, Greg Rucka are perhaps up in the future. Established genre writers with a fanbase and an international standing. And a significant backlist that suggests both sides would profit from the deal.
Follett or Forsyth might be already that bit too big to come cheap enough for IFP's budget, but then Forsyth has already done commissioned work recently and Follett said he'd be interested if memory serves, so who's to say they are beyond it?
#79
Posted 19 July 2011 - 01:34 PM
Maybe Carte Blanche wasn’t aimed at a British audience? Apparently an American audience doesn’t take to well to period fiction. What with the big American name of Deaver and the modern day setting it makes me think it’s aimed at the sales figures in the states more than anywhere else.
#80
Posted 20 August 2011 - 11:26 PM
If IFP sticks to the category Deaver indicates then I'd think people like Michael Connelly, Dennis Lehane, Peter Robinson, Simon Beckett, Cody McFadyen, Greg Rucka are perhaps up in the future. Established genre writers with a fanbase and an international standing. And a significant backlist that suggests both sides would profit from the deal.
If we're talking about Deaverish writers, my choice would be Linwood Barclay. I've just read NO TIME FOR GOODBYE and am making my way through FEAR THE WORST. The guy ain't bad at all. His missing person thrillers (he seems to work exclusively in this genre) are real grabbers and keep one turning the pages, which are sprinkled with dry wit, nifty observations and memorable yet nicely understated detail. Reading his work, he strikes me as the kind of author I'd felt led to believe Deaver was, but this time the real deal.
He isn't very Flemingian, of course, but then neither was Deaver.
#81
Posted 20 August 2011 - 11:35 PM
Maybe Carte Blanche wasn’t aimed at a British audience? Apparently an American audience doesn’t take to well to period fiction. What with the big American name of Deaver and the modern day setting it makes me think it’s aimed at the sales figures in the states more than anywhere else.
I suspect you're right. Anyway, has this strategy paid off, does anyone know? Has CARTE BLANCHE taken off in the States? Is it a bestseller over there, or merely, erm, just another Bond continuation novel that no one's even heard of?
#82
Posted 21 August 2011 - 12:11 AM
I still haven't read CARTE BLANCHE yet. Maybe when it hits paperback.
#83
Posted 21 August 2011 - 08:33 AM
#84
Posted 21 August 2011 - 08:59 AM
Perhaps nothing will happen next.
#85
Posted 21 August 2011 - 09:22 AM
If IFP sticks to the category Deaver indicates then I'd think people like Michael Connelly, Dennis Lehane, Peter Robinson, Simon Beckett, Cody McFadyen, Greg Rucka are perhaps up in the future. Established genre writers with a fanbase and an international standing. And a significant backlist that suggests both sides would profit from the deal.
If we're talking about Deaverish writers, my choice would be Linwood Barclay. I've just read NO TIME FOR GOODBYE and am making my way through FEAR THE WORST. The guy ain't bad at all. His missing person thrillers (he seems to work exclusively in this genre) are real grabbers and keep one turning the pages, which are sprinkled with dry wit, nifty observations and memorable yet nicely understated detail. Reading his work, he strikes me as the kind of author I'd felt led to believe Deaver was, but this time the real deal.
He isn't very Flemingian, of course, but then neither was Deaver.
Haven't even heard about Barclay until now. I may give him a go one of these days, but my shelves are truly curving under all the have-yet-to-be-read books, and I'd like to revisit a few favourites too. But this sounds intriguing and I've put him on my wishlist.
#86
Posted 21 August 2011 - 02:19 PM
Because, after reading all the fan reactions, CARTE BLANCHE seems kinda lame. I suppose I'll read it eventually, but y'know, with so much to read and so little time, one has to make priorities.
Why the wait, Harmsway? (Not that I'm suggesting you hurry, having read it myself.)
#87
Posted 21 August 2011 - 06:21 PM
Because, after reading all the fan reactions, CARTE BLANCHE seems kinda lame. I suppose I'll read it eventually, but y'know, with so much to read and so little time, one has to make priorities.
Why the wait, Harmsway? (Not that I'm suggesting you hurry, having read it myself.)
That's been my issue with CB to this point as well. I had been excited for the novel, but after reading the fan reactions to it and then starting to read the novel itself, my enthusiasm for it virtually disappeared. There's nothing about the first few chapters that really grabs the reader's attention and with the rather negative reactions around here, I don't feel extraordinarily compelled to push forward. But, it's still sitting out on the table, hopefully to be read here at some point in the near future.
#88
Posted 21 August 2011 - 09:57 PM
Haven't even heard about Barclay until now. I may give him a go one of these days, but my shelves are truly curving under all the have-yet-to-be-read books, and I'd like to revisit a few favourites too. But this sounds intriguing and I've put him on my wishlist.
He won't change your life. He isn't a genius. He hasn't reinvented the wheel. But he does do what he says on the tin (so to speak). He writes riveting thrillers with a quite a bit of wit and flair that are more than entertaining enough for their flaws to be forgiven. He isn't going to knock you on your , but, still, he's good at what he does and is worth a punt.
He's precisely the writer I expected Deaver to be, and if CARTE BLANCHE had been written to the same standard of quality as one of Barclay's offerings I'd be singing its praises.
#89
Posted 24 August 2011 - 04:08 AM
Haven't even heard about Barclay until now. I may give him a go one of these days, but my shelves are truly curving under all the have-yet-to-be-read books, and I'd like to revisit a few favourites too. But this sounds intriguing and I've put him on my wishlist.
He won't change your life. He isn't a genius. He hasn't reinvented the wheel. But he does do what he says on the tin (so to speak). He writes riveting thrillers with a quite a bit of wit and flair that are more than entertaining enough for their flaws to be forgiven. He isn't going to knock you on your , but, still, he's good at what he does and is worth a punt.
He's precisely the writer I expected Deaver to be, and if CARTE BLANCHE had been written to the same standard of quality as one of Barclay's offerings I'd be singing its praises.
So do you think we will ever see another "period" Bond novel? It's kin of sad to think DMC may have been the last one.
#90
Posted 24 August 2011 - 04:44 AM
Haven't even heard about Barclay until now. I may give him a go one of these days, but my shelves are truly curving under all the have-yet-to-be-read books, and I'd like to revisit a few favourites too. But this sounds intriguing and I've put him on my wishlist.
He won't change your life. He isn't a genius. He hasn't reinvented the wheel. But he does do what he says on the tin (so to speak). He writes riveting thrillers with a quite a bit of wit and flair that are more than entertaining enough for their flaws to be forgiven. He isn't going to knock you on your , but, still, he's good at what he does and is worth a punt.
He's precisely the writer I expected Deaver to be, and if CARTE BLANCHE had been written to the same standard of quality as one of Barclay's offerings I'd be singing its praises.
So do you think we will ever see another "period" Bond novel? It's kin of sad to think DMC may have been the last one.
Oh, but nothing would ever keep them from going back that route. Nothing but sales, that is. If it looks as if a period fifties or sixties novel can't cope on the market - or part of the market - then we probably won't see IFP trying again. Personally I find this an awful view and Americans are surely able to digest literature with an historic background. But these things are ever more streamlined and tuned to the least common denominator, so if market research tells us contemporary is the way to go that's what we'll get.