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

I think the two worst continuity novels were the last two and not coincidentally, both were written by non-Bondphiles. Deaver may have loved Fleming's work, but he doesn't strike me as a Bondphile. Neither was Gardner at first I guess, but he certaintly became one. Amis' book was a little off, but he didn't do anything offensive with the character. Amis was a Bondphile.

None of these authors are going to write like Fleming. The trick though, I think for a Bond-author, is to find the Bond character. Benson, Higson, Pearson, were all Bondphiles (not sure about Weinberg, but her Bond was peripheral to Kate Westbrook and Moneypenny anyway). Not sure about Christopher Wood, but really he was close enough, as he was invested in two screenplays that he adapted to novels. That's why Duns IMO is welcome to put his name forward. He does have solid Bondphile credentials.

By Bondphile btw, I mean writers that are Bond-experts long before they take the job. Kind of what FB was getting at. The Bondphile at least, won't do anything egregious with the character, and there is much to be said for that.

Splendid posts, JeremyDuns.

Does one suppose that if Ian Fleming rocked up to a publishing house today (or even an agent), that his work would be considered fit for the masses? I suspect not. I suspect that is also the bind that any new JB continuation novelist would face: the stylistic challenge of the actual prose on the page would not necessarily attract as wide a readership now as it did then. I can imagine publishers wanted stripped down, lean James Bond thrillers in the formula we've become accustomed to. And I can imagine that any James Bond continuation novelist would want to recreate their Moonraker, From Russia With Love or OHMSS - elements of which have become the standard tropes of the typical Bond novel - because this would be their only chance.

One of the downsides of having one shot continuation authors (rather like having one shot Bond film directors) is that they tend to want to recreate the template the gatekeepers of 007 presume we want. It's a shame that it seems unlikely, one continuation novelist could not write, say, a trio of novels. That way, they could push the boundaries of modern LitBond.

LitBond to me is fascinating in the variations of the formula: Casino Royale, The Spy Who Loved Me, You Only Live Twice (and the short stories, Quantum of Solace, Octopussy, The Hildebrand Rarity). I'd love to see a new Bond author trying going off piste in an entertaining, interesting, well-written way. I'd love them to try to conjure an exception to the LitBond rule in an experimental way which plays with the tone, structure or even subject matter of the Bond world like the aforementioned Fleming examples did. This would benefit the author and the public by making it harder to have direct comparisons and it would deepen the perception of what LitBond actually is.

Of course, it would be a tougher sell in theory. However, this would be ameliorated by the huge marketing punch behind "the NEW Bond novel" by the already bestselling " NEW Bond author". Civilians and Bond fans alike might actually be tempted to buy and read a novel which would then surprise them in a good way. A novel which would ultimately widen the perception of what LitBond could actually be and, with regard to Fleming, actually was.

Thanks, ACE, and what an interesting idea. I agree that one of Fleming's great strengths was the variety in his work, and the experimentation - I'm particularly fond of the short stories. I think Fleming would struggle to find a publisher today, not least on word-count - Casino Royale is really a novella by today's standards, and about half the length of most modern thrillers. And even in that short book, the level of digression is far greater than in most thrillers today. But there is some flexibility, and on your point about prose, I really recommend Assassin of Secrets, which I mentioned above and which I think you might enjoy. (The writer's pseudonym is a nod to Amis, incidentally. Just don't expect a Bond novel!)

I suspect you're also right that if a writer has just one shot at writing a Bond novel, either through their choice or IFP's, they may be more likely to try to create their own 'classic' variant of the formula rather than be bold. One thing I really like about Colonel Sun is that Amis didn't do that: the kidnapping of M feels very much like the sort of thing Fleming would have done, but Fleming when experimenting, not Fleming by numbers. Similarly, the tone is rather different in places, and Amis recognized that card duels and elaborate dinner scenes were not his forte, and focussed on elements that were. It's an interesting mix.

As I said above, I don't think IFP have just one plan for Bond but several possible plans, and that the outcome is dependent on dozens of factors, not all of them in IFP's control. That said, I think we may well get the sort of off piste novel you are discussing in the near future.

I have a few suggestions, arranged in the order that I would like to see them:

David Morrell. I broke character and borrowed an anthology of short stories from the library, and one of the strongest that I've ready so far was by Morrell. I know he wrote First Blood, but the thing I found most interesting way the way his short story, The Abelard Sanction, was the resolution of a cliffhanger in a series that he stopped writing over a decade ago following the death of his son. Despite the fact that I have never read any of his books before, I really liked the short story; it was clear and concise, and he wasn't too ambitious for the word count.

Daniel Silva, who is probably best known for the Gabriel Allon series. I'm a few chapters into A Death In Vienna, and I really like his style. It's very clear, and easy reading. I do have some concerns though, mostly because of his attitude towards certain elements of his stories. Allon is an Israeli spy and assassin, and a lot of characters come across as blaze. It's like they're saying "we're Israeli, so whatever we do is acceptable", even when they're using the same tactics against their enemies as their enemies used against them first. But I don't think it would be an issue, since Bond is British.

Grant Blackwood. Like Morrell, I found Blackwood in the thriller anthology, and he had a neat little spy thriller set in the 1950s called Sacrificial Lion where an American spy tricked the Soviets into assassinating their own key strategists. I was a little surprised to find that he co-authored a few books with Clive Cussler; I found a lot of Cussler's later books to be very weak, and I thought little of his co-written works.

Chris Mooney. Another one taken from the thriller compendium, and another continuation of a novel. Apparently he never intended to revisit one of his characters, but a lot of his fans wanted to know what happened next, and he wrote his entry to see if he could keep writing the character. It wasn't as well-paced as the stories by Morrell or Blackwood, but it was enough to pique my interest and to try and find the original story.

Matthew Reilly is probably the most controversial choice I could make, simply because some of his more-recent books have been INDIANA JONES meets DIE ANOTHER DAY. The Six Sacred Stones will probably be remembered as the most pointless sequel of all time, and The Five Greatest Warriors will no doubt go down as the most pointless sequel to a pointless sequel. But if there is one thing the man knows how to do, it is his ability to put his characters in a genuine state of danger. If he ever did Bond, he would probably need to tone it down a little, but I think his standard set-up - a small band of heroes against overwhelming villains with tight time limits, impossible odds and actual stakes - would make for a decent Bond novel. But I fear that Bond fans would not respond well to him, probably because his style fits in more with the Age of Brosnan than anything else.

David Baldacci, but only if he can re-capture the spirit of his original books. He had some really good ones, like The Winner (about a rigged lottery), but his latest stuff - particularly the Camel Club series - have been pretty by-the-numbers, and he has produced more average books than outright good ones, so I'd say he'd be a last resort.

Stuart MacBride is another maybe, but I think he needs to refine his style a llittle bit. Flesh House was one of the most unsettling stories I have ever read, but it did feel a little unfinished. A lot of his characters tend to get distracted by sub-plots and they all think they are the only competent ones (they are, after all, the "Screw-Up Squad"), so they all end up blundering into discoveries. I think part of this might be a jab at the rise of Scandinavian crime fiction. Nevertheless, with a bit of ruthless editing, he could be okay. But he's still not high on my list.

Of course, these are all just suggestions. Whether or not they are willing to write Bond and able to understand the character is another matter entirely.