Based on her comments about her love of Goldeneye, I still can’t shake the feeling of Alec Trevelyan making a surprise comeback. I wonder if Barbara Broccoli had any say in her selecting.
John Logan said that Bond should always fight Blofeld, just before he wrote Spectre.
I hope she does not include any characters from the films. I firmly believe the literary and film franchises should be kept separate as much as possible. These books will only be successful if they can stand on their own without relying on callbacks to (generally speaking) obscure film characters.
I’d say Alec Trevelyan is probably more well known than Loelia Ponsonby, May the Scottish housekeeper, or any of the book characters who never made the jump to the big screen.
I’d be very surprised if he did make an appearance, though. Have we gotten any references to 006 in any of the Fleming novels or continuation novels aside from maybe Benson’s, which blurred the lines between continuation and the films? I remember there was a minor appearance of 006 in the Moneypenny Diaries, but it wasn’t Trevelyan. He had a different, more British name.
Those characters properly belong to the literary franchise. My point is that film-specific characters should not be called back in the books. It requires the reader to recall the relationships between that character and others in a different medium and relies on that recall to convey meaning without generating it authentically in a novel way.
My point was that Trevelyan isn’t exactly an obscure character as you said. Thanks to to the film and the game, he’s well more known to a general audience than those two characters I mentioned. And if this book is going to draw in new audiences like I’m sure IFP wants it to, they might have to lean into some of the more well known things from the films.
At any rate I’m really excited to actually have two Bond novels out next year. Err this year.
Fleming does mention OO6 in OHMSS. No name is given, but we learn he’s a former Royal Marine commando and that he and Bond have a friendly competition over who will woo their secretary first.
Ah, that’s right! I had a feeling he popped up somewhere.
When Raymond Benson took over, he got rid of q’ute, brought back Q, but he is clearly based on the movie’s Q, because he says “now pay attention Double O seven”
It seems to me that IFP has been doing almost everything in threes since Raymond Benson. Benson wrote 3 trilogy of novels: The Union Trilogy, Choice of Weapons, and three movie novelizations. Plus three official short stories. Also, Kate Westbrook’s Moneypenny Diaries Trilogy.Then, 3 guest authors, Faulks, Deaver and Boyd. Then, Anthony Horowitz’s trilogy. Now, Kim Sherwood’s Double 0 trilogy. History repeats itself.
I’m pretty sure it’s just a coincidence.
Yes, I don’t think there’s a ‘rule of three’ masterplan either. Trilogies are simply en vogue with publishers and readers alike. If there was an underlying concept dating back to Benson the pattern would have shown up with a Faulks trilogy, a Deaver trilogy, so on so forth.
IFP still take it step by step, I should think. The longer runs after Benson - Moneypenny Diaries, Young Bond and now Double-0 - owe their existence probably to the fact the authors (at the time of signing the contract) came relatively inexpensive and provided some repeated business. It’s a win/win concept for both sides since relatively little known authors got to play with a huge franchise. And the franchise gets fresh blood for comparatively little expense.
I’m wondering how this will play out, will it be a network of different agents of be a retread of 007, I e the adventures of 005 or something?
Indeed. I don’t have anything against “just another adventure” but I think a defined story greatly helps the perception of an era. If Gardner’s run consisted of his first five books I’d say it was mostly a success and a satisfying one at that. He reintroduced Bond, reintroduced SPECTRE and then defeated them once and for all. That feels like a good way to end things. Some of the book concepts after that have merit but lack the feeling they’re building towards anything as meaningful.
Unpopular opinion but why have Bond missing…when his missions could have become legend amongst the generations of MI6 agents who tried to enter the 00 section?
If it’s contemporary/present day, then why not have James Bond be a legend that people try to aspire to? In the modern era his missions could have possibly become declassified for potential agents to study and/or analyze?
Im interested, but Im also cautious. I wouldn’t want Bond to end up dead in a cave in book 3 with his corpse pointing to some mcguffin that would save the day.
It’s likely a move to branch out, start the ‘Bondverse’ in books, put the focus on other protagonists and see what clicks with the readers. We’ve already had the Moneypenny Diaries, this is now a present day take. We’ll see how it develops - it might even restart contemporary Bond continuations.
It would be interesting to see how other 00’s would handle Bond’esue situations.
I hope I don’t set the cat amongst the pigeons here, but NSNA introduces us to an older Bond who complains that ever since the new M took over the 007 section,He has been reduced to teaching, I am sure that is an opportunity to be expanded on , the adventures of Bonds students and protégés…
I can of course only speculate, I have no other information than anybody else here. But from what was pitched up to now it doesn’t at least sound as if Bond has become a teacher. To me it sounds as if he’s missing in action, pointing to a Bond who is more or less in the same 00 section he mostly was.
Oh yes, I know that it is about Bond missing,I’m just saying about the different angles that could be approached. Another one could be set during DAD, during his 14 month incarceration in North Korea, or his Mia/AWOL time in Skyfall if they want to tie in the movies
Interesting detail there, how far or close to the films the OO series is going to turn out. We’ve seen parallels with Moneypenny in the recent comics and from Kim Sherwood’s comments one can glean the impression her work may depict some of the elements we’ve seen in the last few Craig films.