Apparently there’s going to be released a new 007 trilogy by novelist Kim Sherwood
"James Bond is missing.
Meet the new Double O agents in the #DoubleO trilogy by Kim Sherwood, a new series that will blow the world of Ian Fleming’s James Bond wide open.
Coming September 2022. "
Looks like it:
https://www.thebookseller.com/news/harpercollins-scoops-new-james-bond-trilogy-sherwood-1287075
I’m glad to see them keeping up a pace with the books.
Is this format of trilogy going to be the new norm I wonder, as we have Horowitz third being followed very quickly by the start of this new trilogy.
making her the first woman to write a 007 novel.
Seems a bit disingenuous though… poor Samantha Weinberg… The Moneypenny Diaries - Wikipedia
Comes with a bit of pedigree: she’s George Baker’s granddaughter - Sir Hillary Bray 
Looks like the kind of spin-off Amazon would love to pursue…
Very pleasing news, and it’s set to deliver exactly what many fans have been asking for after Horowitz’s three books. As the statement says, “this trilogy is fresh, contemporary and thrill-a-minute, with a new generation of spies.” I’m not familiar with Sherwood but I’m right on board with the concept.
Good concept for Ian Fleming Publications to explore. I wonder if this will be set in modern times or around Fleming’s timeline (personally, I’d prefer the latter). Also bold to announce it being a trilogy and not wait to see how the first goes.
Amazing news. I was already preparing myself for a literary Bond drought after Horowitz 3. I do hope it is set in the late 60s/early 70s.
Also great that we will have a female voice take on Bond. I just finished a read-through of the Bensons and the series desperately needs to redeem the absolutely dismal way some of the authors wrote women.
Reading the above linked article, it looks like Ms. Sherwood is one of us and not just a random author assigned to write a Bond novel. Can’t wait to read it!
Doesn’t the article specifically state that the new trilogy will be contemporary? Is there a different definition for this word that is being applied here? Maybe the take is contemporary but not the timeframe?
“Kim is steeped in the world of James Bond, and this trilogy is fresh, contemporary and thrill-a-minute, with a new generation of spies everyone will love.”
My thoughts exactly! Seems to be a bit revisionist to say the least.
Ah yes, I suppose it is most likely going to have a modern setting, though a contemporary “take” isn’t entirely ruled out.
I also feel the idea of a mole is best suited to a period piece. Shades of Tinker Tailor rather than the forgettable “C”.
Sorry to sound stupid…
But if James bond is missing,is he actually going to be in it?
While I’ve been wanting literary Bond to return to modern times (despite loving Horowitz’s works), it does feel kind of strange to have a contemporary Bond novel explore a “new generation” with “all of Bond’s contemporaries gone” – it almost sounds like this would be a perfect cap to Fleming’s timeline (taking place after CS, DMC, Solo, and Horowitz #3). Jumping to a contemporary setting with this type of storyline, having not had a contemporary Bond novel in two decades, feels a bit… sudden. Not sure if I’m making much sense. Regardless, I’ve enjoyed the continuation authors (especially Horowitz and Benson) more than most fans seem to, so I am very much looking forward to this.
I’d also like a bit of clarity on the timelines. In my head, there are three “canons” of Bond novel continuity:
I don’t really include Wood and / or Pearson, given the overt continuity issues they would engender.
My thoughts exactly. “Old Man Bond” in a modern setting feels odd. An aging Bond, M, and Moneypenny in the early 70s seems more fitting.
We had Carte Blanche, a contemporary Bond novel, in 2011, only a decade ago.
Good point, although I consider that the beginning of a new continuity. I edited my above post to include my thoughts on timelines / continuity. Curious what you think.
Horrowitz and Higson were discussing this very subject on Twitter - they agreed that only Fleming was a certainty, the rest “might have” stories around it - you either have Higson before Fleming, OR Horowitz, not both, and i seem to remember that applied to all of them; unless otherwise stated, all of the Bond authors assumed that only Fleming’s stories happened
This is welcome news 
Thanks for that bit of info, Orion. Very interesting. I’ve thus far only read Horowitz but not Higson. Is there anything in either of their works that would preclude the other from existing in the same continuity? I know IFP gives them a lot of latitude to ignore non-Fleming authors, but can Higson and Horowitz work within the same timeline? Or do they somehow contradict each other?
