How old is James Bond in the Fleming books?

TedHeath wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Moore was 58 in '85. If we're going with Bond having been born in the 1910s, he would have been in his 70s when the Gardner books were written. That's a key difference of 20 odd years.

In Bond years, 58 is just as good as 78.

Not it isn't. 58 is pushing it. 78 is taking the piss.

Sharky wrote:

TedHeath wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Moore was 58 in '85. If we're going with Bond having been born in the 1910s, he would have been in his 70s when the Gardner books were written. That's a key difference of 20 odd years.

In Bond years, 58 is just as good as 78.

Not it isn't. 58 is pushing it. 78 is taking the piss.

Did Gardner even mention Bond's age in his books? I don't remember him even doing so. I think of Bond as more of an ageless character, meaning his age is never really is/should be an issue in the films or novels. It's more or less better to not even mention it, I think. I mean the character himself, not the actors. I don't want 70 year-old's playing Bond.

TedHeath wrote:

Sharky wrote:

TedHeath wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Moore was 58 in '85. If we're going with Bond having been born in the 1910s, he would have been in his 70s when the Gardner books were written. That's a key difference of 20 odd years.

In Bond years, 58 is just as good as 78.

Not it isn't. 58 is pushing it. 78 is taking the piss.

Did Gardner even mention Bond's age in his books? I don't remember him even doing so.

It doesn't matter. It's implied from the fact that he's trying to weave his books together with Fleming's. Sometimes it's best to forget about continuity with one's predecessors.

Sharky wrote:

Sometimes it's best to forget about continuity with one's predecessors.

But all that continuity just being thrown away is a waste.

TedHeath wrote:

Sharky wrote:

It doesn't matter. It's implied from the fact that he's trying to weave his books together with Fleming's. Sometimes it's best to forget about continuity with one's predecessors.

But all that continuity just being thrown away is a waste.

Not if you're writing Bond as a senile old age pensioner reminiscing about his past and no one believing him (something I've always wanted to see in lit Bond, but it'll never happen), or setting your books back say 20 years ago, right where Fleming and Amis left off. However, just carrying on as usual with a septogenarian Bond is absurd. You either create your own history and timeline, or acknowledge Bond's age.

Sharky wrote:

You either create your own history and timeline, or acknowledge Bond's age.

Or, you just don't. I don't get why you can't suspend your disbelief for this. If Gardner had mentioned that Bond was in his 70's, then I could see where you're coming from. Bond's age shouldn't be an issue, It's best left to be ignored. If you enjoyed the book, does the supposed age of Bond really matter?

Forget about it.

TedHeath wrote:

Sharky wrote:

You either create your own history and timeline, or acknowledge Bond's age.

Or, you just don't. I don't get why you can't suspend your disbelief for this. If Gardner had mentioned that Bond was in his 70's, then I could see where you're coming from. Bond's age shouldn't be an issue, It's best left to be ignored. If you enjoyed the book, does the supposed age of Bond really matter?

I think we are talking at cross puposes Ted. Gardner published his first book in 1981, which would have made Bond 61 if you go by the Fleming timeline. Wisely, Gardner (as you suggested) simply presented Bond as a mature agent but stayed clear of his exact age. He gave the impression Bond was on the older end of his age arc, maybe late 40's and left it at that, and Bond's age remained consistent for the next 15 or so years, for which Gardner wrote the books. Gardner smartly didn't age him at all.

It's been a while since I've read any of the Gardner books, but I do recall he did attempt continuity with the Fleming stories and characters. If I'm wrong, then we can give Gardner a pass. But if he did and I think he did, then he can't pretend Bond isn't in his 60's, because the Fleming books are clearly staged in the 50's and 60's.

Actual Fleming continuity where Bond does age consistent with the Fleming stories was achieved by Amis, Pearson, Faulks and Samantha Weinberg, plus Higson who went back in time.

But never mind Gardner, (he wasn't too grievous). It's Benson that was right off his rocker. Benson is writing Bond as a young (40ish) agent in the late 90's and early 00's, yet brazenly writing early 60's Fleming characters such as Draco and Tanaka into the modern narrative. That's crazy town. As Shark said, 40 years later you gotta let the old continuity go and create a new universe. Fine to play the same literary sleight of hand with stalwart Bond support characters such as MP, M, Tanner, even Leiter, but to dredge up story and year specific Fleming characters like Draco and Tanaka - that's crazy town. Somehow I doubt IFP was impressed either. Why not bring back Pussy Galore, Honey and Domino and some of the other girls for fresh adventures as well. No-one ages at all.

But the Pearson insanity stopped with Bond and Tanaka Part 2, in The Man with the Red Tattoo. Benson hasn't written Bond since.

Yeah he's born on Armistice Day in 1920. CR takes place in 1951 (most of the books take place about 2 years before publication year) so he's 31 when the series begins.

John Griswold's book "Ian Fleming's James Bond: Annotations and Chronologies" is a MUST have book for any obsessive Fleming fan, especially when it comes to assembling a cohesive timeline of Bond. http://www.ian-fleming-james-bond-annotations-and-chronologies.com/

tiffanywint wrote:

But never mind Gardner, (he wasn't too grievous). It's Benson that was right off his rocker. Benson is writing Bond as a young (40ish) agent in the late 90's and early 00's, yet brazenly writing early 60's Fleming characters such as Draco and Tanaka into the modern narrative. That's crazy town. As Shark said, 40 years later you gotta let the old continuity go and create a new universe. Fine to play the same literary sleight of hand with stalwart Bond support characters such as MP, M, Tanner, even Leiter, but to dredge up story and year specific Fleming characters like Draco and Tanaka - that's crazy town. Somehow I doubt IFP was impressed either. Why not bring back Pussy Galore, Honey and Domino and some of the other girls for fresh adventures as well. No-one ages at all.

Benson was just weird. The man took what continuity he wanted, and just left out other bits. Such as Q'ute just disappearing and Q returning without any explanation. I think the reason I'm so opposed to reboots in the Bond universe is because they haven't been done exactly well. The film reboot was awful, and from what I've read about the book reboot, it doesn't sound too good.

I actually enjoyed the Benson books, but I did roll my eyes when he resurrected both Draco and Tanaka. Actually he had me rolling my eyes at other times too. And after plowing through Deaver's recent effort, my eyes were about to roll right out of their sockets.

But I'm not too hard really on any of the continuation authors, as none of them can replicate what Fleming wrote or even his style ( sorry Faulks). As long as the books are readable and provide some James Bond-world adventure, I'm happy. If I want authentic Bond, I can just re-read one of the Fleming titles.