32 replies to this topic

[Righty007]

Which continuation author had the best debut?

[Dustin]

Fleming without a doubt. Casino Royale is intriguingly 'honest' and despite its plot rings true and even relevant beyond the topical themes. There's a lot of midlife-crisis involved as well as revisiting childhood dreams and fears. It's almost a confession at times and had tremendous impact on its writer as well as on the reader.

After that I think it's a two-sided affair. The aim is to nail Bond while also make the work one's own, an increasingly difficult and perhaps impossible task.

Amis in my opinion succeeded in getting his Bond right for the most part but had a hard time with the thriller setting and his book suffers from a sagging in the middle.

Gardner brought many interesting new aspects to the table while his Bond feels most authentic over long streches. LR is perhaps the most promising work in the canon.

Benson's debut marked a back-to-basics approach after Gardner but the result was not yet working. ZMT is a first effort and it shows in the parts where Benson follows in Fleming's footsteps. Benson got better at this with time and TMWTRT is his best work in my opinion.

Higson's first YB had some fine Fleming moments without aping him. In all fairness it must be said that his Bond could not be 'right' because the very concept of YB. Still I'd rate his effort contender for first place.

Deaver now has delivered a genre mix that definitely shows potential but suffers under the weight of wanting to introduce too much in one go. It's the most distinctive entry on the 'make-it-my-own-work' scale but lacks trimming. Bond seems to be there but it's impossible to judge what the next book will be like.

Overall my personal favourite of the continuations is still CS with LR a close contender.

EDIT: I just see I've forgotten DMC. Well.

Edited by Dustin, 23 June 2011 - 06:09 AM.

[jrcjohnny99]

Which author had the best debut?

My guess is Fleming will win this by a landslide; may be more interesting if you remove him from the options?

J

[Jump James]

Ian Fleming of course but I dont think he should be in there hence my not voting for him. Fleming is the master.

Take him out and it's an intresting question. I will opt for Amis, but Gardner did a top job with LR.

[David Schofield]

Fleming wins by a landslide, therefore making this a totally futile excercise!

Further, where on earth are Wood and Pearson who piss all over the other "continuation" novelists with perhaps the honourable exception of Amis? Or Weinberg for that matter (not in the pissing on anything class, but should be there for completeness)?

[sharpshooter]

^ Forget those, where's 003½: The Adventures of James Bond Junior?

That would've given Fleming a serious scare.

[Dustin]

Further, where on earth are Wood and Pearson who piss all over the other "continuation" novelists with perhaps the honourable exception of Amis? Or Weinberg for that matter (not in the pissing on anything class, but should be there for completeness)?

Well, Wood and Pearson as well as Weinberg each opened their own subgenre with their entries. That doesn't exclude them from comparison. But I think it would only be appropriate to also grant them a different set of categories to judge them against.

Wood started out from a patchwork script by more than a dozen authors supposedly, and his task was chiefly to translate the over-the-top film into a decent book. I suspect it actually may have been that hotchpotch-comicstrip nature that made him put the emphasis on the literary/Fleming side of his book. It's one of the best Bond books but I'd argue it isn't a continuation as such, more the translation of the film into the language of Fleming.

Pearson created the alternative-reality/Bond-as-real-person subgenre that Fleming hinted at with YOLT. Here the concept is that Bond is not the Bond Fleming wrote, but the real person behind the events and consequently his Bond works best where he differs from Fleming. It's a different approach and highly enjoyable but it's also in a slightly different league that makes comparison - beyond the simple criterion of readability and enjoyment - quite difficult.

Weinberg's book finally works in the same department of alternative-reality (but probably not the same one as Pearson's) with the added TSWLM-trait of seeing Bond through the eyes of a female protagonist. As such it's removed two levels from the original and I feel it has to be regarded entirely different from the previous works. Weinberg's main achievement and merit for the series is that her books are probably the only part of the franchise that would work fine even without Bond, who is a character on the fringe of the tale. But give him another name, eliminate all traces of Fleming from the Moneypenny series and you still have a decent espionage mystery, if perhaps not an outstanding one.

Edited by Dustin, 23 June 2011 - 09:44 AM.

[MkB]

In all fairness, I think it should be Sam Weinberg.
Casino Royale is more legitimate than any other because it was the first ever Bond novel, but to me it's not by far the best (among Fleming's).

[David Schofield]

Further, where on earth are Wood and Pearson who piss all over the other "continuation" novelists with perhaps the honourable exception of Amis? Or Weinberg for that matter (not in the pissing on anything class, but should be there for completeness)?

Well, Wood and Pearson as well as Weinberg each opened their own subgenre with their entries. That doesn't exclude them from comparison. But I think it would only be appropriate to also grant them a different set of categories to judge them against.

Wood started out from a patchwork script by more than a dozen authors supposedly, and his task was chiefly to translate the over-the-top film into a decent book. I suspect it actually may have been that hotchpotch-comicstrip nature that made him put the emphasis on the literary/Fleming side of his book. It's one of the best Bond books but I'd argue it isn't a continuation as such, more the translation of the film into the language of Fleming.

Pearson created the alternative-reality/Bond-as-real-person subgenre that Fleming hinted at with YOLT. Here the concept is that Bond is not the Bond Fleming wrote, but the real person behind the events and consequently his Bond works best where he differs from Fleming. It's a different approach and highly enjoyable but it's also in a slightly different league that makes comparison - beyond the simple criterion of readability and enjoyment - quite difficult.

Weinberg's book finally works in the same department of alternative-reality (but probably not the same one as Pearson's) with the added TSWLM-trait of seeing Bond through the eyes of a female protagonist. As such it's removed two levels from the original and I feel it has to be regarded entirely different from the previous works. Weinberg's main achievement and merit for the series is that her books are probably the only part of the franchise that would work fine even without Bond, who is a character on the fringe of the tale. But give him another name, eliminate all traces of Fleming from the Moneypenny series and you still have a decent espionage mystery, if perhaps not an outstanding one.

Fair comments, as usual.

But the question posed was which literary Bond debut was the best. I'd respectfully suggest that from whatever raw materials Wood shaped his TSWLM it is a genuine James Bond novel; didn't Benson harvest much of ZMT from a computer/role playing game(?) - does that mean that book needs a seperate category. Wood fulfills all the criterea, IMO, that the other novelsists have to convince he is writing about James Bond - the man who vanquished Le Chiffre et al - and not flogging a film script with extra paragraphs exposition in it simply for padding. And teh quality of his prose and understanding of Fleming's James Bond demand he take his place in competition, surely?

Sure, Pearson and Weinberg are not writing about James Bond because they claim to be writing about a "real" James Bond (who, in Weinberg's case may, or may not, be actually called James Bond) but does this preclude their efforts being compared with any of the other mentioned above? Hell, Higsobn is writing about James-Bond-as-Superboy, Deaver Bond-as-2011-New-Man (and NOT the man who vanquished Lde Chiffre, or anyone else for that matter) which are plainly as ludicrous as the Pearson and Weinberg conceits but both get happily included.

But I guess the whole question is simply what is the best of the literary Bonds and I feel none of the three should be excluded from such competition when clearly in the case of Wood and Pearson they are head and shoulders above the rest.

[Loomis]

Other than Fleming (Fleming goes without saying, really, I'd rank the debuts as follows):

1. COLONEL SUN (ahead of the rest of the pack by miles)

2. ZERO MINUS TEN (sure, it's hardly a great literary achievement, but this is a surprisingly energetic affair, with the Fleming elements handled well and not overdone - it also has some terrific travelogue and some genuinely poignant undertones regarding the Hong Kong Handover)

Moving into the realm of "best of a bad bunch":

3. SILVERFIN

4. CARTE BLANCHE

5. LICENCE RENEWED

6. DEVIL MAY CARE

[dlb007]

I'd say that as a whole I'd rate Colonel Sun as the best debut. While Casino Royale is a great novel in its own right, it's far from Fleming's best work. Had he started with Live and Let Die I'd have a different opinion. Next, I'd have to go with Christopher Wood's novelization of The Spy Who Loved Me. It's a pity he never had a chance at the continuation novels. Speaking of which, License Renewed is the next best debut. Gardner was a fine writer; I for one feel he'd be better appreciated had he not written so many novels, say 5-6. Carte Blanche is next for me. While far from the best Bond novel, it is a solid debut. I was expecting a Deaver novel with James Bond thrown in and that's exactly what I got. Devil May Care is next up. Faulks is an absolutely brilliant writer . . . but not of thrillers, and it shows. This seemed to be a project solely about money and getting his name out their among those that hadn't read his other works. While a lame effort for the most part, it is leagues ahead of Zero Minus Ten. While Benson no doubt had the energy to do a new Bond series he was without the skill to pull it off. If you ignore the bad writing and focus solely on the plot is isn't so awful. I've never read the Weinberg or Higson series and have no desire to.

[David Schofield]

Gardner was a fine writer; I for one feel he'd be better appreciated had he not written so many novels, say 5-6.

Agreed totally. LR and FSS are fine novels, and while the Nazi stuff of ICEBREAKER ins unoriginal, Gardner just about maintains his enthusiasm until ROLE OF HONOUR, possibly NO, DEALS, MR BOND. After that, it's a case of diminishing returns.

Sadly, Gardner's prolificity works against him. The feeling endures that he was merely fulfilling a contract for which he was unenthused and merely collecting a nice pay cheque.

Had he gone sooner, he would have been undeiniably better regarded

[Dustin]

I'll elaborate on this topic a little later, especially why I think there are apples and oranges here, both sporting a Bond sticker.

[zencat]

I think some of you need to re-read Colonel Sun (as I recently did). It's really not all that great.

Not counting Fleming, of course, I'd say Gardner had the best debute.

[tdalton]

EDIT- Nevermind. I see that Fleming has been removed from the voting choices. I would have, obviously, chosen Fleming for the poll as Casino Royale is my favorite Bond novel of them all, therefore making it the best debut as well.

Of the continuation authors, I guess it would have to go to Gardner by default, but none of them have been particularly good (with the exception of Carte Blanche, which I have yet to read).

Edited by tdalton, 23 June 2011 - 04:25 PM.

[Jump James]

Edited due to complete lack of respect for the English Language and sense making.

As a side dish, how did the launch for LR and ZMT compare to DMC and CB launch?

Edited by Jump James, 23 June 2011 - 07:35 PM.

[Jim]

Interesting question but probably skewed by Casino Royale up there.

Without the Fleming, I'd go for Colonel Sun and the rest are much of a muchness really.

[ACE]

As a side dish, how did the launch for LR and ZMT compare to DMC and CB launch?

They didn't.

Actually, John Gardner got a lot of broadsheet press coverage in 1981 but there were no general media launch events involving pretty gir..., sorry, motorcycle stunt artistes, or Her Majesty's armed forces, no TV or interweb bloggoshere traffic. But relative to the clubbably small world of English publishing, the return of 007 in 1981 had hype of Avatar-esque proportions.

[Jump James]

Thank you ACE, I'd wondered about that for some time!

[Simon]

Bearing in mind the chap asked about best Continuation author, I am lost as to why Fleming is even being spoken about.

[David Schofield]

Bearing in mind the chap asked about best Continuation author, I am lost as to why Fleming is even being spoken about.

Because until Righty007 changed it, his thread was not restricted to continunation authors and included Fleming's devut with CASINO ROYALE.

The effect of this is that, as you've noticed, some posts seem a little silly, but were not given the correct context at the time they were written. This is the problem of post-post editing....

[Jim]

I'm beginning to change my mind, at least in respect of those who continued beyond 1 book - albeit this is with the benefit of hindsight.

I'd say Zero Minus Ten was the best debut. Higson and Gardner both produced better work than their debuts.

[Dustin]

Further, where on earth are Wood and Pearson who piss all over the other "continuation" novelists with perhaps the honourable exception of Amis? Or Weinberg for that matter (not in the pissing on anything class, but should be there for completeness)?

Well, Wood and Pearson as well as Weinberg each opened their own subgenre with their entries. That doesn't exclude them from comparison. But I think it would only be appropriate to also grant them a different set of categories to judge them against.

Wood started out from a patchwork script by more than a dozen authors supposedly, and his task was chiefly to translate the over-the-top film into a decent book. I suspect it actually may have been that hotchpotch-comicstrip nature that made him put the emphasis on the literary/Fleming side of his book. It's one of the best Bond books but I'd argue it isn't a continuation as such, more the translation of the film into the language of Fleming.

Pearson created the alternative-reality/Bond-as-real-person subgenre that Fleming hinted at with YOLT. Here the concept is that Bond is not the Bond Fleming wrote, but the real person behind the events and consequently his Bond works best where he differs from Fleming. It's a different approach and highly enjoyable but it's also in a slightly different league that makes comparison - beyond the simple criterion of readability and enjoyment - quite difficult.

Weinberg's book finally works in the same department of alternative-reality (but probably not the same one as Pearson's) with the added TSWLM-trait of seeing Bond through the eyes of a female protagonist. As such it's removed two levels from the original and I feel it has to be regarded entirely different from the previous works. Weinberg's main achievement and merit for the series is that her books are probably the only part of the franchise that would work fine even without Bond, who is a character on the fringe of the tale. But give him another name, eliminate all traces of Fleming from the Moneypenny series and you still have a decent espionage mystery, if perhaps not an outstanding one.

Fair comments, as usual.

But the question posed was which literary Bond debut was the best. I'd respectfully suggest that from whatever raw materials Wood shaped his TSWLM it is a genuine James Bond novel; didn't Benson harvest much of ZMT from a computer/role playing game(?) - does that mean that book needs a seperate category. Wood fulfills all the criterea, IMO, that the other novelsists have to convince he is writing about James Bond - the man who vanquished Le Chiffre et al - and not flogging a film script with extra paragraphs exposition in it simply for padding. And teh quality of his prose and understanding of Fleming's James Bond demand he take his place in competition, surely?

Sure, Pearson and Weinberg are not writing about James Bond because they claim to be writing about a "real" James Bond (who, in Weinberg's case may, or may not, be actually called James Bond) but does this preclude their efforts being compared with any of the other mentioned above? Hell, Higsobn is writing about James-Bond-as-Superboy, Deaver Bond-as-2011-New-Man (and NOT the man who vanquished Lde Chiffre, or anyone else for that matter) which are plainly as ludicrous as the Pearson and Weinberg conceits but both get happily included.

But I guess the whole question is simply what is the best of the literary Bonds and I feel none of the three should be excluded from such competition when clearly in the case of Wood and Pearson they are head and shoulders above the rest.

No, they should not be excluded. But I think we have to touch upon the topics of intention, originality and even the market and target audience these works were conceived under/for.

Both of Wood's works are based on a number of film scripts which themselves consisted of numerous ideas sampled over a period of years for different Bond films. These scripts saw several redrafts and in TSWLM's case so many different approaches that it's hard to imagine what the work on the final version and the novelisation must have been like. One thing IMO seems sure though: had Wood been given the task to write a 'proper' continuation the result would have been vastly different and may not have included any of the more fantastic elements the respective films became famous for. That may initially sound like a good thing but I suspect this fantastic amd bizzare quality is what gives James Bond - The Spy Who Loved Me and James Bond And Moonraker a crucial balance. Wood had the fitting voice for these novelisations but their essence is much more a visual source none of the other works had the advantage to profit from in this form. Imagine Wood working on novelisations of FYEO, OP and AVTAK. He could have made each of them read like original Fleming works. But written in a different subgenre and with different purpose. Once more, that doesn't exclude him from the competition. It's just a different base he was starting from.

The same holds true for Pearson. His concept of the 'real James Bond' is ingenius and thought-provoking and would have called for a follow-up. But it must be noted that it naturally also gave him a kind of freedom none of the other writers - with a possible exception of Weinberg - had when they delivered their works. We see Bond talking freely about his tendency to obesity, showing his yellowed teeth while doing so. Would we have swallowed the same from Gardner or Benson? From Amis even? No, I strongly doubt we would have. Yet Pearson can get away with it, simply because he chose to push the limits right from the start. His effort is not easily compareable because no other continuation ever had that boldness and didn't care for the consequences. And by far not everybody is happy with that. I still think Pearson's book belongs into its own league and defies comparison beyond the mere enjoyment of it.

With Weinberg it's even a question as to who is the target audience. She adopts the real-life-Bond scenario but she also sets out to especially attract a female readership on top of it. None of the other continuations has done so. It's debatable if this approach was wisely chosen or successful. Nonetheless it's a unique concept that in this form wasn't brought to the series before. It's a niche product that probably has to be judged within its own specific merits.

[Matt_13]

Carte Blanche for me.

[ACE]

The same holds true for Pearson. His concept of the 'real James Bond' is ingenius and thought-provoking and would have called for a follow-up. But it must be noted that it naturally also gave him a kind of freedom none of the other writers - with a possible exception of Weinberg - had when they delivered their works. We see Bond talking freely about his tendency to obesity, showing his yellowed teeth while doing so. Would we have swallowed the same from Gardner or Benson? From Amis even? No, I strongly doubt we would have. Yet Pearson can get away with it, simply because he chose to push the limits right from the start. His effort is not easily compareable because no other continuation ever had that boldness and didn't care for the consequences. And by far not everybody is happy with that. I still think Pearson's book belongs into its own league and defies comparison beyond the mere enjoyment of it.

With Weinberg it's even a question as to who is the target audience. She adopts the real-life-Bond scenario but she also sets out to especially attract a female readership on top of it. None of the other continuations has done so. It's debatable if this approach was wisely chosen or successful. Nonetheless it's a unique concept that in this form wasn't brought to the series before. It's a niche product that probably has to be judged within its own specific merits.

Nice points, Dustin. Well made by you, as usual.
I always considered the Pearson book to be a continuation novel.

[Dustin]

It is. A (fictitious) continuation of Pearson's Fleming bio.

[Simon]

Bearing in mind the chap asked about best Continuation author, I am lost as to why Fleming is even being spoken about.

Because until Righty007 changed it, his thread was not restricted to continunation authors and included Fleming's debut with CASINO ROYALE.

The effect of this is that, as you've noticed, some posts seem a little silly, but were not given the correct context at the time they were written. This is the problem of post-post editing....

Ah, I see. Did wonder why my 'cleverness' had not been preceded by others before me.

I'm beginning to change my mind, at least in respect of those who continued beyond 1 book - albeit this is with the benefit of hindsight.

I'd say Zero Minus Ten was the best debut. Higson and Gardner both produced better work than their debuts.

And now I am confused.

Was the intial question, albeit later edited into its current format, not asking to compare the one author's initial continuation novels with another author's continuations novel? And not a direct comparison of 1st novel with the same authors' later novels?

Not that I am actually voting - yet? Just interested in the mechanics of the question and how it is being understood.

Further point - does an author need to have written more than just the one novel, thereby affording Jim's point some credence? If not, CS, DMC and CB all get removed from the voting system.

[ACE]

It is. A (fictitious) continuation of Pearson's Fleming bio.

See, I read it as a fictitious continuation of the the James Bond novels written by Ian Fleming. It takes the conceit that Bond was real which is set up in the obituary in You Only Live Twice. It expands and explains fictional events seeded throughout the Bond novels, not the actual Fleming biography. It was intended as a continuation to the novels. Ah well, horses for courses.

[Dustin]

It is. A (fictitious) continuation of Pearson's Fleming bio.

See, I read it as a fictitious continuation of the the James Bond novels written by Ian Fleming. It takes the conceit that Bond was real which is set up in the obituary in You Only Live Twice. It expands and explains fictional events seeded throughout the Bond novels, not the actual Fleming biography. It was intended as a continuation to the novels. Ah well, horses for courses.

Oh, it concerns itself of course with Bond. But the premise is that Bond is a real person Fleming used for his "high-flown and romanticized caricatures". As such it's not so much a continuation but an epilogue to Pearson's Fleming biography that could have had the chapter title "Truth about Bond - the 007 that never was". Much of it isn't even continuation but filling of gaps and Bond's version of the truth.

[ACE]

It is. A (fictitious) continuation of Pearson's Fleming bio.

See, I read it as a fictitious continuation of the the James Bond novels written by Ian Fleming. It takes the conceit that Bond was real which is set up in the obituary in You Only Live Twice. It expands and explains fictional events seeded throughout the Bond novels, not the actual Fleming biography. It was intended as a continuation to the novels. Ah well, horses for courses.

Oh, it concerns itself of course with Bond. But the premise is that Bond is a real person Fleming used for his "high-flown and romanticized caricatures". As such it's not so much a continuation but an epilogue to Pearson's Fleming biography that could have had the chapter title "Truth about Bond - the 007 that never was". Much of it isn't even continuation but filling of gaps and Bond's version of the truth.

That's an interpretation, of course. But the author intended it to be a companion piece to the Bond novels and this is how most readers see it. It does actually continue the series (and name checks Colonel Sun) and ends by Bond going off on a mission to Australia to track down Irma Bunt. I consider it to be a continuation Bond novel, personally. Rather like the Moneypenny Diaries are not meant to be seen as a continuation to real-life biography, but a clever conceit to be read alongside the Fleming novels. But, as I said, horses for courses. I like the book very much.