It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ 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
Apologies, but I sure hope no Spoiler Alerts are needed for YOLT or TMWTGG...publication occurred looooong ago
Yes, Raymond Benson already covered what happened to Bond's son with Kissy Suzuki, one James Suzuki, in his first Bond short story 'Blast from the Past' (1996). John Gardner had wanted to use the son during his tenure after many fans wrote to him suggesting it but Glidrose wouldn't allow it at that particular time.
Benson wrote a short story for PLAYBOY (A BLAST FROM THE PAST) where it picks up with the child being a grown son, and Bond has met him. It was Benson's first Bond story, and the only thing I have ever read of his. It is so poorly written that I am surprised that PLAYBOY published it, or that Gildrose would continue with as steward of the character moving forward. It messes with continuity in several ways that I am not a fan of, but beyond that it just reads as amateur hour, or the weakest fan fiction.
Yes, that was an additional source for a few things during the Gardner and Benson years including Bond having an Uncle Bruce in Australia who left him a fortune in Gardner's Role of Honour (1984) so that he could leave the British Secret Service. The continuation authors seemed to use Pearson's Authorised Biography of Bond to fill on some of the gaps left in Bond's sometimes sketchy backstory from the Fleming novels, such as the YOLT Times obituary which is the main official source on Bond's life.
Yes, that's true. I think he mentions something about his childhood in FRWL too and of course then there's the opening chapter of OHMSS where he reminisces about his childhood on the beach.
Yes, and if I remember correctly he considers his childhood memories mawkish. He quickly shuts that long closed filing cabinet door in his mind again to deal with the matter at hand.
Waterstones Left, Goldsboro Right. Everything's the same here, but Goldsboro comes with a plastic covering that Waterstones does not.
Waterstones Top, Goldsboro Bottom. 007 pattern on Waterstones, Goldsboro just black.
Waterstones Title Page: Signature Only.
Goldsboro Title Page: Signature, edition number out of one thousand, "In association with Goldsboro Books May 2022" at the bottom.
He will be missed.
The good - structure wise and plot wise felt very Fleming. Probably about 80 to 90 percent it felt it could have been written by him.
The bad - Horowitz still manages to take me out of Fleming world immediately with an occasional turn of phrase that didn't sound very Fleming, or a slightly naïve opinion, or something which didn't really feel like something Fleming would write. It only happens occasionally, but when it does it is a reminder that this isn't Fleming you are reading.
Another reason it didn't feel very Fleming, there were no uplifting moments, no clear blue sunny skies, nice meals to indulge, Bond slipping into his Sea Island cottons. Throughout the tone is rather downbeat, atmosphere grey and drab, and something Fleming wouldn't focus too much on. He always had London as the cold grey place, until Bond set off to a sunlit remote destination. Fleming books always made you feel like you were on holiday.
This is not too much of a criticism, because its what made the Fleming books so unique - only he could have written them the way they were. And also the story told was an aftermath to TMWTGG, and setting it in Russia there was no way to have those nice beaches and blue skies. It served its purpose for the story.
I feel all 3 novels were good, not excellent. Probably the closest to Fleming from any writer after his death, even more than Amis.
I don't want to throw out what is otherwise a perfectly fine and readable book.
Does anyone have any idea's on what I could do with the damaged copy?
Yes, that's how you do an ending, rather than the diabolic NTTD.
I definitely wanted one extra M scene towards the end. And I'm not sure I'd call the ending 'a cliffhanger'. It was unresolved in a way, of course, but it was more than a simple cliffhanger, it was quite symbolic I thought, and very OHMSS (the book). I think Horowitz has completely earned the right to give us a question mark at the end.
And I'm glad to see someone else here favorably comparing it to the bloody stupid ham-fisted NTTD movie ending, which cynically served it all up on a fast food plate.
It's not the first time I've thought James Bond works better in books.
Does that ring a bell with anyone?
I don't consider Horowitz canon either. They're more a literary tribute, and I think they work really well in that context.
Yes, see the MI6HQ main page article here from 2017:
Yes indeed, and our esteemed Fleming and literary Bond scholar, @Revelator, had a thread on it at the time which has been added to since:
I do understand why people don't like to open new threads on here though, given the moderators penchant for closing new threads.
Yes, the moderators like to keep threads and the forum more generally tidy. Everyone has threads closed at the start and it's just something you learn early on, not to duplicate existing threads. However, usually I find there is more scope within the Literary 007 sub-forum to create new and unique threads on topics that haven't been discussed before. It does just take some careful checking on Google to make sure that a thread idea hasn't already been covered before starting a new one. It's usually not a problem anyway as the literary Bond threads I create are usually on fairly arcane subjects only really of interest to a select few members here. :)
We're totally fine with new threads that are warranted and creative, but why open up a new one for something that already exists?
It's something I've only seen happen on this forum, and I think in the effort to keep things 'tidy', the mods risk rubbing people up the wrong way. And is the forum really any 'tidier' with the new threads still on-line, but with 'closed' stamped on them like a red 'must do better' from teacher?
They end up disappearing in time since nobody else is posting in them - it's why we suggest Googling in the first place, so that's avoided. I know it's not a flawless system though and duplicates inevitably happen, and sometimes they're so old that we let them go.
It's extreme to say directing someone to the appropriate spot is "admonishment," especially when we note to please continue the discussion in the existing thread. I think some folks just enjoy opening up threads more than they do facilitating a new topic. Nobody is "warned" in the slightest when that happens and we can't help if folks take it that way, as no mod is threatening or rude when we do so.
I personally love seeing new threads opened up, especially ones that invite new discussion and debate, so I wouldn't assume we're over here frothing at the mouth any time one is opened. That's unfair.
I'm sure there's no malice behind closing threads, but it can send out negative vibes when someone has bothered to make a new thread they innocently thought might be of interest to other members.