Anthony Horowitz's Bond novel - Forever and a Day

1246735

Comments

  • Agent_99Agent_99 enjoys a spirited ride as much as the next girl
    Posts: 3,176
    Good to know he's a Tintin fan too!
  • edited December 2017 Posts: 17,756
    Bounine wrote: »

    That's a nice little christmas gift for us Bond fans! Is Horowitz a Tintin fan as well?
  • Posts: 2,599
    Bounine wrote: »

    That's a nice little christmas gift for us Bond fans! Is Horowitz a Tintin fan as well?

    Seems like it.

    Watching OHMSS at the moment. Nice little Christmas film. :)
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited December 2017 Posts: 15,423
    Despite my mixed feelings on Trigger Mortis, I have to say Horowitz is one of the greatest writers of all time and I still champion his position in the Literary 007 business, hoping he'll stick for more than just these two.

    What I wish to see however is a contemporary Bond novel, and not a period piece shoehorned in the middle of Fleming's timeline like Mortis did, as well as his use of vocabulary and narrative kind of put me off when it came to this "period piece Fleming's Bond" when his instruments suited for modernity as opposed to Fleming's sophistication of storytelling abilities. A Fleming imitation was previously tried and failed miserably nine years ago with Sebastian Faulks, they shouldn't go for it. Horowitz should just write a Horowitz Bond novel and I am sure he will succeed in bringing the character to present day with his spin on it while staying true to the roots, unlike Jeffery Deaver.
  • Posts: 17,756
    Despite my mixed feelings on Trigger Mortis, I have to say Horowitz is one of the greatest writers of all time and I still champion his position in the Literary 007 business, hoping he'll stick for more than just these two.

    What I wish to see however is a contemporary Bond novel, and not a period piece shoehorned in the middle of Fleming's timeline like Mortis did, as well as his use of vocabulary and narrative kind of put me off when it came to this "period piece Fleming's Bond" when his instruments suited for modernity as opposed to Fleming's sophistication of storytelling abilities. A Fleming imitation was previously tried and failed miserably nine years ago with Sebastian Faulks, they shouldn't go for it. Horowitz should just write a Horowitz Bond novel and I am sure he will succeed in bringing the character to present day with his spin on it while staying true to the roots, unlike Jeffery Deaver.

    Really liked a period piece like Trigger Mortis, and Horowitz is the right writer for that timeline. On the other hand, it's totally understandable that a present day book would be preferable for some readers – and Horowitz could easily do a book in a present day timeline as well. :-)
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Despite my mixed feelings on Trigger Mortis, I have to say Horowitz is one of the greatest writers of all time and I still champion his position in the Literary 007 business, hoping he'll stick for more than just these two.

    What I wish to see however is a contemporary Bond novel, and not a period piece shoehorned in the middle of Fleming's timeline like Mortis did, as well as his use of vocabulary and narrative kind of put me off when it came to this "period piece Fleming's Bond" when his instruments suited for modernity as opposed to Fleming's sophistication of storytelling abilities. A Fleming imitation was previously tried and failed miserably nine years ago with Sebastian Faulks, they shouldn't go for it. Horowitz should just write a Horowitz Bond novel and I am sure he will succeed in bringing the character to present day with his spin on it while staying true to the roots, unlike Jeffery Deaver.

    Really liked a period piece like Trigger Mortis, and Horowitz is the right writer for that timeline. On the other hand, it's totally understandable that a present day book would be preferable for some readers – and Horowitz could easily do a book in a present day timeline as well. :-)
    I wouldn't mind a period piece if the writer interprets the prose novel the way an author of that time would have, and in this case, try and channel Fleming if he has to. But, that's an experiment already tried and failed with Faulks, so they just shouldn't. And of course, the lesser said about William Boyd's effort, the better (the most boring Bond novel I've ever read). In my opinion, Horowitz should bring Bond to the present day. That's just me, though.
  • Posts: 17,756
    Despite my mixed feelings on Trigger Mortis, I have to say Horowitz is one of the greatest writers of all time and I still champion his position in the Literary 007 business, hoping he'll stick for more than just these two.

    What I wish to see however is a contemporary Bond novel, and not a period piece shoehorned in the middle of Fleming's timeline like Mortis did, as well as his use of vocabulary and narrative kind of put me off when it came to this "period piece Fleming's Bond" when his instruments suited for modernity as opposed to Fleming's sophistication of storytelling abilities. A Fleming imitation was previously tried and failed miserably nine years ago with Sebastian Faulks, they shouldn't go for it. Horowitz should just write a Horowitz Bond novel and I am sure he will succeed in bringing the character to present day with his spin on it while staying true to the roots, unlike Jeffery Deaver.

    Really liked a period piece like Trigger Mortis, and Horowitz is the right writer for that timeline. On the other hand, it's totally understandable that a present day book would be preferable for some readers – and Horowitz could easily do a book in a present day timeline as well. :-)
    I wouldn't mind a period piece if the writer interprets the prose novel the way an author of that time would have, and in this case, try and channel Fleming if he has to. But, that's an experiment already tried and failed with Faulks, so they just shouldn't. And of course, the lesser said about William Boyd's effort, the better (the most boring Bond novel I've ever read). In my opinion, Horowitz should bring Bond to the present day. That's just me, though.

    The prose didn't bother me that much, really, but that depends on the reader, of course! :-)

    Did not care much for Solo, either. In fact, the most interesting thing about that novel, was the encounter with Bryce Fitzjohn…
  • Despite my mixed feelings on Trigger Mortis,

    What I wish to see however is a contemporary Bond novel, and not a period piece shoehorned in the middle of Fleming's timeline like Mortis did, as well as his use of vocabulary and narrative kind of put me off when it came to this "period piece Fleming's Bond" when his instruments suited for modernity as opposed to Fleming's sophistication of storytelling abilities. A Fleming imitation was previously tried and failed miserably nine years ago with Sebastian Faulks, they shouldn't go for it. Horowitz should just write a Horowitz Bond novel and I am sure he will succeed in bringing the character to present day with his spin on it while staying true to the roots, unlike Jeffery Deaver.

    PussyNoMore must respectfully disagree. All the trops of Fleming’s Bond are firmly anchored in the ‘50s and ‘60s and this endless minority desire to re-boot literary 007 into a present day scenario is the equivalent of throwing a pork chop into a synagogue.
    Let him live on in piece. Shaging without condoms whilst smoking and drinking himself into an early grave. The PC brigade have their cinema ‘Jimmy Bond’ . Why can’t we have our real Bond?
    For heavens sake, look what an absolute cods Deaver made of things with Carte Blanche. Surely nobody who can read wants to live through that again?
    Anthony is on the right track. Please God let him continue.


  • PussyNoMore hopes this one is the prequel to CR - he waits with bated breath !
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Despite my mixed feelings on Trigger Mortis,

    What I wish to see however is a contemporary Bond novel, and not a period piece shoehorned in the middle of Fleming's timeline like Mortis did, as well as his use of vocabulary and narrative kind of put me off when it came to this "period piece Fleming's Bond" when his instruments suited for modernity as opposed to Fleming's sophistication of storytelling abilities. A Fleming imitation was previously tried and failed miserably nine years ago with Sebastian Faulks, they shouldn't go for it. Horowitz should just write a Horowitz Bond novel and I am sure he will succeed in bringing the character to present day with his spin on it while staying true to the roots, unlike Jeffery Deaver.

    PussyNoMore must respectfully disagree. All the trops of Fleming’s Bond are firmly anchored in the ‘50s and ‘60s and this endless minority desire to re-boot literary 007 into a present day scenario is the equivalent of throwing a pork chop into a synagogue.
    Let him live on in piece. Shaging without condoms whilst smoking and drinking himself into an early grave. The PC brigade have their cinema ‘Jimmy Bond’ . Why can’t we have our real Bond?
    For heavens sake, look what an absolute cods Deaver made of things with Carte Blanche. Surely nobody who can read wants to live through that again?
    Anthony is on the right track. Please God let him continue.
    I never said let's get Bond all PC'd up in the slightest as I happen to be one of the biggest anti-PC people around here, even though I'm not too vocal about it. Updating and rebooting aren't necessarily the same thing. Horowitz wrote the novel using modern terms of narration while successfully embracing Fleming's tropes. It's the prose that I have a problem with being a "period piece". Not the story. Then again, I wasn't too impressed with the story to be honest.

    You can have Fleming's all manly man Bond who shags, smokes, drinks and kills without hesitation in a contemporary setting without "rebooting" or "retooling" the character.

    And as I said... I'm not a fan of Jeffery Deaver's effort in Carte Blanche... But, it was still more enjoyable than Boyd's bland Solo.
  • DoctorNoDoctorNo USA-Maryland
    Posts: 755
    I'm really looking forward to this. But, I think I'd prefer a direct follow up to CR rather than a prequel. I like QoS the movie for what it is, but as a continuing story of CR it sucks. It would be nice to have a book make up for that.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    You mean Bond dealing with his loss of Vesper and wrecking havoc on SMERSH? I'll be up for that.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,270

    PussyNoMore hopes this one is the prequel to CR - he waits with bated breath !

    That's what it was meant to be initially anyway. I assume it's still the case?
  • Posts: 2,599
    Damn, I hope so! If this is the case, I hope it's not entirely personal though. I still hope that Bond gets a mission from M, involving Smersh.
  • edited December 2017 Posts: 520

    You can have Fleming's all manly man Bond who shags, smokes, drinks and kills without hesitation in a contemporary setting without "rebooting" or "retooling" the character.

    Of course you can’t, that’s the whole point.
    If you portrayed a ‘50s Bond in today’s environment it would read like ‘Adam Adamant Lives’.

    You can have Fleming's all manly man Bond who shags, smokes, drinks and kills without hesitation in a contemporary setting without "rebooting" or "retooling" the character.

    Of course you can’t, that’s the whole point.
    If you portrayed a ‘50s Bond in today’s environment it would read like ‘Adam Adamant Lives’.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Of course you can’t, that’s the whole point.
    If you portrayed a ‘50s Bond in today’s environment it would read like ‘Adam Adamant Lives’.
    It's already being done as we speak with the graphic novels alone.
  • DoctorNoDoctorNo USA-Maryland
    Posts: 755
    You mean Bond dealing with his loss of Vesper and wrecking havoc on SMERSH? I'll be up for that.

    Right. In the book the one eyed guy gets away. Following that thread and the boyfriend is intriguing.
  • Of course you can’t, that’s the whole point.
    If you portrayed a ‘50s Bond in today’s environment it would read like ‘Adam Adamant Lives’.
    It's already being done as we speak with the graphic novels alone.

    PussyNoMore knows this is a broad church @ClarkDevlin but he does not consider comics as literature.

  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,270
    Of course you can’t, that’s the whole point.
    If you portrayed a ‘50s Bond in today’s environment it would read like ‘Adam Adamant Lives’.
    It's already being done as we speak with the graphic novels alone.

    PussyNoMore knows this is a broad church @ClarkDevlin but he does not consider comics as literature.

    Though it was done in Trigger Mortis of course so it's a moot point anyhow.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Of course you can’t, that’s the whole point.
    If you portrayed a ‘50s Bond in today’s environment it would read like ‘Adam Adamant Lives’.
    It's already being done as we speak with the graphic novels alone.

    PussyNoMore knows this is a broad church @ClarkDevlin but he does not consider comics as literature.
    If it's being done with one branch of media which has a wider recognition to the mainstream public than those who actually read books, I believe it can easily be pulled off with the prose literature base, as well.
  • Of course you can’t, that’s the whole point.
    If you portrayed a ‘50s Bond in today’s environment it would read like ‘Adam Adamant Lives’.
    It's already being done as we speak with the graphic novels alone.

    PussyNoMore knows this is a broad church @ClarkDevlin but he does not consider comics as literature.
    If it's being done with one branch of media which has a wider recognition to the mainstream public than those who actually read books, I believe it can easily be pulled off with the prose literature base, as well.

    Either PussyNoMore is not explaining himself correctly or @ClarkDevlin is not understanding him correctly.
    PussyMoMore will try again.
    James Bond as created by Ian Lancaster Fleming is a character firmly rooted in the '50s.
    To maintain his characteristics and transpose him into todays environment would be about as relevant as Poldark turning up in Midsummer's Murders. Deaver tried it and he made a complete cods out of it. It's also the reason that the films are a complete mess and why the last good one was FRWL.
    This is not what Horowitz has done. He has respected Fleming's time line and trops but has injected the élan and pace associated with modern thrillers. It can be discussed wether this is a good thing or not. PussyNoMore thinks it is.
    In any event IFP tried the modern take with Deaver and it proved about as popular with the literary aficionados as Sir Nick Clegg would at Nigel Farage's New Year party.
    As for those that don't read books. They should. That way they can get used to joined up writing and become more intelligent.
    Happy New Year to all James Bond (as created by Ian Lancaster Fleming) fans.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Ah, I think I've taken a grasp of what you're saying, @PussyNoMore. That, in my opinion, is a subjective thing. Especially if you rate FRWL as the last good Bond film, then I've no comment or intention of trying to show any effort to change your perspective, which I highly respect. Deaver's problem was that he diverted away from the original personality of Bond and made him a metrosexual "super-spy" relevant to its own time. And it didn't work. Far from it.

    Likewise, my friend, I wish you a happy new year.
  • Posts: 632
    Despite Fleming passing on, Bond stories continued to take place in the time they were written until DMC, Solo, and TM. I would prefer Fleming's Bond to stay as close to the year the book is being published and just ignore the historical details. No one throws their arms up in the air that Bond isn't 90 years old in Skyfall! Born out of the 50's he may be, but he has long surpassed being mired in any particular era.
  • edited January 2018 Posts: 6,844
    If you ignore the 70s—during which there wasn't much Bond written anyway—as somehow magically having never happened, Gardner's Bond works perfectly well as an older version of Fleming's same Bond working through his 50s and into his early 60s in Gardner's last Bond adventure Cold (or Cold Fall). But if you include the 70s in the timeline, things get a bit unrealistic with a 70 year-old Bond still doing his Bond thang. And there are no circumstances under which Benson's Bond could believably be interacting with the likes of Tiger Tanaka, Marc Ange Draco, and Mathis in the new millennium.
  • Posts: 632
    Hence my looking at Bond as a sliding timeline, like Batman, Superman, et. al.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    JET007 wrote: »
    Hence my looking at Bond as a sliding timeline, like Batman, Superman, et. al.
    +1
  • In PussyNoMore's not so humble opinion the last five remarks show a desire for something other than Ian Fleming's James Bond.
    That is the route that the movies take and it is completely fine for those that like that sort of thing but please, don't pretend for a minute that this is Fleming's Bond.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited January 2018 Posts: 18,270
    The thing is, though, even Ian Fleming himself changed the timeline around by the time of You Only Live Twice (1964) where Bond is reduced in age from the information that we were told in Moonraker (1955). So, he went from being born in 1918 to November 1924. That's an age differential of six years from the start of the books until the end of the books. He did this in order to write more adventures about Bond and avoid the statutory cut-off age of 45 for retirement from the Double-O Section. There's an old saying, "What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."

    Fleming wrote in his own time (the 1950s and 1960s) and the setting was contemporaneous. The continuation authors, by and large, have done the same. So, I can fully accept what the continuation Bond authors did and why they did it. In fact, I fully support it, but then I could hardly think anything else as a staunch supporter of the continuation Bond project!
  • Dragonpol wrote: »
    The thing is, though, even Ian Fleming himself changed the timeline around by the time of You Only Live Twice (1964) where Bond is reduced in age from the information that we were told in Moonraker (1955). So, he went from being born in 1918 to November 1924.

    Sorry but PussyNoMore’s whole point has nothing to do with minor Fleming discrepancies.
    The fact is that the Bond ‘character’ is a ‘character’ of the ‘50s and early ‘60s.
    Nobody tried to transpose MR Pickwick from 1836 to 1900. The very idea would have been ridiculous yet people think it is fine to have their own James Bond, in their own way, in their own time.
    This is because of the movies but movies are a different medium and are consumed in an altogether different way to books.
    You consume a film in a couple of hours but you read a book over a considerably longer period and are obliged to dig deep, use your own imagination to visualise events and characters.
    Reading Fleming you are transposed to a post colonial world that he describes in beautiful, meticulous detail and which he populates with his characters who have all the values - good and bad - of that time.
    When this is tampered with. Skilfully in the case of early Gardner and much less so in the case of Benson and Deaver, it quickly goes awry and this is because the character lacks all relevance. This is why Amis was so scathing about Gardner and it is why the only ‘continuation ‘ novels worth talking about are set in Flemings era : Colonel Sun and Triger Morris.


Sign In or Register to comment.