10 replies to this topic

[sexistsadosnob]

As others have noted it is truly tragic to see the depths to which the literary James Bond has sunk. I think that this is directly attributable to the manner in which the literary incarnation of the character has been handled. With the departure of Raymond Benson I think it is time for a substantial rethink. Has the approach of the last 20+ years been the correct one to keeping the character alive? I would argue not. I thought I would outline the manner in which I would like to see the series go.

The new Bond novels need a substantial relaunch. I do not want to see either an end to the series or business as usual. Instead I think that it is time to figure out what it will take to revive the books effectively.

1) I think that the character needs to be returned to his proper mileaux. 1950s/1960s London. Just as sherlock Holmes belongs to the the 1890s so the James Bond character belongs in the cold war era. The Bond novels strike a careful balance between the absurd and the believable. The fact that Benson and Gardner can't refer back to the past in anything but the most evasive manner substantially weaken their efforts. Flemings references to very real historical events are the crucial link between our real world and the bizarre surreal one, his secret agent inhabits. Transporting the protagonists 50 years into the future weakens that link.

2) A reevaluation of what makes the Fleming stories so endlessly fascinating. The writing of continuation Bond novels seems to be a superficially simple task. After all nearly all the books follow a fairly rigid plot formula again and again. However the appeal of Ian Fleming does not lie in the plots, but in the details with which he furnishes them.

Neither Amis, Gardner or Benson are natural snobs or bull**** artists, a virtual requirement for effectively writng these books in my opinion. In Bonds world good taste and moral correctness go hand in hand. The Fleming novels are filled with endless mock-authoritative value judgements on food, women, cars, scuba diving equipment, bulgarians, historical events, and the correct manner in which drinks should be prepared. Bonds triumph in these stories is essentially a triumph of good taste and the aforementioned judgements. The villains are distinguished as much by their poor aesthetics as by their evil actions. Le Chiffre's crab like hands Hugo Drax's thumbsucking, Flemings villains repulse us on a primal level rather than an intellectual 'oh he's doing something bad' one. In FRWL Red Grant is clearly established as a bad person on the first page by his poor taste in timepieces, 'a Girard--Perragaux model designed for people who like gadgets' rather than a simple stainless steel Rolex.
Similairly aspiring to ownership of a flashy italian sportscar rather than Bentley is a sure sign of a lack of character. Bond symbolises a set of values that was somewhat anachronistic, even while the books were being written. Winning out against the bad guys represents the triumph of a very specific world view.

Fleming moved through the world of appearances and what they symbolise like a fish through water. Any writer who wishes to continue writing these books needs to have a thorough understanding of the ideosyncratic rules underpinning Bond's universe.

I think that the ideal way to relaunch the series would be with a collection of short stories, each by a different thriller writer, and all set during the time of the original novels.

Unless a superb candidate could be found, I'd like to see a different writer for each book.

It goes without saying that proper promotion would also be required.

[ChandlerBing]

Raymond Benson himself would most likely agree with you on a lot of your points. He needs to be taken back to the Cold War.

[Coop]

The problem is, anyone who tries to write a Bond novel nowadays has 40 years of Eon productions to contend with. Most Bond "fans" have never read a word of Fleming and think of 007 as a film character. And Die Another Day has virtually nothing to do with Ian Fleming's world. The problem is, if Bond was returned to his literary mileau most fans would complain. They want contemporary techno thrillers not stories about a man trying to beat baddies at baccarat or golf. Perhaps IFP are right to focus on Fleming's canon of 14 books and forget about trying to continue the series.

[DanMan]

I wouldn't say that Die Another Day has nothing to do with Ian Fleming's world. DAD is actually a remake of the novel Moonraker.

[zencat]

Well said, sexistsadosnob (although I do think Benson's books were an improvement over Gardner). I also think Bond should be sent back in time. I'd like to see this happen in the films as well. Watching DAD the other night it struck me why I like the Cuba section so much...because it's still 1955 in Cuba! It was like watching a Bond move set back in the period where, I agree, James Bond belongs.

You should send you thoughts to the brain trust over at http://www.ianflemingcentre.com/.

Welcome to CBn, BYW.

[zencat]

Originally posted by sexistsadosnob ...Neither Amis, Gardner or Benson are natural snobs or bull**** artists, a virtual requirement for effectively writng these books in my opinion. In Bonds world good taste and moral correctness go hand in hand. The Fleming novels are filled with endless mock-authoritative value judgements on food, women, cars, scuba diving equipment, bulgarians, historical events, and the correct manner in which drinks should be prepared. Bonds triumph in these stories is essentially a triumph of good taste and the aforementioned judgements...[/B]

Very good point.

[Loomis]

It's an excellent point, although having just read "Never Dream Of Dying", I'm much better disposed towards Benson than I used to be.

I now think that a good approach for new Bond novels might be retaining Benson but not holding him to a breakneck schedule of a book a year, but rather one of a book every two or three years, giving him the time to polish it properly.

On the other hand, I'm not a novelist, and I don't know whether it's fairly standard for a novelist to write a book every year. Certainly, Fleming and Gardner were prolific, and people like Stephen King seem to churn 'em out at an astonishing rate, but writing a new novel every year to a high standard of quality does strike me as a tall order.

[Mister Asterix]

I like your idea, sssnob. I don’t know whether it is the right idea or not, but it is something that should be considered.

From a marketing stand point they can’t just have a new book with the name James Bond on the cover and have that book set in the Fifties. The masses will ignore it and those who don’t will be confused. To get around this they need to give a name to the new series. Something like The James Bond Files would do the trick and let everyone know this isn’t the same Bond the masses are used to. A title for the series would also give the new author or authors licence to create their own style for their Bond novels.

From a continuity standpoint a problem with setting Bond back in the Fifties and Sixties is that we have obviously already covered that era. Yes, the new novels could be shoehorned between Fleming’s stories, but it might get rather tough after a while. It would be difficult to set novels between From Russia, With Love and Doctor No or between You Only Live Twice and The Man With The Golden Gun, for instance. Here is what I would suggest to take care of that. Start the new series in 1945 with Bond just coming out of his stint with Naval Intelligence. The first novel could deal with his recruitment into the SIS or Bond working freelance for the SIS. I would set maybe three books before Casino Royale and then shoehorn the stories. Of course, nothing says that the novels need to go in order. And the books could probably be set anywhere from 1945 to roughly 1972.

The more I think about it, the more I am liking your idea, sss. So what if the novels are not like the films. Benson tried that and the film fans stayed away for the most part. Let the Bond novels be bold again and let’s see if they can grab some attention by not being like the films.

[jwheels]

I lIke your idea too, SSS. Mr. * I like the idea of setting the books when Bond is just getting out of the Navy, maybe we could also have books that take place during the 70's between Colonel Sun and Licence Renewed

[Simon]

Originally posted by Loomis

On the other hand, I'm not a novelist, and I don't know whether it's fairly standard for a novelist to write a book every year. Certainly, Fleming and Gardner were prolific, and people like Stephen King seem to churn 'em out at an astonishing rate, but writing a new novel every year to a high standard of quality does strike me as a tall order.

I understand Robert Ludlum wrote large books at such a prolific rate that he had to release them under pseudonyms to get round the marketing no-no of more than one book a year.

In fact, even though he has died, there will be posthumous new releases of his work for years to come.

[scaramanga]

Why not get different writers to write under the same pseudonym? It was suggested by Glidrose after Fleming's death for guest writers to write under the pen name George Glidrose. Or how about using Robert Markham instead? Kingsley Amis only used it for the one novel, theres no reason why it couldn't be used again for different authors to have a stab at writing Bond.