Who do you want IFP to pick as the next Bond author?

Perilagu Khan wrote:

David Stone, the author of The Echelon Vendetta and three other very tough thrillers. There's absolutely nothing pussified or tofu-consuming about his work.

Did Bond eat tofu in Carte Blanche and I missed it or forgot about it?

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

David Stone, the author of The Echelon Vendetta and three other very tough thrillers. There's absolutely nothing pussified or tofu-consuming about his work.

Did Bond eat tofu in Carte Blanche and I missed it or forgot about it?

Dunno. I was just going by what Shark said in the OP.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

David Stone, the author of The Echelon Vendetta and three other very tough thrillers. There's absolutely nothing pussified or tofu-consuming about his work.

Did Bond eat tofu in Carte Blanche and I missed it or forgot about it?

Dunno. I was just going by what Shark said in the OP.

It's a figure of speech. Bond doesn't technically pick up a copy of The Guardian either, but I was trying to make a point about how faceless and PC Deaver's Bond is.

I admit, some of my post may have been lost across the Atlantic divide.

Sharky wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

David Stone, the author of The Echelon Vendetta and three other very tough thrillers. There's absolutely nothing pussified or tofu-consuming about his work.

Did Bond eat tofu in Carte Blanche and I missed it or forgot about it?

Dunno. I was just going by what Shark said in the OP.

It's a figure of speech. Bond doesn't technically pick up a copy of The Guardian either, but I was trying to make a point about how faceless and PC Deaver's Bond is.

I admit, some of my post may have been lost across the Atlantic divide.

Came through loud and clear to me.

Sharky wrote:

Nah. I want to see something different. Octogenarian Bond sounds right.

We have met Octo Bond in Samantha Weinberg's, Moneypenny Diaries: Final Fling.
He's retired comfortably to a littlle house on an island off the coast of England. He's probably still living there. He helps MP's niece, Kate Westbrook, unravel some mysteries concerning the death of her Aunt. Still a charming fellow. Others live in his community. He still takes a drink a noon. He's in a good robust health for his age. The odd friend visits, such as Tanner. He's got female friends on the island too.
He's doing quite well I'd say. Based on Fleming's conflicting data as to Bond's age, he could be as young as 87 in 2011. Not that much older, than Sean (81) or Rog (84 in 2011). The two should really pay him a visit.



Deaver's Bond btw will happily kill you if you need killing, but he wants to make sure that you do understand why you are being killed. Deaver Bond hates to be misunderstood ;)

Why not Greg Rucka? He's already done a hell of a job with Queen & Country, every comic book and novel of that series is so much more entertaining than Carte Blanche. And he's an experienced and renown comic book writer and could make use of the more surreal and bizarre elements that often set Bond apart from the pack. For all intents and purposes Rucka already did Bond, in every respect and element except name. Let him do the real thing and he surely won't do worse than Deaver and Faulks.

But actually why do we bother at all? Let's face it, if we just want some half-arsed thriller with a few explosions, some gun porn and a hearty dose of b/w politics, well, that's already out there in tons. New stuff gets published every week, and by far not everything is utter shit. There are some true gems to be found, even in today's streamlined markets - if we just stray a little bit off the beaten path, that is [unpretentious thriller fun is provided by Barry Eisler, Stephen Hunter, David Wolstencroft, Charles Cumming and several others mentioned already in this thread; see if you don't like their original characters] If demands are not set too high then there should be at least four or five series with deadly terrorist killers and secret military elite forces from all over the world and all you have to do is think "Bond" whenever their names are mentioned. Mission accomplished.

IFP didn't set out to corner that part of the market and I doubt they had illusions about that. The last few books have shown that's a task not within the current IFP's powers and the competition is far too strong nowadays. They are content to position themselves somewhere in the middle with their output, with half of the sales done by the publicity stunts and the names they contract - instead of the quality of the product. Whatever we'll get in the future, chances are on average it won't be more than middling efforts by hired hands.

What I would prefer was a book written without thought of genre and sales, but instead with Bond in it. It need not concern itself with world domination or cold war or Aston Martins, as long as it was at least halfway as entertaining as YOLT. My dream would be Stephen Fry for such a book. Hell, I'd read it if he put Bond in a retirement home where he meets Ian Fleming and Josephine Baker.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

David Stone, the author of The Echelon Vendetta and three other very tough thrillers. There's absolutely nothing pussified or tofu-consuming about his work.

Did Bond eat tofu in Carte Blanche and I missed it or forgot about it?

Dunno. I was just going by what Shark said in the OP.

It's a figure of speech. Bond doesn't technically pick up a copy of The Guardian either, but I was trying to make a point about how faceless and PC Deaver's Bond is.

I admit, some of my post may have been lost across the Atlantic divide.

Came through loud and clear to me.

Well, Sharky's quite right. As I pointed out on CBn a while back, Deaver's Bond is essentially Nick Clegg with a gun.

I don't want a Bond who's a vegetarian or a conscientious objector, or who frets about the "ethnic cleansing" at Dale Farm, chastises himself over his carbon footprint or thinks Coldplay are one of the best British bands since The Beatles. A Bond who's so hysterically politically correct that he can't even bring himself to order a "black coffee".

Not, of course, that an undiluted facsimile of Fleming's Bond would work in 2011 - a frothing-at-the-mouth racist, a misogynist and a homophobe so thoroughly and cripplingly addicted to nicotine in such vast quantities as to be unable to even change the TV channel without first lighting up. No. Still, there must surely be a happy medium between these two extremes of "Dinosaur Bond" and "PC Bond". But IFP doesn't seem to have found it yet.

Loomis wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

David Stone, the author of The Echelon Vendetta and three other very tough thrillers. There's absolutely nothing pussified or tofu-consuming about his work.

Did Bond eat tofu in Carte Blanche and I missed it or forgot about it?

Dunno. I was just going by what Shark said in the OP.

It's a figure of speech. Bond doesn't technically pick up a copy of The Guardian either, but I was trying to make a point about how faceless and PC Deaver's Bond is.

I admit, some of my post may have been lost across the Atlantic divide.

Came through loud and clear to me.

Not, of course, that an undiluted facsimile of Fleming's Bond would work in 2011 - a frothing-at-the-mouth racist, a misogynist and a homophobe so thoroughly and cripplingly addicted to nicotine in such vast quantities as to be unable to even change the TV channel without first lighting up. No. Still, there must surely be a happy medium between these two extremes of "Dinosaur Bond" and "PC Bond". But IFP doesn't seem to have found it yet.

I assume you intend this as charicature.

Yeah, I never pictured Fleming's Bond as a "frothing-at-the-mouth" racist.

He's not a frothing-at-the-mouth anything. Certain politically incorrect views emerge in spasms of irritability, but that's pretty much the extent of it.

Guys, it's not meant literally, just like Sharky's comments about Bond reading The Guardian and eating tofu.

I've been thinking maybe Bond would make an exception for the Guardian in this case:


Jokes, jokes.

Also, great call on Greg Rucka, 6of1.

I think the number one attribute that a Bond writer needs to have at this point is Genuinely Wanting to Write About James Bond. The issue of the last two authors is that they were basically just doing work-for-hire. Why should Faulks or Deaver give a fuck about Bond when they have their own characters and stories to work on that they are really passionate about? Give it to Higson, for fuck's sake, at least we know the man gives a damn.

Loomis wrote:

or thinks Coldplay are one of the best British bands since The Beatles

This in particular is unthinkable :x

I wrote that I was only going to post here once, so apologies for going back on that, but I hope it’s understandable in a thread that mentions me. Thanks to those who mentioned me as a potential Bond author – obviously, I’d leap at the chance if it came along.

Well, I say obviously… I think it’s obvious now. A few years ago, I don’t think I would have been so keen. My books aren’t best-sellers (yet!), but they’re doing okay and I’m hopefully building an audience as the series progresses. Five years ago, the idea of writing a Bond novel would have been fun, but it wouldn’t have looked like it could do my career any favours, because the distribution, marketing and sales had declined, and my impression was that post-Fleming Bond novels were largely read by hardcore Bond fans. It’s hard to go on anything but impressions, though, as unlike music or films, sales figures for books are harder to come across.

Anyway, I think Faulks was a game-changer, not because of the novel itself but simply because of the fact that such a well-known and respected (in the UK anyway) author had agreed to do it, and because of the profile it received. Deaver changed the game again, because he’s a major bestselling thriller-writer on both sides of the Atlantic and indeed internationally. I have my views about both those novels as a Bond fan, but I’m writing this post more from a professional angle. Because of course it doesn’t much matter who we want to write the next novel - it's fun to discuss, but we don't have any say in it. Just as there was no obvious contender to take over as Bond from Pierce Brosnan – well, apart from Clive Owen, who it now looks like may have been telling the truth all along and was never approached by EON – there is no one obvious contender to write Bond. I doubt anyone could have predicted with any confidence Amis, Gardner, Pearson, Benson, Higson, Weinberg, Faulks or Deaver, etc, any more than they could have predicted Daniel Craig. And we know that it could have gone a different way with the authors: Jenkins in the 60s, Gardner was on a shortlist and hesitated, Lee Child has said no at least twice, I think, Horowitz said no to Young Bond. I know of someone who was approached recently and declined. They’re a bestselling thriller-writer, would get a lot of attention, and I’m sure would have done a creditable job… but it is still not someone I would ever have guessed IFP would approach.

So I think there are a lot of factors in play. Who comes across the radar of IFP. Who they approach. Who wants to do it once approached. Who can do it, in timelines with their existing contracts and plans with their publishers. Finally, how the finished product comes out, which is where we get to pick over the bones. But I think it could really be any one of hundreds of writers out there. There aren’t any frontrunners. It could be a dependable old pro, or it could be from way out left field. A woman, an American, an Italian… I don’t think it’s in any way predictable, because there are too many factors.

Perhaps the more interesting question is: can it still be done? Once you know a lot about Bond, I suspect it’s almost inevitable that a continuation adult Bond novel will disappoint to some degree. In reading both Devil May Care and Carte Blanche, part of my brain, the Bond fan reader, was dissecting what I liked and disliked about them, which is fairly easy to do. And part of my brain was pointing out how easy it was to be an armchair continuation novelist, and seeing many of the pitfalls. Despite the radical change in status, to the extent that I know of several writers who would want to do it but would never have considered it a few years ago, i reckon it still is a thankless task to a degree. Better rewarded, perhaps. But if you set it in the Cold War, a large and vocal segment of fans will complain in forums and in reviews that this is not Fleming, Bond needs to get with it, just write a Daniel Craig film and stop rehashing the past. Reviewers would follow similar lines. And if you set it now, the opposite would happen, and a large segment of vocal fans and reviewers alike would point out that Bond belongs in Fleming’s time. I think this extends to pretty much every decision a continuation author makes.

So part of me thinks no, it isn’t really doable. Everything has been done, it would read like pastiche, and you’re always going to end up with something that displeases tons of people, which is intimidating. On the other hand, I think there is room to surprise – Daniel Craig did it in Casino Royale. A novel I very much recommend is the forthcoming Assassin of Secrets by Q.R. Markham. This is a young American writer, and he has written a fantastic 60s-set spy novel that has several direct and indirect nods to Bond and Fleming, a kind of pastiche told straight, and in beautifully crafted prose. It’s hard to describe, but it’s enormous fun, and I think also shows just how much can still be done. I think it would be great to have a bold continuation novelist – but clearly one that hit the right notes in their boldness. That’s always subjective, but I think it is still possible to do. Whether or not it will happen is, I think, quite a lot up to chance.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

He's not a frothing-at-the-mouth anything. Certain politically incorrect views emerge in spasms of irritability, but that's pretty much the extent of it.

I'm tired of saying it, but Fleming and Bond were socially unconventional in many ways. Some of Fleming's views - for which Bond was often a mouthpiece - such as championing the legalisation of certain recreational drugs, prostitution and gambling - would be considered controversial today let alone 50 or 60 years ago.

Fleming the conservative empire loyalist is a complete characterture.

Fleming's political views are somewhat ambiguous. That said, I think I'd peg him as a cultural conservative with certain libertarian leanings. His views on the empire are also nebulous, but it is clear that he had little use for the burgeoning post-war welfare state which replaced it.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

it is clear that he had little use for the burgeoning post-war welfare state which replaced it.

True enough. He was for the individual's right to self-determination, though when you look at his own personal life it hardly provides supporting evidence: a wife who was a monster and a son who was a wastrel.

Interesting, and largely true I would think, post from Mr. Duns about the largely thankless job of being a continuation novelist. That's why I think any candidate would have to be doing it from a place of really wanting and loving to write about James Bond, as opposed to more pragmatic motivations such as exposure or money or what have you.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Interesting, and largely true I would think, post from Mr. Duns about the largely thankless job of being a continuation novelist. That's why I think any candidate would have to be doing it from a place of really wanting and loving to write about James Bond, as opposed to more pragmatic motivations such as exposure or money or what have you.

Well, I think any professional novelist is going to be thinking about how it would affect their career to some degree - writing is not that secure a profession, and even if you're extremely successful I suspect there are still a few considerations in such a deal. A major bestseller would not need the exposure or the money, and might be a die-hard Bond fan and think it would be enormous fun to do, but still legitimately wonder how it might affect perceptions of their own work in the medium- and long-term. Would they risk being known thereafter more as a Bond continuation novelist than for their own characters and creations? I suspect Sebastian Faulks considered this queston, and part of the reason for the rather contrived 'writing as Ian Fleming' business was to try to get around this. It was recast as a writing exercise, something he had once done, like his pastiches, and therefore not a defining part of his canon - just one job of many. I suspect that was a deliberate strategy. On a lower level, John Gardner was a midlist thriller-writer when he took over the job - but while it gave him money and security, I think it probably did have an impact on perceptions of his other work, particularly the Kruger series. It also ate into his time, and that's a whole other question: are we now past the days of an author writing more than one continuation novel? But, as I said above, I think all this has changed somewhat recently. The prospect of writing a novel that would be read by very few people and probably be picked apart by even those that did, which was the case just a few years ago, has pretty much disappeared, I think.

And I agree with you, of course: I think IFP would clearly be best off looking for someone who loves Bond. But we know from some of the people they have asked, such as Lee Child, and indeed some who have been chosen (I'd argue Faulks) that this isn't necessarily what they are primarily looking for. IFP also want exposure and financial success from the books. It could also be argued that loving Bond doesn't mean you can do it justice - I'm perhaps in a minority here, but I think Amis was a fantastic critic of Fleming but that Colonel Sun was disappointing. I know others have made a similar point about Raymond Benson. So, again, I think there are lots of elements to this sort of decision, from both sides.

'Jeremy' is fine, by the way!

Well I am encouraged that IFP cranked up the promotion machine for the last two Bond books. This was quite new, at least post Benson (the Young Bonds did get decent promotion). While I wasn't impressed with either Faulks or Deaver's work, I was impressed with the fact that both books got prominent shelf space. In fact my local bookstore ( ands its a major downtown store) quickly sold out their first batch of Carte Blanche and I had to wait a week until the next pile came in. This never happened with the Benson or Gardner books. I used to find them on the shelves, alphatbetically, under the author's name. All I ask is that the authors take the time to read at least 3 or 4 Fleming originals just to get the sense of the character and then try and adapt those attitudes to the present context. I'm not sure Deaver made that effort. Rather he infused Bond with a kind of a Dudley-Do-Right persona. Otherwise, I grant the writer artistic license in terms of plot characters, twists turns etc, even contemporary opinions attributed to Bond, as long as they might conceivably be consistent with original Bond's general attitude and world-view. I welcome another Deaver Bond, just to see what he might do as I have always liked reading Bond. I've read everything published, so my first priority is that the train keep rolling, as IMO, all of the offerings over the years have been quite readable.

What I do hope is that IFP continues to aggressively promote the books. We need sales to keep the series alive. If lucky, things could get to the point where the literary Bond-brand is bigger than the author-name, such as Faulks or Deaver, and then it wouldn't matter who wrote the book. This would be ideal.

Jeremy, why don't you give IFP a call when you're ready, and pitch a new Bond trilogy.:idea: Give them an outline and ask for the big promo-push as well. Take the Girl with the Dragon Tatoo approach. Your first book would be book 1, in the whatever trilogy. The books could still be quite stand-alone. They would only need a common thread to link them together. IFP might see dollar signs, hooking readers into this new trilogy. Ideally the movies should help to cross pormote the books. Daniel Craig for instance could show up at the book launch.

In a recent interview Tom Rob Smith admitted he was floored with the success of Child 44 and he thought it was mostly due to the marketing and publicity. That's maybe just what the people on the IFP building think, drum up noise and let that sell the books.

Tiffany, I agree. The fact that there is a higher profile now is something to celebrate, because hopefully it means more people discover literary Bond (perhaps even Fleming), and we get more novels. The marketing and distribution is now in another solar system from when Raymond Benson had the gig.

As for approaching IFP with a concept of my own, that's an interesting idea, but something tells me it might backfire and get me struck off any list they had! On your point about the Bond brand becoming bigger than the author, an interesting recent development, I think, is that IFP went it alone with the ebooks, cutting Penguin out of the picture. I suspect their thinking on this was that Bond is bigger than Penguin. Ian Fleming ebooks will sell without Penguin's name, or any other publishers' - they will sell regardless. So why not do it as his estate? Clever thinking. They also self-published, I think as print-on-demand, new editions of Thrilling Cities and The Diamond Smugglers. So I wonder if they might not jump in and publish the next Bond novel themselves, both in print and in ebook. I think if the author was right, bookshops would order it regardless of who published it. And this changes the game again, because the deal would be a much better one for IFP and the author, meaning they might be able to attract a bigger name.

Kennon, marketing and publicity are usually now major factors in a book's success. Much of it happens before the book has been published, though, and is aimed at bookstores. If they order in large quantities, as they did with Child 44 and Carte Blanche, that means the book is suddenly visible all over the place and, obviously, people are more likely to buy it as a result. It doesn't always work out, but generally speaking the more money invested in a book, the more it tends to make. Stands to reason that if your book is only available in a very few locations, you will likely only sell very few copies, and vice versa. I think IFP are absolutely looking to get authors who will drum up enough noise to get big orders in from bookstores. Over time, though, I think (hope) it may be that 'the new Bond novel' is enough in itself to secure that interest. As it is with the films.

I guess the point I'm making about loving Bond is that if you think Fleming was a hack like Faulks did and you're just doing it as an exercise or a paycheck, and you see it as cutting into your time with your own creations, well then surprise surprise if the result comes out reading half-hearted at best. It's like writing for any other franchise -- Grant Morrison has his own characters and ideas, but he loves Silver Age Batman and Superman, and writes those characters with a joy and appreciation for those eras, but with a modern sensibility, meanwhile respected novelist Jodi Piccoult was tapped to do a Wonder Woman story arc and it was terrible -- or you have Ron Moore, who wrote some of the best of 90s Star Trek because he loved 60s Star Trek, whereas writers-for-hire over on Voyager turned out schlocky scripts because they only saw it as a job.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

I guess the point I'm making about loving Bond is that if you think Fleming was a hack like Faulks did and you're just doing it as an exercise or a paycheck, and you see it as cutting into your time with your own creations, well then surprise surprise if the result comes out reading half-hearted at best. It's like writing for any other franchise -- Grant Morrison has his own characters and ideas, but he loves Silver Age Batman and Superman, and writes those characters with a joy and appreciation for those eras, but with a modern sensibility, meanwhile respected novelist Jodi Piccoult was tapped to do a Wonder Woman story arc and it was terrible -- or you have Ron Moore, who wrote some of the best of 90s Star Trek because he loved 60s Star Trek, whereas writers-for-hire over on Voyager turned out schlocky scripts because they only saw it as a job.

All true. But Deaver clearly loves Ian Fleming's work, as did Amis. I agree that it should be a basic requirement to love Bond - although Gardner wasn't a major fan, by any means - but we're not IFP. I don't think that is their main priority in picking an author. And I think even if you do love Bond, it's still a pretty tough gig, because it comes with a legacy that isn't (in my view anyway) comparable to Wonder Woman or even Batman: Ian Fleming created one of the great iconic literary characters of our age. Indeed, one might find it tougher if you love Bond, as the pressure might get to you.

But we'd all like to give it a shot, of course. :)

Loving Fleming's Bond novels is one thing, but understanding them is another.

All candidates for the the continuation books should be sent a written Fleming exam by IFP, to be completed in 1 hour.