New James Bond Book

[Gem]

A new James Bond book is going to be published. The writer is not being revealed but is apparently 'Very Well known & Highly Respected'. Hmmm...
Place your bets, who do you think it is or who do you hope it isn't?
Have to wait until 2008 to find out though .

Link

 

[Stewart]

The first three names that sprang to mind for me were Iain Banks, Michel Faber, and JG Ballard. But then I remembered it will probably be some schlocky action writer than anyone considered literary despite their use of such a word. Freddy Forsyth or Lee Child - that ilk.

 

[Gem]

Stewart:
Iain Banks, Michel Faber, and JG Ballard.

Those are actually good choices. The first name that crossed my mind for some reason was erm...Ian Rankin. I hang my head in shame .

 

[steffee]

I've got no idea about anything James Bond related, but I didn't know Iain Banks was still writing.

And Ian Rankin writes more than the Rebus stuff then?

 

[Stewart]

I've got no idea about anything James Bond related, but I didn't know Iain Banks was still writing.

His last novel was Dead Air in 2002; his last novel as Iain M. Banks was 2004's The Algebraist. He drops the M again for a novel early next year called The Steep Approach To Garbadale.

And Ian Rankin writes more than the Rebus stuff then?

He writes spy novels under the name of Jack Harvey.

 

[steffee]

His last novel was Dead Air in 2002; his last novel as Iain M. Banks was 2004's The Algebraist. He drops the M again for a novel early next year called The Steep Approach To Garbadale.

Oh. Strange.

Thought he stopped writing ages ago. I even have a few of his too... and half-read The Wasp Factory, which has absolutely nothing to do with James Bond, I know, but it's Sunday.

He [Ian Rankin]writes spy novels under the name of Jack Harvey.

Oh. But why do authors use pseudonyms anyway.

Maybe writers really are psychologically disturbed.

Edit: argh!

 

[Stewart]

why do authors use pseudonyms anyway.

Reason #1: They are embarrassed to admit they wrote it.

Reason #2: They don't want it listed as one of their works. Kingsley Amis wrote Colonel Sun, the first James Bond book after the death of Fleming.

Reason #3: They are ghost writers. Such pseudonyms in this case would be Jordan, David Beckham, etc

Reason #4: (and the most common) New writers who can write across different genres are encouraged to use different names so that their books aren't a disappointment. Thus Rankin's detective novels were his bread and butter and his early spy novels were put out as Jack Harvey novels. Only once the authors become popular do they really go back and say 'Ian Ranking writing as Jack Harvey' You can look at the Dean Koontz back catalogue (if you have a spare week) and see how many names he wrote under back in the seventies.

Reason #5: Experiment. Stephen King moved to the Richard Bachman name to try a different genre. It fooled noone of course, blandness isn't a prerequisite of any specific genre.

Reason #6: Their real name sucks. What sounds better: George Orwell or Eric Blair?

 

[steffee]

Reason #1: They are embarrassed to admit they wrote it.

Okay, but then just don't publish it. Leave it for the grandkids to find, or something.

Reason #2: They don't want it listed as one of their works. Kingsley Amis wrote Colonel Sun, the first James Bond book after the death of Fleming.

Oh. Very educational, but I don't understand why they wouldn't want it listed as one of their works. And isn't that the same as being embarrassed to admit they wrote it?

Reason #3: They are ghost writers. Such pseudonyms in this case would be Jordan, David Beckham, etc

I think Jordan is brilliant, but okay, I see.

Reason #4: (and the most common) New writers who can write across different genres are encouraged to use different names so that their books aren't a disappointment. Thus Rankin's detective novels were his bread and butter and his early spy novels were put out as Jack Harvey novels. Only once the authors become popular do they really go back and say 'Ian Rankin writing as Jack Harvey' You can look at the Dean Koontz back catalogue (if you have a spare week) and see how many names he wrote under back in the seventies.

But surely this makes it harder for them to become widely known, initially. Unless people randomly buy and read books just with an inkling that it might have been written by such-and-such under an assumed name.

I would still have thought it better to be a disappointment than to have to start from scratch being a writer nobody has heard of.

Reason #5: Experiment. Stephen King moved to the Richard Bachman name to try a different genre. It fooled noone of course, blandness isn't a prerequisite of any specific genre.

Reason #6: Their real name sucks. What sounds better: George Orwell or Eric Blair?

I take it the right answer is George Orwell, but have no idea why. They both sound okay to me.

 

[ylris611203]

Its Lee Childs.

 

[Stewart]

Source, please.

 

[Gem]

According to my er..reliable source, HERE, Lee Childs turned it down.

 

[ValkyrieRaven88]

I never really got into James Bond. Maybe I should have. I played the Goldeneye video game...mainly because I liked to shoot stuff, and Mom didn't judge it to gory for my age.

 

[ylris611203]

According to my er..reliable source, HERE, Lee Childs turned it down.

Yes I know, but it maybe a double bluff. The whole thing was meant to be kept a secrete until 2008.

Although I have not read any of his books he is British and as far as I know writes in a similar style to what Ian Flemimg Publications want.

 

[Shade]

Lee Childs? Didn't they say "highly respected"?

Having said that, I have no idea if the original Fleming novels were any good (despite the fact that they're available as Penguin Modern Classics, Stewart!). Anyone know? Are we talking the Chandler of spy thrillers? This Amazon review of Diamonds are Forever suggests not:

*0000 Failure to Bond, 30 Mar 2006

Reviewer: Stephen (London United Kingdom) - See all my reviews

I came to the books after the movies and near half a century after Fleming wrote them. The writing is awe-inspiringly bad; it's hard to credit that Fleming worked at Reuters, this is narrative at its laziest, from mise-en-scene to character to dialogue. No one ever thought or spoke like this; one cannot imagine such prose getting published now.

Everything here has been done better by other writers. Compare Elmore Leonard on the inner vacancy of the psychotic with Bond's aimless and murderous rampage at the old mine. Or compare how Len Deighton's anonymous hero discovers new places in "The Ipcress File" or "Horse Under Water" with Fleming's perfunctory notes here on Saratoga and Las Vegas.

All of which begs the truly interesting question. Given Fleming's appalling prose, what did his readers find so fascinating? There is something of the figure of James Bond that is so very much of its time; and to spend a few hours with him in his original form is to rediscover an innocence, a certain complacent brutality, that is no longer open to his later incarnations as Pierce Brosnan. Perhaps as well.

It's also hard to see why 'new James Bond author' is such news when - as I have just found out from clicking Gem's first link - there have already been three or four who've been churning them out since Fleming's death.

Continuation novels of Fleming's series have fluctuated since his death in 1964. Established author Kingsley Amis wrote the first continuation adventure "Colonel Sun" under the pen name of Robert Markham in 1968. Screenwriter Christopher Wood then produced literary adventures based on his movie productions of "James Bond, the Spy Who Loved Me" in 1977 and "James Bond and Moonraker" in 1979 - both well up to par.

A long break then ensued until mystery writer John Gardner took up the official job in 1981 with "Licence Renewed" and produced an astonishing 14 novels and 2 movie novelisations in a 15 year period.

James Bond fan turned writer Raymond Benson was the last continuation author, publishing his first 007 novel "Zero Minus Ten" in 1997, and went on to produce a further 5 novels and 3 movie novelisations up until 2002.

Hm, haven't exactly been troubling the literary prize juries, have they?

 

[Stewart]

I have no idea if the original Fleming novels were any good (despite the fact that they're available as Penguin Modern Classics, Stewart!). Anyone know?

Oh, I most certainly know they are available as Penguin Modern Classics, having bought ten of them for a ten whole quid.

Are we talking the Chandler of spy thrillers?

I'll be able to determing that once I've read one of the Chandler novels from my, as you would expect, Penguin collection.

It's also hard to see why 'new James Bond author' is such news when - as I have just found out from clicking Gem's first link - there have already been three or four who've been churning them out since Fleming's death.

Just to get the sales machine running in the run up to the remake of first Bond novel, Casino Royale.

And, of the ten I bought (I will buy the other three, just to complete the set), the one I have read is Casino Royale as I might as well read Bond chronologically to see if his character actually develops. Develops as in grows as a character rather than the almost Doctor Who levels of regeneration he seems capable of.

Casino Royale had little of the excitement that one associates with the Bond movies. It was situated in one place (the casino/hotel of the title) and the whole thing revolved around Bond plotting to beat some guy at Baccarat and then actually beating the guy. After the guy is at a loss he kidnaps Bond's lady friend (who is with him on the mission, much to his annoyance...until he sees her) and then Bond gets captured, gets tortured, gets away, and it all comes to and end.

The writing is rather pedestrian...I would have expected more from someone who is alleged to be some literary master. Annoying things like explanations (usually to the woman) let us laymen know how to play Baccarat. And there's pages of rules in dialogue.

The first outing for Bond, I suppose, isn't going to be that great compared to the 20th Century swashbuckling stuff I expect to come in the next few books. For the moment, it's more Casino Royale with Cheese.

The Bond novel that looks the most interesting is The Spy Who Loved Me since it's the only Bond story written in the first person. And, as the title hints, it's not from Bond's point of view.

 

[ylris611203]

Lee Childs? Didn't they say "highly respected"?

Having said that, I have no idea if the original Fleming novels were any good (despite the fact that they're available as Penguin Modern Classics, Stewart!). Anyone know? Are we talking the Chandler of spy thrillers? This Amazon review of Diamonds are Forever suggests not:



It's also hard to see why 'new James Bond author' is such news when - as I have just found out from clicking Gem's first link - there have already been three or four who've been churning them out since Fleming's death.



Hm, haven't exactly been troubling the literary prize juries, have they?

Yes, the novels were very good in their day. The have inspired the biggest ever film franchise and the movies are still being made. There is also the Young Bond books that sell well.

Gardener updated Bond bringing him into the eighties and Benson did the same for the nineties, so a new author may well do the same for today’s reader.

No literary prize. Shade sounds a bit superior. But, by his own admission he is commenting on something he knows nothing about.
Most good books don't win prizes. Books should be read for their entertainment value and prize comes second.
.

 

[Shade]

Yes, the novels were very good in their day

Ah! So they're not any more, then. I admit I'm not old enough to have read them in their day so I can't comment further on that.

Shade sounds a bit superior

Why thank you!

Most good books don't win prizes

True. I was only talking about the subsequent non-Fleming books anyway. What chance is there of a book being any good when it's a continuation of a franchise and character that's been worked on by a handful of other novelists already? What chance of there being any artistry contained within the covers? Not very novel, really...

 

[Gem]

Shade, I think it's news simply because it's Bond and the new film is out soon. Oh and the last book was about 10 years ago (I think).

And yes you're right the books were hardly 'quality' literature but perhaps their popularity has something to do with the culture/environment of the time. Incidently, I remember reading somewhere that the Publisher (I can't recall the name) didn't think much of Casino Royale but agreed to publish it because Flemings older brother was an established writer.

 

[ylris611203]

Both Gem and Shade talk about 'quality' literature, but neither seem to be able to be able to express themselves very well. Maybe they should give the 'pulp fiction' a go, take the plums out of their mouths and read for enjoyment.

Quality literature, is a label used for books that don't sell very well.

The three new Bond books are currently being advertised on this site.

 

[Stewart]

Both Gem and Shade talk about 'quality' literature, but neither seem to be able to be able to express themselves very well.

Sometimes, with humour, you have to read between the lines.

Quality literature, is a label used for books that don't sell very well.

They may not sell well but they endure.

The three new Bond books are currently being advertised on this site.

The ads are context sensitive. Talk about Bond, they'll advertise Bond. Talk about toilet paper they'll no doubt recommend a book on the subject.

One last thing as said by chris:

The[y] [James Bond novels] have inspired the biggest ever film franchise and the movies are still being made.

The James Bond is not the biggest ever film franchise. There has only been twenty official James Bond movies. There was thirty-one Carry On... movies and that's nowhere near the largest. Take a look at this.