Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
In this Discussion
A [Bondian] Dialogue with Kingsley Amis -- the Bondage Interview!
This interview with Kingsley Amis was conducted by Raymond Benson and originally appeared in the 1984 issue of Bondage magazine (issue 13). Enjoy!
***
A Dialogue with Kingsley Amis
by Raymond Benson
While visiting London in August, 1982, to do research for my book, The James Bond Bedside Companion, I had the pleasurable opportunity to meet and speak with Kingsley Amis. Mr. Amis, of course, is an extremely well-known personality in England, and the author of several novels which could be called “classics” (Lucky Jim; Jakes Thing, among many others), as well as The James Bond Dossier and Colonel Sun. I met him in a small flat in the north of London. Workmen were adding something, or taking away something, to the front of his building. Despite the racket, we managed to have a fun conversation, mainly because we were simply two James Bond fans discussing something for which we both had a fondness.
Q: Did you actually know Ian Fleming?
A: I met him only a couple of times.
Q: I guess that was pretty late in his life?
A: Oh, yes; the first time was at a party. I said to him, “Mr. Fleming, it is very nice, it is very rare to meet an author to whom you can honestly say, “I’ve read all your books and I enjoy them very much.” And he said, “That’s very kind of you. Of course, you know they’re all true.” I said, “Oh?” And he said, “Oh yes! If you go to that part of Moscow that I describe in several of my works, particularly From Russia, With Love, and you go to that building on the Sretenka Ulitsa, you will find Col.-General Grubozaboyschikov and all his friends—they’re all there. Oh yes.”
The other time was when I let him see the typescripts of The James Bond Dossier before I sent it to the publisher, for his comments. He kindly took me out to lunch—it was nice, quite expensive—and if you’ll remember, there were quite a number of critical comments I made on the style and that sort of thing—and he had nothing to say on any of those. But he had points of accuracy he wanted to put me right about. One was that it is the Royal and Ancient Golf Club, not the St. Andrew’s. Another was that Oddjob was sucked out of the cabin of the aircraft, not blown out. It was on that order. I think there were only three. I got them wrong, he put me right.
Q: He seemed to accept criticism very well.
A: Yes.
Q: How did the Dossier come about?
A: It’s in the preface to it, really. I was going to write an article. I thought the books had very seriously been misrepresented in the papers and so on, and I thought the record should be set straight. I wanted people to pay attention to what he actually wrote, not to what he didn’t write. I thought it would be a medium-sized magazine article, but I found it became a small book.
Q: Did you have to get permission from Glidrose?
A: I didn’t have to get permission for the Dossier, though I did inform them because it made life easier. I was able to see the original reviews—always helpful to read the original reviews. When it came to Colonel Sun, they approached me.
Q: That was my next question.
A: Yes. And I started from scratch. One of the nicest compliments I’ve ever had, I get it a lot, from strangers, mostly from the United States, who write me, usually male, and I would guess young (in their teens); after saying nice things one said, “Can you confirm a rumour that you were shown drafts and plans of Ian Fleming’s that he left behind him when he died from which you based Colonel Sun?” I wrote back and said, “Thank you very much, you’ve paid me a high compliment because, no, not a word of his survived. But you're implying by saying that you think Colonel Sun is a worthy continuation of what Fleming wrote.”
Q: Why did you choose to use a pseudonym?
A: Ah. Well, that was agreed between myself and the publisher and Glidrose. Partly for my convenience. Because it set that apart from my other works. But really, more at the time, it was considered possible that other writers might like to have a crack at it. And so it would be there for all other writers doing sequels in a few years—it would be less confusing if they all had the same pseudonym. No attempt to persuade the public that it was the same man, but it would be more convenient to market the books and so on.
Q: How was the book received at first?
A: Oh, very well. Very well by the public. The reviews, at any rate, were not very friendly. But then, of course Fleming’s reviews weren’t friendly either. Also I got a lot of accusation, as Fleming did, that the writing was fascist. “Oh, here’s another fascist.”
Q: I felt that Colonel Sun dealt more with politics than most of Fleming’s.
A: Did you?
Q: Mainly because for the first time, Red China was in the picture.
A: Yes. Well that was actually for pure convenience. I certainly don’t believe that the West will get together with the Russians and team up against the Chinese. The Eastern Mediterranean. That was the place to go. I had a good friend there who knew Greece; I had a standing invitation to visit the place any time I liked. Well, this was the time I liked—it was a place where Bond had never been, and I had an expert point things out to me. Luckily, that’s very much one of Russia’s areas of interests. So it worked out in plot purposes. The Chinese were close and convenient.
Q: I particularly liked the female character. She seemed a bit more well-drawn than Fleming’s women.
A: I thought it was important. I think he would have thought it was all right. It was rather nice for her to…do a little more.
Q: Colonel Sun was very nasty.
A: (Laughs).
Q: Is it true that Glidrose approached you again to do an update on The Dossier?
A: It didn’t get quite as far as that. No, that’s not my recollection of it at all. No, I’ve never thought of writing anything of that size again. It’s been 15 years of time. I don’t think I’d change my mind on anything I’ve said. All that’s happened since have been…what, a few articles and the like…and the films. I suppose you will say something about all that.
Q: Have you seen the John Gardner book?
A: Yes.
Q: The second one is out in America. I feel it’s a little better than the first one.
A: I thought the first one wasn’t good. And I think the second one…is even worse! I’m reading it now. I’m at the point where they're about to arrive at this fellow’s private…
Q: Ranch.
A: Yes. And what has happened in between their point of arrival in New York and this point is nonsense! He arrives armed with this cover, with the prints, and all that had to happen was for some very well-dressed chap to say, “Oh, my principal would very much like you to accompany us to Texas and show him your prints with no obligation. He would put you and your lovely wife up as guests.” And they go and hide in that hotel, disguising themselves, then taking the disguises off—it does no good—and is SPECTRE trying to kill him, but at the same time not trying to kill him? It’s hopelessly muddled. Isn’t it?
Q: It works itself out. I felt the first one drew more on the films.
A: Yes. You know, it’s the motives—what exactly is SPECTRE trying to do?—and all that business between New York and Texas—yes, it would go quite well in a film. Because you’re not asking questions. “Oh, look, now they’re in an elevator and the elevator's crashing—what fun!” You don’t worry about why or who’s doing it or what effect it’s going to have.
Q: The films do that a lot.
A: The films do that a lot. And the girl…
Q: Cedar?
A: No, in the Armoury…
Q: Oh. (Laughs.) Q’ute!
A: (Grimaces.) That’s…terrible! The idea that Bond would have anything to do with a liberated woman is…and the idea that he would ever take a woman on as a partner is ridiculous!
Q: And it’s his best friend’s daughter!
A: Of course! And the idea too that the President of the United States has so little confidence in his own intelligence agents that he would overrule them and say, “No, get someone from Great Britain—somebody who's an expert on SPECTRE—”
Q: James Bond!
A: Or whatever that is! “And we’ll let him have the daughter of one of our best CIA men.” Anyway, it’s interesting to me to…I only read Octopussy once. I happened to find it on the shelf the other day, and I had forgotten what happens in it. I read it again, and it’s definitely a different literary world. The straightforward way that story is told…every sentence is absolutely firm and clear. The Gardner book, by contrast, is very hesitant and obscure.
Q: Much of the detail seems to be put in for the sake of putting in detail. You know what I mean?
A: Yes, I do know what you mean. That’s what I think myself. The description of that house in the Everglades or wherever it is…it’s hopeless! And you haven’t got what you have in the Fleming novels, in that something happens from the beginning. For instance, when Bond goes to Shrublands…
Q: In Thunderball!
A: Yes. You don’t see the point of that until you know…you know there will be a point as soon as Bond discovers the meaning of that tattoo on the SPECTRE fellow’s arm.
Q: Your Colonel Sun certainly started off with a bang.
A: Yes. Well, you see, it’s certainly not important to have a car chase on page two, but there should be something right from the word go.
Q: I felt Colonel Sun might have been the most violent of the books.
A: Yes. And the torture scene—a lot of people objected to that.
Q: It was the worst one since Casino Royale.
A: Yes.
Q: Was that intentional?
A: Well, I thought if we’re going to have a torture scene—obviously, I knew that before I started, there had to be a torture scene—if there’s going to be one, it’s not going to be like any other torture scene or one we've had before. So I got hold of my doctor—he actually appears in the book—Dr. Allison—you remember when Bond’s wandering around in the park and is taken to the police station? And the police doctor who treats him? That was my doctor, Dr. Allison. Anyway, I said to him, “Look, fix me up with a good torture.” He said, “Right! Good, we’ll do it straight away.” I said, “Now forget all about his balls, we’ve done that, we’ve been through that. We’ve got to start somewhere else.” And he said, “Well, it’s got to be inside the head.” He thought of it in the space of fifteen seconds. “That’s where you start, that’s what people are really afraid of—what they can't see.” This was proven correct.
Q: I also liked the way you had the villain call him “James” rather than the obligatory “Mister Bond.”
A: Oh yes! (Laughs.) I forgot about that. You know, there’s one serious flaw in Colonel Sun that I didn’t know about until years later. And that is that a mortar bomb would not explode when dropped on the ground.
Q: Really?
A: I was totally surprised. Someone who had been an officer in our army said, “That’s a very ingenious contraption developed in the war, but you know, a mortar bomb, simply in its case, is harmless.” What are you going to do if someone has a rough landing in an airplane? You can’t have the damn things going off. They’re harmless. They’re armed in the nose, and must hit its target after they’re fired.
Q: Well, I didn’t know.
A: Now you do. It really annoyed me.
Q: You think a film will ever be made using the title?
A: The filmmakers have for some reason shown no interest in it.
Q: What do you think of the films?
A: Well , the last one I saw was an incomplete print of The Spy Who Loved Me. (Grimaces.) I get even more annoyed when I see that people actually think it’s funny!
Q: They’ve gone too far into slapstick, to be sure…
A: Well, it affects the whole thing. I can’t think of the right film…early on we have a parachute jump on skis, and the parachute opens up to be…
Q: A Union Jack.
A: (Loud exhale accompanied by a sour grimace.)…And the whole idea that he’s up there, having no idea that there’s an enemy agent within a thousand miles, and of course he’d carry a parachute! And the mothership in whatever it is…
Q: That’s The Spy Who Loved Me.
A: Is that the same one?
Q: They’re all the same.
A: Yes. Well, that control room has bullet-proof blinds, but also holes where you can point the guns through. “What are those holes for?” “Oh, well that’s in case we take our people prisoner and they all escape! We can shoot at them through these holes!!”
Q: I guess you’ve heard the rumor that Sean Connery is doing a new film.
A: I’ve been wondering the truth in all that.
Q: Supposedly he’s going to do it at age sixty, coerced out of retirement.
A: That reminds me of an idea for a short story I had that would round off the whole saga. It was the kind of story you put in a Christmas annual. This is the aged Commander Bond, age 70 probably, on holiday in Switzerland. He doesn’t ski anymore. A very beautiful young girl, whose father is a United States senator, comes up to him and says, “My father is in danger. Sinister Colonel-General Moriarvsky of the KGB has kidnapped him. Please help me. You’re the only person I can ask. And I’ll do anything if you help me.” So Bond says, “Well…it’s a bit late for anything, I think…BUT…I’ll help you.” And of course, at the end, the Russian general and Commander Bond are falling over a waterfall in each other’s arms. When I told this to Glidrose, they all went white! (In a slow, menacing whisper.) “Don’t you dare write this! Not a word of it!” I’m exaggerating, of course, but needless to say, they didn’t find it in their favor at all…
***
***
A Dialogue with Kingsley Amis
by Raymond Benson
While visiting London in August, 1982, to do research for my book, The James Bond Bedside Companion, I had the pleasurable opportunity to meet and speak with Kingsley Amis. Mr. Amis, of course, is an extremely well-known personality in England, and the author of several novels which could be called “classics” (Lucky Jim; Jakes Thing, among many others), as well as The James Bond Dossier and Colonel Sun. I met him in a small flat in the north of London. Workmen were adding something, or taking away something, to the front of his building. Despite the racket, we managed to have a fun conversation, mainly because we were simply two James Bond fans discussing something for which we both had a fondness.
Q: Did you actually know Ian Fleming?
A: I met him only a couple of times.
Q: I guess that was pretty late in his life?
A: Oh, yes; the first time was at a party. I said to him, “Mr. Fleming, it is very nice, it is very rare to meet an author to whom you can honestly say, “I’ve read all your books and I enjoy them very much.” And he said, “That’s very kind of you. Of course, you know they’re all true.” I said, “Oh?” And he said, “Oh yes! If you go to that part of Moscow that I describe in several of my works, particularly From Russia, With Love, and you go to that building on the Sretenka Ulitsa, you will find Col.-General Grubozaboyschikov and all his friends—they’re all there. Oh yes.”
The other time was when I let him see the typescripts of The James Bond Dossier before I sent it to the publisher, for his comments. He kindly took me out to lunch—it was nice, quite expensive—and if you’ll remember, there were quite a number of critical comments I made on the style and that sort of thing—and he had nothing to say on any of those. But he had points of accuracy he wanted to put me right about. One was that it is the Royal and Ancient Golf Club, not the St. Andrew’s. Another was that Oddjob was sucked out of the cabin of the aircraft, not blown out. It was on that order. I think there were only three. I got them wrong, he put me right.
Q: He seemed to accept criticism very well.
A: Yes.
Q: How did the Dossier come about?
A: It’s in the preface to it, really. I was going to write an article. I thought the books had very seriously been misrepresented in the papers and so on, and I thought the record should be set straight. I wanted people to pay attention to what he actually wrote, not to what he didn’t write. I thought it would be a medium-sized magazine article, but I found it became a small book.
Q: Did you have to get permission from Glidrose?
A: I didn’t have to get permission for the Dossier, though I did inform them because it made life easier. I was able to see the original reviews—always helpful to read the original reviews. When it came to Colonel Sun, they approached me.
Q: That was my next question.
A: Yes. And I started from scratch. One of the nicest compliments I’ve ever had, I get it a lot, from strangers, mostly from the United States, who write me, usually male, and I would guess young (in their teens); after saying nice things one said, “Can you confirm a rumour that you were shown drafts and plans of Ian Fleming’s that he left behind him when he died from which you based Colonel Sun?” I wrote back and said, “Thank you very much, you’ve paid me a high compliment because, no, not a word of his survived. But you're implying by saying that you think Colonel Sun is a worthy continuation of what Fleming wrote.”
Q: Why did you choose to use a pseudonym?
A: Ah. Well, that was agreed between myself and the publisher and Glidrose. Partly for my convenience. Because it set that apart from my other works. But really, more at the time, it was considered possible that other writers might like to have a crack at it. And so it would be there for all other writers doing sequels in a few years—it would be less confusing if they all had the same pseudonym. No attempt to persuade the public that it was the same man, but it would be more convenient to market the books and so on.
Q: How was the book received at first?
A: Oh, very well. Very well by the public. The reviews, at any rate, were not very friendly. But then, of course Fleming’s reviews weren’t friendly either. Also I got a lot of accusation, as Fleming did, that the writing was fascist. “Oh, here’s another fascist.”
Q: I felt that Colonel Sun dealt more with politics than most of Fleming’s.
A: Did you?
Q: Mainly because for the first time, Red China was in the picture.
A: Yes. Well that was actually for pure convenience. I certainly don’t believe that the West will get together with the Russians and team up against the Chinese. The Eastern Mediterranean. That was the place to go. I had a good friend there who knew Greece; I had a standing invitation to visit the place any time I liked. Well, this was the time I liked—it was a place where Bond had never been, and I had an expert point things out to me. Luckily, that’s very much one of Russia’s areas of interests. So it worked out in plot purposes. The Chinese were close and convenient.
Q: I particularly liked the female character. She seemed a bit more well-drawn than Fleming’s women.
A: I thought it was important. I think he would have thought it was all right. It was rather nice for her to…do a little more.
Q: Colonel Sun was very nasty.
A: (Laughs).
Q: Is it true that Glidrose approached you again to do an update on The Dossier?
A: It didn’t get quite as far as that. No, that’s not my recollection of it at all. No, I’ve never thought of writing anything of that size again. It’s been 15 years of time. I don’t think I’d change my mind on anything I’ve said. All that’s happened since have been…what, a few articles and the like…and the films. I suppose you will say something about all that.
Q: Have you seen the John Gardner book?
A: Yes.
Q: The second one is out in America. I feel it’s a little better than the first one.
A: I thought the first one wasn’t good. And I think the second one…is even worse! I’m reading it now. I’m at the point where they're about to arrive at this fellow’s private…
Q: Ranch.
A: Yes. And what has happened in between their point of arrival in New York and this point is nonsense! He arrives armed with this cover, with the prints, and all that had to happen was for some very well-dressed chap to say, “Oh, my principal would very much like you to accompany us to Texas and show him your prints with no obligation. He would put you and your lovely wife up as guests.” And they go and hide in that hotel, disguising themselves, then taking the disguises off—it does no good—and is SPECTRE trying to kill him, but at the same time not trying to kill him? It’s hopelessly muddled. Isn’t it?
Q: It works itself out. I felt the first one drew more on the films.
A: Yes. You know, it’s the motives—what exactly is SPECTRE trying to do?—and all that business between New York and Texas—yes, it would go quite well in a film. Because you’re not asking questions. “Oh, look, now they’re in an elevator and the elevator's crashing—what fun!” You don’t worry about why or who’s doing it or what effect it’s going to have.
Q: The films do that a lot.
A: The films do that a lot. And the girl…
Q: Cedar?
A: No, in the Armoury…
Q: Oh. (Laughs.) Q’ute!
A: (Grimaces.) That’s…terrible! The idea that Bond would have anything to do with a liberated woman is…and the idea that he would ever take a woman on as a partner is ridiculous!
Q: And it’s his best friend’s daughter!
A: Of course! And the idea too that the President of the United States has so little confidence in his own intelligence agents that he would overrule them and say, “No, get someone from Great Britain—somebody who's an expert on SPECTRE—”
Q: James Bond!
A: Or whatever that is! “And we’ll let him have the daughter of one of our best CIA men.” Anyway, it’s interesting to me to…I only read Octopussy once. I happened to find it on the shelf the other day, and I had forgotten what happens in it. I read it again, and it’s definitely a different literary world. The straightforward way that story is told…every sentence is absolutely firm and clear. The Gardner book, by contrast, is very hesitant and obscure.
Q: Much of the detail seems to be put in for the sake of putting in detail. You know what I mean?
A: Yes, I do know what you mean. That’s what I think myself. The description of that house in the Everglades or wherever it is…it’s hopeless! And you haven’t got what you have in the Fleming novels, in that something happens from the beginning. For instance, when Bond goes to Shrublands…
Q: In Thunderball!
A: Yes. You don’t see the point of that until you know…you know there will be a point as soon as Bond discovers the meaning of that tattoo on the SPECTRE fellow’s arm.
Q: Your Colonel Sun certainly started off with a bang.
A: Yes. Well, you see, it’s certainly not important to have a car chase on page two, but there should be something right from the word go.
Q: I felt Colonel Sun might have been the most violent of the books.
A: Yes. And the torture scene—a lot of people objected to that.
Q: It was the worst one since Casino Royale.
A: Yes.
Q: Was that intentional?
A: Well, I thought if we’re going to have a torture scene—obviously, I knew that before I started, there had to be a torture scene—if there’s going to be one, it’s not going to be like any other torture scene or one we've had before. So I got hold of my doctor—he actually appears in the book—Dr. Allison—you remember when Bond’s wandering around in the park and is taken to the police station? And the police doctor who treats him? That was my doctor, Dr. Allison. Anyway, I said to him, “Look, fix me up with a good torture.” He said, “Right! Good, we’ll do it straight away.” I said, “Now forget all about his balls, we’ve done that, we’ve been through that. We’ve got to start somewhere else.” And he said, “Well, it’s got to be inside the head.” He thought of it in the space of fifteen seconds. “That’s where you start, that’s what people are really afraid of—what they can't see.” This was proven correct.
Q: I also liked the way you had the villain call him “James” rather than the obligatory “Mister Bond.”
A: Oh yes! (Laughs.) I forgot about that. You know, there’s one serious flaw in Colonel Sun that I didn’t know about until years later. And that is that a mortar bomb would not explode when dropped on the ground.
Q: Really?
A: I was totally surprised. Someone who had been an officer in our army said, “That’s a very ingenious contraption developed in the war, but you know, a mortar bomb, simply in its case, is harmless.” What are you going to do if someone has a rough landing in an airplane? You can’t have the damn things going off. They’re harmless. They’re armed in the nose, and must hit its target after they’re fired.
Q: Well, I didn’t know.
A: Now you do. It really annoyed me.
Q: You think a film will ever be made using the title?
A: The filmmakers have for some reason shown no interest in it.
Q: What do you think of the films?
A: Well , the last one I saw was an incomplete print of The Spy Who Loved Me. (Grimaces.) I get even more annoyed when I see that people actually think it’s funny!
Q: They’ve gone too far into slapstick, to be sure…
A: Well, it affects the whole thing. I can’t think of the right film…early on we have a parachute jump on skis, and the parachute opens up to be…
Q: A Union Jack.
A: (Loud exhale accompanied by a sour grimace.)…And the whole idea that he’s up there, having no idea that there’s an enemy agent within a thousand miles, and of course he’d carry a parachute! And the mothership in whatever it is…
Q: That’s The Spy Who Loved Me.
A: Is that the same one?
Q: They’re all the same.
A: Yes. Well, that control room has bullet-proof blinds, but also holes where you can point the guns through. “What are those holes for?” “Oh, well that’s in case we take our people prisoner and they all escape! We can shoot at them through these holes!!”
Q: I guess you’ve heard the rumor that Sean Connery is doing a new film.
A: I’ve been wondering the truth in all that.
Q: Supposedly he’s going to do it at age sixty, coerced out of retirement.
A: That reminds me of an idea for a short story I had that would round off the whole saga. It was the kind of story you put in a Christmas annual. This is the aged Commander Bond, age 70 probably, on holiday in Switzerland. He doesn’t ski anymore. A very beautiful young girl, whose father is a United States senator, comes up to him and says, “My father is in danger. Sinister Colonel-General Moriarvsky of the KGB has kidnapped him. Please help me. You’re the only person I can ask. And I’ll do anything if you help me.” So Bond says, “Well…it’s a bit late for anything, I think…BUT…I’ll help you.” And of course, at the end, the Russian general and Commander Bond are falling over a waterfall in each other’s arms. When I told this to Glidrose, they all went white! (In a slow, menacing whisper.) “Don’t you dare write this! Not a word of it!” I’m exaggerating, of course, but needless to say, they didn’t find it in their favor at all…
***
^ 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
You're very welcome! I do too, but I imagine he was a busy novelist and put his own creations first.
Same. I really like the idea of Bond getting a proper ending in general, hoping that Bond 25 does that for the Craig films and that Horowitz does it for the books eventually. I've always thought a story with an older retired or retiring Bond would be cool as well.
I can understand that, and I'd agree with you if they were still carrying on like they did from 1962-2002.
But now that they've tried to paint the Craig movies as this saga that's all linked together in SP, I think it'd feel strange to just carry on with a new actor, so I'd like the Craig era to be its own closed off thing, like Nolan's Batman. They've already given us a beginning and a middle, so I think it's only right that they give us a proper end. I don't think he has to die (but I do think that could be a great ending if they did it right), but I would prefer a definitive ending, something that makes it clear that the next guy is nothing to do with the Craig movies. Plus, I think that a lot of what they've done in the Craig films is so different (Brofeld and exploring his past in general, M as a surrogate mum, that kind of stuff) that it works better as a seperate, sort of parallel universe take.
I agree! I'm surprised Bondage's back issues haven't been uploaded anywhere online, given how excellent the contents were. This post is a start, but I don't actually own any issues--the Amis interview was scanned by a friend.
You're very welcome! Kingers harrumphing his way through TSWLM is indeed uproarious. One can only imagine the coronary he'd suffer from Moonraker! From a novelist's perspective his objections make sense, because what he objects to would be hard to pull off in a novel. But movies have a different sort of logic, more akin to that of dreams. Fleming himself indulged in this with Dr. No's "mink-lined prison." As Amis himself observed, it's not plausible that Dr. No would maintain such an institution in case he met a trespasser he didn't wish to immediately kill.
And the 1977 film.
We have it. It was brilliantly done in the last of the ‘Moneypenny Diaries’ !
Without doubt Amis has written the best continuation novel to date albeit Horowitz came perilously close with TM.
That said, the whole Gardner debate continues to make PussyNoMore scratch his well coiffured head.
He says this because the whole thing is a paradox. Gardner was a good writer. One only has to read his ‘Secret Generations’ trilogy to realise this and he did do a good job of rebooting the Bond character for the ‘80s. The problem was and remains, that none of his Bond stories were remotely interesting.
We you compare them to Fleming and given that they are de facto, a continuation of his work, you have to, they are not remotely at the races.
Without being unkind, PussyNoMore thinks Gardner did it for the money (that’s not a sin) whilst Amis was a huge literary figure who did it for the love. The difference shows.
PussyNoMore remembers CS like it was yesterday but would be hard pressed to tell you any detail of a Gardner Bond plot.
I'll have to give them a go then. Haven't read them or the young Bond books because I just don't like the sound of their premises, but I've heard such good things that I'm sure I'll give them a read some day.
thelivingroyale , PussyNoMore guarantees that you won't be disapointed.
The Moneypenny Diaries are diamonds in the ruff.
In any event, Amis was stopped from writing a word of that short story after Glidrose blanched at the idea of killing off James Bond - the literary "goose that laid the golden eggs." That was the real reason why it was never written.
As someone who used to be a big Gardner fan as a teenager, having reread quite a few in recent years, these days I find myself agreeing with Amis' criticisms.
Gardner's are far from the worst efforts (take a bow Mr Faulkes) but without a doubt CS is the only continuation novel to come anywhere near the standard of Fleming.
Benson was indeed a fabulous Bond enthusiast, and his The James Bond Bedside Companion remains a seminal work for Fleming fans.
I liked parts of Gardner's novels, but it's clear his heart was never fully in those Bond stories.
In a couple of weeks I will post Amis's "A New Bond," which goes into more detail about the creation of Colonel Sun.
PussyNoMore finds himself violently agreeing with the Wizard albeit he does think that TM is a worthy addition and that Higgson’s ‘Young Bond’ books are great prequels.
A review about Colonel Sun
Amis, writing as Tanner, not only gave us a brilliant tongue in cheek guide on how to become a sophisticated 00 agent he also, in a strange way, gave Fleming the literary recognition that he both craved and deserved during his life time.
Published by Cape in 1965, with its brilliant reversible Hawkey dust jacket, this guide was,the ultimate piece of fan worship and although only 111 pages in length still represents the definitive guide on how to live like Bond like. Or, given the recommended alcohol consumption it could be how to die like Bond.
If you can get your hands on a copy, read it - it’s fun and, as you would expect, rigorously researched.
The reviewer’s clear lack of knowledge of Fleming’s Bond makes his summation that Amis’ work represented a departure risible.
If anything, CS represented a return to the style of early Bond and PussyNoMore always thought it mirrored the tone and pace of FRWL and Moonraker.
Most aficionados see CS as the most credible non Fleming Bond novel thus fare but , there again, this is the Guardian, the last bastion of the left leaning liberal elite.
That was my reaction too--the reviewer seemed rather ignorant. I left the following comment below the article:
I'm glad to see Colonel Sun get some mass-media attention, since it's without doubt the best non-Fleming Bond novel, but this article makes a singularly unpersuasive case for the novel being "staggeringly un-Fleming-like."
The supposed incompetence of MI6 is no worse than in Fleming. Both authors write Bond as a lone-wolf hero, so his organization naturally comes off worse than he does.
Like Doctor No, the Fleming novel Amis loved most, Colonel Sun is about Bond traveling to a mysterious island to encounter a sadistic Asian villain who he defeats after surviving horrific torture. Sun is a modernized version of Dr. No (who was a modernized Fu Manchu). His mixed ancestry hardly makes him a "critique" of Fleming's villains, almost all of whom had mixed ancestry (Dr. No was half German and half Chinese).
Amis always regretted that Fleming's toned down his torture scenes after Doctor No, so he put Bond through an especially excruciating ordeal. But Fleming was hardly a stranger to unexpectedly ending torture scenes, as shown in Casino Royale.
Fleming himself took a break from making the Soviets villains (hence Blofeld and Spectre), so Amis turning to the Chinese is not so radical, especially since he still portrayed the Soviets as murderous, perverted, and untrustworthy.
As for Ariadne, she too is seduced by Bond into helping him defeat Communists and go behind the backs of the Soviets, which is very Flemingian. And like most of Fleming's heroines, she is independent, extremely competent, and can easily fend for herself.
Of course there are some original elements to Amis's novel, but the reason many Fleming fans love Colonel Sun is because it captures the spirit of the original Bond books and brings it forward into the late 60s. Amis knew Fleming well enough to internalize him, so even his innovations seemed faithful.
PussyNoMore thinks Revelator makes the case superbly.
Particularly the last part - as a fan who, post ‘62, was reading Fleming in real time, this is exactly how he felt about CS.
After Fleming’s unexpected and, even by standards then, untimely demise and the posthumous publication of the relatively disappointing TMWTGG, CS was refreshing.
It shrugged off the nonsense of the movies and took the style and character back to early Bond whilst simultaneously moving things forward to the late ‘60s.