It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Kind of funny more special editions of books don't come with bookmarks when you think about it. I feel like they could have had a bit more fun with it though.
Mind you, that's not as bad as something else I got this week: my copy of the latest Indiana Jones soundtrack CD turned up, after spending nine months in the post!
Goldsboro put out a signed, numbered and stamped edition of the little hardback last year, did anyone here get one of those?
You just have to be careful of the gold lettering on the front. It fell off if you looked at it too many times.
Yes, It's pretty dire. My copy has already gone to the charity shop!
I said this elsewhere, but the funny thing is I read it this time with a bit of a Craig-ish, modern Bond in mind; and with that the story actually feels a little more slight, in that there's nothing really in the way of drama for Bond. It is a pretty straightforward, Bank Holiday style Bond-takes-down-a-baddie story, which is fine for what it is, but I must admit I do kind of enjoy the recent Bonds where there's a bit more in the way of personal stakes for Bond. You don't really get emotionally involved with the story. There's a bit of that with the previous murdered agent being Moneypenny's lover, and that's fine and M gets a bit of grit from that, but it's quickly forgotten.
I know lots of folks want that element of personal stakes removed from any future movies or stories, but this book kind of proved to me that I really don't and I missed that element not being there.
It’s a weird book though. Not sure if I’d personally be up for more Higson Bond novels either (shame, as I actually liked his Young Bond novels).
That's an interesting thought, I like that.
I wouldn't say the book fails (or doesn't work) because of the lack of a personal element. Trigger Mortis had no personal storyline and still works better. I think OHiMSS has a slight awkwardness I'd put down to not enough time allowed to properly develop the story. The troop of right-wingers doesn't really ever strike fear and is debased as a threat when we realise that the villain isn't serious and is just out to short the pound. And the serious Charles-deniers are jokes at each others' throats as well, most mentioned politicians and podcasters, and only a few actually fighting men.
If it was something like a bomb then I think it would have worked better but storming the streets for the coronation (with the company described) doesn't elicit enough threat of their success I think. Add the fact that the Bond girl is a little bit unconstructed and death of the villain+henchman happen long before the scheme actually happens. And the climax with sister feels a part of a different story.
I don't think it is particularly bad, but just a product of the writing process and it shouldn't stop IFP from choosing Higson to write more adult Bond.
OHiMSS had an extremely short process, so of course it didn't result in stellar work. Higson didn't have a year or something like that, he had a few months as they expected a short story from him. The novel mentions Macron's pension protests for example, which means he was still writing in mid-March when the book came out in early-May.
Higson is a good author, his other work with Bond shows that, and OHiMSS is also in my opinion nothing worse than mediocre. I think that shows he deserves another chance with a fuller writing process and more time to write a novel.
To be clear I should say that I don’t think the book fails because of a lack of personal stakes: I don’t think it fails at all really and for me it achieves what it sets out to do, which is to be a brief and breathless bit of 007 adventure fun.
But my personal preference is to have a bit more bite from a Bond story now, and it being set in the modern day just allows for a more direct comparison to the recent films which all have more in the way of personal stakes and I think are more involving for it.
I will say OHiMSS was more memorable by comparison even though I wasn't a fan. Heck, I'd say it was more memorable than With a Mind to Kill as well. I don't know if it being lacklustre for many was down to the writing process. I know he had a short time to write it, but I think it's difficult to gauge how some of its ideas - which are a bit on the nose at times, perhaps a bit silly too (or rather a bit too tongue in cheek) - would have developed with more time.
Personally, I like that it's the first instance we've seen of a young, modern James Bond for the 21st Century (so effectively a Bond born after the Cold War). I don't think Higson gets Bond's attitudes quite right, but I appreciated the attempt at maintaining the Fleming-esque traits of the literary character in a modern setting. It's interesting to me anyway, considering the new era of Bond in films, video games, books, comics etc. not too far off. The villain being a right wing grifter is a bit silly, but it's not necessarily a bad idea (it's not unprecedented for Bond to make fun of contemporary figures like that - LTK pokes fun at televangelists, although I think it's simply a better execution in that film).
Anyway, it's one of these little oddities you occasionally get with Bond, especially with continuation Bond authors. Some of us will like them more than others. Gardner certainly had his off the wall ideas. Honestly, I'd actually take OHiMSS over something like Benson's Blast From The Past.
I know Deaver's Bond was born in the 80s, but I still think he wrote a very 21st century based character (even though it was not as close to Bond as one would want it to be). Higson does do a better job at modernising Bond, although I think Deaver did a good job with modernising the surroundings with ODG and the different collaborations in modern intelligence.
In terms as a comparison to Horowitz's work, I don't think the villain of this one can make a claim to be much better than any of the three/four of the Horowitz ones, although for most the Horowitz ones Bond is fighting the plot, not the villain, which makes it different to Fleming's stories where the villain is normally learned from early on. This normally leads to weaker villains but adds a bit of development to the plot to find them and bait them out, but of course Colonel Sun gets the best of both worlds.
The villain in Higson's piece doesn't really come off as the right-wing leader that he should. His speech, long and scattered, doesn't even have punchy lines and accusations that would motivate a crowd. There the make XYZ great again but nothing else really that encapsulates the charismatic mix of sincerity and goofiness that makes up the rhetoric.
The revised paperback is a bit more fun, but they're so similar I wouldn't say it's worth reading the original to compare.
Yeah the world that Deaver created was a really enjoyable updating, but he kind of failed to put Bond in there. Higson's is more recognisably 007.
I think I'd probably rank this villain as being more memorable than those, but mainly because it's impossible not to picture Farage wearing ermine robes, which is a striking image! Even though Higson took pains to describe him with a big handlebar moustache etc. I still just saw Farage :D
Well, he’s a grifter/not sincere anyway, and the tone is kind of tongue in cheek (but I agree, it would have been more interesting if there’d have been more substance to his rhetoric).
You’ve got a point about Bond fighting plot in Horowitz. But I think you can still have an awesome villain while setting up the story in that way/introducing the villain late (as you said CS is good at it, and in terms of films Silva in SF kinda falls into that category too and I think he’s a great villain. I’m sure there’s more examples). Colonel Boris is my favourite of a bad lot (he at least has brainwashing and hypnosis to fall back onto as a threat, although it’s kind of hokey anyway and he lacks personality). The villains in FAAD are just lame in my opinion. You’ve got a generic evil American businessman with a generic terminal illness and a generic revenge motive. Scipo is just a budget Le Chiffre, and the scenes where he’s trying to intimidate Bond are a bit hammy for me. I actually enjoy FAAD otherwise though.
Thanks! I'll pick up the revised paperback when I get the chance. I've yet to read anything by Charlie Higson.
I haven't read any young Bond. Something about the concept just doesn't appeal to me.
I guess you'd say they are more adventure books than spy ones, but then I suppose Fleming's are too really; just dressed up in the clothes of spy stuff. But it's totally understandable for someone to prefer that aesthetic.
I do think he gets the kind of weird sadistic kinkiness of Fleming right in them though: for me the closest anyone else has ever got. They feel in the same world as Fleming's to me. Now I think of it, OHiMSS was actually missing that quality a bit: there's nothing massively outlandish or pleasingly twisted in it, which is a bit of a shame really as it's something I would have expected him to do.
I’m ok with that. As long as they 1-2 years apart at max. One adult Bond novel and a spinoff character novel is ok with me.
This is why Carte Blanche deserved a sequel. Even if Deaver didn’t write it. With the exception of Bond himself, everything else was great.
I view the movies as PG-13, and the modern day (90s to present at least) as R-Rated Bond material. More sex and violence, in graphic detail.