167 replies to this topic

[zencat]

Big news!

http://www.thebookbo...james-bond.html

[Matt_13]

We just can't get enough today, can we? So they're going back to the 1960's. Does this mean Bond is pushing 50 again? I also hope Deaver gets to keep up with his contemporary Bond. It was moving in a good direction. Still, good to know we have something to look forward to post-Skyfall.

[DamnCoffee]

My goodness! I haven't heard any of his work, but Bond news is good news today! I look forward to hearing more.

[MattofSteel]

Ugh. This didn't work for Sebastian Faulks, why is it going to work for Boyd?

As always, I'll reserve 'official' judgement until I've seen the product. But after all the promise in Deaver's exhilarating literary reboot, they're just abandoning that groundwork and going in another direction entirely?

Book Bond won't catch on again unless they quit jerking the canon and context around, IMO.

[tdalton]

It would be nice if they could make up their minds on what they're going to do with the literary series. With the last four novels, we've gone from Present Day Bond (Benson) to Period Piece Bond (Faulks) back to Present Day Bond (Deaver) and now back to Period Piece Bond (Boyd).

I know nothing about Boyd, but I can't see him turning in an effort that's any worse than the last two efforts (sadly, it seems I find myself saying that with the announcement of each Bond novel now). I just wish they wouldn't keep jumping back and forth in time as a reactionary move to the criticisms of the previous novel.

[jwheels]

Could it be possible that we will have two different timelines? One set in the 60's, following Fleming's original Bond, and one present day, following Deaver's rebooted Bond?

[glidrose]

I'm fairly excited by this news. Glad to see Bond back in the sixties where he belongs. Never happy with the idea of Bond in a modern world from the early 1980's onwards.

What we do know so far:

-the book is set in 1969

-traditional Bond publisher Jonathan Cape has UK hardcover rights

-Boyd has worked with Sean Connery, Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig. In fact Craig starred in "The Trench" which Boyd directed

-Boyd's novel "Any Human Heart" featured Ian Fleming. Tobias Menzies ("Villiers") played Fleming in the film version

-Boyd appears to be chummy with former Bond author and screenwriter Christopher Wood. Boyd blessed Wood's novel "California, Here I Am" with an enthusiastic blurb.

[zencat]

Could it be possible that we will have two different timelines? One set in the 60's, following Fleming's original Bond, and one present day, following Deaver's rebooted Bond?

Yes, I do think that's possible. Remember when Carte Blanche was announced I asked Corinne Turner if this meant the end of period Bond (meaning Young Bond then) and she said:

“Don’t worry we haven’t left the past behind entirely, but it’s nice to do something different – and keep everyone guessing!” Link

It could be they are giving the authors their choice of which period they want to work in.

[AMC Hornet]

Interesting, especially Tim Duggan's comment:

"His sophisticated storytelling, his knowledge of history and espionage, and his sheer inventiveness will all come together to make this novel as grippingly suspenseful as anything I’ve ever read."

High praise, considering not a word has been written yet.

Still, if Boyd is successful and writes a series of books, that will fill the 68-77 gap nicely.

He can't do worse than Devil May Care - unless, like Faulkes, he tries to shoehorn in a lot of extranreous period political and cultural references, and IFP wouldn't let that happen again.

Would they?

Edited by AMC Hornet, 12 April 2012 - 01:48 AM.

[007jamesbond]

so how old is Bond anyway? wont the 70s be too old for him? And should there be official section just for him now? I think people would be happy to see back to the 1960s where Bond belong but it wont work forever unless we are changing his birthdate?

[d21089]

cant say the news has particularly excited me too much- I just don't see why Bond has this supposed "need" to be set in the sixties
But hopefully his idea of writing "like Fleming" is more actual Fleming and not like Lee Tamahori with technological restrictions

That was the thing I liked about Carte Blanche, it wasn't trying to be Fleming, it was just its own thing for better or worse.

[Kronsteen]

Exciting news! Its always nice with literary news, and a new novel is really something to look forward to. Im not very fond of Deavers try, the reboot thing just didnt do it for me... Faulks novel might not be a great book but it was still a more enjoyable read. Its fun to read about the 60s Bond, but I do hope they dont forget the contemporary 007.

[MarkA]

Well I for one am glad literary Bond is back in the 60's. It ties in with Higson's books and the hugely underated Moneypenny Diaries. I am also glad we are back to a British author. I found so much of Deaver's style so wrong. The British details seemed forced as if he was trying too hard. Plus I thought the book pretty rubbish all round really. Mind you Carte Blanche wasn't any better. But hey I also disliked Gardner and Benson as well so I'm tough to please!!

[Glenn]

This is good news. I have never heard of William Boyd, but here is hoping that he will do a a better job than Faulks. Maybe he could practice by writing the Skyfall novelisation?

It is getting confusing with all these alternative timelines for Bond. Nearly as bad as Doctor Who.

[tdalton]

It is getting confusing with all these alternative timelines for Bond. Nearly as bad as Doctor Who.

Exactly. They need to pick one timeline and stick with it for a while, for better or for worse. I'm really starting to lose faith in the idea that we'll ever get a decent attempt at the literary Bond again, given that those who run the literary franchise can't seem to figure out exactly what (and when) they want the character to be.

[Simon]

Grief, this popped up out of nowhere.

Amazing in this day and age that leaks hadn't leaked months ago.

zen, did even you not know anything about this or had you inklings and were sworn to secrecy?

[Guy Haines]

William Boyd was interviewed on BBC Radio 4's "Today" news programme. Certain points from the interview. First, he said that it was a challenge to write a new Bond novel, but that he was given a remarkably free hand by the Fleming Foundation. However, there were some parts of writing a Bond story that were something of a "tick box" exercise.

While there are certain essentials to a Bond story, I hope it isn't too much of a tick box approach. What's needed is a balance between the traditional elements of Bond and an author's originality, I think.

Then there's the year chosen - 1969. An eventful one. Civil war in Biafra. Troubles in Northern Ireland. A certain recently deceased Army officer took power in Libya. And of course the climax of the US/Soviet space race, the first manned landing on the Moon.

I wonder if one of these events will play some part in William Boyd's story? Or maybe none of them.

I'm pleased that a new Bond novel will be on the shelves next year, but my enthusiasm is tempered a little bit because the track record of Bond novels post Fleming has been a bit "hit and miss", imho.

Finally, I'm amused that in recent years the media has reported the likes of Sebastian Faulks, Jeffrey Deaver and now William Boyd writing a new Bond novel as if it was a grand event that hadn't happened since Ian Fleming had passed away - completely overlooking the efforts of Kingsley Amis, John Pearson, John Gardner and Raymond Benson. I can remember a flurry of media interest when Gardner's first Bond novel was published in 1981, and some perfunctory reporting of Benson being commissioned, but nothing like the media excitement surrounding the more recent authors.

[MarkA]

I'm really starting to lose faith in the idea that we'll ever get a decent attempt at the literary Bond again, given that those who run the literary franchise can't seem to figure out exactly what (and when) they want the character to be.

I think the trouble with most of these continuation authors is they are writers for hire. A way for the Fleming family to make money out of the incredible franchise (though I hate that word) they have inherited. When Kingsley Amis wrote his, he was a true fan, hence the credibility of his book. I would say the same with Charlie Higson. I have spoken to him two or three times and it is clear he has a love for the original novels. Of course all these authors are going to confess their love for Fleming in a press release when they have just got the gig. Cynical I know, but that is the reason we have had so many bad to mediocre efforts. An author should have a passion for something and approach the copyright holders, not the other way round. Idealistic I know, but hey.

Edited by MarkA, 12 April 2012 - 09:10 AM.

[marktmurphy]

Saw this in the news this morning: a nice little surprise that popped up out of nowhere! But to celebrate yet another Bond anniversary (Fleming's centenary, 50 years of the films, now 60 years since Casino Royale): it's anniversary overload!.

But anyway; a new Bond book; that'll be nice. I think my personal preference probably would be for the contemporary-set novels (didn't love Carte Blanche but I liked the modern day-ness of it) but I don't really mind either way. Looking forward to it.

[Jack Spang]

Great to get the announcement! I'm definitely excited but perhaps not as excited as I was upon hearing the Faulks and Deaver announcement because I've been disappointed twice now.

I've always supported a period and contemporary piece. The fact that DMC was laclustre had nothing to do with the fact that it was set in the 1960's. It is a poorly written Bond book.

Let's hope we get the real Bond back again and not Deaver's horrible generic interpretation of the character! Maybe Deaver will return for the next Bond book, continuing in the contemporary world where he left off with Carte Blanche.

I don't think for a minute that Boyd will try and immitate Fleming.

Atleast in 1969 we can have a bit more confidence that Bond will be more like his original self instead of, well, whoever the hell he was in Carte Blanche. He wasn't James Bond. When I first read the Fleming books many years ago, once Bond reached the early sixties I ceased picturing him as an older man. For me, he stopped aging once he reached his early 40's. So, he was in his early 40's in CS, the Gardner novels and Benson's books.

I've never read any of Boyd's novels so I'll have to check one out. What makes me a little less excited is that Faulks is an excellent writer (I've read several of his books) but he gave us a disappointing Bond book. He isn't a thriller writer though but then Deaver is and CB lacked punch too. I did enjoy the latter book to a point but the continual twists got tiring and Bond just wasn't Bond but from what people have said about Boyd I am somewhat confident.

Continuity would be nice but I'm glad IFP are sticking to the different authors as I'm not happy with Deaver's Bond.

Edited by Jack Spang, 12 April 2012 - 10:26 AM.

[Loomis]

Boyd is a superb choice. THE NEW CONFESSIONS is one of my favourite novels, and ANY HUMAN HEART is also terrific. I also enjoyed STARS AND BARS. Like Faulks, this guy is definitely one of Britain's best writers.

However, the decision to hire him to write a Bond novel (and a period Bond novel, no less) strikes me as DEVIL MAY CARE all over again, and we all know how that turned out.

[Simon]

Ooh, poor Boyd.

I wonder if he knows what he's got himself in for.

[CasinoKiller]

Where is it mentioned that the book will be set in 1969 specifically? If it is, that's rather interesting in one sense...Fleming implied Bond's birth year was 1924 in YOLT; going by that, Bond would be 45 in 1969, the year 00 agents are expected to retire from active duty. So could this possibly be an element of the plot?

That said, I agree with a lot of the other people who've commented here...they just can't seem to make up their minds about the literary franchise. When Devil May Care was announced, it was said that it would be the return of the 'old gunslinger for one last duel' or something of the sort...I thought the idea was to write a swan-song to the original conception of Bond, preparatory to the reboot by Deaver. But now we're going back to the 60's AGAIN?

Carte Blanche may not have been From Russia with Love, but it was a great book and I was really looking forward to reading more about this new younger Bond, who belongs to the post-9/11 world and understands its complexities and nuances, and who is comfortable in embracing and interfacing with the information age of the 21st century. Hell, the whole 'Steel Cartridge' subplot of the book struck me as a sequel hook, if nothing else!

In any case, a Bond book is a Bond book after all, so I am looking forward to this book, whatever else happens...

[Dustin]

Boyd is a splendid writer with quite an impressive backlist quality-wise. His AN ICE-CREAM WAR is a fascinating account of WWI Africa with an assortment of fully realized characters. It's both bleak and darkly funny.

ARMADILLO is a hilarious tale of modern yuppie-dreams and nightmares, a portrait of London as a place that requires constant moving through space and along social borders, a play with identity and cultural background and an allegory on the lengths we go to in order to survive the whole steaming mess. The fist sentence:

'In these times of ours - and we don't need to be precise about the exact date - but, anyway, very early in the year, a young man not much over thirty, tall - six feet plus an inch or two - with ink-dark hair and a serious-looking, fine-featured but pallid face, went to keep a business appointment and discovered a hanged man.'

You can see, the man does have a way with words.



Interestingly, Boyd himself has gradually moved into the realm of the literary espionage recently. While his early works nearly always seem to employ thriller elements, his latest three books RESTLESS, ORDINARY THUNDERSTORMS and WAITING FOR SUNRISE all tackle the theme more head-on, so one might say Boyd in a way was already headed for Bond. I'm very happy this task has finally found a favourite author of mine.

[zencat]

Where is it mentioned that the book will be set in 1969 specifically?

In here. There was a lengthy quote from Boyd at the end of the original press release. I made a second story out of it.

http://www.thebookbo...el-will-be.html

[Loomis]

Not to rain on your parade, Dustin, but a few years ago I was just as excited by Faulks' way with words. I remember quoting on this forum passages from his wonderful 1992 novel A FOOL'S ALPHABET that I felt were very Flemingian, and I was certain that a writer as brilliant as Faulks would come up with by far the best Bond novel since COLONEL SUN and perhaps even a Bond novel to shame some of the Flemings.

I guess the issue isn't so much the quality of the writer (again, Boyd has proven himself to be a superb writer - which reminds me, I must re-read his hilarious A GOOD MAN IN AFRICA) but the question of what IFP wants to do with the Bond continuation novel "brand". Is Boyd genuinely excited about Bond and will he be allowed to do his own thing, or will his book be yet another join-the-dots, lowest-common-denominator Bond novel aimed squarely at people who've never read Fleming and who know 007 purely via the recent Craig and Brosnan films?

[tdalton]

or will his book be yet another join-the-dots, lowest-common-denominator Bond novel aimed squarely at people who've never read Fleming and who know 007 purely via the recent Craig and Brosnan films?

I wouldn't be surprised if this is what we got this time around, again. It's hard to have any faith in the publishers of the novel when they continually trot out a subpar product. The last novel they commissioned didn't even feature the Bond character at all, rather a generic and bland interpretation of Fleming's character.

[Dustin]

Very valid points there, Loomis! Yes, I too was excited-beyond-belief-drunken-with-utter-joy when hearing the news of Faulks back in the day (And is it already five years since that was announced? Incredible...) That pedestrian outcome - that today could probably be penned by Siri in my iPhone - ought to teach us a lesson, and not a particularly pleasant one.

And yet, and yet...

I see of course that this is primarily a business matter, a case of pennies-per-word on a different scale. Nonetheless I think (I hope!) I have detected in Boyd's oeuvre a kind of spirit that would not easily pick up the task without caring for it. Of course, Boyd would not do it for free (or so I think). But at the same time I have hopes Bond is something that Boyd - perhaps subconsciously - was already getting in contact with.

The last of Boyd's books I've read was RESTLESS (I have ANY HUMAN HEART and ORDINARY THUNDERSTORMS on my shelf) and this is a genuinely intriguing thriller that has the emphasis - seldom these days - on the suspense, not on the explosions. Which is not to say there's no action in it - far from! - or that the action wasn't engaging. What follows may contain mild spoiler material, but I'll try and keep it within reasonable restraints. Anyway, be forewarned.


Funnily enough, in RESTLESS Boyd picked up a similar idea Deaver did years later for his Bond. Only, Boyd does it with such panache and so successful the senseless usage in Carte Blanche makes one hate it even more. RESTLESS chronicles a seldom heard-of chapter of a British intelligence operation aimed at the US prior to December 1941. The account such as Boyd gives it seems to be mostly accurate - with a little artistic licence - and is most cleverly woven into the long-term penetration of British services and government by Soviet agents, which had a continued effect on US-UK relations throughout the last six to seven decades. Doing so Boyd marries both worlds of espionage fiction, the tough-as-nails fieldwork and the more intellectually demanding tales of characters deceiving others - including their own family, often enough - for a living. It does not make you think 'Wow! Bond!!!' right from the start. But I daresay it employs numerous most captivating elements that would not have been out of place in a Fleming novel. I'd even go so far as to say Fleming might have shown a knowing smile during the parts of the novel he was doubtlessly familiar with.


EDIT: Deaver changed to Boyd, oh you unholy iPhone-thingy!!!

[Jack Spang]

or will his book be yet another join-the-dots, lowest-common-denominator Bond novel aimed squarely at people who've never read Fleming and who know 007 purely via the recent Craig and Brosnan films?

I wouldn't be surprised if this is what we got this time around, again. It's hard to have any faith in the publishers of the novel when they continually trot out a subpar product. The last novel they commissioned didn't even feature the Bond character at all, rather a generic and bland interpretation of Fleming's character.

It is harder to have full confidence that's for sure but I'm still excited nonetheless. I thought DMC would be incredible as Faulks is such a splendid writer but how wrong I was. I'm not sure if IFP impose restrictions or not. I asked Deaver if they did or not and he said "no."

Edited by Jack Spang, 12 April 2012 - 03:26 PM.

[Peaceful]

Then the next author can set new novel #3 in 2053, then author #4 in 1881, then ...

I actually would have preferred a series set in the 1940's.

Edited by Peaceful, 12 April 2012 - 03:57 PM.