Anthony Horowitz's Bond novel - Forever and a Day

12930323435

Comments

  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    edited September 2019 Posts: 13,032
    Well Raymond Benson was writing the Bond film novelizations alongside his Bond novels so that makes sense.

    Which brings up the point that toward the end of his run John Gardner was doing the same thing.
  • edited September 2019 Posts: 17,291
    shamanimal wrote: »
    I seem to remember Benson was told to write his books with the current movie Bond (Brosnan) in mind. Horowitz is obviously writing 'as Fleming'.
    Well Raymond Benson was writing the Bond film novelizations alongside his Bond novels so that makes sense.

    Which brings up the point that toward the end of his run John Gardner was doing the same thing.

    Makes me wonder if Carte Blanche was written as a modern-day novel in order to tap into the popularity of the Craig era films? Haven't read that book myself (although I do own a copy), so I don't know if there's any connections to the (recent) films.

    Which brings me back to the question above: Is the fact that Horowitz's novels are set in the 50's only because he himself feels that Bond belongs in that timeline, or did IFP specifically want the books to be set in that era too?
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,808
    shamanimal wrote: »
    I seem to remember Benson was told to write his books with the current movie Bond (Brosnan) in mind. Horowitz is obviously writing 'as Fleming'.
    Well Raymond Benson was writing the Bond film novelizations alongside his Bond novels so that makes sense.

    Which brings up the point that toward the end of his run John Gardner was doing the same thing.

    Makes me wonder if Carte Blanche was written as a modern-day novel in order to tap into the popularity of the Craig era films? Haven't read that book myself (although I do own a copy), so I don't know if there's any connections to the (recent) films.

    Which brings me back to the question above: Is the fact that Horowitz's novels are set in the 50's only because he himself feels that Bond belongs in that timeline, or did IFP specifically want the books to be set in that era too?

    I think it was a conscious decision on the part of IFP which is now run by the Fleming family. They probably wanted to return the literary Bond to his Fleming roots. The contemporary-set Bond continuation novels seem to be out of vogue currently with only one such novel appearing (in 2011) from the recent crop of "celebrity" Bond authors.
  • Posts: 17,291
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    shamanimal wrote: »
    I seem to remember Benson was told to write his books with the current movie Bond (Brosnan) in mind. Horowitz is obviously writing 'as Fleming'.
    Well Raymond Benson was writing the Bond film novelizations alongside his Bond novels so that makes sense.

    Which brings up the point that toward the end of his run John Gardner was doing the same thing.

    Makes me wonder if Carte Blanche was written as a modern-day novel in order to tap into the popularity of the Craig era films? Haven't read that book myself (although I do own a copy), so I don't know if there's any connections to the (recent) films.

    Which brings me back to the question above: Is the fact that Horowitz's novels are set in the 50's only because he himself feels that Bond belongs in that timeline, or did IFP specifically want the books to be set in that era too?

    I think it was a conscious decision on the part of IFP which is now run by the Fleming family. They probably wanted to return the literary Bond to his Fleming roots. The contemporary-set Bond continuation novels seem to be out of vogue currently with only one such novel appearing (in 2011) from the recent crop of "celebrity" Bond authors.

    That seems like a likely explanation why they've gone back to period novels. Horowitz is not unfamiliar with writing period set novels either (The House of Silk, Moriarty), so he was probably a sensible choice by IFP. How was the ownership of IFP prior to being run by the Fleming family? I don't know much about IFP, unfortunately.
  • Posts: 4,025
    Do they let the author decide if the novel will be contemporary or 60s?
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited September 2019 Posts: 17,808
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    shamanimal wrote: »
    I seem to remember Benson was told to write his books with the current movie Bond (Brosnan) in mind. Horowitz is obviously writing 'as Fleming'.
    Well Raymond Benson was writing the Bond film novelizations alongside his Bond novels so that makes sense.

    Which brings up the point that toward the end of his run John Gardner was doing the same thing.

    Makes me wonder if Carte Blanche was written as a modern-day novel in order to tap into the popularity of the Craig era films? Haven't read that book myself (although I do own a copy), so I don't know if there's any connections to the (recent) films.

    Which brings me back to the question above: Is the fact that Horowitz's novels are set in the 50's only because he himself feels that Bond belongs in that timeline, or did IFP specifically want the books to be set in that era too?

    I think it was a conscious decision on the part of IFP which is now run by the Fleming family. They probably wanted to return the literary Bond to his Fleming roots. The contemporary-set Bond continuation novels seem to be out of vogue currently with only one such novel appearing (in 2011) from the recent crop of "celebrity" Bond authors.

    That seems like a likely explanation why they've gone back to period novels. Horowitz is not unfamiliar with writing period set novels either (The House of Silk, Moriarty), so he was probably a sensible choice by IFP. How was the ownership of IFP prior to being run by the Fleming family? I don't know much about IFP, unfortunately.

    Yes, indeed, and when you think about it IFP seem to finally be following the tried and tested method of selection that its predecessor Glidrose used to hire John Gardner for the Bond gig in the early 1980s. Gardner and Horowitz have actually got quite a lot in common as Bond continuation authors in terms of their backgrounds. They were both pre-existing and (vitally) successful and prolific thrillers authors in their own right and they both wrote continuation novels involving Professor Moriarty (in fact one of their books even shares the same one word title!).

    In 1999 the name of the Bond literary copyright holders changed from Glidrose to Ian Fleming Publications (IFP) to better reflect the fact that the Fleming family (chiefly Peter Fleming's two daughters) had taken over control of what was previously called Glidrose. Before this, the chairman of Glidrose was Peter Janson-Smith. Janson-Smith was hired by Fleming as his literary agent in 1956 to deal with foreign rights for his Bond novels and was the chairman of Glidrose until 2001 when he retired from the post. Peter Fleming was also on the Board of Glidrose until his death in August 1971. I hope this fills in a few of the blanks, @Torgeirtrap! :)
    vzok wrote: »
    Do they let the author decide if the novel will be contemporary or 60s?

    I covered that in my previous post above. I believe it is IFP that decides these matters and not the individual author, although I suppose that the author has to consent to the time period in which the Bond novel is to be set.
  • Posts: 17,291
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    shamanimal wrote: »
    I seem to remember Benson was told to write his books with the current movie Bond (Brosnan) in mind. Horowitz is obviously writing 'as Fleming'.
    Well Raymond Benson was writing the Bond film novelizations alongside his Bond novels so that makes sense.

    Which brings up the point that toward the end of his run John Gardner was doing the same thing.

    Makes me wonder if Carte Blanche was written as a modern-day novel in order to tap into the popularity of the Craig era films? Haven't read that book myself (although I do own a copy), so I don't know if there's any connections to the (recent) films.

    Which brings me back to the question above: Is the fact that Horowitz's novels are set in the 50's only because he himself feels that Bond belongs in that timeline, or did IFP specifically want the books to be set in that era too?

    I think it was a conscious decision on the part of IFP which is now run by the Fleming family. They probably wanted to return the literary Bond to his Fleming roots. The contemporary-set Bond continuation novels seem to be out of vogue currently with only one such novel appearing (in 2011) from the recent crop of "celebrity" Bond authors.

    That seems like a likely explanation why they've gone back to period novels. Horowitz is not unfamiliar with writing period set novels either (The House of Silk, Moriarty), so he was probably a sensible choice by IFP. How was the ownership of IFP prior to being run by the Fleming family? I don't know much about IFP, unfortunately.

    Yes, indeed, and when you think about it IFP seem to finally be following the tried and tested method of selection that its predecessor Glidrose used to hire John Gardner for the Bond gig in the early 1980s. Gardner and Horowitz have actually got quite a lot in common as Bond continuation authors in terms of their backgrounds. They were both pre-existing and (vitally) successful and prolific thrillers authors in their own right and they both wrote continuation novels involving Professor Moriarty (in fact one of their books even shares the same one word title!).

    That's a funny coincidence re. Sherlock Holmes and Moriarty – and the Moriarty book title in particular! I was unaware Gardner did Sherlock Holmes related novels. It's very interesting though, with IFP commissioning writers that have a history writing stories involving one of the other great British literary characters. It also makes you wonder which authors are likely to get the chance to write Bond in the future.
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    In 1999 the name of the Bond literary copyright holders changed from Glidrose to Ian Fleming Publications (IFP) to better reflect the fact that the Fleming family (chiefly Peter Fleming's two daughters) had taken over control of what was previously called Glidrose. Before this, the chairman of Glidrose was Peter Janson-Smith. Janson-Smith was hired by Fleming as his literary agent in 1956 to deal with foreign rights for his Bond novels and was the chairman of Glidrose until 2001. Peter Fleming was also on the Board of Glidrose until his death in August 1971. I hope this fills in a few of the blanks, @Torgeirtrap! :)

    This fills in the blanks perfectly. Thanks for the info, @Dragonpol!
  • Posts: 4,025
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    shamanimal wrote: »
    I seem to remember Benson was told to write his books with the current movie Bond (Brosnan) in mind. Horowitz is obviously writing 'as Fleming'.
    Well Raymond Benson was writing the Bond film novelizations alongside his Bond novels so that makes sense.

    Which brings up the point that toward the end of his run John Gardner was doing the same thing.

    Makes me wonder if Carte Blanche was written as a modern-day novel in order to tap into the popularity of the Craig era films? Haven't read that book myself (although I do own a copy), so I don't know if there's any connections to the (recent) films.

    Which brings me back to the question above: Is the fact that Horowitz's novels are set in the 50's only because he himself feels that Bond belongs in that timeline, or did IFP specifically want the books to be set in that era too?

    I think it was a conscious decision on the part of IFP which is now run by the Fleming family. They probably wanted to return the literary Bond to his Fleming roots. The contemporary-set Bond continuation novels seem to be out of vogue currently with only one such novel appearing (in 2011) from the recent crop of "celebrity" Bond authors.

    That seems like a likely explanation why they've gone back to period novels. Horowitz is not unfamiliar with writing period set novels either (The House of Silk, Moriarty), so he was probably a sensible choice by IFP. How was the ownership of IFP prior to being run by the Fleming family? I don't know much about IFP, unfortunately.

    Yes, indeed, and when you think about it IFP seem to finally be following the tried and tested method of selection that its predecessor Glidrose used to hire John Gardner for the Bond gig in the early 1980s. Gardner and Horowitz have actually got quite a lot in common as Bond continuation authors in terms of their backgrounds. They were both pre-existing and (vitally) successful and prolific thrillers authors in their own right and they both wrote continuation novels involving Professor Moriarty (in fact one of their books even shares the same one word title!).

    In 1999 the name of the Bond literary copyright holders changed from Glidrose to Ian Fleming Publications (IFP) to better reflect the fact that the Fleming family (chiefly Peter Fleming's two daughters) had taken over control of what was previously called Glidrose. Before this, the chairman of Glidrose was Peter Janson-Smith. Janson-Smith was hired by Fleming as his literary agent in 1956 to deal with foreign rights for his Bond novels and was the chairman of Glidrose until 2001 when he retired from the post. Peter Fleming was also on the Board of Glidrose until his death in August 1971. I hope this fills in a few of the blanks, @Torgeirtrap! :)
    vzok wrote: »
    Do they let the author decide if the novel will be contemporary or 60s?

    I covered that in my previous post above. I believe it is IFP that decides these matters and not the individual author, although I suppose that the author has to consent to the time period in which the Bond novel is to be set.

    It’s odd then that they have flicked between contemporary and Fleming timelines.
  • Posts: 632
    I thought I saw Horowitz reply that he believes the novels should always be in the past, a sentiment I strongly disagree with. Having said that, I would welcome his return, no matter the time period!
  • edited September 2019 Posts: 12,837
    I was slightly disappointed in Forever and a Day compared to Trigger Mortis (still thought it was decent, but not quite as good), but I do think they'd be silly not to ask him back to do another. He's a great writer and his books have gone down a lot better than the last few continuation efforts.

    I hope he resists the temptation to play with the canon too much this time though. I didn't have a problem with FAAD being Bond's first mission but I hated all the forced origin story stuff. Bond was introduced fairly fully formed and that's how he always should be imo, no matter how early in his career it is. I didn't need a contrived story for how he picked up this habit and acquired this taste. Even Trigger Mortis I think had the issue of messing about with what'd come before too much by bringing back Pussy. So I hope if he does do another he feels content just sending Bond on a new mission, without any gimmicks or spins on what Fleming wrote.
    JET007 wrote: »
    I thought I saw Horowitz reply that he believes the novels should always be in the past, a sentiment I strongly disagree with. Having said that, I would welcome his return, no matter the time period!

    I'm with him to be honest. The films should always be set in the present. That's what Fleming wanted and it's the reason they've lasted so long.

    The books though I think are different. If I'm reading a Bond novel, I want to be able to read it as a new novel in the same world as Fleming's with the same Bond that Fleming wrote about. So the 60s/70s is really as far forward as literary Bond should go imo.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited September 2019 Posts: 17,808
    vzok wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    shamanimal wrote: »
    I seem to remember Benson was told to write his books with the current movie Bond (Brosnan) in mind. Horowitz is obviously writing 'as Fleming'.
    Well Raymond Benson was writing the Bond film novelizations alongside his Bond novels so that makes sense.

    Which brings up the point that toward the end of his run John Gardner was doing the same thing.

    Makes me wonder if Carte Blanche was written as a modern-day novel in order to tap into the popularity of the Craig era films? Haven't read that book myself (although I do own a copy), so I don't know if there's any connections to the (recent) films.

    Which brings me back to the question above: Is the fact that Horowitz's novels are set in the 50's only because he himself feels that Bond belongs in that timeline, or did IFP specifically want the books to be set in that era too?

    I think it was a conscious decision on the part of IFP which is now run by the Fleming family. They probably wanted to return the literary Bond to his Fleming roots. The contemporary-set Bond continuation novels seem to be out of vogue currently with only one such novel appearing (in 2011) from the recent crop of "celebrity" Bond authors.

    That seems like a likely explanation why they've gone back to period novels. Horowitz is not unfamiliar with writing period set novels either (The House of Silk, Moriarty), so he was probably a sensible choice by IFP. How was the ownership of IFP prior to being run by the Fleming family? I don't know much about IFP, unfortunately.

    Yes, indeed, and when you think about it IFP seem to finally be following the tried and tested method of selection that its predecessor Glidrose used to hire John Gardner for the Bond gig in the early 1980s. Gardner and Horowitz have actually got quite a lot in common as Bond continuation authors in terms of their backgrounds. They were both pre-existing and (vitally) successful and prolific thrillers authors in their own right and they both wrote continuation novels involving Professor Moriarty (in fact one of their books even shares the same one word title!).

    In 1999 the name of the Bond literary copyright holders changed from Glidrose to Ian Fleming Publications (IFP) to better reflect the fact that the Fleming family (chiefly Peter Fleming's two daughters) had taken over control of what was previously called Glidrose. Before this, the chairman of Glidrose was Peter Janson-Smith. Janson-Smith was hired by Fleming as his literary agent in 1956 to deal with foreign rights for his Bond novels and was the chairman of Glidrose until 2001 when he retired from the post. Peter Fleming was also on the Board of Glidrose until his death in August 1971. I hope this fills in a few of the blanks, @Torgeirtrap! :)
    vzok wrote: »
    Do they let the author decide if the novel will be contemporary or 60s?

    I covered that in my previous post above. I believe it is IFP that decides these matters and not the individual author, although I suppose that the author has to consent to the time period in which the Bond novel is to be set.

    It’s odd then that they have flicked between contemporary and Fleming timelines.

    It is indeed a little odd but it's only occurred the once so far so perhaps Carte Blanche will be an anomaly. It could be that they hadn't fully settled on a firm way forward between period and contemporary set Bond novels at that point. It's hard of say of course as we're not privy to the creative decisions of IFP, any more than we were with Glidrose. Sales figures and reviews may also have played a part in IFP's decision making process.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited October 2019 Posts: 17,808
    JET007 wrote: »
    I thought I saw Horowitz reply that he believes the novels should always be in the past, a sentiment I strongly disagree with. Having said that, I would welcome his return, no matter the time period!

    As primarily an Amis/Gardner/Benson classic Bond Continuation era fan I would have to say that I wholeheartedly agree with you, @JET007. I too think that the Continuation Bond novels should be set in the present day as that is of course how Ian Fleming wrote his Bond novels and short stories.

    I can of course see the merits of making the novels period pieces but I do miss the modern setting and how authors update things and also seek to keep things the same. It's an interesting balancing act. However, no matter how hard an author tries there is always the danger inherent in period pieces of looking at the past from a modern perspective that ends up showing through in the end product. They invariably always end up taking a certain amount of baggage with them when they start writing about a period long past.
  • Posts: 632
    =D> Nice to know I'm not the only one, @Dragonpol !
  • cwl007cwl007 England
    Posts: 611
    A little call to arms from the MI6 community please. (Sorry if it's slightly wrong thread)
    I'm going on holiday soon and looking forward to some reading time. I was wondering if Trigger Mortis is worth my time or not. Any thoughts?
    Thank you
  • Posts: 17,291
    cwl007 wrote: »
    A little call to arms from the MI6 community please. (Sorry if it's slightly wrong thread)
    I'm going on holiday soon and looking forward to some reading time. I was wondering if Trigger Mortis is worth my time or not. Any thoughts?
    Thank you

    In my opinion, yes definitely!
  • cwl007cwl007 England
    Posts: 611
    👍 thank you
  • Posts: 17,291
    cwl007 wrote: »
    👍 thank you

    No problem! I'm a Horowitz fan too though, so my opinion of his two Bond novels might be a bit influenced by that.
  • DoctorNoDoctorNo USA-Maryland
    Posts: 754
    I really don’t care if it’s modern or set in the past... I want it to be good (or great actually). A great modern book would of course get people comparing it to the current movies which could only help (force) EON to improve or do an adaptation. But a great novel set in the past, that felt like a long lost Fleming book, would also be beyond awesome. Neither has ever happened of course, but we can dream...
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 7,973
    cwl007 wrote: »
    👍 thank you

    No problem! I'm a Horowitz fan too though, so my opinion of his two Bond novels might be a bit influenced by that.

    I'm definately not a fan, but I found it one of the few readable continuation novels. So it's a cautious yes from me too.
  • cwl007cwl007 England
    Posts: 611
    👍 thank you, appreciate your opinions.
  • edited October 2019 Posts: 2,598
    Finally read FAAD. A great book that echoes Fleming but without it being a pastiche. I agree with others that Strawberry Moon is the best chapter. 16’s backstory and character intrigued me. Scipio is a fascinating villain and his ways to torture Bond psychologically are most imaginative. It’s just a pity he doesn’t appear more often. Wolfe felt like the main villain. Well, maybe this was the intention. The translator who’s tone is absent of any interest is a nice, strange touch which is reminiscent of something Fleming would have done.

    Horowitz’s writing doesn’t quite have the sophisticated flair of Fleming but still, it’s very good. The main characters and location descriptions are fleshed out to an admirable extent. One can tell that Horowitz has done his homework.

    In terms of Bond’s youngish age and inexperience, I felt like I was reading about 30 to 40% Young Bond and 60 to 70% adult Bond which was something fresh and interesting. I was worried at one point, what with Sixtine’s dominating personality that Bond would allow himself to be whipped not unlike in Carte Blanche where the Bond character is barely recognizable but thankfully he holds his own with her.

    The love scenes feel rushed as others have said. They felt like what you would see in a censored film or well, a Bond film where they start kissing at the beginning then all of a sudden it’s over. Not that I want a penthouse forum or anything involving my favourite character but just a bit of subtle description during the session as Fleming did, would have been better.

    In terms of the car chase being more boy oriented as others mentioned, it didn’t actually bother me as I thought it would. It is only brief. I expected it to go on for longer.

    I would have to read Trigger Mortis again in order to decide which is the best book but both are great Bond continuation novels.

    All in all, another great book by Horowitz. IFP, pretty please with a cherry on top, ask Horowitz to scribe another...then another...then another..! :)
  • Posts: 7,653
    Just get an e-reader and have every Fleming and continuation novel on it and you can just about enjoy yourself immensely.
  • Posts: 2,598
    I’ve read them all too many times. I need new stuff.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,894
    I suppose if you aren't a colldctor, e-readers are fine. I'm a collector, so I would never touch one. You can't beat the smell of a new book or the feel of the pages as you turn them.
  • Posts: 2,598
    I agree, there’s nothing like a book but I travel around so I can’t buy actual books nowadays. Once I’ve read them I don’t want to throw them away but at the same time, I don’t have the room to keep them, hence Kindle is my choice these days. Having said this, I do have a couple of Fleming and Jack Reacher paperbacks on me. :)
  • Posts: 7,653
    I suppose if you aren't a colldctor, e-readers are fine. I'm a collector, so I would never touch one. You can't beat the smell of a new book or the feel of the pages as you turn them.

    True I like the feel and smell of books, but when I travel an e-reader is actually quite enjoyable en easy to take along instead of kilo's of books. So I enjoy the books at home and an e-reader in the train and on the plane.
  • Posts: 17,291
    A bit off topic this, but I've never tried an e-reader before. Is it tiresome to look at that screen?

    I might need to consider an e-reader going forward due to lack of available space for books.
  • edited October 2019 Posts: 2,598
    I have the kindle app on my i pad and reading books on this doesn’t hurt my eyes. I don’t have the screen set to really bright. Apparently, the actual kindle devices are even better. I looked at someones’s once and it really looked like an actual page from a book. Didn’t smell it though. ;)
  • Posts: 2,598
    Birdleson wrote: »
    cwl007 wrote: »
    A little call to arms from the MI6 community please. (Sorry if it's slightly wrong thread)
    I'm going on holiday soon and looking forward to some reading time. I was wondering if Trigger Mortis is worth my time or not. Any thoughts?
    Thank you

    I may be in the minority, but a big no.

    Absolutely. One of the best continuation novels and almost up there with Fleming.
  • cwl007cwl007 England
    Posts: 611
    Thanks guys, appreciate it. I keep checking in with this thread for comments because I think opinions of Bond fans outweigh general reviews on such matters. Cheers
Sign In or Register to comment.