SOLO by William Boyd ::: September 26, 2013

http://www.thebookbond.com/2012/04/william-boyd-to-write-next-james-bond.html?spref=fb

Gone is Deavers's reboot and back are the sixties.

Deaver has put me off any Bond offering not penned by Herr Fleming. I only managed to trudge halfway through that sanctimonious liberal tract.

Wait, really? All that big attention to Deaver's reboot, recontextualizing Bond in a moden period, setting up a new continuity for other authors to follow, blah-de-blah-de-blah, and we're right back to another DMC style effort?

I mean, not that anyone liked Deaver but it at least made business sense to link the movie and book franchises through the commonality of a young, modern Bond.

I suppose the change in direction has a lot to do with the change in publisher. I wonder if Boyd will follow up DMC or Colonel Sun? Doubtful. Probably yet another contradictory late sixties post TMWTGG adventure.

We can complain about it already, or we can give it a chance to develop.

I'd rather look forward to it than anticipate that it will suck.

It might be OK if Bond resembles Bond, rather than Deaver's vacuous do-gooder.

Well, how many of us are suprised that Deaver's turd-fest, metxtrosexual's adventures weren't followed up?

Sad things is, it shows IFP know nothing about what they're doing with their product. First, they get literary giant Faulks, they fawn all over him, he says the right things.... and is really taking the piss. Deaver's a best selling holiday-read American, so that says he'll crack the US market; says he's a huge Fleming fan as well... and then he proves he really wasn't by contributing the least Bond-like continuation of the lot!

So it's back to the 60s. Look forward to much praise of Fleming from Mr Boyd, promising to follow the canon with a 60s set, ageing Bond. Then find he knows fuck-all about IF, never heard of CS and DMC and out comes his book....

You know the rest.

Here's hoping for a huge surpise, then.

Great to get the announcement! I'm definitely excited but perhaps not as excited as I was upon hearing the Faulks and Deaver announcements because I've been disappointed twice now.

I've always supported a period and contemporary piece. The fact that DMC was laclustre had nothing to do with the fact that it was set in the 1960's. It is a poorly written Bond book.

Let's hope we get the real Bond back again and not Deaver's horrible generic interpretation of the character! Maybe Deaver will return for the next Bond book, continuing in the contemporary world where he left off with Carte Blanche.

I don't think for a minute that Boyd will try and immitate Fleming.

Atleast in 1969 we can have a bit more confidence that Bond will be more like his original self instead of, well, whoever the hell he was in Carte Blanche. He wasn't James Bond. When I first read the Fleming books many years ago, once Bond reached the early sixties I ceased picturing him as an older man. For me, he stopped aging once he reached his early 40's. So, he was in his early 40's in CS, the Gardner novels and Benson's books.

I've never read any of Boyd's novels so I'll have to check one out. What makes me a little less excited is that Faulks is an excellent writer (I've read several of his books) but he gave us a disappointing Bond book. He isn't a thriller writer though but then Deaver is and CB lacked punch too. I did enjoy the latter book to a point but the continual twists got tiring and Bond just wasn't Bond but from what people have said about Boyd I am somewhat confident.

Continuity would be nice but I'm glad IFP are sticking to the different authors as I'm not happy with Deaver's Bond.

There's something re-assuring about a Bond in his 40s (which I assume Boyd will make him) rather than the silly kid of Deaver's book.

Particularly when one is in one's 40s oneself.

I've long suggested Boyd as a Bond author. THE NEW CONFESSIONS is one of my favourite novels (and an absolute must for anyone interested in cinema), while ANY HUMAN HEART is also terrific. I also enjoyed STARS AND BARS.

However, this just sounds like Sebastian Faulks all over again.

It would seem that the problem is not the writer (both Boyd and Faulks are superb writers) but the "brand". If modern Bond novels are to be squeezed dry of any Flemingian - or indeed artistic - elements and picthed squarely at a lowest-common-denominator readership that knows 007 purely through the recent Craig and Brosnan films, then it matters not who writes them, for they are guaranteed to be painful to read.

Using name authors is helping IFP get news coverage for the continuation novels and protecting the family business, but it does nothing to help recognition of the original James Bond books. As far as I'm concerned, the literary James Bond died with Ian Fleming.

Loomis wrote:

I've long suggested Boyd as a Bond author. THE NEW CONFESSIONS is one of my favourite novels (and an absolute must for anyone interested in cinema), while ANY HUMAN HEART is also terrific. I also enjoyed STARS AND BARS.

However, this just sounds like Sebastian Faulks all over again.

It would seem that the problem is not the writer (both Boyd and Faulks are superb writers) but the "brand". If modern Bond novels are to be squeezed dry of any Flemingian - or indeed artistic - elements and picthed squarely at a lowest-common-denominator readership that knows 007 purely through the recent Craig and Brosnan films, then it matters not who writes them, for they are guaranteed to be painful to read.

A book rich in Christopher Wood-style Flemingiana would be perfect, Loomy, right?

David Schofield wrote:

A book rich in Christopher Wood-style Flemingiana would be perfect, Loomy, right?

It would. Then again, even a Benson would be preferable to what IFP has given us over the last few years.

Loomis wrote:

David Schofield wrote:

A book rich in Christopher Wood-style Flemingiana would be perfect, Loomy, right?

It would. Then again, even a Benson would be preferable to what IFP has given us over the last few years.

Benson? Tried tackle his novelisation of DAD last night; he really has a dreadful way with words. Can't knock some of his plotting nor his enthusiasm but writing is all about words, isn't it?

But hey, sad as it is neither Faulks and Deaver, for all their reputations, managed to produce anything better than Bond-fan-got-lucky Benson; that's certainly true.

Boyd hasn't much to improve on then in recent years, has he?

I just hope that Boyd isn't taking it on purely as an easy gig for a huge payday with the blithe assumption that these endearingly dreadful Bond novels practically write themselves (one devoured them as a schoolboy, of course, but has had no occasion to pick them up since then), and it's sufficient to just put Bond in the 1960s and have him smoke a cigarette or two and Bob's yer uncle he's suddenly Fleming's 007.

I'd be much more hopeful if it had been announced that Boyd was writing a trilogy. I'm fed up with big names doing one-shot novels (and taking the enterprise much too lightly, to judge by the finished works). Then again, the one-off Bond continuation novel nowadays seems almost to have become a rite of passage for famous middle-aged novelists.

Who'd blame Boyd if he was taking IFP for a ride, like Faulks and Deaver before him? IFP make the approach, put the large offer on the table, and away you go. You didn't ask THEM...

A few positive Fleming comments later, how you've always been a fan and admired his work, even if all that means is you've read a novel as a kid and in later years thought Fleming wrote trivial sexist action pulp. Knock off a few hundred pages of prose (unless you don't know when to stop like Deaver) and you're done. IFP'll think its wornderful, whatever you've written. Easy.

Nice cheque banked, thanks very much. Probably the easiest work you've ever had, and move on. All it takes is a bit of front and a thick skin.

But if the worst thing that can happen is you get a slagging from those sad old Bond fans, what does it matter? They're only Fleming nutters and you could probably never please them anyway. (Besides, you really think Fleming wrote crap anyway, so what do they bloody know?)

And IFP, in their blind ignorance, go for their next version of the above. Again. Milking old Uncle Ian's creation without any appreciation or understanding of it. Which middle-aged writer wouldn't think of taking advantage of 'em and supplementing the old pension??????

Erica Ambler wrote:

Using name authors is helping IFP get news coverage for the continuation novels and protecting the family business, but it does nothing to help recognition of the original James Bond books. As far as I'm concerned, the literary James Bond died with Ian Fleming.

I'm afraid you're right. Fortunately, I haven't spent a dime on any post-Fleming offering except for a used copy of Colonel Sun, which was acceptable, but still no Fleming. I would gladly make an exception if David Stone was tapped to write a Bond novel, but that's too much to ask.

You all know the drill -- once is happenstance, twice coincedence, and so on...

Boyd is on BBC Radio 4 right now and says he's a fan of Fleming more than the films. I realise that's the same old pack drill, but it would be good if someone actually meant it for once.

Be interesting to see what happens but I guess it's pointless being slightly optimistic.

Out of the continuation novels I read - Colonel Sun, Zero Minus Ten, Devil May Care, and Carte Blanche - only Colonel Sun felt like a proper Bond novel. I've never heard of this William Boyd, but hadn't heard of Faulks or Deaver either before they were announced. I'm sure IFP will forgive me if I borrow or read the book in a store rather than buy it when it comes out. The last two novels were just strange.

Erica Ambler wrote:

As far as I'm concerned, the literary James Bond died with Ian Fleming.

Yeah, I feel the same way, despite never giving one of the continuation novels a try. They just don't interest me.

While I was book hunting a couple months ago, I found a brand new hard cover edition of DEVIL MAY CARE for 99 cents. Didn't even bother buying it at that price.

Loomis wrote:

However, this just sounds like Sebastian Faulks all over again.

Yeah, Devil May Care was ... well, unnecessary is the word I'd use, but I'm not sure if it's the right one. Maybe self-congratulatory; the opening felt like someone was standing behind me saying "You're not just reading a James Bond novel, you're reading a Sebastian Faulks novel" and then expecting me to say which one I appreciated more, with my answer deterimining how much I'd enjoy the rest of the book.

Wasn't "Fleming's Bond" tinkering with an smartphone apps in CARTE BLANCHE?

Mr. Brown wrote:

Wasn't "Fleming's Bond" tinkering with an smartphone apps in CARTE BLANCHE?

That's how he keeps himself busy when he's not at Oxfam rallies.

Yeah, "there's an app for that" seemed to be Deaver's way out of everything. Except that locked security door, though it would have been nice if Bond improvised the solution without any help.