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
I wish you had have put that in spoiler tags.
Try not to hope for too many spoiler tags on these forums. I had a good portion of SF spoiled for me because idiots fail to use them in non-spoiler threads. Granted, this one is for reviews, but I guess kindness fails some people.
I think I'll be avoiding these forums almost entirely once 'Bond 24' gears up and starts filming. I can't stand spoiler leaks.
Interestingly enough, at the RVH meeting a fan asked Boyd if he'd read any of the other continuation novels? Being a fully puffed up member of the literati, he acknowledged reading Amis' CS when he was a boy and said he'd read Faulk's effort - which he hailed as quite brilliant.
Obviously considers himself too posh to read Higson, Gardner, Pearson or Weinberg - from whom he could have learnt a lot from a positive perspective or Benson and Deaver from whom, together with his buddy Faulks, he could have learnt what not to do.
Utter disgrace the whole gig!
Interestingly enough, at the RVH meeting a fan asked Boyd if he'd read any of the other continuation novels? Being
As said,the drinking is just flat out risible. There is a difference between the heavy drinking portrayed by Fleming and somebody putting so much away in a restaurant or bar that they would barf up all over the shop, collapse and have to be stretchered into rehab with Gazzer - cool and sophisticated, I don't think so!
Amongst all the other deficiencies in this abomination, it is clear that Boyd knows zero about Fleming's stock in trade - drink, cars, guns, combat , exotic locations,trade craft and a certain sartorial expression. I didn't add sex to the list because I suppose he has some experience in this direction!
That night Boyd also criticised Fleming's canon as being uneven and his plots as being implausible.
After reading Solo, I think those comments are just unbelievable.
A couple of weeks ago I re-read 'Moonraker' and was simply blown away. Written in 1957, if you swoped Drax's allegiance from fascism to al Qaeda and substituted a dirty bomb for his rocket, you'd have a plot line oven ready for a Craig movie! Plot as tight as a duck's arse Mr.Boyd - live and learn but not at our expense!
and the opinions of fellow members whose opinion I respect did it for me.
By by Boyd...
Now, Christopher Wood did give the impression of being a bit vital, the sex is just right in his two books (ditto Amis), but about all the others seem a bit cringey, like their heart, let alone anything else, just isn't in it.
Still, who cares when Boyd has researched Bond's correct age, his taste in clothes, food, make of vinegar and nailed exactly the car he'd be driving... jeez.
Another thing that I get the impression from excerpts of Boyd's novel, and this applies to Deaver and Faulks too, is a total lack of humour. Fleming sort of gave the impression of conveying it as all being a delicious joke, albeit one to be taken kind of seriously. It's exotic, larger than life, wonderful. But these other guys just jump through various plot points, with emphasis on consumer brands to add colour and veracity to Bond's world. There isn't much sense of Bond's inner life, he doesn't seem to have any thoughts of his own much. We are not let into his world, he is the cold, distant agent that Fleming's Bond sometimes is - but not all the time. Again, this is where Wood excelled, he came up with little reflections and observations about character that Fleming himself did, albeit in a sometimes unPC way.
This says it all then. Any lingering doubt that this might not be a shambles is gone.
Love the way the media and the authors union can't wait to name drop Amis, Faulkes and Deaver as continuation authors but the one bloke (Gardner) who did a competent job is just airbrushed from history.
You don't drive yourself do you Mr Boyd !
Yes, you are quite right, funny how they studiously ignore John Gardner when he did such a good job for them in the '80s.
Always liked his work. Particularly the Secret Generation books, his Kruger works and his Moriarty stuff. He even did a pretty good series just before he died featuring Suzie Mountford.
OK, in keeping with most folk, I think he went on a little too long, but all in all, he did us proud.
Might be that no one wants to be compared to the only writer that wrote more Bond novels than Fleming himself... ;)
As I've said, look back at these three straight failures now (in the future). Don't continue to revert back to Fleming, because look at what that has given us.
Well not quite. Reverting to Fleming in a poor way is what has happened with the last 2 novels, and by the sounds of it, this one too.
I believe there is an author out there capable of reverting back to Fleming successfully. Unfortunately the last few authors were not the right choice to do this.
Yes! And John Pearson!
Yes @BAIN123 - we'd be in the best of hands!
Failing the resurrection, we have to go on bended knee to Charlie Higson or rather IFP have to.
He demonstrated over five fabulous 'Young Bond' adventures that he gets it completely.
Please God - no more of these literati tricksters!
Seems to me that no one wants to mention Gardner as he is seen as a journeyman writer who is not fit to lace the boots of the superstar authors we have had for the last three debacles. Same goes for Benson although in his case its understandable.
I may be wrong in this but it seems that this revisionist version of history where Gardner never existed has only come about since Glidrose became IFP. I can't say I'm an expert on the ins and outs of the change of company but it seems that the newly formed IFP saw what Glidrose had done with Gardner and Benson and saw two perfect examples of the law of diminishing returns and decided to go down another route - that of the gun-for-hire celebrity author.
They should be commended for trying a fresh approach because ever since Scorpius the Bond books had been declining alarmingly in both quality and sales so it was clear a change of direction was needed.
However, good management means admitting when you are wrong and it is abundantly clear now that the celebrity author strategy has miserably failed.
What irks me intensely is the press that these guys are getting to knock out extremely shoddy work. It's like they're doing us a favour by lowering themselves and dabbling in something so base as Bond. Every interview and media article claims how they studied Fleming for inspiration and have given us a classic back to basics Bond adventure. Yet when you read it its clear that no one involved has a clue about the character apart from ticking off a checklist of what they think is Flemingesque such as drinking, smoking, shagging and brand names.
Sorry Seb, Jeff and Bill but it takes more than that to make a good Bond adventure.
It is clear now that IFP need a new direction as if people like us aren't going to buy the book then just who the hell is?
It seems the obvious answer (short of giving a crack to an unknown by having say a competition on here for people to submit a synopsis and opening chapter) has to be Higson as he clearly understands the character, has good sales figures and importantly has a readership who having read the young Bond series are now old enough to read what happens to the adult Bond.
At the moment the literary Bond seems to be as big a shambles as the computer game Bond. How do people find it so easy to convert what should be a slam dunk into disaster? And how do such people keep their jobs?
Wizard, did you read it yet?
This is superbly articulated, Wizard.
I will get a copy of Solo, in paperback, much later. It is disheartening the way IFP has chosen authors over the past few years. And Gardner, it seems by all accounts, deserves far better mention. Frankly, the more I have read of Boyd's interviews, the less respect I have for him. And judging by reviews of members whose opinions I respect, I do not think his writing (when I get around to reading it) will change my mind favorably towards his take on Bond.
Somewhat underwhelmed !
I will probably read it before the New Year; no rush now.