142 replies to this topic

[Dustin]

German newssite SPIEGEL ONLINE picked up the story about supposedly "the first black James Bond", ignoring the very same facts you stated here. On top of it they claimed Antony Horowitz had written "dozens of official books" about Bond as well. No time for fact-checking any more, I suppose.

[Guy Haines]

The Daily Telegraph has just cottoned on to the David Oyelowo announcement, and according to its report it's the actor reading Trigger Mortis, not an adaptation with other actors.

 

I can see this panning out like the "Who was the first James Bond?" pub quiz question; "It was Sean Connery!" - "No it was Barry Nelson back in 1954 on American TV!" - "Hold on, what about Bob Holness on SABC in South Africa in 1959?" (And I have a friend who insists it was David Niven!)

 

Actually, David Oyelowo didn't say he was the first black James Bond, rather that right now he is the new James Bond. It is the media who have put two and two together and made five, overlooking Hugh Quarshie and Paterson Joseph's previous audio contributions.

 

Still, why let fact checking get in the way of a good story!

[marktmurphy]

Well it's all good publicity so I can't blame them for telling the papers that.

[Guy Haines]

Indeed it is and that thought occurred to me as well.

Another thing the media in general overlooked regarding the continuation novels was that they didn't stop with "Robert Markham" (Kingsley Amis) or start up again with Sebastian Faulks decades later. John Pearson, Christopher Wood, and the many novels written by John Gardner and Raymond Benson seemed to have escaped attention.

But then again, I suppose what fascinated the media was the idea that a novelist such as Sebastian Faulks would write a Bond book. So the impression was given - first new Bond novel in ages, when his wasn't - just a few years separated the last Benson original novel and "Devil May Care".

[marktmurphy]

The PR work for Devil May Care was extraordinary; it was huge with billboard posters everywhere, articles in all the papers etc. They even did a twitter contest for someone to write the theme song. Great stuff.

 

And I guess that's the thing: telling everyone that it's the first new Bond book since Fleming (or giving that impression anyway) is a much more interesting story than admitting that there have been loads of pretty ordinary ones written by people you've never heard of. It was a great bit of work and you can tell it paid off by all of those hardback copies of DMC you see in charity shops nowadays

 

So yeah, letting them print 'the first black James Bond' is much better PR for your book than saying "he's actually just doing the audiobook; there's only one guy who actually plays James Bond on audio at the moment. And besides, there have been other black chaps who have read 007 audiobooks before"- that's not a very engaging headline!  

[Guy Haines]

And unfortunately open to further investigation, and not just by members of the public like us. Yesterday my own paper of choice, The Guardian, posted in its corrections column that Hugh Quarshie had beaten David Oyelowo to it as a black actor doing a Bond audiobook.

Besides, David Oyelowo wasn't making an issue of his background - the media did all that. Rather that he was, for the moment, the new James Bond - even though, of course, he'll be reading every other part as well!

[Jim]

As you say, first black male Pussy Galore (despite my best endeavours) seems a racier story, and substantially more accurate.

[Dustin]

That was a huge step, not just for Pussy Galore...

[marktmurphy]

And unfortunately open to further investigation, and not just by members of the public like us. Yesterday my own paper of choice, The Guardian, posted in its corrections column that Hugh Quarshie had beaten David Oyelowo to it as a black actor doing a Bond audiobook.

 

I don't see what's unfortunate about it: it got it in the paper again! 

[Von Hammerstein]

The title is okay. Expect something more sophisticated for a Bond novel, but this is alright. It does remind me of the 60s-70s private eye paperbacks. The ones with the cover art by Robert McGinnis including a tough guy, a gun, and a woman.  And a blurb that reads:

 

TRIGGER MORTIS

"Private Detective Slade Steele is back! And he's up to his neck in beautiful women....AND MURDER!

Edited by Von Hammerstein, 16 August 2015 - 12:57 PM.

[Blofeld's Cat]

Well, of course, there was actually a 1959 pulp novel of the same name....

 

https://www.pinteres...57487130041982/

 

https://www.pinteres...03053652595664/

[coco1997]

The first reviews are starting to come in. Very positive so far.

 

http://www.theaustra...h-1227491426184

 

http://www.independe...e-10463837.html

[SecretAgentFan]

Sounds intriguing!

[sharpshooter]

Can't wait to read this one. Could be the best adult continuation novel since Colonel Sun, and as entertaining as Higson's Young Bond series. I'm going to re-read Goldfinger again in preparation.

[Karloff]

Really looking forward to this. I've been reading all the continuation novels for the past year. Struggling through Carte Blanche at the moment...(sigh)

I wonder if the reader will be able to discern the Fleming material in Horowitz' book? It would be intresting to know if there really are word written by Fleming there, and which ones they are - or if it's just Fleming stuff that's been rewritten by Horowitz.

 

And I prefer the German title - The Finger of God.

[Orion]

Really looking forward to this. I've been reading all the continuation novels for the past year. Struggling through Carte Blanche at the moment...(sigh)

I wonder if the reader will be able to discern the Fleming material in Horowitz' book? It would be intresting to know if there really are word written by Fleming there, and which ones they are - or if it's just Fleming stuff that's been rewritten by Horowitz.

 

And I prefer the German title - The Finger of God.

If you read House of Silk, Horowitz ability to mimic Conan Doyle's voice is incredible, so I'm hoping his ability to mimic Flemings will be equally as good. Certainly something his predecessors lacked.

[Orion]

The first reviews are starting to come in. Very positive so far.

 

http://www.theaustra...h-1227491426184

 

http://www.independe...e-10463837.html

Just read The Independent's review. Positive, but the remark about it not being better than Fleming seems a bit...catty. FLEMING struggled to be as good as Fleming as the books went on! Asking any continuation author to be BETTER than the original author at the top of his game is just setting them up to fail surely.

[sharpshooter]

I think the basis for the novel is sound. Using Fleming as an inspiration and a starting point, but allowing the author, Horowitz in this instance, freedom to create their own story. And to have fun with it. Goldfinger is Horowitz's favourite Bond novel, so the chance to write a 'sequel' of sorts was bound to bring out the best in him. And perhaps less of a job and more of a joy. For instance, having Sebastian Faulks 'writing as Ian Fleming' was a creative mistake in my opinion.

[glidrose]

I've begun a dedicated media review thread: http://debrief.comma...ntain-spoilers/

[SecretAgentFan]

 

The first reviews are starting to come in. Very positive so far.

 

http://www.theaustra...h-1227491426184

 

http://www.independe...e-10463837.html

Just read The Independent's review. Positive, but the remark about it not being better than Fleming seems a bit...catty. FLEMING struggled to be as good as Fleming as the books went on! Asking any continuation author to be BETTER than the original author at the top of his game is just setting them up to fail surely.

 

 

Exactly.  

 

It´s so typical of reviewers these days to always resort to this kind of comment.  "Of course, it is not as good as the original."  

 

Well, on the one hand, the umpteenth variation of something can hardly be as good.  On the other hand, those reviewers either never know the original or hated it during its original release.  I very much doubt that this particular reviewer really was a fan of Fleming´s writing.

 

But it always is fashionable to give the impression one knows better.

 

Um, like a post on a message board.

[marktmurphy]

 

 

The first reviews are starting to come in. Very positive so far.

 

http://www.theaustra...h-1227491426184

 

http://www.independe...e-10463837.html

Just read The Independent's review. Positive, but the remark about it not being better than Fleming seems a bit...catty. FLEMING struggled to be as good as Fleming as the books went on! Asking any continuation author to be BETTER than the original author at the top of his game is just setting them up to fail surely.

 

 

Exactly.  

 

It´s so typical of reviewers these days to always resort to this kind of comment.  "Of course, it is not as good as the original."  

 

Well, on the one hand, the umpteenth variation of something can hardly be as good.  On the other hand, those reviewers either never know the original or hated it during its original release.  I very much doubt that this particular reviewer really was a fan of Fleming´s writing.

 

But it always is fashionable to give the impression one knows better.

 

Um, like a post on a message board.

 

 

 

Well it's always a question that's hard to answer about new Bond books: James Bond 007 isn't really such an incredible creation on his own: he really is just a blunt instrument and barely has a personality of his own in the novels. Likewise most of the plots aren't all that stunning: it's really Fleming's writing that makes them so good to read, so if you're doing new Bond novels then you really probably should write them as Fleming would. Except you can't ask a writer to do that, or if they do it'll turn out a lesser work because they can never be Fleming, nor can they be themselves. So you really need to ask them to write how they would want to, and then you get an end product which isn't really a James Bond novel. I dunno what the ideal solution is, really. They generally aim for the middle ground which seems about right, although I wonder if they shouldn't just write them as Bond films, because these books wouldn't be happening if it weren't for the success of the films anyway.

[Guy Haines]

The first Bond novel to deal with what happened to a Bond girl after the original adventure? Well, yes in the sense that Pussy Galore is actually in this new novel, but didn't Tiffany Case get a brief one paragraph reference in From Russia With Love? How she stayed in London, moved in with Bond but after a while and a few blazing rows she left and ended up engaged to a US Marine attache at the US Embassy?

Other Bond women have also earned mentions in books other than the ones they appeared in, notably the tragic victims - Vesper Lynd and Teresa Di Vicenzo.

[Dustin]

If memory serves Bond also wonders in Dr. No what became of Solitaire. Small wonder, he had a bit of crash workout at the very house he was staying in in Live and Let Die.

[Major Tallon]

In Chapter 4 of TMWTGG, Bond was in Jamaica and recalled Honeychile "Wilder."  She had married a doctor in Philadelphia and had two children.  Bond noted rather wistfully, I thought, that "she never wrote."  Of course, since he no longer remembered her name correctly, he couldn't have been as sentimental as all that.

[Guy Haines]

Bond still exchanged Christmas cards with Gala Vivian - formerly known as Gala Brand - according to the John Gardner novel For Speicla Services. Probably still wondering what might have been if that engagement ring of hers had, after all, been part of her cover and there for real.

This whole wistful part of the Trigger Mortis thread puts me in mind of that unlikely duet of Julio Inglesias and Willie Nelson and their song "To all the girls I've loved before" :-)
I think I meant "not there for cover" regarding Gala's ring, and I spelt "special" wrong. Still haven't got used to iPads yet! :-)

[Karloff]

Have you read Horowitz' comments about the films of the Craig era (reported by MI6-HQ.com)?

 

With a week left to the publication of Trigger Mortis I have begun to have small doubts.

Horowitz has said that his favorite book is Goldfinger, which according to me is one of Fleming's weaker novels. IMO it lacks a true identity of its own, it hasn't got a good female character, and the last third is pretty badly written and rushed. Having Horowitz reintroduce Pussy Galore is a risky idea. She is one of Fleming's worst creations and probably his most dated female character (I'm talking of course of Bond "curing" her lesbianism with his libido).

 

I also have difficulty seeing how an Ian Fleming fan can place Goldfinger at the top of the ranking list. It is common for causal fans of the films to say Goldfinger is the best film, but most "super fans" can see beyond the film's cult status. I wonder if Horowitz have been swayed by the status of the film version.

 

But of course my hesitations are just the ramblings of a fan boy.

 

A bigger problem are the statements the author has made about Daniel Craig-era (see the link above). One can criticize Skyfall (Silva's plan was far-fetched and complicated, to say the least), but I don't think Horowitz' criticism bodes well for the upcoming book. He is quoted to say (about Skyfall):

 

Bond is weak in it. He has doubts. That’s not Bond. Secondly, the villain wins. The villain sets out to kill M – the film finishes with the villain killing M. So why have I watched it?

 

He criticizes that Bond shows weakness, which "is not Bond." Horowitz seems to forget the Bond from Fleming's Casino Royale, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, You Only Live Twice and The Man with the Golden Gun. In YOLT Fleming describes how a depressed Bond has failed two assignments. That particular book was one of the main influences on Skyfall's story.

 

 

Horowitz goes on to criticize the SPECTRE-trailers:

I’m looking at the trailer and I am seeing a photograph of Bond’s family. The mum and the dad are in there and their faces are missing because the picture has been burned in a fire. This is going to be to do with his family background, and I know the fans are all terribly excited to know more, but I’m saying, “Don’t tell me, I don’t want to know.” I don’t want to know about his doubts, his insecurities or weaknesses. I just want to see him act, kill, win.’

 

We've seen Bond "act, kill, win" in 99.9% of the films and books about him. What the Craig-era is doing is trying to revitalise the formula and show us aspects of Fleming's creation that we haven't seen much on the big screen before. If we are once again treated to an invincible Bond in Trigger Mortis, the same kind of character whom we've met in the majority of continuation novels, then IMO the new book will seem quite irrelevant.

 

As a continuation author one must dare to offer something new. And if there is one thing the Bond character really needs it is a little more character development and a bit of realism (and I say this as a fan of both the novels and films - even Moonraker). And sure, we may not want to know too much about his background - that would remove much of the mystery (therefore I have yet to read the Young Bond-novels) - but it does not hurt to let Bond become a little more fleshed out. In addition, Horowitz makes an factual error; the burned photograph does not show Bond's parents but

Spoiler

his temporary guardian Hannes Oberhauser (a Fleming creation) and his son Franz.

 

 

I sincerely hope that these comments do not suggest that we will get a too shallow and repetitive book. The better Bond novels are IMO those where 007 feels more human, even counting continuation novels like Colonel Sun, Death is Forever, Seafire, High Time to Kill or Solo. Superhuman Bond has more to do with the Roger Moore films than with Ian Fleming.

 

Now I've got that of my chest. Any thoughts?

Edited by Karloff, 31 August 2015 - 02:45 PM.

[Orion]

 

Have you read Horowitz' comments about the films of the Craig era (reported by MI6-HQ.com)?

 

With a week left to the publication of Trigger Mortis I have begun to have small doubts.

Horowitz has said that his favorite book is Goldfinger, which according to me is one of Fleming's weaker novels. IMO it lacks a true identity of its own, it hasn't got a good female character, and the last third is pretty badly written and rushed. Having Horowitz reintroduce Pussy Galore is a risky idea. She is one of Fleming's worst creations and probably his most dated female character (I'm talking of course of Bond "curing" her lesbianism with his libido).

 

I also have difficulty seeing how an Ian Fleming fan can place Goldfinger at the top of the ranking list. It is common for causal fans of the films to say Goldfinger is the best film, but most "super fans" can see beyond the film's cult status. I wonder if Horowitz have been swayed by the status of the film version.

 

But of course my hesitations are just the ramblings of a fan boy.

 

A bigger problem are the statements the author has made about Daniel Craig-era (see the link above). One can criticize Skyfall (Silva's plan was far-fetched and complicated, to say the least), but I don't think Horowitz' criticism bodes well for the upcoming book. He is quoted to say (about Skyfall):

 

Bond is weak in it. He has doubts. That’s not Bond. Secondly, the villain wins. The villain sets out to kill M – the film finishes with the villain killing M. So why have I watched it?

 

He criticizes that Bond shows weakness, which "is not Bond." Horowitz seems to forget the Bond from Fleming's Casino Royale, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, You Only Live Twice and The Man with the Golden Gun. In YOLT Fleming describes how a depressed Bond has failed two assignments. That particular book was one of the main influences on Skyfall's story.

 

 

Horowitz goes on to criticize the SPECTRE-trailers:

I’m looking at the trailer and I am seeing a photograph of Bond’s family. The mum and the dad are in there and their faces are missing because the picture has been burned in a fire. This is going to be to do with his family background, and I know the fans are all terribly excited to know more, but I’m saying, “Don’t tell me, I don’t want to know.” I don’t want to know about his doubts, his insecurities or weaknesses. I just want to see him act, kill, win.’

 

We've seen Bond "act, kill, win" in 99.9% of the films and books about him. What the Craig-era is doing is trying to revitalise the formula and show us aspects of Fleming's creation that we haven't seen much on the big screen before. If we are once again treated to an invincible Bond in Trigger Mortis, the same kind of character whom we've met in the majority of continuation novels, then IMO the new book will seem quite irrelevant.

 

As a continuation author one must dare to offer something new. And if there is one thing the Bond character really needs it is a little more character development and a bit of realism (and I say this as a fan of both the novels and films - even Moonraker). And sure, we may not want to know too much about his background - that would remove much of the mystery (therefore I have yet to read the Young Bond-novels) - but it does not hurt to let Bond become a little more fleshed out. In addition, Horowitz makes an factual error; the burned photograph does not show Bond's parents but

Spoiler

his temporary guardian Hannes Oberhauser (a Fleming creation) and his son Franz.

 

 

I sincerely hope that these comments do not suggest that we will get a too shallow and repetitive book. The better Bond novels are IMO those where 007 feels more human, even counting continuation novels like Colonel Sun, Death is Forever, Seafire, High Time to Kill or Solo. Superhuman Bond has more to do with the Roger Moore films than with Ian Fleming.

 

Now I've got that of my chest. Any thoughts?

 

Also the book that Horrowitz states as favourite (Goldfinger) starts with Bond hating himself and wallowing in self pity at the killer he now is. I wouldn't take it too seriously though. The report comes from the tabloid trash that is the Daily Mail who WILL have edited out anything positive he said, and frankly it seems to be an Ian Fleming publications mandate that you can't write Bond (or even author introductions) without bitching about the films, which has always struck me as weird given how 99.9% (at least) of the people reading those books are doing so because the loved the films, to think other wise in 2015 is just ludicrously naïve. Nearly all the guest author introductions do it in those reprints from a few years ago then Faulks, Deaver and Boyd all did it at some point whilst promoting their efforts.

[marktmurphy]

I think his comments on the plot of Skyfall are valid- it doesn't hold up to much scrutiny at all. And yet that's why I think it's an impressive film: it works despite the plot being complete bobbins! Yes, the villain does win: I also ask myself why have I watched it, which means that Mendes must have done an amazing job to make me not worry about it!

 

I agree with you about his comments on Bond doubting himself, though. Bond does do that occasionally, it's not a problem. And it's too early to complain about Spectre: you've got to wait until you see it.

 

But: it's from the Mail and we mustn't take it as read that they've reported his words accurately.

[Major Tallon]

Weren't similar comments reported in The Telegraph?  If so, this may represent what Horowitz is saying as he's traveling the pre-publication publicity circuit. 

 

Goldfinger has its strengths, but those exist within an overall plotline that's weak to the point of being ridiculous.  Horowitz may have whatever reason he likes for being particularly fond of the book and wanting to use it as a launching pad for further development.  Perhaps the additional Fleming material relates to Goldfinger so that he felt constrained to work with it.  If that's the case, he can hardly tell the interviewers that he'd rather have worked with some other period of Bond's life but was stuck with this time frame due to that circumstance.  He may even feel a need to tout the virtues of literary over film Bond, though I wish he wouldn't denigrate the latter. 

 

He appears to be taking the task of writing seriously and have hopes of delivering a solid James Bond adventure.  The real pity will be if he returns Bond to the point of being merely a "cardboard booby" without realizing that Fleming (and it's particularly apparent in Goldfinger) was by that point taking the character beyond that level of development.  The broader public reading public may be fine with that, but we, the fans, will feel it's yet another opportunity lost.

[Dustin]

In all fairness it must be said that Horowitz' own work, the Alex Rider series, is a close iteration of Fleming's originals with the emphasis on the adventure aspect. His hero lacks the - sometimes pretty whiny - middle-age tone, the general snobbery and of course for the most part the sexual element. But he's not a 14-year-old superhero, he knows doubt and isn't at all happy with how he came to work for SIS. His loyalty is crumbling away after a clever brainwash and he is pushed to the point of trying to kill his handler, with the inevitable guilt after he finds out the truth. If nothing else this certainly shows Horowitz does have a basic understanding of the crucial elements of lit Bond, even if his body of work may lack originality. I should have thought he's at least qualified with regard to Bond's character as still being a fallible human being, not a cardboard caricature.