›

Anthony Horowitz's Bond novel - Forever and a Day

12357…35

Comments

  • JET007JET007
    Posts: 632
    The question is, had Fleming not departed this mortal coil in 1964, would he have kept writing more Bond. If Fleming was still alive and writing 007 thrillers in the 70's, don't you think he would've kept the modern setting and not write about an adventure that took place in say, 1956?
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited January 2018 Posts: 17,805
    JET007 wrote: »
    The question is, had Fleming not departed this mortal coil in 1964, would he have kept writing more Bond. If Fleming was still alive and writing 007 thrillers in the 70's, don't you think he would've kept the modern setting and not write about an adventure that took place in say, 1956?

    Yes, the answer is that of course Fleming would have kept the contemporary setting had he written Bond novels into the 70s. Colonel Sun being cited as an example by @PussyNoMore only takes him so far - it was not a period piece but written (like all of the rest of Fleming) in a contemporaneous setting. Yes, it did help that it was written and set around the same time as Fleming's last Bond novels. This greatly added to its sense of verisimilitude.

    Let us not forget that the fashion for setting a Bond novel in the distant past is only a new phenomenon of the last ten years or so due to the publication of Sebastian Faulks' Devil May Care in May 2008.
  • JET007JET007
    Posts: 632
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    JET007 wrote: »
    The question is, had Fleming not departed this mortal coil in 1964, would he have kept writing more Bond. If Fleming was still alive and writing 007 thrillers in the 70's, don't you think he would've kept the modern setting and not write about an adventure that took place in say, 1956?

    Yes, the answer is that of course Fleming would have kept the contemporary setting had he written Bond novels into the 70s. Colonel Sun being cited as an example by @PussyNoMore only takes him so far - it was not a period piece but written (like all of the rest of Fleming) in a contemporaneous setting. Yes, it did help that it was written and set around the same time as Fleming's last Bond novels. This greatly added to its sense of verisimilitude.

    Let us not forget that the fashion for setting a Bond novel in the distant past is only a new phenomenon of the last ten years or so due to the publication of Sebastian Faulks' Devil May Care in May 2008.

    And back then I was hoping that was just a one off.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited January 2018 Posts: 17,805
    JET007 wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    JET007 wrote: »
    The question is, had Fleming not departed this mortal coil in 1964, would he have kept writing more Bond. If Fleming was still alive and writing 007 thrillers in the 70's, don't you think he would've kept the modern setting and not write about an adventure that took place in say, 1956?

    Yes, the answer is that of course Fleming would have kept the contemporary setting had he written Bond novels into the 70s. Colonel Sun being cited as an example by @PussyNoMore only takes him so far - it was not a period piece but written (like all of the rest of Fleming) in a contemporaneous setting. Yes, it did help that it was written and set around the same time as Fleming's last Bond novels. This greatly added to its sense of verisimilitude.

    Let us not forget that the fashion for setting a Bond novel in the distant past is only a new phenomenon of the last ten years or so due to the publication of Sebastian Faulks' Devil May Care in May 2008.

    And back then I was hoping that was just a one off.

    No, it seems to be the direction of play now with a fourth Bons novel being published later this year as a period piece. Only Deaver's Carte Blanche (2011) followed the contemporary settings norm of Amis, Gardner and Benson. Have we seen the last of such traditional continuation Bond novels? I hope not, but I have my doubts...
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited January 2018 Posts: 15,423
    I'm all for contemporary Bond novels. And I'll always champion Gardner and Benson for what others didn't have the balls for to do.
  • mybudgetbondmybudgetbond The World
    Posts: 189
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    I'm all for contemporary Bond novels. And I'll always champion Gardner and Benson for what others didn't have the balls for to do.

    I would agree with you if they had done what the films did and made a hard reboot. It's hard to believe Gardner's Bond and Benson's in the 80's, 90's and 2000's is meant to be the same as Fleming's from Casino Royale in 1953. Yet references are made to past Fleming adventures.

    If they had started a new chronology in the early 80's and made Bond in his mid 30's again then it would have been easier to swallow.

    Of course it's possible to read the books as timeless, but every so often the authors throw particular dates in which take me out of it. And not to mention Bond protecting Thatcher, Reagan and Gorbachov. He would have been in his 60's doing that!

    I personally prefer the 50's and 60's set literary Bond, so my personal timeline consists of:

    1 : Young Bond
    2: Fleming's Bond (with Trigger Mortis between Goldfinger and For Your Eyes Only)
    3: Colonel Sun
    4:Devil May Care
    5 Solo
    6:John Pearson's "Authorised Biography"

    Then from Gardner on is a different Bond. And Carte Blanche's Bond is a different Bond again :-)

  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Gardner did say he moved the timeline forward by a decade. The years aren’t specific when it comes to the continuation Bond but rather how they happen. You have to assume that Bond is still in his normal age system as opposed to being physically immortal with wrong assumptions of timeline placing. That’s why the films also work for me. For Brosnan’s Bond, for instance, you have to assume his ‘Dr. No’ happened somewhere around the early eighties rather than the sixties. I don’t mind that at all.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,805
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    I'm all for contemporary Bond novels. And I'll always champion Gardner and Benson for what others didn't have the balls for to do.

    Me too. They were the ones I became a fan of first, before the other "celebrity authors" quartet came along. They've got to convince me that their way is right as opposed to the old tried and tested method of Amis, Gardner and Benson, and not the other way around. That's how I see it, anyway.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    I'm all for contemporary Bond novels. And I'll always champion Gardner and Benson for what others didn't have the balls for to do.

    Me too. They were the ones I became a fan of first, before the other "celebrity authors" quartet came along. They've got to convince me that their way is right as opposed to the old tried and tested method of Amis, Gardner and Benson, and not the other way around. That's how I see it, anyway.
    Like wise, Draggers.
  • BounineBounine
    Posts: 2,598
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Gardner did say he moved the timeline forward by a decade. The years aren’t specific when it comes to the continuation Bond but rather how they happen. You have to assume that Bond is still in his normal age system as opposed to being physically immortal with wrong assumptions of timeline placing. That’s why the films also work for me. For Brosnan’s Bond, for instance, you have to assume his ‘Dr. No’ happened somewhere around the early eighties rather than the sixties. I don’t mind that at all.

    Yeah, this is what I have always done. In Gardner's and Benson's books, I've always just pretended that Bond is in his prime in his 30's and early 40's and that the events of his past like becoming an SIS agent have just been moved forward in time just like what I do for the films. It's just stupid to think of a Bond in the 80's in Gardner's books as being in his 50's and 60's. He should be in M's position at this age. Obviously he couldn't have been a field agent at this age.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Bounine wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Gardner did say he moved the timeline forward by a decade. The years aren’t specific when it comes to the continuation Bond but rather how they happen. You have to assume that Bond is still in his normal age system as opposed to being physically immortal with wrong assumptions of timeline placing. That’s why the films also work for me. For Brosnan’s Bond, for instance, you have to assume his ‘Dr. No’ happened somewhere around the early eighties rather than the sixties. I don’t mind that at all.

    Yeah, this is what I have always done. In Gardner's and Benson's books, I've always just pretended that Bond is in his prime in his 30's and early 40's and that the events of his past like becoming an SIS agent have just been moved forward in time just like what I do for the films. It's just stupid to think of a Bond in the 80's in Gardner's books as being in his 50's and 60's. He should be in M's position at this age. Obviously he couldn't have been a field agent at this age.
    Precisely. Well said.
  • BounineBounine
    Posts: 2,598
    Thanks. Likewise. :)

    Bring on the new Bond book!
  • ggl007ggl007 www.archivo007.com Spain, España
    Posts: 2,539
    94r2Z0B.jpg
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    For Queen and Country? ;)
  • JET007JET007
    Posts: 632
    From Golden Death?
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,020
    Fallsky.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,805
    Frau De'ath
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Delete. That was too vulgar.

    Well now you have to tell us what it said ;)
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,805
    thelivingroyale wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Delete. That was too vulgar.

    Well now you have to tell us what it said ;)

    Well it was an f-word I'm guessing...
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    edited February 2018 Posts: 17,281
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    For Queen and Country? ;)



    He's commenting peoples comments now. Hm…



    __________
    Maybe he's borrowing the title of A-ha's song Forever Not Yours?
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    Posts: 5,185
    looks like the Book will be revealed shortly

  • mybudgetbondmybudgetbond The World
    Posts: 189
    I'm so excited for news of this book. For me Trigger Mortis is the best Bond since Fleming.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    mybudgetbond wrote: »
    I'm so excited for news of this book. For me Trigger Mortis is the best Bond since Fleming.

    I really enjoyed it too. The one thing that bugged me (and the reason I prefer Colonel Sun overall) was the GF link. I don't mind references to the other books but carrying on in that way made it feel a bit fanfictiony imo, I'm hoping this one stands on its own two feet a bit more.
  • shamanimalshamanimal
    Posts: 623
    Has it been confirmed that the new book is a CR prequel, or was that just a rumour?
  • Agent_99Agent_99 enjoys a spirited ride as much as the next girl
    Posts: 3,108
    mybudgetbond wrote: »
    I'm so excited for news of this book. For me Trigger Mortis is the best Bond since Fleming.

    I'm already at the level of 'please announce a publication date and some signings so I can get it on my calendar'.
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    Posts: 17,281
    Wonder what the book cover will look like. Horowitz seems excited about it, so here's hoping for a good one!
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    edited February 2018 Posts: 17,281

    :-D
  • Agent_99Agent_99 enjoys a spirited ride as much as the next girl
    Posts: 3,108
    Ha, I came flying over here to post that, but you beat me to it :)
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    Posts: 17,281
    Agent_99 wrote: »
    Ha, I came flying over here to post that, but you beat me to it :)

    Can't wait to hear the title! Will be refreshing that Twitter feed again and again throughout the day!
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    Posts: 5,185
    He added in the comments that it will be in the morning, so i won't have to check all day
Sign In or Register to comment.