Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
'On His Majesty's Secret Service' by Charlie Higson (2023)
LucknFate
007 In New York
moneyofpropre2 wrote: »I found the novel quite enjoyable as well. As you say, we feel that the author is really trying to give us a maximum of modern references and I wonder how in 20 years, theses many references to recent events (invasion of the Capitol, increase in pensions by Macron), will to be perceived by readers totally unaware of what Higson is talking about because they did not experience it. Is the flavor of the novel going to diminish?
Anyway a lot of subject on the extreme right, a little heavy in the long run, I have the impression that the author tries to send me a political message on who not to vote, which I find a bit unpleasant, as can be a lack of nuance. (Bond can't find a bright spot or two in their programs, even increasing the budgets and resources of government agencies like the one he works for?).
What I found super annoying, however, was Higson's tendency to withhold information from me. There are things happening behind my back or worse in front of me that I'm not aware of and which are only explained a few chapters later. Meanwhile I'm left wondering "am I missing something because of my understanding of English" "Did I have skipped some pages?" "When are you FINALLY going to tell me what happened dozens of pages prior?", "what is this story of the 30 men who suddenly comes out of nowhere? ". Unpleasant. And when the revelations come, they lack explanation:
What contain the place in the castle that catches Bond's attention when he arrives? Why did Ragnarour decided to betray Aethelsan? What had 009 discovered? How 009 has it been discovered? What happens after May 4th (are the cells planning the attacks successfully have been stopped, if so, how?) How does AE expect to be on the throne one day as he says? How exactly is he going to use his money to acheive that ? And why the hell all these questions been never answered in the novel?
Too confusing stuff like is Charles assassination part of the original operation or was it just a backup plan? There is everything and its opposite on this subject I have the impression.
The spelling of the Bond girl's first name adds unnecessary heaviness every time it is visible on paper (a normal alphabet would have been nice with the presence of an AEthelsan already in the story). Then this character is sorely lacking in development and is truly stereotype: sleeps with Bond who has barely met, a strong woman like in all the films of our time. Some other points lack precision, the finale that we don't really know where it takes place (we just have to settle for the word "palace" in an easily missed sentence), the captain of the special forces who have known bond since years (but we are never told what they did together in those years...), the "Polaris" without being told a specific model, people that have nickname never there real name spelled (like 009, Canner, Aethelsan),etc...
The suspense and the story in general, the introspections of Bond, all that is rather good on the other hand I think.
I think me and you are on the same (final) page. The build up was fun, the story fairly engaging, but it kind of all fell apart at the end, and I blame this solely on the novel's development time and inherent length. I have full confidence many of our quibbles would be satisfied by a full novel treatment. But for what this is, a celebration of a celebration (the coronation), it's a fun little story that got me through two short flights.
10 pages left and in all honesty I would be thrilled if Higson did a modern adult bond trilogy provided three things
1. He is given more time to actually flesh out the story obviously as i think a lot of our issues with the story would be fixed if he had more time to write and edit
2. LAY OFF THE POLITICS please seriously
3. He gives us more into Bond’s world in the modern day and age
1. He is given more time to actually flesh out the story obviously as i think a lot of our issues with the story would be fixed if he had more time to write and edit
2. LAY OFF THE POLITICS please seriously
3. He gives us more into Bond’s world in the modern day and age
2. LAY OFF THE POLITICS please seriously
Would it be true to say that these days, it's very unlikely to have a hero who is right-wing, politically? It was kind of suggested in OhisMSS that Bond had no time for the villain's right-wing rant. I remember thinking that Fleming's Bond would have been more likely to have agreed with him.
Venutius
Yorkshire
There does seem to be a bit of a disconnect. Higson said something to the effect that the Bond of OhisMSS was a young man with a modern young man's views and sensibilities. That doesn't have to make him a Guardian reader, but I'm not sure if he'd be working for MI6 (let alone be a 00) unless he had centre-right views, tbh.
mtm
United Kingdom
Well centre and far (right or left) are quite different things, and I'm not sure Fleming's Bond would have agreed with a lot of stuff. He was a man of the world, not a little Englander, and I think even seemed to think of himself as not being quite at home in England. Bond is a preserver of the status quo, and that's not what these baddies were after. He's also not stupid, and Aethelstan (mild spoilers follow so don't read on if you haven't read it) was basically conning all of these people with grift, and Bond was able to stay cool-headed enough to spot that. He had also, let's not forget, been through WW2 and would have been able to spot some of the rabble rousing tricks; although obviously that's not something we can say of Bond '23.
Has the formatting of this page gone ka-ka for others?
Has the formatting of this page gone ka-ka for others?
Venutius
Yorkshire
Well centre and far (right or left) are quite different things, and I'm not sure Fleming's Bond would have agreed with a lot of stuff. He was a man of the world, not a little Englander, and I think even seemed to think of himself as not being quite at home in England. Bond is a preserver of the status quo, and that's not what these baddies were after. He's also not stupid, and Aethelstan (mild spoilers follow so don't read on if you haven't read it) was basically conning all of these people with grift, and Bond was able to stay cool-headed enough to spot that. He had also, let's not forget, been through WW2 and would have been able to spot some of the rabble rousing tricks; although obviously that's not something we can say of Bond '23.
Has the formatting of this page gone ka-ka for others?
Yes it has. Widescreen! And, yes, there's a big difference between centre-right and the far right politics of Aethelstan, which I actually don't think that Bond would agree with. I'd argue that the status quo in the UK has been centre-right for a long time and, given the longstanding rumours that GCHQ are/were passed the details of UK Labour-voters after every general election, Bond's name might well be in a Red File if he was thought to be anything to the left of centre-right. I was thinking that that'd mitigate against him as a potential MI6 recruit.
Comments
For as much as I want Bond to an unreconstructed man, I also don't mind updating him with modern sensibilities. As for the speech, I think Bond abhors brashness and grifters and obviously that's exactly who Æthelstan turns out to be. Also as Bond says before he kills him, Bond says he's not English he's Swiss-Scottish. Bond's 35 in 2023, he wouldn't've remembered a time before the European Union and so I can see that informing his views on the small-minded rhetoric that Æthelstan's supporters believe. This Bond may not be a defender of a lost Empire but he still fights for the status quo, in this case the monarchy, very literally. He's still an enforcer of the state and I think Higson sketches out that internal conflict well.
Just thinking out loud, there's a piece on Radio 5 now about 'is the book better than the movie'. Given that this book's been out a couple of weeks now, and only a handful of people have commented about it, it seems movies are much more popular than books on here.
Ok. How do I do spoiler tags?
There’s one point no one has mentioned, and I would like to mention it. It’s annoying enough that it requires me to remember how to spell and awkward character name.
You can quote this post and copy the tags out if that's easier.
Alternatively, if you are on a desktop browser, you can just highlight the spoiler, click the pilcrow (backwards p) in the editing menu bar above the text field and click
How is this a real plot and not "I fed ChatGPT tweets by your stereotypical Twitter user and asked it to write a plot about James Bond and the King"
Any book using the word "woke" in it deserves an instant 0 star.
What a lame attempt to make this a "modern take of Bond". How are you going to make the villains a right wing group, when it's the left wing that hates the monarchy???? Surely, if you want to make a modern take you'd make the villain someone from India for example, coming to kill the King for the monarchy did in the past.
But apparently that's not "poltiically correct" ??
I was curious about how this book would be cause I was shocked to see a plot "Bond protects the King in 2023" cause it does seem .... not PC so to speak.
I expected it to maybe be pro-monarchy propaganda, so I was curious how they'd manage to walk the line between helping the King and being "PC in 2023" but..they kinda fumbled this lol
I don't even think of this as a Bond book, more as a... A piece of (written) "media" to celebrate the new King, that just so happens to have Bond in it as a symbol. The same way the Paddington+The Queen skit was not a Paddington movie/skit, but was just a UK skit with a cultural icon in it
They should've taken the Top Gun: Maverick approach to this.
That movie had it right.
"We are just good guys that fight an unnamed enemy"
Just "unnamed terrorist group wants to take down the King so they'll send a message to the world cause they want to take over it"
No politics, no modern era, no ethnicity, no nothing.
And Bond is here to take down the unnamed terrorist group that has one goal - global destruction and murder of innocent people, starting by disrupting the world order.
No idea why you need "modern politics" for such a story.
It really is a straight forward, and it really is the only way not to offend any pro-monarchy or anti-monarchy people while trying to please people on the left and the right.
Boring villains that want to kill for killing sake.
Thanks. Let’s try…
omg I thought that just me but yes I totally got that vibe.
What I do find odd is that she has the same name (full name) as an Icelandic celebrity: a professional swimmer-turned actress- RagnheiðUr Ragnarsdóttir. What's the deal there?
Funnily enough the real Ragnheiður goes by a shortened version of her name: Ragga Ragnars, and shortening Bond girl names to a sort of pet version seems very Bond, and yet not used here.
I don’t think he would give a straight answer.
If they go to a sequel, that would be where I would reveal it if I were Higson.
I like it! But to be honest I rather like it very subtly hinted, as you have spotted.
It’s a better way frankly, rather than making it what the book is about — as it stands this book does get awfully close ideologically/politically to beating people over the head and becoming a bit… polemic pastiche. But it just about gets away with it I think. Helps that elsewhere in the genre we have Mick Herron dealing out similar.
It’s important if a writer is trying to get ideas to people, or change opinions, they don’t preach to the choir and alienate the very people such messaging is actually for.
Icelandic is far from Swedish, but I think it's quite close to th in English. So probably Ragnheithur or thereabouts.
I believe Mr Higson mentions the pronunciation of both difficult names during this interview with Catching Bullets:
Anyway a lot of subject on the extreme right, a little heavy in the long run, I have the impression that the author tries to send me a political message on who not to vote, which I find a bit unpleasant, as can be a lack of nuance. (Bond can't find a bright spot or two in their programs, even increasing the budgets and resources of government agencies like the one he works for?).
What I found super annoying, however, was Higson's tendency to withhold information from me. There are things happening behind my back or worse in front of me that I'm not aware of and which are only explained a few chapters later. Meanwhile I'm left wondering "am I missing something because of my understanding of English" "Did I have skipped some pages?" "When are you FINALLY going to tell me what happened dozens of pages prior?", "what is this story of the 30 men who suddenly comes out of nowhere? ". Unpleasant. And when the revelations come, they lack explanation:
Too confusing stuff like is Charles assassination part of the original operation or was it just a backup plan? There is everything and its opposite on this subject I have the impression.
The spelling of the Bond girl's first name adds unnecessary heaviness every time it is visible on paper (a normal alphabet would have been nice with the presence of an AEthelsan already in the story). Then this character is sorely lacking in development and is truly stereotype: sleeps with Bond who has barely met, a strong woman like in all the films of our time. Some other points lack precision, the finale that we don't really know where it takes place (we just have to settle for the word "palace" in an easily missed sentence), the captain of the special forces who have known bond since years (but we are never told what they did together in those years...), the "Polaris" without being told a specific model, people that have nickname never there real name spelled (like 009, Canner, Aethelsan),etc...
The suspense and the story in general, the introspections of Bond, all that is rather good on the other hand I think.