Has William Boyd been given a license to kill 007?

From John Cox's blog "The Book Bond."

Quote :

Here's something a little curious. I'm told that bookmakers Ladbrokes in the UK are taking bets on whether James Bond lives or dies in the new 007 novel by William Boyd due out Sept. 26, 2013.

Maybe this is nothing. Bookmakers take bets on just about anything that can be bet on (or so I'm told). But would they really set up betting on something in which the outcome is 100% assured? Did they do this for other Bond books or films? Might Ladbrokes have some deep insider information on the new Bond novel?

Has IFP given William Boyd permission of kill off James Bond!?

Of course, Bond could always "die" as he did in From Russia With Love and You Only Live Twice. But maybe there's something much, much larger in the works here. We were all surprised when, after the much-hyped reboot of Carte Blanche, IFP announced that this new novel would be set back in 1969. Could this be because the plan is to now end the "classic Bond" timeline? Might IFP now go back and do more Young Bond novels (as has been rumored) and/or leap ahead and continue on with the new Carte Blanche timeline? Might Ian Fleming's James Bond never see 1970?

Of course, this would mean the Pearson/Wood/Gardner/Benson novels exist in their own unique timeline, which would be fine because I think most fans agree these books were in a separate universe anyway.

This would certainly be a bold and provocative move by IFP. But they are known for making bold and provocative moves with the literary Bond franchise lately. It would also be a way to make the Boyd novel yet another "event" book.

Yes, I think this is just crazy enough to be conceivable. Do you?

Place your bets...

http://www.thebookbond.com/2013/02/has-william-boyd-been-given-license-to.html

I somehow don't see Bond being killed off. Unless it's some kind of Reichenbach Falls situation where he comes back later. That though done by Fleming YOLT/TMWTGG.

Who knows with the IFP though.

I think they lost the plot a long time ago. They are now sick, like Stalin.

I can't imagine the character of James Bond being killed in either his literary or cinematic form. The only man who could've done it went to Valhalla in 1964.

From John Cox's blog "The Book Bond."

Quote :

Has IFP given William Boyd permission of kill off James
Bond!?

We were all surprised when, after the much-hyped reboot
of Carte Blanche, IFP announced that this new novel would be set back in 1969.
Could this be because the plan is to now end the "classic Bond" timeline? Might
IFP now go back and do more Young Bond novels (as has been rumored) and/or leap
ahead and continue on with the new Carte Blanche timeline? Might Ian Fleming's
James Bond never see 1970?

This actually is quite conceivable. Fleming always maintained the mandatory double-0 retirement age as 45. This might be the IFP's way of permanently retiring the Fleming timeline. Bond himself never expected to see 50 or even make it to retirment. As Cox later suggests ,this development might also serve to market the book as an "event" book. That would be an event - the killing of Fleming's Bond, and actually not terribly implausible. This would certainly create a big buzz about the book and then IFP could follow with a full contemporary re-boot;possibly continuing with Deaver's re-boot, but hopefully with a better author, or doing a full re-launch. Might make more sense to continue post Carte Blanche but with more suitable Bond author.

Quote :

Of course, this would mean the Pearson/Wood/Gardner/Benson novels exist in their own unique timeline, which would be fine because I think most fans agree these books were in a separate universe anyway.

He's right here. It would be a shame though re Pearson, as I think Pearson's book very nicely dovetails with Flemings work. Pearson's book I think is a very well conceived biography of Bond which jives with the Fleming work quite nicely. Pearson deftly fills in the gaps and fleshes out Bond's life both pre-and-post Fleming's descriptions. I like to look at Pearson's book and Colonel Sun as the legitimate successor books to Flemings timeline.
The Wood screenplay novelizations on the other hand operate in the cinemaverse, while the Gardner/Benson efforts are only tenuously connected to the Fleming timeline, eg Bond has to stop aging for these books to work as continuity.

Quote :

This would certainly be a bold and provocative move by IFP. But they are known for making bold and provocative moves with the literary Bond franchise lately. It would also be a way to make the Boyd novel yet another "event" book.
Yes, I think this is just crazy enough to be conceivable. Do you?

Yes, I think this might be true, if only to create some big hype around Boyd's book itself, and then use that momentum to generate interest in a rebooted Bond series, such as the one launched by Deaver, but again preferably minus Deaver this time.
Personally, I don't like the idea because I do quite respect Pearson's work. The Fleming timeline could simply end with Pearson. We could ingore the few loose strands that Benson followed up with regarding Bond's trip to Australia to track down Bunt.
But if they really do want to kill off Bond in the Fleming timeline, you pretty much have to toss out Pearson who advanced Bond to Age 53, circa 1973.
Pearson then could just exist as an alternative Fleming timeline, in which Bond survives into retirement.
I also wouldn't be surprised if IFP took pains to incorpate both Colonel Sun and Devil May Care into this final timeline too, as it could be done, thus lending added heft to these two officially licensed efforts by Amis and Faulks. They could even market them with Boyd's book as the three definitive Fleming timeline continuity novels, and reap new sales, especially for Colonel Sun.

tiffanywint wrote:

Yes, I think this might be true, if only to create some big hype around Boyd's book itself, and then use that momentum to generate interest in a rebooted Bond series, such as the one launched by Deaver,

So they would use Boyd's book to help hype a reboot that a different author launched two years ago (and very successfully I might add; CARTE BLANCHE was a NY Times Best Seller for several weeks, so we know it sold at least 100,000 copies in the U.S.), then was abandoned by the publisher so that they could go back in time??!?? The initial decision to go back to the Fleming timeline was bad enough, but now the thought of using it as a springboard to hype a re-reboot, or to simply add a sequel Carte Blanche, is even worse. Plus, on top of all that they want a $100 million dollar deposit and half our net income?

No thank you. I wan't no part of it.

I am just speculating Grav, but if Bond was killed off by IFP in the Fleming timeline this year, then it does seem the next chapter of book-Bond would have to be a continuation of the contemporary timeline, and the most logical place to continue there would be post Carte Blanche. Personally, I think Deaver is the worst of all the Bond writers, so I would really hope they would ditch him.
I am still scratching my head over how Bond shrunk in Carte Blanche. Was it to make him closer to Daniel Craig's height? I doubt it. Craig is only an aberration, Bond height-wise, not a norm.
But Deaver re-introduced Bond at 6' even, while way back in 1973, John Pearson a much more qualified Fleming successor than Deaver, saw fit to declare Bond to be 6'2", which makes him a tall man, but not super tall or even abnormally tall, rather just likely one of the taller guys in the room. I do realize Fleming created Bond at 6' which might have been a good enough height for 1952, but the white male on average has got a little taller since, so 6'2, Connery's height, Moore's height, I think is a better height for Bond if you want to pass him off as a "tall" man, and Fleming did describe Bond as tall.

As for this notion of killing off of Bond in the Fleming timeline. It does sound like a great marketing hook, an event type book, but after much pause and careful reflection.
I HATE IT!!!!!!!!:x
I have no desire to see Bond die. IFP should really respect their own continuity. They allowed both Pearson and Samantha Weinberg to write Bond continuation, in the Fleming timeline, beyond 1969. In fact, Weinberg ages Bond to a retirement cottage circa 2008. Fleming's Bond was still very much alive in the Fleming timeline, only 5 years ago, so buzz off with this attempt at analternative timeline.

As for Fleming Bond's age, I can defer to this wiki entry and John Griswold's determination that Bond was born November 11, 1921.

"In Ian Fleming's stories, James Bond is in his mid-to-late thirties, but does not age.[26] In Moonraker, he admits to being eight years shy of mandatory retirement age from the 00 section—45—which would mean he was 37 at the time.[27] Fleming did not provide Bond's date of birth, but John Pearson's fictional biography of Bond, James Bond: The Authorized Biography of 007, gives him a birth date of 11 November 1920,[28] while a study by Bond scholar John Griswold puts the date at 11 November 1921.[29] According to Griswold, the Fleming novels take place between around May 1951,[30] to February 1964, by which time Bond was aged 42.[31]"

Thus our boy is currently 91 years old and presumably still contently living and taking a drink at noon, in his house off the coast of England, where Weinberg found him in MP Diaries Final Fling. I'll declare him dead when he turns 105, in 2026. I met a guy last year, who was 104 and he was still moving around OK, so I am happy to extend the same longevity to our Bond.
We can have a wake in 2026. Bond lives!!!! I don't care what Boyd writes. Harrumph.


I would suggest Boyd write the 1969 period piece and that's it for the Fleming timeline. Leave us with John Pearson's exemplary work to take Fleming's Bond beyond 1969.
I prefer to read about Bond in the present context anyway, just like the films exist in the present. Deaver has already given Bond a second literary re-boot, so away we go. The first re-boot, being Gardner and Benson's Bond of the '80's to early '00s.

Boyd's novel is called 'Solo'.

http://www.mi6-hq.com/news/index.php?itemid=10878&t=mi6&s=news

Not that keen on it.

I wonder what that means.

If that's just Bond being solo for the whole adventure, that'd be disappointing as a title.

Bloody hell. Did someone come up with that title in the midst of having a wank?

CJB wrote:

Bloody hell. Did someone come up with that title in the midst of having a wank?

Hands Solo.

I like SOLO as a title - if only because, for once, we have a continuation novel title that isn't trying painfully hard to be "Bondian".

Whether it stands up to scrutiny is another matter - after all, when is Bond not solo, or as solo as makes no difference? Still, it seems a positively brave choice of title after all those offerings from the Random Bond Title Generator. Let's hope the book itself feels as fresh.

Should've tried to attract a younger demographic by calling it Yolo.

Maybe this book will center around that mobster in Goldfinger who had a "Pressing Engagement"?

CJB wrote:

Should've tried to attract a younger demographic by calling it Yolo.

YOLO?

No, You Only Live Twice mr. Bond (once when you're born, etc.)