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
There are some interesting ideas for passages that in theory should be introspective and Fleming-esque but come off as a bit cringey. Bond reading about gut bacteria and then linking this to 'gut instinct' is an example for me. Some of the writing in that section feels a bit too on the nose, a bit too 'tell, not show' to use an old writing term (especially where it overtly states that Bond tends to go into a depression when not on assignment. This is technically true of the original novels, but saying it so bluntly lacks that Fleming-esque introspection/use of literary language that I think evokes the way the literary character thinks).
It's an issue I've admittedly had with other non-Fleming writers, especially the more recent ones. They get Bond's cynicism, his world weariness, his more 'old fashioned' virtues, but without those little Fleming touches, those little embellishments that let you know he's a man who lives in the modern world and legitimately enjoys some of the things in his life, he tends to come off as a bore. An old man almost. I kind of get that sense here.
I think the obvious needs addressing first. This is a contemporary novel. It's baked into the very concept of the premise. It takes place in the run up to King Charle's coronation, and very often real world events, figures, and indeed politics are evoked. I actually find this interesting on the one hand. It's the first instance, as far as I can tell, of a millennial James Bond, and it's something we're going to see again with Bond 26 and new novels around the corner. This is a man born in the late 80s, a man who's never lived through the Cold War. One may ask if it's even possible to have a version of Fleming's character in this context.
To be clear, Higson clearly understands certain aspects of Fleming's character. In one passage we get a little aside where Bond recounts an article about gut bacteria and thinks about his own lifestyle - his bouts of depression when not assignment, the trauma his work has on his body. It's a neat and very Fleming-esque idea in concept, but Higson's writing is a little too blunt here. He openly states that Bond has these bouts of depression when his energy levels drop after a mission, that there's a risk agents in his position will lose this 'gut instinct' with age. Many of Fleming's passages contained similar introspection, but they would be much more nuanced and two dimensional. We would get moments where Bond compared killing to the job of a surgeon, where he would look at the body of a man he'd just killed and think of whether they'd had a family or driver's license. Fleming's writing was much more evocative and literary in this sense. For me Higson's passage came off as blunt, rather on the nose, and cringeworthy by comparison.
Like I said in my previous post it becomes clear during certain sections of this book that these are not the thoughts of a modern James Bond, but a sixty something year old author trying to write such a character. At one point Bond thinks of the term 'situation-ship' (supposedly used by 'younger people') when recounting a personal romance he's having. It makes about as much sense as Bond pondering the term 'Netflix and chill', and is even stranger considering it's not a particularly commonly used phrase amongst young people anyway. Again, it doesn't come off as something that would occur to a relatively young man.
Aside from this, we get some insight into how this version of Bond thinks politically. Again, this is by design. Much of the villain's introduction involves him spewing hard right rhetoric (it's admittedly a grift) with Bond dismissing it as disjointed nonsense. At one point he notices that the villain's meeting is full of white men with no 'attempt at diversity'. We get brief asides about how Bond believes that the hard left and hard right have much in common than the centre, how the likes of Orban and Trump are crude far right nationalists. It feels like a bit of a cop out if I'm honest. While there's something fundamentally conservative about James Bond (he is, after all, an agent who works to protect the status quo of his country) the literary character is not an unthinking creature either. Often in the Fleming novels Bond's cynicism felt rather subversive. He openly talks about the futility of the Cold War in CR. The term 'prohibition is the trigger of crime' is used to describe the crack down on drug smuggling in GF.
As a result, it's rather odd reading Higson's James Bond. To be clear Higson understands that Bond is essentially politically 'neutral' in practice. He's a blunt instrument after all, a man whose duty is towards his country, but he's also a man who operates outside of the typical government channels and often has doubts about his profession. I imagine a modern Bond with the cynicism of Fleming's character would have much more to ponder about the rise of right wing nationalism, about why people follow such figures, no matter how dismissive he is of them. Remember, this is a Bond whose adult life has been shaped by rather unstable world events, often created by the political 'elites' that Aethelstan superficially denounces. Does Bond think nothing about this? It's difficult to imagine him having such black and white opinions about politics, and I can't imagine him having much love for the political centre nor the modern bureaucrats of his own government. I certainly can't imagine any version of James Bond being surprised about the lack of 'diversity' in a room. It feels like a missed opportunity almost. For me, the most interesting Bond villains are the ones whose qualities in some way mirror those of Bond's, but at the same time lack his own virtues. Silva in SF for instance has a background as an agent and traumatic experience at M's hand which mirrors Bonds own. The difference is Silva resorts to revenge and anarchism, while Bond maintains loyalty and a sense of duty towards MI6. It might of been interesting if Aethelstan's rhetoric was a bit more subtle/convincing, or if Bond even agreed with certain parts of it to his discomfort. The revelation that his rhetoric is a grift isn't all that surprising, but is a nice little satirical point. Overall, it's a concept that's not fully realised for me.
I understand some people will view this book as a ham fisted attempt to bring 'woke' politics into Bond, but it's actually a rather politically safe novel. At no point does Bond express any opinion about the Monarchy. This is a shame as we currently live in a world where support for the Monarchy, and indeed many of Britain's older institutions, are viewed less favourably by an increasing number of people, particularly Bond's age in this novel. It might have been interesting to read Bond's thoughts about this in such an introspective story, how such a man whose only virtues (to use Fleming's words) are bravery and patriotism negotiates these sentiments in the modern world. I suppose the concept of this book was to be crowd pleaser in the run up to the coronation however, and having such nuanced thoughts about these topics wouldn't have suited the book's purpose.
With this in mind, my biggest complaint about OHiMSS is that it feels too disposable. The story is tight, and admittedly in the last half romps along at an enjoyable pace, but it lacks that extra substance a longer book would have given. At times I even wondered why Higson included certain things. Why add the subplot about Moneypenny being in a relationship with the late 009? It adds little drama and Bond certainly doesn't feel much towards his fellow agent (by all accounts the man described seems to be a bit of a dick).
Ragnheiour as a Bond girl is fine. I liked that it wasn't clear where her loyalties lay until towards the end. There were some odd little moments where it seems to be hinted that she's transgender. There's one instance where she smirks during Aethelstan's comment in the banquet about how she's a 'real woman' and there's of course the fact that she's had some sort of facial reconstruction (which Bond assumes to be as a result of a car crash). Again, it's an example of how truly 'safe' this books is when it comes to these matters. Instead of openly having a transgender character, a Bond girl no less, the book cloaks this aspect of her identity. I get the sense she could have been much more interesting.
There are little touches that I liked and think should be adapted for a future film. I love the fact, for instance, that the book makes clear that this James Bond has little presence on the internet. It's a very modern way of making the character enigmatic to others and cementing the secrecy of his job, as well as making him something of an outsider. Bond having a smartphone gadget that steals the data from other people's phone is also really cool.
I suspect a short story with a more scaled down plot would have been more appropriate for the event this book is trying to commemorate. Overall this is a strange and frustrating little book. The bare bones story feels too throw-away, and the more introspective passages are hit or miss. I hope going forward more attempts are made to write a modern James Bond adventure. Like I said, with Bond 26 we are going to see a different take on the character, and hopefully one which is able to sufficiently evoke the fundamental qualities of Fleming's creation. For all of Higson's understanding of the literary 007 I feel he falls short in this area.
5.5/10
Very good write-up. Mirrors a lot of my thoughts, although I come out a bit more positive than you.
Overall, I think we are still looking for a proper book exploration of what the Milennial version of our brave and patriotic civil servant with a Licence to Kill would actually look like. This has some glimpses, but doesn't really solve the puzzle, I agree.
But yes, I agree. There are encouraging glimpses at a millennial James Bond in this novel, and Higson is clearly invested in maintaining the broad features of Fleming’s character. He just misses the mark for the reasons I stated. Obviously it’s new territory for the Bond series. [\spoiler]
Read it back in the '70s when I was in junior high (my friend and I snuck into the theater to see the movie when I was 12 years old, he was 11 and his dad had already taken him once). I loved the book back then, but I obviously need to revisit it.
My favourite Exorcist yarn is when Black Sabbath went to see the film in New York and they were so scared afterwards that they all spent the night in the same hotel room! :))
There's no word on that as yet. Higson has said in interviews that he doesn't know if he'll be asked to do more and that he was just asked to do this one for now. It was all rather last minute so I doubt if very much thought was given to more novels by IFP at the time of asking. It still remains to be seen what they're going to do next with the adult Bond continuation.
https://www.mi6community.com/discussion/10118/odd-one-out/p104
I'm a bit surprised that IFP hasn't announced a USA hard or soft cover version for OHissMSS.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-terribleness-of-a-progressive-bond/
They actually criticise Bond for not having a full English breakfast at one point, showing they don't know anything about 007, and don't seem to realise they sound like a ridiculous Farage parody. Also apparently, you can't be vaguely progressive and still like cars, good to know.
(Credit to LicenceToQueer on Twitter for plucking it from the bin)
With Charlie Higson showing up at all these Bond events, do you think he might have a new Bond book on the way?
Its rather rushed conception and writing are no doubt the cause of this. However, I blame IFP (and not the author) for not giving Charlie Higson enough time to write it and for a proper and thorough editing process to then be conducted. If they had been thinking what they were doing they'd have contacted Higson shortly after the Queen died in order to give him enough time to write his short story or book and have it ready for King Charles III's coronation in May 2023. As others have said, I hope that the typos and missing words etc. can be fixed for any future paperback edition that may come along.
Other than a nice marketing ploy, would it really have made that much difference if they held off and published it after the coronation when everyone's properly had time to write it, edited it, design the cover, etc.?
Certainly it wouldn't have made much difference for US readers as they got it a bit later I think or it at least took longer to get to them post publication day. It was a bit of a marketing gimmick but I still think forward planning by IFP some time after the Queen's death would have avoided a lot of the problems that beset the book during its rushed writing, editing and publication.
Maybe they're not immediately looking at every world event and major death as a book opportunity?
IFP is starting to become like Rockstar Games. Not giving the fans what they want more often than not. Also, when they do release a new product, there's usually backlash, fair or not. They just release a product as is, hoping that patches will help them in the future.
No, I'm sure they're not but some extra time wouldn't have gone amiss either. The pressure they put Charlie Higson under to deliver something was rather unfair.
I guess, but they could hardly get The King's Coronation put back a few months...? Sometimes you spot an opportunity and go for it.
I liked it, I don't see why we're treating it as a failure.
I don't really follow. I don't think they're going to release any patches to their books.
A distinct part of Bond history regardless I'm glad they did it. Bond is very well-represented in recent times.
It’s a decent enough book, but I wouldn’t pander too much to the further left either — Bond is not a loved figure there, representing things that are at the very least out of vogue, so any writer would really be on a hiding to nothing, or have to warp the character almost beyond recognition.
This is just about right, in that space inhabited by the works of Mick Herron — slightly cynical, and wary of populist politics. (Boris Johnson was satirised to the hilt in the Slough House novels, until real world events led to that being a little unwise)It isn’t quite as daft with its modern progressive spin as Horowitz got in his books even.
It lands, if I am honest, in roughly the same space as Flemings own work — carefully progressive, within taste and reason, and fairly subtle about it. No time for the swivel-eyed or the frothing-at-the-mouth types, and using exaggerated real-world concerns to flesh out its borderline comedy villains.
I’d read more, and quite liked the Icelandic witch, whatever she turns out to be.
Though next time, in the interest of fair play and balance, I suggest eco-protestors as the satirised villain group. Bond has form there, for a start.
I wouldn't advise that. That'd be opening Bond up to real controversy.