Anthony Horowitz's James Bond novel - Trigger Mortis

1356742

Comments

  • Things do appear to be heading in a more hopeful direction, though. For example, we'll get none of the "gruff" about Bond being past his prime. Just Fleming's Bond during Fleming's era at the peak of his prime in a story working from one of Fleming's own unfinished ideas. You gotta admit that's a bit more than some author saying, "Oh yeah, my new Bond is going to be different from all the others...blah, blah...twist you'll never see coming...blah, blah...Fleming-esque...blah, blah...[insert other unsubstantiated promises here]...blah, blah...and in conclusion, here are some scantily-clad girls to unveil my working title against a black background with a couple of smoldering bullet holes."

    I do agree though, as much as I'm excited to read even a TV treatment of one of Fleming's James Bond stories, I'm more excited to read a competently written, fully fleshed out James Bond novel based off that treatment.
  • edited October 2014 Posts: 802
    How can somebody with a handle like @villieurs 53 not like this idea?
    The '50s motor sport era has to be one of the most glamorous periods and offers huge potential.
    I'd love to know exactly when Anthony will be setting his story. I want it to be a prequel to Casino Royale and it could be because Sir Sterling raced at the Nuremberg circuit throughout the '50s albeit I don't think he ever won. He was up against the great Fangio at the time.
    Personally, I'd love it to be set before 1955 when he raced for Jaguar.
    Always dangerous to predict after the huge disappointment that was Boyd (I always thought Faulks and Deaver were mistakes from the get go) but I'm going to stick my neck out and predict a complete winner with this one. Cars, girls and a strong villain - what can go wrong?
  • timmer wrote: »
    Villiers53 wrote: »
    In my opinion literary Bond would lack any relevance in a modern setting. The spy world has moved on and I don't think that Fleming's core attributes carry credence in modern times.
    But I do think Bond is a timeless character. A man of his integrity, talents, courage, loyalty and style, personal quirks and indulgences - those attributes can be adopted to any period.

    I know where you are coming from but unlike the movies, I think a modern literary Bond is a tough proposition.
    For me, it's not about the vices and the violence. With the exception of a smoking habit that would be completely unbelievable today, all are transferable.
    What is much less credible in this surveillance and technological age is the proposition of one man, armed solely with his Walther, saving the day and the attendant sense of glamour that Fleming embodied into his stories. This is the essence of Bond and in updating him you always loose something. As I've said before, I think that John Gardner made a pretty good effort at a 1980's reboot but for me, there was always something missing and it was the glamour.
    Every era has its strengths and the great strength of the '50s and '60s was the devil may care attitude that emerged after the second world war and the glamour that came with it.
  • Posts: 2,308
    Bounine wrote: »
    I don't agree if it's just a TV script.

    The general reader would probably agree with you, but I will gladly take a TV script by Bond's creator over any continuation novel. The latter will always be pastiches, uneasily poised between what the author would like to do and what he thinks Fleming's Bond would do. Whereas Fleming is Fleming.

  • Bounine wrote, in response to my posting: "The book you're referring to is 'For Special Services'. My favourite Gardner Bond book."
    Thanks Bounine - your enviable compass of Gardner's books has saved me several more sleepless nights and speed-reading the Gardner series. I still maintain that Gardner was the very best of the authors of the Bond-continuation novels and it sticks in the craw that he was never accorded the acclaim and publicity that's attended later, Fleming Estate-accredited writers. His non-Bond novels, such as "The Dancing Dodo" and "The Werewolf Trace" are also riveting reads.
  • DragonpolDragonpol The Crazy World of David Dragonpol
    Posts: 14,767
    Bounine wrote, in response to my posting: "The book you're referring to is 'For Special Services'. My favourite Gardner Bond book."
    Thanks Bounine - your enviable compass of Gardner's books has saved me several more sleepless nights and speed-reading the Gardner series. I still maintain that Gardner was the very best of the authors of the Bond-continuation novels and it sticks in the craw that he was never accorded the acclaim and publicity that's attended later, Fleming Estate-accredited writers. His non-Bond novels, such as "The Dancing Dodo" and "The Werewolf Trace" are also riveting reads.

    Finally someone who talks some sense regarding the contribution made by the late great John Gardner to the literary James Bond series! :)
  • edited October 2014 Posts: 4,622
    Villiers53 wrote: »
    I know where you are coming from but unlike the movies, I think a modern literary Bond is a tough proposition.
    For me, it's not about the vices and the violence. With the exception of a smoking habit that would be completely unbelievable today, all are transferable.
    What is much less credible in this surveillance and technological age is the proposition of one man, armed solely with his Walther, saving the day and the attendant sense of glamour that Fleming embodied into his stories. This is the essence of Bond and in updating him you always loose something. As I've said before, I think that John Gardner made a pretty good effort at a 1980's reboot but for me, there was always something missing and it was the glamour.
    Every era has its strengths and the great strength of the '50s and '60s was the devil may care attitude that emerged after the second world war and the glamour that came with it.
    Your point is well taken. Bond is of the '50s and "60s. Those were the decades of maximum Bond. The best Bond is of those decades. Even the films attest to this. The six movies made in the '60s were all released within 6 years or less of their original novel source material.
    You could say DN-OHMSS are the authentic, period Bond films. By DAF suddenly the '70s were in full swing. The new film was now 15 years removed from its source novel with its look updated accordingly. The post classic-era of Bond was launched.
    So yes contemporary Bond stories can never capture the magic of Bond's vintage era. It's a different world, but I am happy to see Bond continue in literature through the ages. Trick I think is to find a writer that really gets Fleming, and who might be able to project the Fleming touch through the decades.
    It's no small task.

  • edited October 2014 Posts: 2,534
    "Bounine wrote, in response to my posting: "The book you're referring to is 'For Special Services'. My favourite Gardner Bond book."
    Thanks Bounine - your enviable compass of Gardner's books has saved me several more sleepless nights and speed-reading the Gardner series. I still maintain that Gardner was the very best of the authors of the Bond-continuation novels and it sticks in the craw that he was never accorded the acclaim and publicity that's attended later, Fleming Estate-accredited writers. His non-Bond novels, such as "The Dancing Dodo" and "The Werewolf Trace" are also riveting reads."


    Your welcome.
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Bounine wrote, in response to my posting: "The book you're referring to is 'For Special Services'. My favourite Gardner Bond book."
    Thanks Bounine - your enviable compass of Gardner's books has saved me several more sleepless nights and speed-reading the Gardner series. I still maintain that Gardner was the very best of the authors of the Bond-continuation novels and it sticks in the craw that he was never accorded the acclaim and publicity that's attended later, Fleming Estate-accredited writers. His non-Bond novels, such as "The Dancing Dodo" and "The Werewolf Trace" are also riveting reads.

    Finally someone who talks some sense regarding the contribution made by the late great John Gardner to the literary James Bond series! :)

    Yes! Although, for me, in terms of Fleming's successors, Pearson did the best job with his excellent biography of Bond. I felt he really nailed it in terms of the stories and Bond's personality. One could say though that he isn't really a continuation author in the strictest sense of the word .
  • edited October 2014 Posts: 4,622
    Bounine wrote: »
    One could say though that he isn't really a continuation author in the strictest sense of the word .

    I would say he is, simply because Fleming teased the idea of the Bond books existing in the fictional narrative in the YOLT obit.
    Pearson took Fleming's thread and ran with it.
    For that reason I can't set him aside as having some unique and original spin outside the literary continuum.
    His premise that the Fleming Bond novels also exist in Bond's fictional world, connects directly with what Fleming had already presented.
    That was a cute little touch of Flemings, adding mention of the novels in the obit, but its there and part of the Bond lore.

    Of course when I first read the obit, I just kind of laughed at Flemings reference to his own work, but by the time I picked up the Pearson book, which really fleshed it all out, I had myself convinced that Bond was real and it was now finally all being revealed, conveniently ignoring, that the fine print on the inside flap said the book was a fictional work.
    Later I grudgingly acknowledged it was all just a good yarn. But when reading, it was fun to believe.
  • Posts: 7,645
    I recently acquired Pearsons "The live of Ian Fleming" and am curious to read this, I thought it was the 007 book but to my surprise he did write another tome on the subject.

    I would really like it if the Horrowitz novel would have Flemings notes in it, it would probably be what I would read first.
  • edited October 2014 Posts: 4,622
    I think you have picked up Pearson's well respected actual bio of Fleming.
    It (1966) preceded his fictional authorized bio of Bond (1973), which is what I am babbling about two posts above.
  • Posts: 7,645
    timmer wrote: »
    I think you have picked up Pearson's well respected actual bio of Fleming.
    It (1966) preceded his fictional authorized bio of Bond (1973), which is what I am babbling about two posts above.

    Looking forward to the bio of Fleming, remember reading the Bond bio twenty odd years ago and feeling not to impressed.

    But on the basis of your positive view I shall seek it out and reread the book.

  • Posts: 5,745
    timmer wrote: »
    I think you have picked up Pearson's well respected actual bio of Fleming.
    It (1966) preceded his fictional authorized bio of Bond (1973), which is what I am babbling about two posts above.

    I just finished his Bond bio and I now consider it 100% cannon. Let's start a movement #jamesbondisreal
  • Posts: 5,745
    Birdleson wrote: »
    JWESTBROOK wrote: »
    timmer wrote: »
    I think you have picked up Pearson's well respected actual bio of Fleming.
    It (1966) preceded his fictional authorized bio of Bond (1973), which is what I am babbling about two posts above.

    I just finished his Bond bio and I now consider it 100% cannon. Let's start a movement #jamesbondisreal

    If you consider that canon than you are wiping out much of what Fleming had put to paper (like all of MOONRAKER), so I don't.

    Forgive me for I haven't read Moonraker in two years and read the first half of the Bond bio a year ago and just last week got around to finishing the second half. I know that sounds absurd but when one doesn't read much, one loses some of the details. How does the bio conflict with Moonraker?
  • DragonpolDragonpol The Crazy World of David Dragonpol
    Posts: 14,767
    JWESTBROOK wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    JWESTBROOK wrote: »
    timmer wrote: »
    I think you have picked up Pearson's well respected actual bio of Fleming.
    It (1966) preceded his fictional authorized bio of Bond (1973), which is what I am babbling about two posts above.

    I just finished his Bond bio and I now consider it 100% cannon. Let's start a movement #jamesbondisreal

    If you consider that canon than you are wiping out much of what Fleming had put to paper (like all of MOONRAKER), so I don't.

    Forgive me for I haven't read Moonraker in two years and read the first half of the Bond bio a year ago and just last week got around to finishing the second half. I know that sounds absurd but when one doesn't read much, one loses some of the details. How does the bio conflict with Moonraker?

    It basically says that it never happened and that it was merely a misinformation campaign to fool the Soviets into thinking how potent a blunt instrument James Bond was. Very strange considering Moonraker is in my view Fleming's best James Bond novel.
  • Posts: 5,745
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    JWESTBROOK wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    JWESTBROOK wrote: »
    timmer wrote: »
    I think you have picked up Pearson's well respected actual bio of Fleming.
    It (1966) preceded his fictional authorized bio of Bond (1973), which is what I am babbling about two posts above.

    I just finished his Bond bio and I now consider it 100% cannon. Let's start a movement #jamesbondisreal

    If you consider that canon than you are wiping out much of what Fleming had put to paper (like all of MOONRAKER), so I don't.

    Forgive me for I haven't read Moonraker in two years and read the first half of the Bond bio a year ago and just last week got around to finishing the second half. I know that sounds absurd but when one doesn't read much, one loses some of the details. How does the bio conflict with Moonraker?

    It basically says that it never happened and that it was merely a misinformation campaign to fool the Soviets into thinking how potent a blunt instrument James Bond was. Very strange considering Moonraker is in my view Fleming's best James Bond novel.

    Oh yes, I remember now. In both situations it's still a work of Fleming fiction, and his mind still created it.

    It is odd to build up this idea that James Bond is in fact real, and all his missions are real, if not 100% accurately depicted by Fleming, and yet Pearson takes away arguably the best novel plot as some throwaway war-game diversion.

    It doesn't bother me though. It's still a great story, and like I said, in both universes it's still the best Fleming creation, 'real' or not. It is my favorite novel, as I realize I've listed some time ago on here.

    The whole biography makes me feel as though Pearson 'got it' when it came to Bond's character. I like how he made Bond relatively humble when it came to scaling back the stories Fleming told. It's the little details and quirks I feel he nails. Especially the ending, with Honeychile's "The bastard's gone."
  • edited October 2014 Posts: 2,534
    "The whole biography makes me feel as though Pearson 'got it' when it came to Bond's character. I like how he made Bond relatively humble when it came to scaling back the stories Fleming told. It's the little details and quirks I feel he nails. Especially the ending, with Honeychile's "The bastard's gone."""

    @JWESTBROOK I agree. As to why IFP never approached Pearson to write more Bond books, I'll never know. Maybe they did and he refused. He's still alive and kicking. They should ask him if Horowitz doesn't do a good job or doesn't want to continue writing more. I suppose they just want celebrity authors though unfortunately.

    I wonder if it has always been IFP's plan to ask a writer to continue to write more if they had have been truly happy with the first book and if the author had have been keen to do more.

    In terms of Pearson saying that Moonraker never happened, maybe this was to do with him portraying the fact that Bond is real. All of Bond's assignments 's concerning the villain's plots could have been kept from the public eye, however, if indeed the Moonraker missile existed, all of the British public would have known about it. Or did Pearson say that the Moonraker existed and that the story around it was made up? I can't remember. Pearson addressed everything else. Don't know about Dr No though, you'd think that the world would hear about the toppling of missiles.

  • edited October 2014 Posts: 802
    Bounine wrote: »
    "The whole biography makes me feel as though Pearson 'got it' when it came to Bond's character. I like how he made Bond relatively humble when it came to scaling back the stories Fleming told. It's the little details and quirks I feel he nails. Especially the ending, with Honeychile's "The bastard's gone."""

    @JWESTBROOK I agree. As to why IFP never approached Pearson to write more Bond books, I'll never know. Maybe they did and he refused. He's still alive and kicking. They should ask him if Horowitz doesn't do a good job or doesn't want to continue writing more. I suppose they just want celebrity authors though unfortunately.

    I wonder if it has always been IFP's plan to ask a writer to continue to write more if they had have been truly happy with the first book and if the author had have been keen to do more.

    You renowned Bondologists have rekindled my interest in this. I'm going to go back and re- read it. I wasn't too impressed the first time but maybe I missed something.
    I did enjoy Pearson's biography of Fleming and preferred it to Lycett's weighty tomb albeit I found it a little sycophantic.
    Regarding Pearson's relationship with IFP, my understanding is that he didn't have one. That was the problem. It was a rogue effort that for one reason or another IFP (or Gildrose as they were back then) let it go. I don't think the same thing would happen again.
  • edited October 2014 Posts: 4,622
    This is interesting - what is being brought up about Bond's recollection of the Moonraker Affair in the Pearson book.
    Upon last reading (last year), I again just glossed over the MR explanation. It didn't jar at all, in fact I thought it fit with the premise quite fine.
    In JBTAB we are being asked to swallow that the Fleming books also exist in the Fleming-Bond fictional timeline.
    Pearson in effect has made Fleming a fictional character, but Fleming did it first with the obit - making himself a character in his own books. Such is the mischievious streak of Ian Fleming.
    So Fleming planted the seed for his books existing in the fictional Bond world, and Pearson found a way to make them fit.
    The Moonraker story still exists in our world as a Bond adventure, but in Bond's fictional lit world, the MR adventure is as Pearson describes. ;)
    I am not bothered by this. Fleming mapped out the beginnings of this path with the obit.
    I'd have to re-read the MR passage again, but thank you to those who brought it up.
    I'd never thought one way or the other about it. I was just having so much fun believing Bond was real, and that I was being let in, on some top-secret con job that had been pulled over on the world. I will have to go back and re-read.
    And it was great to catch-up with Honey again. I had mixed feelings about Bond running off to fight Bunt at the end. I was hoping he might settle down with Honey and live the good life. They had lots of cash. He was kind of semi-retired anyway.
    I thought Pearson overall did a real nice job fleshing out Bond's life based on the loose outlines that Fleming had provided

    ===On the new book.
    I do hope that Horowitz gives serious thought as to where his story might fit with the Fleming timeline.
    I think he needs to consider when Fleming might have scribbled the original notes for discarded title "Murder on Wheels" and then envision where Fleming might have considered placing the story in the continuity.
    I am sure Horowitz is competent to do the research.

    ==btw if anyone is wondering about the whereabouts of the "real" Bond, readers of the MP Diaries know that MP's niece found him to be alive and well, living peacefully in a small house on an island off the coast of England, circa 2008- still enjoying a drink or two at noon and in robust spirits.
    Bond I believe, if we go with the 1924 birth, which is what I think Boyd in Solo settled on, would be enjoying his 90th birthday this fall, presumably still residing at his cottage retreat, where MP's niece found him.
  • Posts: 5,745
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Yes, it fit the premise of Pearson's book. The point is that I wouldn't take it as canon over the Fleming books. It exists as a separate, interesting take.

    But goo analysis.

    I see it as cannon following the Fleming books. In '74, there was no work being done on any continuation, and Pearson left his book so far open to another great story as Bond chased Bunt down. If I were to take over to write my own story (I've been mulling the idea), I would start where Pearson left off. I don't think I would do the Bunt story, but I would mention as just having happened in mine before continuing on.

    I think it takes Fleming's creation and keeps it alive, if only Pearson had gone on to actually write the chasing Bunt story as a '75 or '76 novel and continued from there.

    His added adventures in the bio are excellent, with the killing of the SMERSH agent on a personal vendetta against him on the sunken battleship. That would make for a killer scene in a movie, EON!

    But I'm repeating what I've said: Pearson was the heir apparent to Fleming, and I take the bio as a continuation of Fleming, not cannon over Fleming's work.

    .......

    I am excited for this new book. I like to think that Fleming would have known Sterling Moss by a chance encounter or something, and been inspired to write him into Bond's life. Bond and motor racing in '50's Germany sounds almost perfect Fleming to me for a Bond novel. The only holding back I have is that it almost sounds like a short story:

    "James Bond goes off on a personal adventure for M. to save his close friend Sterling Moss, whose life is threatened as he races the Nurburgring."
  • Posts: 5,745
    Here is a video of Moss at the Nurburgring in 1956, falling second place.
    http://www.stirlingmoss.com/video/stirling-moss-race-history-1956-german-grand-prix-nurburgring
  • edited October 2014 Posts: 4,622
    Great video above. The roar of those engines! The video transports one back to the time of
    Bond and Fleming - the 1956 German Grand Prix on the famed Nurburgring.
    Moss' Maserati versus Fangio's Ferrari. Classic stuff!
    One can almost imagine the Bond-world intrigue, going on behind the scenes.


    Re Bond canon.
    I kinda think the Bond canon died with Fleming. His last work was TMWTGG.
    He left us with , "For James Bond the same view would always pall." and that was it. Over and out.
    It's easy to ignore his smart little obit reference to his own books, as a Fleming in-joke to fans and no more.
    Or more likely Fleming was amusing himself. He did give shoutouts to real people in his novels such as David Niven, Ursula Andress, Noel Coward so he gave one to himself.

    The now numerous continuation authors have attempted to expand on Fleming's universe, and some great work we've got, but from a purist pov, the official canon I think can really only be what Fleming wrote. He died young and did not formally turn his work over to a successor. We've had a hodge podge since.
    The IFP licensed successors, don't worry much about whose stepping on whose work.
    Us fans, who have read everything, have a better idea as to whose stepping on whose continuity.

    Pearson didn't have to go off on Fleming's obit tease. He simply chose to, so he is easily ignored, if one wants to.
    Higson completely ignored the work Pearson had laid down re Bond's formative years, when he launched Young Bond.
    IFP clearly isn't too fussed about continuity.

    So I think the only real definitive canon is Fleming.
  • edited October 2014 Posts: 5,745
    timmer wrote: »
    So I think the only real definitive canon is Fleming.

    Very well put indeed. But as I said, if I were to continue writing where Fleming left of, I would accept Pearson's account of things and go on just after his final showdown with Bunt. I just simply liked his details and personification, and as he knew Fleming (he did, didn't he? At least for the biography) I feel he has a good grasp of what he intended for Bond. I do wish we got a novel from him on Bond's final track down of Irma.
  • JWESTBROOK wrote: »

    "James Bond goes off on a personal adventure for M. to save his close friend Sterling Moss, whose life is threatened as he races the Nurburgring."

    @JWESTBROOK thanks for posting that great film of Sir Sterling battling Fangio at the Nurburgring. Those were the days when the driver was more important than the car.
    Fabulous stuff and fertile terrain for Horowitz.
    Regarding the story itself, I'm quite sure that it will be used as either a sub-plot or as an entree for the main meal.
    IMNSHO (in my not so humble opinion) IFP's emphasis on passing previously undisclosed original Fleming material to Horowitz is more PR spin publicising the partnership than anything else. I'm confident that when it comes to the book we will get something great. I say this because I consider Holmes to be a much more difficult challenge (although AH himself disagrees) and he did such a fabulous job with 'House Of Silk'.
    I'm going to meet Anthony at his London launch of 'Moriarty' on 22nd October so if anybody has any questions for him, post them here and I'll see if I can fit them in.

  • Posts: 908
    Villiers53 wrote: »
    JWESTBROOK wrote: »

    "James Bond goes off on a personal adventure for M. to save his close friend Sterling Moss, whose life is threatened as he races the Nurburgring."

    @JWESTBROOK thanks for posting that great film of Sir Sterling battling Fangio at the Nurburgring. Those were the days when the driver was more important than the car.
    Fabulous stuff and fertile terrain for Horowitz.
    Regarding the story itself, I'm quite sure that it will be used as either a sub-plot or as an entree for the main meal.

    I have two admit lacking the fantasy (and if there's something I have got in abundance it is fantasy ) to imagine how a formula one one race could be bent into something significant for a realistic spy story. All I know is that I sincerely hope that it is not another "this time it is personal" thing (= doing a favour, revenge or whatever)! Just a straight spy story taking place at a point in time when the Cold War was at it's coldest.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    JWESTBROOK wrote: »
    I'm going to meet Anthony at his London launch of 'Moriarty' on 22nd October so if anybody has any questions for him, post them here and I'll see if I can fit them in.
    The most obvious question is "When does the novel take place?" (I mean what year).
  • Posts: 5,745
    Walecs wrote: »
    JWESTBROOK wrote: »
    I'm going to meet Anthony at his London launch of 'Moriarty' on 22nd October so if anybody has any questions for him, post them here and I'll see if I can fit them in.
    The most obvious question is "When does the novel take place?" (I mean what year).

    I'd bet money on 1956. Simply because that's the only year I could find Moss at the Nurburgring.
  • 007InVT007InVT Classified
    Posts: 893
    timmer wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    007InVT wrote: »

    Confidence is high for Horowitz, so if he knocks it out of the park I could see him writing more.

    Pardon me, I will first read the book before complimenting the writer.

    Actually, considering all the hope and promise and interesting background, that has been revealed in this thread and elsewhere, I have already elevated the book to 2nd on my Bond continuation novel rankings, behind only Pearson. :P

    1. Pearson, James Bond Authorized Biography
    2. Horowitz, untitled
    3. Gardner, License Renewed.

    I agree about 'Pearson, James Bond Authorized Biography' as #1. It's a cracker.
  • Campbell2Campbell2 Epsilon Rho Rho house, Bending State University
    Posts: 299
    I'm through with the first three Alex Rider books, Stormbreaker, Point Blanc and Skeleton Key. All three a fun read and surely very much influenced by Bond. IMO they felt like a mash-up of novelizations and Fleming's ideas, I liked that quite some. Will be interesting to see Horowitz dealing with the genuine article. Maybe I will pick up House of Silk anyway now. I'm no Holmesian but willing to give it a try based on the Riders I've read. Rating the new Bond without having a clue what it will amount to seems early to me though.
  • edited October 2014 Posts: 4,622
    JWESTBROOK wrote: »
    ...... if I were to continue writing where Fleming left of, I would accept Pearson's account of things and go on just after his final showdown with Bunt. I just simply liked his details and personification, and as he knew Fleming (he did, didn't he? At least for the biography) I feel he has a good grasp of what he intended for Bond. I do wish we got a novel from him on Bond's final track down of Irma.
    For sure, Pearson wrote a great book. It would have been real interesting if Pearson had picked up on that Bunt thread.
    But maybe he was simply trying to tie up Fleming's work, flesh out the gaps and bring Bond up to the present day (1973) and leave it that.
    But still it would have been neat to have someone pick up the Bunt thread.
    Gardner at least when he came along 8 years later, continued in a general sense of what Pearson had left us with, ie Bond returning to action in middle age. He presented Bond as older agent but now of non-specific age, and of course when Gardner discovered he had a series on his hands, Bond stopped aging and slipped back to being of indeterminate, normal 00 age.
    Years later Benson picked up the Bunt thread, so we do have a Pearson-Gardner-Benson continuity rooted in Fleming, even if it does deny the aging process.
    We do have a Fleming timeline continuity with the works of Amis, Pearson, Weinberg Faulks and Boyd, and which Horowitz is continuing.
    None of these authors have stepped on each other, I don't believe.
    Higson of course went off on his own Young Bond tangent, discarding Pearson's work which I think was a mistake.
    Any author that was to continue post 1964, ie in the actual Fleming timeline, I hope would consider the Amis,Pearson Weinberg, Faulks and Boyd continuity.
    Anyone writing contemporary could kind of do whatever they wanted, although I think it would make sense to at least review Deaver's work and move from there.

    Horowitz of course only need concern himself with the Fleming continuity, but it wouldn't be the worst thing if he referenced some of Pearson's work too, but certainly not necessary or even needed.

    Personally I think the Young Bond tales have been so outlandish, that they exist as a unique Young Bond continuity, that might eventually settle down and work its way up to adult adventures in the years leading up to the defining events at the fictional Northern France town of Royale-les-eaux.

    However, something else to consider, the new comic line introduced this week intends to develop Bond's pre-CR days.
    As YB is very recent, IFP I suspect will ask that new comic-Bond not trample the YB continuity already established.
    With the combination of YB's revived adventures, and new comic-Bond, we could be seeing full-on effort to build the pre-CR legend.

Sign In or Register to comment.