Should Boyd Novel Reference "Colonel Sun" or "Devil May Care"

DB5

My understanding is that the upcoming William Boyd novel will feature a 45 year old James Bond in the year 1969. So my question is, where exactly is the novel picking up? Should Boyd reference the events in Amis' "Colonel Sun?" Or in Faulks' "Devil May Care?" Or not reference either and have Bond's story take place just after Fleming's "The Man with the Golden Gun?" Personally I'd like this novel to follow "Colonel Sun," and to just pretend that "Devil May Care" didn't exist. Perhaps Bond could muse about Ariadne, or recall the ear torture he was subjected to by Colonel Sun. Any thoughts?

chrisisall

DB5 wrote:

Personally I'd like this novel to follow "Colonel Sun," and to just pretend that "Devil May Care" didn't exist.

I agree with that; I take Amis' novel to be more or less Fleming cannon, and I expect that even if his novel doesn't directly reference it, it will build from there.

timmer

Me too. Colonel Sun easily slips into the post Fleming timeline. DMC I think squeezes between Fleming and Amis, timeline wise, so he could acknowledge both if he wanted to, although I'd have to read Colonel Sun again, but it quite possibly might not jive with DMC. I don't think Faulks made any effort to take Colonel Sun into account.

Villiers53

Definitely Boyd should reference Colonel Sun. The less said about Faulkes' abortion the better!

TheWizardOfIce

Villiers53 wrote:

Definitely Boyd should reference Colonel Sun. The less said about Faulkes' abortion the better!

You've literally written word for word exactly what I was about to say.

I salute you Sir there are not many on here with the intelligence and good taste of the Wizard.

Villiers53

TheWizardOfice, thank you. There are two few of us out there as the dialogue in this hallowed cyber hall often demonstrates!

007InVT

And now Bond 24 will be 'based on Devil May Care'. That could mean anything I suppose, names of characters, locations or simply the book title. Let's remember this was a phrase that Fleming used (and Kingsley Amis a lot) well before Faulks (or his publisher) decided to use it.

By the way, I intentionally don't want to post in the Bond 24 & Beyond category since it's impossible to keep track of it all.

Dragonpol

007InVT wrote:

And now Bond 24 will be 'based on Devil May Care'. That could mean anything I suppose, names of characters, locations or simply the book title. Let's remember this was a phrase that Fleming used (and Kingsley Amis a lot) well before Faulks (or his publisher) decided to use it.

By the way, I intentionally don't want to post in the Bond 24 & Beyond category since it's impossible to keep track of it all.

If The Sun is the source for that, I wouldn't hold my breath on that one as they are full of dung.

saunders

I'm all for each new author starting with a clean slate and using only Fleming's work for references. Yes Colonel Sun was a very good attempt but certainly not great enough to be considered part of Fleming's Bond's official timeline. If you start along this road where do you end? Would you have to then include not only the Amis and Faulks works but also the Gardner and the Benson (God forbid!) as part of his official history.
Let Boyd have the chance to write a fresh Bond novel without having to be shackled to the interpretations of the lesser authors.

Dragonpol

Benson referred back to Gardner and Amis, but I think perhaps that (as @saunders notes above) the clean slate is best with these stand-alone Bond continuation novels. This seems to be the approach with Glidrose currently. It makes more sense that way, really.

Perdogg

I find it rather odd that Boyd has Bond 45 in his novel. I am assuming that this is in reference to 007 being born in the "year of the rat" in YOLT. That means that Bond was no older than 17 when he took out the Japanese cypher clerk in CR.

dalton

Dragonpol wrote:

007InVT wrote:

And now Bond 24 will be 'based on Devil May Care'. That could mean anything I suppose, names of characters, locations or simply the book title. Let's remember this was a phrase that Fleming used (and Kingsley Amis a lot) well before Faulks (or his publisher) decided to use it.

By the way, I intentionally don't want to post in the Bond 24 & Beyond category since it's impossible to keep track of it all.

If The Sun is the source for that, I wouldn't hold my breath on that one as they are full of dung.

I seriously doubt that BOND 24 will be an adaptation of DEVIL MAY CARE. I don't see EON going back now to adapt the continuation novels, especially when their screenplay is being written by an Academy Award nominated screenwriter. Why waste a screenwriter of that pedigree on a novel that wasn't really received all that well and has been forgotten by the general public.

With regards to the question posed by the OP, I think that Boyd should just stick with writing his own story and not need to namecheck any of the other novels. If he does feel the need to make references, then both COLONEL SUN and DEVIL MAY CARE should be referenced, as they are a part of the Fleming-era timeline, for better (CS) or worse (DMC).

DB5

saunders wrote:

I'm all for each new author starting with a clean slate and using only Fleming's work for references. Yes Colonel Sun was a very good attempt but certainly not great enough to be considered part of Fleming's Bond's official timeline. If you start along this road where do you end? Would you have to then include not only the Amis and Faulks works but also the Gardner and the Benson (God forbid!) as part of his official history.
Let Boyd have the chance to write a fresh Bond novel without having to be shackled to the interpretations of the lesser authors.

No, Boyd wouldn't include any of Gardner's or Benson's stories because they occuured outside of the timeline, in the 80s and 90s.

saunders

DB5 wrote:

saunders wrote:

I'm all for each new author starting with a clean slate and using only Fleming's work for references. Yes Colonel Sun was a very good attempt but certainly not great enough to be considered part of Fleming's Bond's official timeline. If you start along this road where do you end? Would you have to then include not only the Amis and Faulks works but also the Gardner and the Benson (God forbid!) as part of his official history.
Let Boyd have the chance to write a fresh Bond novel without having to be shackled to the interpretations of the lesser authors.

No, Boyd wouldn't include any of Gardner's or Benson's stories because they occuured outside of the timeline, in the 80s and 90s.

Sorry I didn't really make myself clear, what I was trying to suggest was that whoever writes a future Bond novel and regardless of what era they set it in, they shouldn't feel they need to be a slave to the writings of any of the previous continuation authors. I would argue that by recognising and including references to other authors works you start to dilute the character and his world as created by Fleming.
Not that I want to seem like I'm picking on him personally, but Raymond Benson is an extreme example of what can happen when you stray too much from the original source material, with his references to Amis, Gardner and the films, his version of Bond lost any sense of credibility in regards to Fleming's original works.

bbartlettbooks

Don't forget about Per Fine Ounce! One assumes he has access to it...

Dragonpol

Colonel Sun could be mentioned, don't think Devil May Care will be, though.

TheWizardOfIce

Dragonpol wrote:

Colonel Sun could be mentioned, don't think Devil May Care will be, though.

ISBN should not even refer to Devil May Care let alone anyone else.

007InVT

bbartlettbooks wrote:

Don't forget about Per Fine Ounce! One assumes he has access to it...

Very true!

Dragonpol

bbartlettbooks wrote:

Don't forget about Per Fine Ounce! One assumes he has access to it...

As my friend Jeremy Duns could only turn up four pages of its manuscript despite an intensive search by Jenkins' son of his fathers papers, let me say now that I very much doubt that. There is no access to Per Fine Ounce. That's just a myth, I'm afraid...

Bounine

TheWizardOfIce wrote:

Villiers53 wrote:

Definitely Boyd should reference Colonel Sun. The less said about Faulkes' abortion the better!

You've literally written word for word exactly what I was about to say.

I salute you Sir there are not many on here with the intelligence and good taste of the Wizard.

Agreed. I don't care if the CS events aren't mentioned though.

Bentley

For me, the interesting question is have IFP insisted on any arc of continuity for the '60s Bond?
Obviously, Gardner's '80s reboot was a generation jumper as was the works of Benson and Deaver.
With Amis, Faulkes and now Boyd, IFP have allowed authors to tread on hallowed '60s soil and if they want to maintain any semblance of character development some level of orchestrated coherence would surely be necessary?

Bounine

One would think but I won't be surprised if there isn't any reference. Although, didn't Faulks mention TMWTGG assignment in DMC? Can't remember. Hopefully Boyd will have referenced one or two of Bond's assignments. I don't think IFP would have held him to it though.

TheWizardOfIce

Bentley wrote:

For me, the interesting question is have IFP insisted on any arc of continuity for the '60s Bond?
Obviously, Gardner's '80s reboot was a generation jumper as was the works of Benson and Deaver.
With Amis, Faulkes and now Boyd, IFP have allowed authors to tread on hallowed '60s soil and if they want to maintain any semblance of character development some level of orchestrated coherence would surely be necessary?

For that to happen you would have to assume IFP have a coherent strategy and know what they're doing.

That's a leap of faith I'm not prepared to take I'm afraid.

Dragonpol

TheWizardOfIce wrote:

Bentley wrote:

For me, the interesting question is have IFP insisted on any arc of continuity for the '60s Bond?
Obviously, Gardner's '80s reboot was a generation jumper as was the works of Benson and Deaver.
With Amis, Faulkes and now Boyd, IFP have allowed authors to tread on hallowed '60s soil and if they want to maintain any semblance of character development some level of orchestrated coherence would surely be necessary?

For that to happen you would have to assume IFP have a coherent strategy and know what they're doing.

That's a leap of faith I'm not prepared to take I'm afraid.

On recent past evidence I resignedly have to agree, Ice. I only hope that Solo by William Boyd will knock the literary strategy critics for six and I have faith that it will do just that.

SaintMark

Dragonpol wrote:

TheWizardOfIce wrote:

Bentley wrote:

For me, the interesting question is have IFP insisted on any arc of continuity for the '60s Bond?
Obviously, Gardner's '80s reboot was a generation jumper as was the works of Benson and Deaver.
With Amis, Faulkes and now Boyd, IFP have allowed authors to tread on hallowed '60s soil and if they want to maintain any semblance of character development some level of orchestrated coherence would surely be necessary?

For that to happen you would have to assume IFP have a coherent strategy and know what they're doing.

That's a leap of faith I'm not prepared to take I'm afraid.

On recent past evidence I resignedly have to agree, Ice. I only hope that Solo by William Boyd will knock the literary strategy critics for six and I have faith that it will do just that.

When do you expect a literary critic to admit that any book about the further adventures of 007 would be good?

Dragonpol

SaintMark wrote:

Dragonpol wrote:

TheWizardOfIce wrote:

Bentley wrote:

For me, the interesting question is have IFP insisted on any arc of continuity for the '60s Bond?
Obviously, Gardner's '80s reboot was a generation jumper as was the works of Benson and Deaver.
With Amis, Faulkes and now Boyd, IFP have allowed authors to tread on hallowed '60s soil and if they want to maintain any semblance of character development some level of orchestrated coherence would surely be necessary?

For that to happen you would have to assume IFP have a coherent strategy and know what they're doing.

That's a leap of faith I'm not prepared to take I'm afraid.

On recent past evidence I resignedly have to agree, Ice. I only hope that Solo by William Boyd will knock the literary strategy critics for six and I have faith that it will do just that.

When do you expect a literary critic to admit that any book about the further adventures of 007 would be good?

Well, it's happened sometimes in the past, but not a lot if they are even deigned worthy to be reviewed at all, I would say.

Dragonpol

SaintMark wrote:

Dragonpol wrote:

TheWizardOfIce wrote:

Bentley wrote:

For me, the interesting question is have IFP insisted on any arc of continuity for the '60s Bond?
Obviously, Gardner's '80s reboot was a generation jumper as was the works of Benson and Deaver.
With Amis, Faulkes and now Boyd, IFP have allowed authors to tread on hallowed '60s soil and if they want to maintain any semblance of character development some level of orchestrated coherence would surely be necessary?

For that to happen you would have to assume IFP have a coherent strategy and know what they're doing.

That's a leap of faith I'm not prepared to take I'm afraid.

On recent past evidence I resignedly have to agree, Ice. I only hope that Solo by William Boyd will knock the literary strategy critics for six and I have faith that it will do just that.

When do you expect a literary critic to admit that any book about the further adventures of 007 would be good?

Well, it's happened sometimes in the past, but not a lot if they are even deigned worthy to be reviewed at all, I would say.

SaintMark

Dragonpol wrote:

SaintMark wrote:

Dragonpol wrote:

TheWizardOfIce wrote:

Bentley wrote:

For me, the interesting question is have IFP insisted on any arc of continuity for the '60s Bond?
Obviously, Gardner's '80s reboot was a generation jumper as was the works of Benson and Deaver.
With Amis, Faulkes and now Boyd, IFP have allowed authors to tread on hallowed '60s soil and if they want to maintain any semblance of character development some level of orchestrated coherence would surely be necessary?

For that to happen you would have to assume IFP have a coherent strategy and know what they're doing.

That's a leap of faith I'm not prepared to take I'm afraid.

On recent past evidence I resignedly have to agree, Ice. I only hope that Solo by William Boyd will knock the literary strategy critics for six and I have faith that it will do just that.

When do you expect a literary critic to admit that any book about the further adventures of 007 would be good?

Well, it's happened sometimes in the past, but not a lot if they are even deigned worthy to be reviewed at all, I would say.

I once sat in the cinema with somebody who I knew was the movie critic of a major regional paper. The movie being a Brosnan Bond movie and the man was clearly enjoying himself laughing out loud and all that. Then I read his review which made it seem that anybody watching the movie was losing precious time to a substandard actionmovie. When I met him later in a pub I inquired after this particular review and me seeing him enjoying himself. The man told me that his reputation did require him to do a review on certain movies in a certain way if he wanted to be considered a serious reviewer. Ever since then I consider critics biased by their own reputation.
That said I will read the reviews on Solo and still make up my own mind.

Villiers53

TheWizardOfIce wrote:

Bentley wrote:

For me, the interesting question is have IFP insisted on any arc of continuity for the '60s Bond?
Obviously, Gardner's '80s reboot was a generation jumper as was the works of Benson and Deaver.
With Amis, Faulkes and now Boyd, IFP have allowed authors to tread on hallowed '60s soil and if they want to maintain any semblance of character development some level of orchestrated coherence would surely be necessary?

For that to happen you would have to assume IFP have a coherent strategy and know what they're doing.

That's a leap of faith I'm not prepared to take I'm afraid.

Again the wisdom of @TheWizardOflce shines through - I fear the best we can hope for is a damn fine stand alone Bond novel then we'll all be braying like hell for him to do another. I think Boyd is going to prove to be our literary Sam Mendes!

Dragonpol

SaintMark wrote:

Dragonpol wrote:

SaintMark wrote:

Dragonpol wrote:

TheWizardOfIce wrote:

Bentley wrote:

For me, the interesting question is have IFP insisted on any arc of continuity for the '60s Bond?
Obviously, Gardner's '80s reboot was a generation jumper as was the works of Benson and Deaver.
With Amis, Faulkes and now Boyd, IFP have allowed authors to tread on hallowed '60s soil and if they want to maintain any semblance of character development some level of orchestrated coherence would surely be necessary?

For that to happen you would have to assume IFP have a coherent strategy and know what they're doing.

That's a leap of faith I'm not prepared to take I'm afraid.

On recent past evidence I resignedly have to agree, Ice. I only hope that Solo by William Boyd will knock the literary strategy critics for six and I have faith that it will do just that.

When do you expect a literary critic to admit that any book about the further adventures of 007 would be good?

Well, it's happened sometimes in the past, but not a lot if they are even deigned worthy to be reviewed at all, I would say.

I once sat in the cinema with somebody who I knew was the movie critic of a major regional paper. The movie being a Brosnan Bond movie and the man was clearly enjoying himself laughing out loud and all that. Then I read his review which made it seem that anybody watching the movie was losing precious time to a substandard actionmovie. When I met him later in a pub I inquired after this particular review and me seeing him enjoying himself. The man told me that his reputation did require him to do a review on certain movies in a certain way if he wanted to be considered a serious reviewer. Ever since then I consider critics biased by their own reputation.
That said I will read the reviews on Solo and still make up my own mind.

Very interesting and indeed revealing story. I think you are right - they are restricted in some big way by their own reputation as a critic and building their profile as a serious no-nonsense critic who does not sway to the breeze of populism when it comes to film reviews.

I'm also very much in agreement with you on the making your own mind up. As O.F. Snelling said in his early study of James Bond, books and films would sell to an audience regardless of whether there were critics or not, showing that equally the general public on the whole are not that overly swayed by reviewers either, I think. Given some of the reviews that the literary and cinematic James Bond products have received over the years, perhaps that's just as well!

Bounine

Yes, interesting story regarding the reviewer. I had always wondered if this may have been the case. I'm not sure if I'd want to work as a movie reviewer. It might take away the fun of watching films. The same can obviously be said for books.

If Boyd writes a good book then I don't think it really matters if he hasn't mentioned any of Bond's past assignments. Well, I won't care anyway. I certainly hope he hasn't mentioned DMC though!

Only a month to go! Hopefully September (and maybe October as I might still be reading it then) will be the highlight of 2013.