›

A New Writer For Each Bond Book...A Good Idea, Or Bad Idea?

2

Comments

  • tommychameleontommychameleon
    Posts: 132
    Oh yeah...the part of CB I hated more than anything else I've ever read in any Bond book?
    The thing about his mother being a spy.

    I mean, come on...SO CHEAP and just, utter, complete BULL****.
  • DoubleDDoubleD
    Posts: 6
    It seems CB failed allot of peoples expectations, mine included. I think timmer says it well in the linked thread above 'Deaver is fixated on twists and turns. With Deaver nothing can be as it seems.'

    With Deaver's two collections of short stories called 'Twisted' and 'More Twisted' it certainly seems that is his repertoire. I have really enjoyed some other Deaver novels and was very excited for CB. After reading it though I believe this fixation with twists was to the detriment of a good book let alone a good Bond. I began to just wait for them instead of enjoying any story.


    To bring this away from CB and back to topic, I like the idea of a new Author for each novel. I wasn't overly impressed with the Benson novels, while they were reasonable they came off as pastiche for me. If he'd penned a single book perhaps I wouldn't have tired so quickly.
    I have a similar view with the Gardner novels, the quality just tailed off in later books. In my opinion Faulks was a move in the right direction. A literary author who tried to write Bond as he was, and while he may not have delivered a perfect Bond, I feel there were moments where he succeeded.
  • KennonKennon
    Posts: 297
    In general I support the new book/new author direction. Let them focus on one good story at a time and not care about long character arcs and trilogies and whatnot. Fleming never did, the man just wrote a book at a time. Higson is often mentioned around here. Well, I've heard he too was supposed to write just the first young Bond book. He only got the whole gig after the first was a success. Yes, I support a whole range of writers. If it was my decision I'd not even care for period or background or comtinuity, they could all write as they pleased as long as it was a thriller in the end
  • BounineBounine
    edited January 2012 Posts: 2,599
    "If it was my decision I'd not even care for period or background or comtinuity, they could all write as they pleased as long as it was a thriller in the end."

    Yes, I'd be happy with this.

    I don't want Deaver to return because of what he did to Bond. Basically, he made him NOT Bond. If I was to hear that Deaver had plans to make Bond back into the spy we all know and love, the literary character that is, then I woould be open to him writing another. If it was filled with an abundance of twists again, then, bring on the next author.

    Fortunately, I still feel alot more excited about a new Bond book being released than I do a Bond film.
  • KennonKennon
    Posts: 297
    Problem is, with modern Bond there got to be a some changes, most of us would agree. But I must still be Bond, not a completely different guy. Compared to CB John Gardner had several times the Bond essence in every one of his books Deaver did, and Gardner already got kicks and tons of abuse for his work! I'd insist every wirter doing Bond should do the cross check and call his hero Joe Smith. If the work then has nothing left to suggest it's a Bond story: don't publish it as such.
  • BounineBounine
    edited January 2012 Posts: 2,599
    Yes, I agree.

    We don't need the chauvenism, racism or smoking but other than that there is no reason why he can't be the same person that he always was. The above facets are only minor and their absence do little to alter his original character. If I were writing a Bond book though, I'd still have Bond smoke the odd cigarette now and then when he's stressed. People pick on Bond because he's such an iconic figure which annoys me. Other literary characters are forgiven for taking a drag every now and then but not our poor Bond.

    Bond feels pretty much like Bond in every 007 book by every author (and I've read them all, most, more than once) except in Carte Bol**cks.
  • DoubleDDoubleD
    Posts: 6
    Bounine wrote:
    ...We don't need the chauvenism, racism or smoking but other than that there is no reason why he can't be the same person that he always was. The above facets are only minor...

    I can't recall any direct racism on Bonds part, correct me if I'm wrong, although I agree some of the terminology used by Fleming is now, rightly, considered incorrect. As for the chauvenism, it's also perhaps a little old fashioned, and even out of fashion, to be extremely patriotic. Especially for the British. But then, that's who bond was. I think his sexism and chauvenism are core to the character he is. Many many times it was these impulses that controlled his voice.

    Smoking. Let the guy smoke. Yes, it's bad for your health. He knows it quite clearly by Thunderball, and cuts down regularly when any physical exertion is required thereafter. I think this in itself communicates that smoking isn't necessarily all its's cracked up to be. If you are glamorising that is.

    Fleming Bond. Why does this need to be bought to the present day? There are so many pitfalls with this concept I find it no surprise that we are feeling let down by reinterpretations such as CB.

    Amis was bang on time, Gardner had just about enough time to keep Bond relevant in the 80's. Benson: I'm not convinced about his success rate. Faulks: Thankyou. Deaver: Bond in 2011....... I'm not sure we are ever going to get book Bond to be Bond in the modern era.
  • tommychameleontommychameleon
    Posts: 132
    Bounine wrote:
    except in Carte Bol**cks.

    Haha, definitely a more accurate title!
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    I am a great fan of Deaver, but to be honestly I was not that pleased with CB. It was somehow lesser than his other writings. I understand the fact that he had to modernize 007 but it was not done that great. Perhaps it would have been much better had the man done a TSWLM style of novel where James Bond lands into a situation where he searches for a solution. It would have been a much better character sketch and would have actually suited Deaver far better as thriller writer.

    I understand that the 007 formula sends the man all over the world, but that makes it the movie version. Fleming did more often use not as much change of scenery and did use him occasionaly as a detective (with a license to kill).

    The books these days seem more about the movie version than the book version. In that aspect I rate some of the Gardner books far better.
  • tommychameleontommychameleon
    Posts: 132
    SaintMark wrote:
    The books these days seem more about the movie version than the book version. In that aspect I rate some of the Gardner books far better.

    True! CB did read like a second rate plot for a 80's/90's movie, rather than true literary 007. I have to say though, I think Gardner was equally as guilty of this. I recently re-read Licence Renewed and it's almost like reading a Roger film. "Q'ute" makes me gag, every time. I haven't read the other Gardners since I was a kid, so I'll have to revisit at some point.
  • BounineBounine
    edited January 2012 Posts: 2,599
    "Especially for the British. But then, that's who bond was. I think his sexism and chauvenism are core to the character he is. Many many times it was these impulses that controlled his voice."

    I don't know if I agree that such facets are core to his character. What has always stood out to me about Bond is his brooding, loner, cynical, romantic, philosophical and sardonic nature, his low threshold for boredom leading to his longing for adventure and his inclination to melancholy coupled with his penchant for alcohol, promiscuity, Morland Specials and the finer things in life. Then we have the sadistic undertones. All these character traits still remain relevant to today's world. Having said this, I would welcome period novels with "open arms" as they say. I bet if we had period pieces the chauvenism would still be absent. We definitely need a writer with balls.
  • timmertimmer
    edited January 2012 Posts: 4,622
    Higson is my first choice for obvious reasons. Even Samantha Weinberg might be able to pen a decent Bond thriller. She didn't do anything grievous with the character in the MP
    Diaries. But if Deaver is IFP's guy for the short term, then get him to work on another book. CB was crap by Bond standards, but at least it was a passable Bond read, so I'll take another please. For that matter QoS, IMO, was a pile of steaming dung by Bond-movie standards, but I have watched it well over 10 times. So just keep serving me my Bond thank-you. If it stinks, I will be happy to let you know, and then wait (only somewhat patiently) for the next serving.
  • DoubleDDoubleD
    Posts: 6
    Bounine wrote:
    "Especially for the British. But then, that's who bond was. I think his sexism and chauvenism are core to the character he is. Many many times it was these impulses that controlled his voice."

    I don't know if I agree that such facets are core to his character. What has always stood out to me about Bond is his brooding, loner, cynical, romantic, philosophical and sardonic nature, his low threshold for boredom leading to his longing for adventure and his inclination to melancholy coupled with his penchant for alcohol, promiscuity, Morland Specials and the finer things in life. Then we have the sadistic undertones. All these character traits still remain relevant to today's world. Having said this, I would welcome period novels with "open arms" as they say. I bet if we had period pieces the chauvenism would still be absent. We definitely need a writer with balls.

    I didn't say they were the only traits! I agree with your additional character profiling completely, but most of all the fact we need a writer with balls.

    @timmer. After the Benson novels and CB I can't bring myself to agree with this. It's all personal preference of course, but some of those I think I would prefer not to have read. I'm all for taking the time to cook it right. Stop serving me luke warm Bond, I want it to be exactly the correct temperature!
  • commandbond007commandbond007
    Posts: 660
    CB did not suck...you are all wrong!
  • KennonKennon
    edited January 2012 Posts: 297
    "CB was crap by Bond standards, but at least it was a passable Bond read"

    Now what is it, crap or passable? Or passable crap? Is that maybe the same? Not to me it isn't.

    I want a worthwhile read, not something where I regret having spent the time; life's too short for reading manure and it's actually pretty sad if one rather reads rubbish just because there's a few mentions of "James Bond" in it. If that's all you crave just take any book and write "Bond" instead of the main character's name, ready there you go.

    My hope would be by having a new author for each new novel there's a greater chance to get one name on board who really has a knack for it. And also avoid that writers get bored of the job or run out of ideas.

    And I haven't got that low standards that I'd put up with any third-rate bag of chapters either. I'd rather have no Bond book than a horrible one.
  • tommychameleontommychameleon
    Posts: 132
    Kennon wrote:
    And I haven't got that low standards that I'd put up with any third-rate bag of chapters either. I'd rather have no Bond book than a horrible one.

    Here here! Kennon for Prime Minister!
  • timmertimmer
    edited January 2012 Posts: 4,622
    DoubleD wrote:
    @timmer. After the Benson novels and CB I can't bring myself to agree with this. It's all personal preference of course, but some of those I think I would prefer not to have read. I'm all for taking the time to cook it right. Stop serving me luke warm Bond, I want it to be exactly the correct temperature!
    The only post Fleming Bond-book that has really grabbed me was Pearson's book and that is it. Everything else has been meh, including Colonel Sun. The post Fleming efforts as a whole though, have at least been readable, enjoyable even, but still meh. Some worse than meh, such as Man With Red Tattoo ( that was shite), Faulks effort (abysmal) and Deaver's attempt (crap). I like to mix up the pejoratives.
    So sue me, I can find enjoyment reading crap-Bond, as well as meh-Bond and the classic Fleming Bond. Higson was quite good and so was MP Diaries, but neither were really Bond. They were something else. Teen Bond (Higson) and Chick-lit Bond, with Bond (well represented mind you) only popping in and out of the narrative.
    I have no inclination to be a purest. Just give me something Bond to read. None of it has been so bad, that I can't relax and just enjoy it for what it is, even if it is crap.
    Again I do enjoy watching QoS, even if it is a big stinking pile of &*%*$ by Eon's standards. #22 on my Bond-list and with a bullet.
    We haven't had a great Bond book since Pearson IMO, and that was almost 40 years ago, so I am not holding my breath. Carte Blanche Part Deux! Bring it on!
    Kennon wrote:
    "CB was crap by Bond standards, but at least it was a passable Bond read"

    Now what is it, crap or passable? Or passable crap?
    Door #3 please.Passable crap. I like that.

  • BounineBounine
    edited January 2012 Posts: 2,599
    Well, as I've said I am open to Deaver returning as I enjoyed the CB story albeit there were too many twists. My major problem is that it aint Bond we're reading about. If IFP have definite plans to continue to keep hiring other authors (I wish we'd here something from them) then I want another writer but if they plan to just stick with Deaver then I'll keep reading his Bond books as there are other aspects of Bond novels I enjoy. It isn't just the character himself that interests me about the Bond books. I would prefer if they hire someone else though. A poor Bond novel is better than no Bond novel but I do have to say that I don't like thinking that the general public who are reading about Bond for the first time are learning about a character who they think is James Bond but isn't.

    I think Pearson's Bond is pretty much Fleming's Bond. His biography of Bond is excellent and up there with the Fleming novels. I must have read it atleast five times. Easily the best Bond book since the Fleming series and no Bond book has reached it's high standards since. The Higson and Weinberg (I'd certainly be open to the latter writing a Bond book aswell) books are certainly very good but not up there with Pearson's. Much of what Bond talks about in this book sound like Fleming short stories or atleast pretty close.
  • BrutusBrutus
    Posts: 32
    The problem with changing authors is that they never acknowledge each other's work. Benson ignored Gardner's novels, and they both ignored Colonel Sun...

    The reason for the rebooted Bond in Carte Blanche is to attract new readers who are familiar with the Daniel Craig version of the character. Although the same could be said for Raymond Benson's version of Bond, who was largely the same as Brosnan's screen persona.

    I don't believe that Higson will be offered the next Bond novel... he is best known as a children's author, and they will want a big name thriller writer for the job.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited January 2012 Posts: 28,694
    tommychameleon wrote:
    Oh yeah...the part of CB I hated more than anything else I've ever read in any Bond book?
    The thing about his mother being a spy.

    I mean, come on...SO CHEAP and just, utter, complete BULL****.

    Yeah. Looking back it is a little BS.
  • BounineBounine
    edited January 2012 Posts: 2,599
    "The reason for the rebooted Bond in Carte Blanche is to attract new readers who are familiar with the Daniel Craig version of the character. Although the same could be said for Raymond Benson's version of Bond, who was largely the same as Brosnan's screen persona."

    I can't understand these comparisons between Daniel Craig's Bond and Deaver's Bond. How is the latter like Daniel Craig's interpretation? Craig's Bond is more similar to the original literary character than Deaver's.

    The same goes for Benson's Bond and Brosnan's Bond. I wouldn't say the two are similar. Bensons's books as a whole are more like the films as this was how IFP wanted it at the time (unfortunate for Benson) but the book Bond has largely remained the same throughout the series, aside for the lack of chauvenism, smoking and racism which are only minor facts of his character anyway, except in CB. I've always felt like I was reading about the original literary Bond for the most part except for the film novelisations which don't count (excluding maybe Wood's TSWLM which I haven't read yet but it's sitting on my book shelf as I'm saving it due to the fact that I've heard it's really good) but Deaver's Bond isn't like any of the cinematic representations of the character or the literary man.

  • 6of16of1
    Posts: 63
    Awful idea. Downright hate it. Though it may actually be for the best. After all, there is no substitute for the real thing, Fleming himself. We'll see who comes next.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    Deaver may well be sticking around for all we know, he hasn't ruled himself out of doing another.
  • BounineBounine
    Posts: 2,599
    6of1 wrote:
    Awful idea. Downright hate it. Though it may actually be for the best. After all, there is no substitute for the real thing, Fleming himself. We'll see who comes next.

    Just to clarify, you hate the idea of having different authors for each book?

  • 6of16of1
    Posts: 63
    Bounine wrote:
    6of1 wrote:
    Awful idea. Downright hate it. Though it may actually be for the best. After all, there is no substitute for the real thing, Fleming himself. We'll see who comes next.

    Just to clarify, you hate the idea of having different authors for each book?
    Yes, seems a rather clumsy way to handle the series. Marketing wise it may sound like a good idea. But for the series' quality it doesn't bode well. It's just too much an event gig if there's going to be no one properly responsible at least for a stretch.
  • BounineBounine
    edited March 2012 Posts: 2,599
    It's a good point but I don't want Deaver to keep writing them unless he really makes some serious changes to his generic, dull version of James Bond. If he does write another Bond novel it really must have more punch and less twists and turns where we actually get to experience Bond's ordeals instead of being told something at the start then jumping right to the end.
  • 6of16of1
    Posts: 63
    No, Deaver is hardly an obvious name now. He migh well be back but I doubt it will be anytime soon. Ideally the series would attract a writer with some serious ideas and a passion to see them actually come to life. The one
  • BounineBounine
    edited March 2012 Posts: 2,599
    If not anytime soon then I sure hope they've chosen another author! I remember the times when a Bond book was released once a year. We're approaching May 2012 (Fleming's birthday - when the novels are released) and no word whatsoever, so at the very least, going by this 2008 and 2011 timeline, we won't get another book until May 2013. :(

    What's happening IFP?! Throw us a bone...please! :)
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    It wouldn't surprise me if the literary Bond was dead.
  • WVPoefWVPoef
    Posts: 147
    NO.

    Each writer should at least write 3 books or more to give them time to develop there own inturpatation of Bond.
Sign In or Register to comment.