Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Is Modern literary Bond dead, and if so Why?
I feel this needs to be discussed
From Casino Royale - The Man with the red tattoo (the last benson bond novel) the literary James bond lived in what was at the release of the books the present. Then since 2008 we have had 4 adult bond Novels (including this falls Trigger Mortis) and only one ( Jeffery Deaver's Carte Blanche) was set in the present the other three were set in the 50's/60's and I have to ask why? Fleming never intended his character to be a period piece indeed OHMSS discuss Ursala Andress (who was in Dr. No a year earlier I believe) So I have to ask does Modern Bond just simply not work are authors afraid to use him in the modern context?
In other words is Modern Literary Bond Dead?
If so Why?
If Not who could possibly bring him back. I thought Deaver had some great ideas (the 00 branch being a shadowy branch of mi6 created after 9/11 etc) but I felt his execution was garbage (Although I think next summer I might reread Carte Blanche to see how I truly feel.)
My thoughts Brad Meltzer could be the man to bring it back. the man can write a great thriller he has a great prowess for descriptions and action and is a Bond fan..
well enough of my ramblings what do you guys think?
From Casino Royale - The Man with the red tattoo (the last benson bond novel) the literary James bond lived in what was at the release of the books the present. Then since 2008 we have had 4 adult bond Novels (including this falls Trigger Mortis) and only one ( Jeffery Deaver's Carte Blanche) was set in the present the other three were set in the 50's/60's and I have to ask why? Fleming never intended his character to be a period piece indeed OHMSS discuss Ursala Andress (who was in Dr. No a year earlier I believe) So I have to ask does Modern Bond just simply not work are authors afraid to use him in the modern context?
In other words is Modern Literary Bond Dead?
If so Why?
If Not who could possibly bring him back. I thought Deaver had some great ideas (the 00 branch being a shadowy branch of mi6 created after 9/11 etc) but I felt his execution was garbage (Although I think next summer I might reread Carte Blanche to see how I truly feel.)
My thoughts Brad Meltzer could be the man to bring it back. the man can write a great thriller he has a great prowess for descriptions and action and is a Bond fan..
well enough of my ramblings what do you guys think?
^ 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
1. No writer can match Ian Fleming. Except a couple who will never write a bond Novel.
2. The movies have pretty much destroyed the novels. People do not really read anymore, I wonder how many people actually know Bond originated from novels. People do not have the patience to read through words after seeing Bond on a bobcat in the movie.
3. Bond doesn't fit in the modern world as PC police and modern Homintern have defined it.
Personally, I do not want to read about Bond turning on a mobile and using an iPhone app.
Regard the content, it's entirely possible. You have to adjust the character, though. He'd be a man that understood technology and was capable, but shunned it on a personal level. It's not difficult, he's an isolated sort of fellow so wouldn't be obliged to engage in trend following. It would also add to his slightly combative streak and reluctance to play by the rules. In this case societal ones. Many of his character attributes can remain the same. He can smoke, drink to excess and sleep around.
I don't really ascribe to Perdogg's pessimistic scenario. Enough people read and no one can stop you writing a novel. The only sticking point is topping Fleming. If you accept this is near, if not completely impossible, then an author may have a shot at something interesting and enjoyable.
In my opinion, we simply need a great 007 book and it can be done in a multiplicity of different ways.
Gardner successfull rebooted for the '80s showed that Bond can be updated as his first five outings met with considerable commercial and critical success. Albeit, even back then, the character and the era didn't sit comfortably together.
In another way, in the form of 'Young Bond', literary Bond has enjoyed recent sustainable success. Few who have read them have anything but praise and they fleshed out the formative years of Fleming's creation perfectly whilst having given us great, new adventures. I speak of the Higson books.
When it comes to the quality continuation of iconic characters, Horowitz's success with Holmes and Hannah's recent hit with Poirot are concrete examples of what can happen when enthused, quality authors take up their pens. They both elected to keep their hero's in period settings and fans were delighted because the books were great.
What is probably unique about Bond is the screen phenomena that has long had little, if anything, to do with Fleming's creation. It is this that makes a modern literary Bond extremely difficult.
If you adapt screen Bond to the page you would have no differential advantage over current, modern literary espionage offers. Indeed you probably have disadvantages.
If you tried to update Fleming's Bond, as Deaver disastrously tried, you are left with a cardboard cut out of the original.
Horowitz has taken absolutely the correct route and in September we will be presented with something marvellous - I've staked my name on it.
With regard to Perdogg's assertion that "people don't really read anymore" if correct, JK Rowling would have to return a lot of money!
As well as being a great story teller, Horowitz is a real chameleon, he has a capacity to inhabit different styles because he doesn't let his ego get in the way.
If we look at the recent past, Deaver was just the wrong choice. He is an American pulp writer who proved incapable of delivering anythingthing remotely qualitative.
Boyd and Faulks should have worked but their huge egos prohibited them fully embracing the project.
Trigger Mortis will be huge!
.
This I don't understand at all, All were contemporary when written - that's the whole gig!
All is possible but aside from the franchise name, what's the differential advantage?
That's more the point.
the most grievous crime Deaver did was invent a really cool back story for his 007 and deliver a crappy novel. After 9/11 I could see MI6 developed a shadow organization known as the 00 branch working to make sure terrorists are dealt with quickly swiftly and quietly without the public knowing about it. I could see this Bond working in Istanbul or Tangier... Suave sophisticated ruthless.... I could see this be a litereary franchise taking the Fleming idium (as described by Demond Llewellyn "Give bond the right clothes the right car the right girl set your story in the most beautiful and romantic places and take the story along so fast no one notices the idiosyncrocies")... I could see the writer using titles like "the Devil is in the Details" and (thought it was a game title) "BloodStone"... Apparently Deaver could not and gave a half hearted story....
Like I said I don't mind the past or occasionally doing a novel in Fleming's timeline but I feel If Fleming were magically to come back to life and start writing he wouldn't set it in 1964 he would set it in 2016.
What I mean is that if you write a novel set in the 50s or 60s, you are writing (to a degree) historical fiction. There is a temporal exoticism to the story that is entirely foreign to Fleming's, who is contemporary to the action. This is the problem when you write any story from a source set in the past.
Is it sarcastic, or is it truly a compliment?
ah ok! Thanks.
The stage is set for both the literary Bond and the cinematic Bond. Unfortunately both don't really take they're chances yet (I'm also looking at SF, although quite some people might disagree).
I'm walking around with an idea for a novel myself for quite some time now. It involves quite a few of the things mentioned above. I'm first re-reading some of my favourite originals, then I might have a go.
I agree about the continuations. Not only for Fleming but for Doyle, Stoker, Chandler, etc. Heck, even Agatha Christie!
I dare say £££$$$ was a fairly big factor considering how successful Fleming's books were.
For me, a well-written Bond novel is not one that recaptures the times in which he
was created, but one that recaptures the essence of the character. I am not distracted by the fact that in early novels Bond used a pay phone, whereas today he'd have a mobile.
Sherlock deftly handles the time shift from past to present.
I have no problem with Horowitz doing a vintage Bond, but a contemporary Bond in the right hands works as well. As for the Deaver Bond, the author apparently took the title to heart.
A small thing called demand probably answers your point.
Iconic characters and stories have been interpreted endlessly and often to very good effect. I don't see anything fundamentally wrong or objectionable in that.
The phenomenally talented, late great PD James even wrote a fabulous continuity novel for 'Pride & Prejudice'.
The questions for anybody writing continuity has to be is it done well and is it valid?
The reason I prefer 'period Bond' is that it allows the author to be faithful to the idiosyncrasies of the original character. Many of which were inextricably linked to GB loosing the empire and the transition to a new world order.
No doubt a modern Bond could be done albeit Benson and Deaver failed miserably.
Remeber Carte Blanche was a best seller
As for quality that is a whole different discussion. For me the Moneypenny novels were easily the best.
Here speaks a man who knows, 'The Moneypenny Diaries' are absolutely amazing and so little talked about in these column inches. They are truly original and completely thrilling.
The other great Bond coup is, of course, Higson's 'Young Bond' series (unfortunately, Cole is no were near as good). I'm constantly amazed that some 007 fans haven't read them.
I think the thought process is that these are books for women (TMD) or children (YB) and this is a huge misnomer. By ignoring them, folk are missing out on some of the very best of the franchise.