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
This question has been on the lips of Bond aficionados ever since John Gardner brought out Licence Renewed in 1981.
Personally, I look for a strong, original well-conceived fast paced plot, good characterisation, strong theme, and well-crafted dialogue. If the author writes in the style of Fleming, then that's just the icing on the cake. In other words, it's good to have, but not essential.
I think that fans of Fleming's Bond -- and I daresay we outnumber fans of the continuation novels -- feel that Fleming's writing style very much set the scene for the book and brings back sense satisfaction and excitement we felt when we sat down, glass of Champagne in hand, to read the new Fleming book. It's a bit like the trademark gun-barrel sequence in the movie. However, to me, good writing will always trump a Fleming-esque style.
Unfortunately, I've only come across a couple of continuation novels that meet all the above criteria and, funnily enough, they are both Fleming-esque. These are Trigger Mortis and Colonel Sun. John Gardner's books were dull and predictable with cardboard cut-out characters; Raymond Benson redefines the phrase "bad writing"; Sebastian Faulks was just a tad less dull than John Gardner's but he raises the bar on the art of clichéd writing several notches (the opening sentence says it all); Jeffrey Deaver was okay, but nothing special. William Boyd was also okay, but again his plot was one big cliché. How many times has Bond gone rogue now? Put another record on, William.
So maybe the icing on the cake is essential after all, but if all the above-named authors had emulated Fleming, I doubt whether it would have elevated their books very much.
An interesting question and a difficult one to answer primarily because it depends how you define Flemingesque.
For me, his writing is defined by a very '50s high old tone along with restless changing of scenes allied with a reportage style and amazing descriptive powers.
It's a tall order - if not an impossibility - to expect somebody to encapsulate all of this but if they ignore it completely, as Deaver did, it's just not Bond.
Amis, Gardner and Horowitz have come perilously close and I don't think you can ask for more.
Good stuff, fellas.
I can definitely see your points. Certainly, Fleming's attention to details that bring life to scenes and the fast pacing of his stories are hallmarks. I think the latter is essential if one wants to write a Bond story. I think the former, however, is something only a special breed of writers can achieve. I personally would not expect any writer hired to do a continuation novel to be as good as Fleming with descriptions. That wouldn't make the book 'not Bond', but that's just me.
The thing is that Bond is the full package. Bond, in essence, is a very strong willed, determined, moralistic man whose hang for adventure, excitement and duty not only brings him in self doubt but eventually breaks him down. As is stated by M many times, it's a job none can do for long, and Bond has been doing it for a long time.
So we have our 'cardboard' hero, with layer upon layer of personality. Only a man with the writing capabilities of a Fleming can create such a hero and keep all these aspects in play. In TDMC or CB we get the light 'cinematic Brosnan' Bond. For that kind of hero, we can go to any bookshop and buy any thriller. Those are the 'Tom Clancy' heroes.
And then there's more. For this was only Bond. But his universe is exciting. Fleming takes you to a dull airport in Jamaica and lets you sweat in the heat whilst Bond is awaiting his transfer. It's his ability to describe any setting, dull or exciting, in such a way that it always seems interesting, that makes his writing unique.
So why is it important any Bond-aspiring writer should be able to do the same? Well, for it's the layers of this character, and the wonderfull settings, together with colourfull supporting characters and fascinating villains is what makes Bond unique. And at the same time it's Fleming's writing that make Bond, the settings and the villains interesting in the first place.
Two small things that bug me: I did not like the castle cliché for Germany 12 years after the war, too close to outworn Hollywood Nazi imagery. And I was also very puzzled by the mention of a "Danny's coffee shop" in post-war Germany, and in the deserted Eifel region of all places. The first American franchises did not start in Germany until the sixties (KFC) and McDonalds started in 1971. If you wanted a coffee in Germany in 1957 you had no options but a traditional Café, but back then it would have been impossible to find any place that is open for breakfast.
Depends. Was the Eifel under American occupation ? In this case, it would not be so far-fetched. If it had been in Baden-Baden (French occupation zone), there would have been some problems indeed.
Unbelievable!
Goldsboro Books in London is the shop. Maybe I'll call or email them. Anyone else ordered anything from these guys?
Continuation of time with Pussy in London is well done.
Good Bond book. Feels natural.
Yes, I ordered that one as well not knowing I'd be going to the launch and getting the Waterstones edition.
Still not received it from Goldsboro!
Page 78 Cdn hardcover.
"There was a sense of comaraderie that Bond knew would disappear the moment the chequered flag came down but right now, on the eve of battle, everyone was relaxed."
I believe Horowitz is referring to the start of the race with this checkered flag reference.
However racing fans know that the checkered flag is waved at the end of a race only.
A green flag waves to signal the start of a race. Modern F1 uses green lights for a standing start, but its the same idea - green signals the start.
In Indy Car they wave a green flag for the rolling starts and standing starts.
84 pages in, I have a quibble. He's got a bit too cute with how the Pussy Galore situation was resolved. He's ventured into Benson territory.
I am not crazy about reviving iconic Fleming characters that are unique to one story, and who exist in that timeless story, ie Pussy Galore, Draco Tiger Tanaka.
What Benson did with Draco was grievous IMO. What he did with Tanaka was just pointless, bringing him foward over 30 years, even if he didn't screw with the essence of the character in any real bad way, like he did with Draco.
Fleming I think has ownership of these characters and he chose not to develop them beyond the books he wrote.
I don't mind a passing reference to these characters, but to engage them fully in a new story I think is folly.
eg Pussy in Trigger Mortis
But to have her follow Bond on his new assignment, get herself in trouble with the thugs that tried to paint her gold, and then having Bond need to rescue her, and then have her run off with the new girl. It's a bit much.
Its far too cute. It's a long convoluted way to get rid of her, and the new girl, in one fell swoop, so that Bond can carry on independant at Nurburg. Convenient but again way too cute.
I haven't finished the book so I do realize that Pussy may yet return, so there could be more stuff coming.
But I prefer to remember Pussy as intrinsic to the Goldfinger yarn and developed no further than Fleming chose to take her.
We saw this kind of thing with Pearson too. He followed up on Tiffany Case's stay with Bond, although what he did seemed to be a straight fleshing out of what Fleming had already established. ie Tiffany hangs around for a while and eventually realizes relationship is going nowhere and leaves, with a nice military man.
That's what I figured would go down with Pussy too. She would eventually move on, minus drama and further adventure.
Pearson did take liberties with Honey coming back into Bond's life, but at least there was no further adventuring. She is only an old girlfriend comeback for girlfriend stuff, no mission work.
But Horowitz engages Pussy in a whole new round of danger and adventure.
Just didn't sit with me.
I think this is very dicey territory to re-engage iconic characters unique to very specific stories, in fresh new adventures.
Otherwise I am enjoying the book. He's worked at finding the Fleming style and he's around it. Not quite, but in the ballpark. That aside (and I didn't actually expect him to nail Fleming anyway) he's got a good yarn going.
I am enjoying this book as a worthy Bond continuation adventure.
Good job!
If we're making lists, I'd say Trigger rates along with Colonel Sun as the 'go to' book after Fleming. I loved the little details that referenced the original books and the Pussy Galore bits made me want to re-read Goldfinger.
He should certainly do another. They should give him the gig.
As far as I'm concerned, a complete success.
I know, I know. I read one Gardner and that was enough. The Bensons, I read three but only on the trust of his excellent coverage of the literary Bond in his Bedside Companion. But I'd recommend Colonel Sun and Trigger Mortis, (and Devil May Care to a lesser extent) to any Fleming purist.
Trigger Mortis may be the greatest homage to IF. Honestly.
Yeah, it's up there with Colonel Sun for me.
Quibble in spoilers for now, as book is still newish
At Castle Sin, Horowitz feels need to explain why Bond did not kill the smoking guard, explaining that there were tactical reasons for keeping the guard alive.
He needn't have bothered. Fleming's Bond would not have killed the guard either, simply because Bond does not kill indiscriminately.
Sin had not been established as evil yet. Bond was only investigating him at the time. Bond was not even in danger. He was simply trying to find his way upstairs to snoop.
Killing the guard, just for mission convenience, would not be what Fleming's Bond would do. It's this element which separates Bond from the hardened killers, he has to deal with.
Bond kills when he needs to. He has a moral compass.
Bond might have yes, killed the guard during an escape, which is always life and death, or whilst infiltrating the villain lair, in pursuit of deadly mission that needed finishing, with consequences for the world or innocents at stake.
Fleming's Bond would not have even considered killing the guard, until there was a danger element in play that justified the killing, in which caseBond can be as lethal as any of his enemies.