29 replies to this topic

[Secret Treaties]

Like Sherlock Holmes and other famous genre characters, James Bond lives in a literary ghetto. Critics and fans, casual or otherwise,
celebrate the creation's iconic status, but smirk through the festivities. We see Bond novels as fun, escapist entertainment. So they are. The idea that they could do more, i.e. overturn established conventions of the series and tell exciting stories also serving as serious vehicles for exploring important themes, causes many to laugh. They are functional literature; not the literature of ideas or self-discovery, but the literature of airports, lunch breaks, and curling up in bed. It's popcorn, not steak.

Raymond Chandler knew about working in a literary ghetto. However, the classically educated Chandler didn't embrace the idea that genre fiction, by definition, must always be much more narrow in scope, trivial, and poorly written in comparison to its more ambitious counterparts. However, one book at a time beginning with The Big Sleep, Chandler drug the detective novel out of that self-imposed cultural ghetto and forced the leading critical voices of his generation to, grudgingly at least, acknowledge that a talented writer could transcend the genre. His crowning achievement, The Long Goodbye, was practically Jamesian. The story of loneliness, greed, despair, friendship, and failure in a fallen world still stands today as a glittering achievement unequaled, to that point, in the history of "popular" genre fiction.

I think that Raymond Chandler recognized something in Fleming when they met. I'd like to think that he noticed the same qualities in Fleming's work that I do. The enormous capacity for observation that consumed every detail. The fierce intelligence presiding over his unique point of view. The sly, winking sense of humor that emerged from the books and the dark voice that could cut like a blade through the action, the humor, and cataloging of details to chill the reader's mind. Fleming's prose was full of problems, but glimmers of deeper, richer talents were bubbling beneath the text. Chandler encouraged Fleming to widen his scope, to explore new territory with Bond, and Fleming obliged with From Russia, With Love, an iconic Bond novel, but unlike anything he had written before. The scope was much wider and the characters are drawn with greater care than ever before. Writing novels like The Spy Who Loved Me and You Only Live Twice further illuminate Fleming's desire to stretch and break new ground.

I think the Bond novels should aspire to more than the Jeffery Deavers of the world. Fleming's original conception of the character, not EON or IFP's conception, has untapped depths that Fleming's successors have only paid lip service to. Bond is Everyman with a dash of the exceptional, not some granite superhero preserving the world for the forces of good. Without that Everyman quality present in the Fleming novels, Bond is another Nick Carter or Mack Bolan, teenage boy wish fulfillment, a fictional fantasy without depth or resonance. Bond's shattering moments of humanity are what separates him from his imitators. It's time to take Bond out of the hands of talented hacks like Jeffery Deaver. It's time to return the character to its first principles and then rebuild from there. Put him in the hands of ambitious writers who can deliver high octane tales of suspense and adventure, draw fully-formed, flesh and blood characters rather than ciphers serving as plot devices, and explore interesting themes in an intelligent, complex way.

If you've stuck with this post this far, thanks for reading and I hope it hasn't bored you too much. These are thoughts I have had about the series for many years and I wanted to share them with the forum, for better or worse.

[Major Tallon]

Shared for better, Secret Treaties. Thank you.

[Dustin]

Interesting points, Secret Treaties. I'm afraid Bond as a literary asset is now firmly in the hands of the moneymen of publishing. There is a certain set of expectations to be met, conventions and traditions to honour, and in the end it all boils down to the fact that experiments like FRWL, TSWLM and YOLT are just no longer possible any more. Gardner's TMFB and Benson's TMWTRT may have aimed in that direction, but in the end did not deliver.

Kingsley Amis once suggested a story about a sixty-ish Bond skiing in the Swiss Alps. He is approached by a young American woman whose father (a US-senator if memory serves) was kidnapped by KGB Colonel Moriarvsky. She promises to do 'everything Bond wants' if he agrees to help her. He answers that it's a bit late for 'everything' but agrees to help her anyway. The end sees Bond and Moriarvsky fall into a cataract. Supposedly the people at (then) Glidrose went pale when they heard the idea and forbade Amis to ever write such a thing. That's how adventurous the spirit at Glidrose after COLONEL SUN was.

Today it's hard to imagine IFP publishing anything that's not streamlined exactly to the market, and the market demands a high amount of predictability and playing it safe. It's a highly professional business and at the end of the day only sales figures count for anything there. The most daring decision in recent years was Faulks and we've seen what came of that.

One author I would have expected to deliver just what you call "suspense and adventure, draw fully-formed, flesh and blood characters rather than ciphers serving as plot devices, and explore interesting themes in an intelligent, complex way." sadly has passed away with Peter O'Donnell. It remains to be seen if we'll ever get a similarly engaging writer and if he/she will live up to the task.

Edited by Dustin, 28 November 2011 - 06:28 PM.

[Secret Treaties]

I'm no idealist. I know that the character is a commodity and there's a specific formula for presenting him to the public. While it might be good art to take Bond in a different direction, it wouldn't be good business. As you stated, predictability and playing it safe is the order of the day.

[clinkeroo]

It's just not what IFP wants.

To paraphrase our old friend, Jeremy Dunn, any established writer (the only kind IFP has gambled on, of late) who has the capacity to transcend the genre, creates his own characters where he has unbridled creative license, and doesn't have to stick to IFP's guidelines. Not to mention, you don't have to share the booty with the greedy hands of Glidrose. Love of a character only goes so far for a writer who has to put food on his table.

Labors of love are a novice's gamble, and IFP will not gamble on a novice.

BTW: Many of us have said what you have said in your opening post, but few of us have said it as well, myself included.

[glidrose]

Kingsley Amis once suggested a story about a sixty-ish Bond skiing in the Swiss Alps. He is approached by a young American woman whose father (a US-senator if memory serves) was kidnapped by KGB Colonel Moriarvsky. She promises to do 'everything Bond wants' if he agrees to help her. He answers that it's a bit late for 'everything' but agrees to help her anyway. The end sees Bond and Moriarvsky fall into a cataract. Supposedly the people at (then) Glidrose went pale when they heard the idea and forbade Amis to ever write such a thing. That's how adventurous the spirit at Glidrose after COLONEL SUN was.

Not sure I entirely agree with you there. Pearson's Bond biography seemed - and still seems - to me far off the beaten track. But that project was forced on Glidrose and not a project they originated themselves, so you may not be too far wrong.

[Dustin]

Kingsley Amis once suggested a story about a sixty-ish Bond skiing in the Swiss Alps. He is approached by a young American woman whose father (a US-senator if memory serves) was kidnapped by KGB Colonel Moriarvsky. She promises to do 'everything Bond wants' if he agrees to help her. He answers that it's a bit late for 'everything' but agrees to help her anyway. The end sees Bond and Moriarvsky fall into a cataract. Supposedly the people at (then) Glidrose went pale when they heard the idea and forbade Amis to ever write such a thing. That's how adventurous the spirit at Glidrose after COLONEL SUN was.

Not sure I entirely agree with you there. Pearson's Bond biography seemed - and still seems - to me far off the beaten track. But that project was forced on Glidrose and not a project they originated themselves, so you may not be too far wrong.

Yes, the 'biography' was a bold move, really doesn't fit the usual pattern. But I must confess that I already was a Bond fan for decades before I even heard about the Pearson book (I think I must already have read most Gardners back then). Even then I considered it to be a spoof - which partially it is, one might argue - and didn't set out to chase a copy for years after. Glidrose didn't handle Pearson's like they treated their own, it always had a black sheep air about it, as if they were ashamed of the effort and the result.

Edited by Dustin, 29 November 2011 - 10:54 AM.

[David Schofield]

I do wonder, though, whether the biography was that out of step when it was published.

Consider, Glidrose hadn't much motivation for lit Bond at the time: CS was not as successful as they'd hoped, PER FINE OUNCE pulped pior to publication, Pearson's book completed without their involvement. Indeed, cinema Bond was now no longer Sean Connery as an understandable interpretation of Ian Fleming's orginal but a comedic super playboy, in 1973 embodied by a TV actor who may, or may not, have been past it.

Further, the early 70s was a time before reboots and retcons; allowing for Glidrose's lack of enthusiasm for lit Bond, would a straight early 70s sequel about a 50+ Bond have been viable, or would a 70s set Bond novel with a 38 year old Bond likely to ever have been muted? I doubt Glidrose would have even considered a 1950s set Bond adventure.

So what else to do in th world of Bond and publishing in the 1970s than Pearson's book, with its concept and tone and Fleming liberties?

The excellent Wood books apart (even more black sheep that Pearson's book, surely?), Glidrose didn't release anothe lit Bond until 1981, a full 13 years after last 'straight' continuation, CS.

Pearson's Bond book then was most likely quite appropriate for its times.

[Dustin]

The seventies saw the entire Bond world a little past it, still going but not going as strongly as it used to. Perhaps there also was a feeling more of the same wouldn't hold itself on the market, America was pushing strongly with Mack Bolan and the likes, there was an undeclared war going on that cost thousands of US highschool kiddies their lives and the geopolitical situation called more for the Smileys and Palmers than for Bond. I daresay the spirits at Glidrose may have been a little drowsing. But I wouldn't say Pearson's book was more accepted than Wood's two were at the time. The tie-ins featured prominently in booksshops at the time while I can't for the life of me remember ever having seen Pearson's (although of course there was a Pan edition in the still-life style and a Grafton one from the mid-80s) prior to coverage on the net here and elsewhere. I also daresay Wood's two sold probably better than Pearson's simply because of the film angle and the fact that back then film tie-ins used to be strong trade.

Still, Pearson's must qualify for the most extraordinary entry until IFP contracted the Young Bonds. The approach was from a different angle that was yet in line with Fleming, a straight played spoof or whatever we want to call it. And while it does have a sometimes unfortunate episodic charater the whole book is still a remarkable entry simply for the splendid idea that's the basis. The execution is likewise impressive and it's a little baffling that Pearson wasn't kept on board. But as already stated, there was a time that apparently didn't necessarily call for further books and by the time Glidrose realised that Robert Ludlum had cornered their very own market from the US the seventies were nearly over.

Edited by Dustin, 29 November 2011 - 12:14 PM.

[glidrose]

Don't forget Mascott's 1967 003 ½ book. There's another bold move that didn't fit the usual pattern. So what if the book was Harry Saltzman's idea. He picked the writer. He told Glidrose to authorize it.

Yes, the 'biography' was a bold move, really doesn't fit the usual pattern. But I must confess that I already was a Bond fan for decades before I even heard about the Pearson book (I think I must already have read most Gardners back then). Even then I considered it to be a spoof - which partially it is, one might argue - and didn't set out to chase a copy for years after. Glidrose didn't handle Pearson's like they treated their own, it always had a black sheep air about it, as if they were ashamed of the effort and the result.

Not sure I agree with you there, either. Former Glidrose chairman Peter Janson-Smith thinks Pearson's book is excellent and calls it the most underrated Bond novel. I agree. Don't see how anybody could confuse the book for a spoof. Least of all anybody who has read it. It it devoid of spoof elements.

Methinks you're confusing publishers and copyright holder. It may seem like a “black sheep” book because Jonathan Cape didn't have the UK hardcover rights. Somebody else always had the paperback rights during the Panther/Grafton/Coronet years.

What more could Glidrose do? Publisher Edward Sedgwick initiated the idea, pursued Pearson, approached Glidrose. Glidrose sat back and took a royalty.

I do wonder, though, whether the biography was that out of step when it was published.

Consider, Glidrose hadn't much motivation for lit Bond at the time: CS was not as successful as they'd hoped, PER FINE OUNCE pulped prior to publication, Pearson's book completed without their involvement. Indeed, cinema Bond was now no longer Sean Connery as an understandable interpretation of Ian Fleming's original but a comedic super playboy, in 1973 embodied by a TV actor who may, or may not, have been past it.

Further, the early 70s was a time before reboots and retcons; allowing for Glidrose's lack of enthusiasm for lit Bond, would a straight early 70s sequel about a 50+ Bond have been viable, or would a 70s set Bond novel with a 38 year old Bond likely to ever have been muted? I doubt Glidrose would have even considered a 1950s set Bond adventure.

So what else to do in the world of Bond and publishing in the 1970s than Pearson's book, with its concept and tone and Fleming liberties?

The excellent Wood books apart (even more black sheep that Pearson's book, surely?), Glidrose didn't release another lit Bond until 1981, a full 13 years after last 'straight' continuation, CS.

Pearson's Bond book then was most likely quite appropriate for its times.

The often outstanding David Schofield is onto something. Bond fans misunderstand Glidrose's inner workings. Glidrose was not a big corporate entity. The Board of Directors had outside interests. Bond was only one of the many corporate directorships many of their directors had. Not sure if they even had a full-time secretary in those dark days. I know for a fact Chairman Peter Janson-Smith had other literary sidelines. I think he still had his literary agency going. Bond was at best a part-time "job". Ditto the other directors. Many of the directors were legacies from Fleming's time. Mostly middle-aged men with jobs in publishing or other "respectable" businesses. Why bother commissioning another Bond book? The Bond film royalties generated sufficient income for them. Many fans don't appreciate how big a publishing flop CS was back in '68. Pearson's book was no bestseller. Do any of you really think that back in the early 70's we'd still be reading, talking, breathing Bond in 2012? The Glidrose directors didn't think so.

The seventies saw the entire Bond world a little past it, still going but not going as strongly as it used to. Perhaps there also was a feeling more of the same wouldn't hold itself on the market, America was pushing strongly with Mack Bolan and the likes, there was an undeclared war going on that cost thousands of US highschool kiddies their lives and the geopolitical situation called more for the Smileys and Palmers than for Bond. I daresay the spirits at Glidrose may have been a little drowsing. But I wouldn't say Pearson's book was more accepted than Wood's two were at the time. The tie-ins featured prominently in booksshops at the time while I can't for the life of me remember ever having seen Pearson's (although of course there was a Pan edition in the still-life style and a Grafton one from the mid-80s) prior to coverage on the net here and elsewhere. I also daresay Wood's two sold probably better than Pearson's simply because of the film angle and the fact that back then film tie-ins used to be strong trade.

Doublenoughtspy posted something here years ago along the line that Glidrose didn't think too highly of Wood's efforts. EON forced them to authorize the Wood books. Both Wood titles were big bestsellers in the UK. JBTSWLM was on the London Times bestseller list for months, probably longer. I remember following the Times list truly shocked how hungry the public was for print Bond. The US editions didn't hit bestseller lists but from what I heard came awfully close.

Still, Pearson's must qualify for the most extraordinary entry until IFP contracted the Young Bonds.

Nope. See my comment about Mascott and 003 ½.

The approach was from a different angle that was yet in line with Fleming, a straight played spoof or whatever we want to call it. And while it does have a sometimes unfortunate episodic character the whole book is still a remarkable entry simply for the splendid idea that's the basis. The execution is likewise impressive and it's a little baffling that Pearson wasn't kept on board.

The US publisher asked Pearson to write a sequel. Pearson declined. Read somewhere, possibly on Cbn that Pearson didn't rate the bio book at all.

But as already stated, there was a time that apparently didn't necessarily call for further books and by the time Glidrose realised that Robert Ludlum had cornered their very own market from the US the seventies were nearly over.

Don't see how Ludlum cornered their Bond market, but if what you say is true, Ludlum didn't corner their market until the 1980's.

[David Schofield]

Clearly, Glidrose/IFP are lit Bond's worst enemy.

1. After CS, they did not encourage Kingsley Amis' proposed Mexico-set sequel.

2. They pulped PER FINE OUNCE

3. Pearson's book was nothing to do with them. Pearson was never approached to produce anymore Bond work.

4. Wood's books were forced on them and like Pearson, I doubt Glidrose actively marketed them. Can't see Wood being a continuation contender in '81 despite the evidence in the quality of his two books and their sales...

5. Gardner - okay, kudos here. Though perhaps JG's waning enthusiam might have been closely monitored and a replacement sought by mutual agreement? But not

6. Raymond Benson - low rent and without any literary skill. Published fan-fiction.

7. Young Bond - kudos again, but not the best of ideas and success more due to Higson's enthusiasm and writing skill?

8. The Moneypenny Diaries - why and who for? A brainless concept, appallingly marketed.

9. Faulks - could no one at IFP tell his heart wasn't in it and that he regarded the whole affair as slumming it? Made a -load though, if that's all that matters?

10. Deaver - did he really understand Fleming as he claims? Were IFP bothered what he did with the character? Did Deaver's name really crack the US sales market?

To quote 006, situation hopeless.

Lit fans need not expect much quality in the near future with IFP involved, I'm afreid.

[Secret Treaties]

Clearly, Glidrose/IFP are lit Bond's worst enemy.

1. After CS, they did not encourage Kingsley Amis' proposed Mexico-set sequel.

2. They pulped PER FINE OUNCE

3. Pearson's book was nothing to do with them. Pearson was never approached to produce anymore Bond work.

4. Wood's books were forced on them and like Pearson, I doubt Glidrose actively marketed them. Can't see Wood being a continuation contender in '81 despite the evidence in the quality of his two books and their sales...

5. Gardner - okay, kudos here. Though perhaps JG's waning enthusiam might have been closely monitored and a replacement sought by mutual agreement? But not

6. Raymond Benson - low rent and without any literary skill. Published fan-fiction.

7. Young Bond - kudos again, but not the best of ideas and success more due to Higson's enthusiasm and writing skill?

8. The Moneypenny Diaries - why and who for? A brainless concept, appallingly marketed.

9. Faulks - could no one at IFP tell his heart wasn't in it and that he regarded the whole affair as slumming it? Made a -load though, if that's all that matters?

10. Deaver - did he really understand Fleming as he claims? Were IFP bothered what he did with the character? Did Deaver's name really crack the US sales market?

4) Like many companies, if it wasn't their idea, they don't want to bring it out under their "banner", no matter what the quality is.

5) Remove half of the meddling that he endured and I'll bet his attitude would have improved. Again, Gildrose/IFP being lit Bond's worst enemy.

6) While I am not a big fan of Benson, I think it is far too harsh to claim the books are without merit. If nothing else, Benson has a strong sense of structure and is an imaginative plotter.

8) Agreed. I suppose it is some attempt to market the lit Bond universe to young women, but... eh.

10) Not at all and not at all. I imagine that IFP greeted his "reboot" with open arms. Spare me. Deaver is huge in the US, so I'll wager that his Bond garnered more American attention for the literary franchise than any time since the Gardner era.

[Dustin]

Don't forget Mascott's 1967 003 ½ book. There's another bold move that didn't fit the usual pattern. So what if the book was Harry Saltzman's idea. He picked the writer. He told Glidrose to authorize it.

Yes, the 'biography' was a bold move, really doesn't fit the usual pattern. But I must confess that I already was a Bond fan for decades before I even heard about the Pearson book (I think I must already have read most Gardners back then). Even then I considered it to be a spoof - which partially it is, one might argue - and didn't set out to chase a copy for years after. Glidrose didn't handle Pearson's like they treated their own, it always had a black sheep air about it, as if they were ashamed of the effort and the result.

Not sure I agree with you there, either. Former Glidrose chairman Peter Janson-Smith thinks Pearson's book is excellent and calls it the most underrated Bond novel. I agree. Don't see how anybody could confuse the book for a spoof. Least of all anybody who has read it. It it devoid of spoof elements.

Well, it's a step removed from the Fleming books in that it features the 'real' James Bond, making the Flemings 'highly romanticized' versions of what really happened (as Fleming wrote himself in YOLT). I've written about that aspect somewhere else here; to me this premise gives the AUTHORISED BIOGRAPHY its own universe and continuity. Spoof is perhaps not the best choice of phrase in this regard, reinterpretation would be more apt.

Methinks you're confusing publishers and copyright holder. It may seem like a “black sheep” book because Jonathan Cape didn't have the UK hardcover rights. Somebody else always had the paperback rights during the Panther/Grafton/Coronet years.

What more could Glidrose do? Publisher Edward Sedgwick initiated the idea, pursued Pearson, approached Glidrose. Glidrose sat back and took a royalty.

Well, it was just my personal impression, nothing to back it save my own ignorance about the book and that I can't remember ever seeing it at the time. To me it feels as if the book only popped up after the turn of the century.

I do wonder, though, whether the biography was that out of step when it was published.

Consider, Glidrose hadn't much motivation for lit Bond at the time: CS was not as successful as they'd hoped, PER FINE OUNCE pulped prior to publication, Pearson's book completed without their involvement. Indeed, cinema Bond was now no longer Sean Connery as an understandable interpretation of Ian Fleming's original but a comedic super playboy, in 1973 embodied by a TV actor who may, or may not, have been past it.

Further, the early 70s was a time before reboots and retcons; allowing for Glidrose's lack of enthusiasm for lit Bond, would a straight early 70s sequel about a 50+ Bond have been viable, or would a 70s set Bond novel with a 38 year old Bond likely to ever have been muted? I doubt Glidrose would have even considered a 1950s set Bond adventure.

So what else to do in the world of Bond and publishing in the 1970s than Pearson's book, with its concept and tone and Fleming liberties?

The excellent Wood books apart (even more black sheep that Pearson's book, surely?), Glidrose didn't release another lit Bond until 1981, a full 13 years after last 'straight' continuation, CS.

Pearson's Bond book then was most likely quite appropriate for its times.

The often outstanding David Schofield is onto something. Bond fans misunderstand Glidrose's inner workings. Glidrose was not a big corporate entity. The Board of Directors had outside interests. Bond was only one of the many corporate directorships many of their directors had. Not sure if they even had a full-time secretary in those dark days. I know for a fact Chairman Peter Janson-Smith had other literary sidelines. I think he still had his literary agency going. Bond was at best a part-time "job". Ditto the other directors. Many of the directors were legacies from Fleming's time. Mostly middle-aged men with jobs in publishing or other "respectable" businesses. Why bother commissioning another Bond book? The Bond film royalties generated sufficient income for them. Many fans don't appreciate how big a publishing flop CS was back in '68. Pearson's book was no bestseller. Do any of you really think that back in the early 70's we'd still be reading, talking, breathing Bond in 2012? The Glidrose directors didn't think so.

Was CS a flop? I never thought about that in terms of sales figures. But evidently it must have been, or the series would not have seen the slumber between CS and LR. Or between TAB and LR. Probably right, it wouldn't have seemed very likely that Bond would hold himself so long. Didn't Lazenby's agent talk him into leaving after OHMSS because the series was bound to die? The Glidrose board apparently wasn't alone in thinking they would not have to plan for a longer period.

Still, Pearson's must qualify for the most extraordinary entry until IFP contracted the Young Bonds.

Nope. See my comment about Mascott and 003 ½.

I really have forgotten entirely about that 003 and a half business. But somehow I hesitate to view them as canonical.

But as already stated, there was a time that apparently didn't necessarily call for further books and by the time Glidrose realised that Robert Ludlum had cornered their very own market from the US the seventies were nearly over.

Don't see how Ludlum cornered their Bond market, but if what you say is true, Ludlum didn't corner their market until the 1980's.

Wasn't Ludlum already going strong by the mid-1970s? Aided by his personal brand of conspiracy that resonated
with readers under the influence of Watergate, Vietnam and the urban guerilla wave of the time. I seem to remember he already played with self-parody by 1975 in ROAD TO GANDOLFO, something that indicates to me he already was a very big shot. 'Cornered the market' is obviously an exaggeration, but Ludlum surely had little opposition from Bond at the time.

Edited by Dustin, 02 December 2011 - 06:23 PM.

[glidrose]

Clearly, Glidrose/IFP are lit Bond's worst enemy.

1. After CS, they did not encourage Kingsley Amis' proposed Mexico-set sequel.

Blame that on on Amis. FYI, Amis's Mexico-set sequel was always going to be a short story. Says so in his published letters. Here's something you probably didn't know which supports your thesis. The Fleming family wanted no part of Amis. Jock Campbell at Booker McConnell and Tom Maschler at Jonathan Cape wanted Amis and pressured Glidrose. It got so bad that Peter Fleming - Ian's older brother - asked James Leasor, author of the "Jason Love" novels. Such was Love’s appeal that when Ian Fleming’s estate decided to commission a new Bond novel it was Leasor whom they first approached. When he turned it down, the job went to Amis.

[MarkA]

8. The Moneypenny Diaries - why and who for? A brainless concept, appallingly marketed.

I agree with everything you say (especially Benson, fanboy fiction at best), but The Moneypenny Diaries. Yes badly marketed, yes maybe who was the market. But I found them strangely compelling and superbly written. They meander a bit and maybe with some editing would make one great book, but still infinitely more interesting than the Faulks and Deavers of this world. I have a soft spot for something so strangely uncommercial.

[MarkA]

Yes, the 'biography' was a bold move, really doesn't fit the usual pattern. But I must confess that I already was a Bond fan for decades before I even heard about the Pearson book (I think I must already have read most Gardners back then). Even then I considered it to be a spoof - which partially it is, one might argue - and didn't set out to chase a copy for years after. Glidrose didn't handle Pearson's like they treated their own, it always had a black sheep air about it, as if they were ashamed of the effort and the result.

I first saw it in hardback in a bookshop two years after it was published. The copy I have is my original copy bought in 1975 but it is the first edition. I read it then and thought it was fantastic, still do.

Edited by MarkA, 05 December 2011 - 11:11 PM.

[OmarB]

Call me crazy but should we be ramping up for "Project X 2" by now? CB is out pretty much everywhere in hardback, paperback and digital. I seem to remember that around the announcement of PX we were told we would have news on the next book (author, release, etc) when CB is in paperback. If I'm not mistaken, these were to be rapid fir, with the next author already through most of his book by now. Guess they really need to get those commercial fiction writers on it quick.

[Dustin]

I think that reasoning was mostly guesswork of us fans, nothing definite from the IFP people if I recall that correctly. Even if there was a schedule like we speculated things on IFP's end can always change, see Zencat's series on Young Bond, especially part II. BLOODFEVER was pushed a year because CR was delayed. And a change of publisher resulted in another delay for US fans. Could be something like that happened to the IFP plans for the rebooted series.

[Jim]

Is the reboot really worth persevering with?

[Dustin]

If I didn't hear another word about it I wouldn't miss a lot personally. But I suspect there are enough fans of CB to spin the thing for a few iterations. Would surprise me if it wasn't, frankly.

Edited by Dustin, 06 December 2011 - 07:24 AM.

[David Schofield]

8. The Moneypenny Diaries - why and who for? A brainless concept, appallingly marketed.

I agree with everything you say (especially Benson, fanboy fiction at best), but The Moneypenny Diaries. Yes badly marketed, yes maybe who was the market. But I found them strangely compelling and superbly written. They meander a bit and maybe with some editing would make one great book, but still infinitely more interesting than the Faulks and Deavers of this world. I have a soft spot for something so strangely uncommercial.

Wenberg's books do show a greater literary flair than Benson, Deaver and, on the evidence of DMC, Faulks.

But the research is so poor and the understanding of Fleming she claims rather overstated (though nothing new there for a continuation novelist, eh? ).

Yet, despite its obvious sign-posting and its futility, I have a very soft spot for the final reveal...

[OmarB]

I think if there is no news by spring we can call PX2 dead.

[Dustin]

Could well be. Actually I don't remember having heard much about that 'first of a new series' for quite some time, since the title has been announced or thereabouts. Ok, they didn't want to steal the thunder by announcing anything definite for the next entry. But if you happen to be just a casual reader who picked up the new Bond novel by Deaver I doubt you'd be aware of this being the first of a whole new run. The closest was Deaver on record with the suggestion he'd be open to another book in the future. Haven't heard IFP commenting on this.

[OmarB]

But I seem to remember something about it ramping up by now. Remember, even Deaver said he would return at some point. Almost implying that there was a second one lined up.

[Dustin]

I can't remember having heard anything official other than what we got about CB, nothing beyond that. If I'm not mistaken it was Deaver who stated he'd be open for a comeback some years down the line. Just Deaver, nobody else involved professionally, not that I'm aware of. And certainly nobody confirmed that Deaver would 'definitely' come back up to now. I think if something like that was confirmed - Deaver writing another, next book due next year, next author *** ***-**** - such news would not go undetected on CBn. Up to now nothing is heard. Could still mean there's another book coming next year. But at the moment I won't hold my breath.

[Major Tallon]

Next year is the 60th anniversary of the publication of Casino Royale. With all the publicity about the 50th anniversary film and the release of "Skyfall" next autumn, it would be a fine time to publish a new Bond novel. So far, obviously, there's no word from IFP, but we can hope.

[OmarB]

At this point ever year is an anniversary somehow related to Ian, the books, the movies themselves, etc. If they are waiting on an anniversary then it's a feeble excuse for no news. I thought with the start of Project X we would again have a near constant stream of new Lit Bond. Seems like the whole Markham thing again to me.

[David Schofield]

I thought with the start of Project X we would again have a near constant stream of new Lit Bond.

Clearly, that's what IFP were hoping for, but their inability to understand their product, resulting in the appointment of Deaver and the rubbish he produced, has torpedoed that.

We might have to wait a while for IFP's next ludicrous proposition, methinks. And I for one am quite grateful for that.

[OmarB]

I don't see CB as that big a misstep as you do. I think there is room for improvement, I also think there's room for more authors/timeliness. Does the next guy want to follow Deaver's story or do a Cold War era story, or something contemporary completely unconnected to the other two? I don't think the other authors should be expected to follow Deaver, let him pick up his own plot threads.

The longer they let this dangle out there with no news is where IFP's misstep in my eyes lie. Give us a bit off new info. Author? Title? Some sign the IFP guys even show up to their offices in the morning.

[David Schofield]

I don't see CB as that big a misstep as you do. I think there is room for improvement, I also think there's room for more authors/timeliness. Does the next guy want to follow Deaver's story or do a Cold War era story, or something contemporary completely unconnected to the other two? I don't think the other authors should be expected to follow Deaver, let him pick up his own plot threads.

The longer they let this dangle out there with no news is where IFP's misstep in my eyes lie. Give us a bit off new info. Author? Title? Some sign the IFP guys even show up to their offices in the morning.

My best guess for IFP's next roll of the dice will be a 50s set period piece. Get a writer who claims to be a Fleming fan, au fait with 50s British culture and voila. Hopefully, this time the writer WILL have an appreciation of Fleming, WILL be a decent writer...

Can't see Deaver coming back, or anyone taking up with Deaver's CB take on Bond. Or even writing their own (perhaps un-rebooted?) modern-day take.

So essentially, Project X is dead. And with it IFP's second failed attempt to relaunch lit Bond after DMC, as a sequential period sequel to Fleming's work.

So the 5Os would, I suggest, be IFP's next target. As fo when... Any anniversaries coming up that could be tied in with 50s Bond and IF?

Just hope they get it right this time. But I'm not holding my breath.