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
Nice to know there is a kindred spirit in these parts. I feel if every time a Bond fan mentions Carte Blanche or Solo, it's with utter disdain. Were they perfect Bond novels? No. Were they at least enjoyable. I honestly think so.
I agree, I enjoyed Carte Blanche and Solo, albeit Solo moreso.
What I do like is the fitting in a story between the Fleming books, works well and I'd like Mr Horowitz to do more, plenty of time between Fleming's missions for more missions.
I say relieved because the last three adult Bond commissions from IFP had truly put the literary franchise on life support and as one of the aficionados who had lobbied hard for Horowitz, I have skin in the game.
I lobbied for him largely on the back of his tremendous Sherlock Holmes novel, 'House Of Silk', were he demonstrated phenomenal skill in continuing the attributes of the originals whilst injecting the pace and élan that modern readers expect from their thrillers.
Frankly, had he dropped the ball with Bond I'd have been mortified. A fourth debacle could well have sent continuation Bond into the literary wilderness indefinitely.
Did he succeed with 007 as well as he did with Holmes?
With a couple of reservations, I'd say that he has.
He has definitely succeeded in mirroring Fleming's high old tone and his style is virtually indistinguishable from the great man.
As you all know, he sets his novel between Goldfinger and Thunderball, Bond's halcyon days when he was at his peak. This works well because it doesn't bog Bond down with the baggage that he carried post OHMSS and it allows Horowitz to send him on a straightforward Bondonian adventure.
The core of that adventure is both credible and exciting and Horowitz captures the period perfectly. He also certainly succeeds in writing some great set pieces and fantastic action sequences whilst giving the story the pace that today's reader demands.
All in all, it's a very enjoyable affair albeit, I do have a couple of caveats.
The first concerns the plot.The first part of the book is not completely coherent. The events surrounding Pussy Galore are not wholly credible and although Horowitz seamlessly weaves in Flemings 'Murder On Wheels', the link between this sub plot and the main event is, to say the least, a little tenuous.
The second caveat I have is that he is not as strong on detail as Fleming. At one point, Bond conjures up a pistol and it is posthumously explained that it was given to him earlier by a friendly service (no spoilers here). Fleming would never have done that. He was rigorous on detail.
My third caveat revolves around the tricks that Horowitz uses to try and avoid the perennial charges of homophobia and sexism. To try and address the homophobia issue, he gives Bond an overtly openly gay friend who holds a senior position in the service. Frankly, this is somewhat farcical. Homosexuality was illegal in the UK at the time the book is set and certainly the secret service would never have employed an openly gay man. It could have been a clever device if the book had been set post 1967 but as it is, it just comes across as forced.
Last but by no means least, the book lacks Fleming's eroticism. Horowitz's sexual encounters lack the frisson of the originals.
That said, these are small things. In the round, he has succeeded better than anybody since Kingsley Amis and has well and truly put literary Bond back on the map and 'Trigger Mortis' is as good as many of Fleming's and you can't give higher praise than that.
What's more, if he does another, I think that having mastered the style he will give us something really special.
Bravo Anthony and thanks a million, you've saved our hero!
What "Murder on the wheels' treatment ?
Personally, I'd like him to stay in Bond's prime.
There are a lot of opportunities - he could do Bond's war or his pre 'Casino Royale' missions or maybe an adventure just after 'Moonraker'or even follow on from his own 'Trigger Mortis'.
There are a range of things he could tackle before moving into his meloncholy post Tracy's death epoc.
In any event, I don't think you can bridge a gap with a re-boot. Bond would be 80 by the time he got to Gardner.
The most important thing is that we get another Horowitz and not to start playing Russian Roulette again with the likes of Faulks/Deaver & Boyd.
He said at the launch that he'd do another so let's hope IFP have the sense to sign him.
that is true.. even as i was writing that i was thinking about the age Bond would be if he bridged the gap between Fleming and Gardner... in terms of age, i always thought the idea of a past-his-prime Bond trying to survive and make it in a spy world that might have passed him by (ie: Never Say Never Again or Skyfall) is an interesting one... i assume that is what Boyd and even Faulks were trying to do with their novels, but i guess failed to do it successfully?.... again, i think there is room for a really good story in there - a series? probably not.. but maybe a 1 or 2 book story? i think so.. it just needs to be done well..
but i agree, much like the films, i think keeping Bond in his prime is probably the way to go if Horowitz continues on - which would mean keeping things in that GF, TM, TB timeline (or thereabouts).
I really hope we get some books set in Bond's war days and some books covering his assignments with the service pre CR. Just comics is not enough. Whether Cole, Higson or an adult Bond continuation author does this remains to be seen, presuming it will be done. I sincerely hope so!
"Murder On Wheels" is the outline for a Bond tv series that Fleming had planned. In copies exclusive to Waterstones, the outline is featured at the back of the book.
http://www.thebookbond.com/2015/08/waterstones-special-edition-of-trigger.html
Play group becoming suspicious of the new Monocle wearing German
Kid. Who is doing something mysterious with clockwork toys in a locked
Cupboard.
May Bond's Nanny, could help pushing Bond in his gadget loaded pram as
he chases after, the German kid ( being pushed by his nasty Russian Nanny). :D
This would be on the top of my list of reading choices. Bond's infant days must be discovered. Only then will I feel that I really know the character. I just don't get IFP sometimes. Why haven't they done this already?
We will have to agree to disagree.
Is it as strong as CR, MR, FRWL, DN, TB, YOLT or OHMSS ? Absolutely not but then again, nothing ever is.
Is it as good as L&LD, DAF, GF or TMWTGG ? I would say yes.
In the continuation stakes, is it better than DMC, CB & Solo and all of Benson ? Absolutely yes but there again, everything is.
Is it as strong as Gardner's best and CS ? I would say yes.
Is it as good as Higson's YB and Westbrook's 'Moneypenny' trilogy? Complex one and probably a subject for a thread.
Anthony sights 'GF' as his favourite Bond and it shows in 'TM'. The emphasis is really on letting the story rip rather than the slow burn of a 'FRWL' or what I would consider to be Fleming's other classics.
All said, it's a broad church but if this is painting by numbers, buy me a paint set!
It's why nobody will ever write a Holmes story to the level of Doyle, why nobody will write a Poirot like Christie, and why nobody will ever write a Bond like Fleming.
very well said..
i think sometimes that is what makes writing continuation novels hard after the original author has passed - there's a sense of authenticity that dies along with them... that doesn't mean that new authors can't create great works with the character as well - it's been done before with Holmes, and even Bond.. but like you said, there is always something that will be missing, no matter how good those stories are..
Nirvana died with Kurt Cobain. Did Bond die with Ian Fleming?
No, because nobody carried on with Nirvana once Kurt died. We have continuation novels of varying quality and an incredible film series that has survived long after the death of Ian, and is currently at its most successful.
Bond lives.
EDIT: Forgot what thread I was in... even if we're strictly talking about novels my point still stands. As long as Bond is alive in the minds of talented writers, and an audience that loves to read Bond novels new and old then Bond is alive.
My thoughts exactly. When I read or hear comments (not saying where or by whom) that comment on the fact that the book, or any of the recent continuation novels, lack the level of detail Fleming put into his books, or they lack 'this' that Fleming did, or lack 'that' Fleming did…my first reaction is always essentially what you just typed.
Did Roger Moore play Bond like Connery did? No, but they were both Bond.
Did Martin Campbell direct his films like Terence Young did? No, but they're both regarded as among the better Bond film directors.
I'm not sure why many (I might be exaggerating with the 'many') literary Bond fans are having trouble with the notion that whomever the Ian Fleming Foundation or whatever it is hires to write a new book, that person will not produce a pure Fleming piece of work. It can still be Bond, it just won't be Fleming and never will be.
A fan of the books certainly doesn't have to like all of the continuation novels. I don't (I don't love all the movies either for that matter), but to compare them incessantly to how Fleming approached the character and his world as a means of arguing why they aren't as good (comparing them for purely analytical/theoretical purposes is fine, of course) seems like a futile exercise. It's like bemoaning that one didn't get the product that was literally impossible to create.
Some stubbornly refuse to read anything that is not Fleming which I just don't understand when they're happy to watch the movies that aren't based on Fleming books.
Hopefully sales will be good and we'll see a resurgence of literary Bond.
Regarding comparisons with Fleming, frankly it depends on which book. Not even the most ardent Flemingista would pretend that all Bond books were born equal and I'm sure that when some of the defenders of the faith have actually read TM they will concur that Anthony has done a good job and has hit the sweet spot somewhere in the middle of the canon.
1) An understandable and sustainable plot.
2) Fleming's attention to detail.
3) Directly addressing sexism and homosexuality of the time.
4) Fleming's eroticism.
Gee..what's left? Nice Cover..easy opening pages...large print? You took the book apart and then claim it as a success.
He made it quite clear that
a) he liked the book
b) those complaints were minor, to him at least.
This is obviously a broad church but if you are going to quote me, please do it accurately.
I made it perfectly clear in my review that:
"The core of that adventure is both credible and exciting and Horowitz captures the period perfectly. He also certainly succeeds in writing some great set pieces and fantastic action sequences whilst giving the story the pace that today's reader demands."
[/quote]
But maybe you missed that part.
I think the book is a resounding success. Clearly you think otherwise albeit you omit to say why ?
Your words, kind sir:
The first concerns the plot. The first part of the book is not completely coherent... not wholly credible... the link between this sub plot and the main event is, to say the least, a little tenuous.
The second caveat I have is that he is not as strong on detail as Fleming. Fleming would never have done that. He was rigorous on detail.
My third caveat revolves around the tricks that Horowitz uses to try and avoid the perennial charges of homophobia and sexism. Frankly, this is somewhat farcical... it just comes across as forced.
Last but by no means least, the book lacks Fleming's eroticism. Horowitz's sexual encounters lack the frisson of the originals.
Possibly we rate books from a different perspective. But 'not completely coherent..not wholly credible..little tenuous..this is somewhat farcial...forced..lacks' are not words people use when they like something.
What I have tried to do, is to give fellow fans a balanced perspective.
As I said out the outset, there are caveats but they are minor.
My desire not to divulge spoilers prohibits me highlighting the many excellent scenes in this book but I think those without an agenda will have got it by now - this is an excellent first Bond from Horowitz. Long may he continue!