It is.
Which is actually a story he purloined from one of his own non-fiction books, Thrilling Cities. But in this book, Fleming decries it as a silly little story that is probably more legend than anything based in truth.
And yet, he later wrote it for Bond, only to not use it.
And then Horowitz finds it to give it an airing.
I stand corrected. I thought it was Sixtine’s backstory that he used.
I feel that Anthony Horowitz will take some influence from Skyfall as well. After reading about M’s death, Bond questioning about his place in the world, former agents coming back for revenge, it does sound like Anthony Horowitz’s take on Skyfall in the past.
Also, Kim Sherwood says that it will be Horowitz’s last Bond book. Stroll down, she would know.
https://twitter.com/kimtsherwood
Also I hope that Horowitz isn’t using doing drugs or a doomsday machine as the villain’(s) scheme. Ever since Devil May Care, the villain’(s) plots have alternated between the two. DMC-Drugs. CB-Doomsday Machine. Solo-Drugs. TM-Doomsday Machine. FAAD-Drugs. It’s getting as old as Bond quitting or resigning from the average Purvis and Wade script.
DMC also featured a doomsday machine if I remember correctly.
Got overshadowed by Craig’s award, but Horowitz also got a title!
Strictly speaking, a grade. Title is the thingy before the name: Earl, Viscount, Lord, Sir so on so forth. The postnominal letters alone don’t constitute a title in that sense. But as mentioned in another thread, there’s certainly scope (and often ambition) for a title down the line.
So I gave ‘Forever’ another chance, and I’m pleased with it. Horrowitz IS a fan. Not to be biased but it felt like reading Fleming so Anthony captures that style. Horrowitz got alot of Bond’s world and elements right that William Boyd didn’t.
In essence, I take back everything I said about the man. He’s earned the right. Hope he writes a few more.
I believe this third one is his last. I could do with a few more though.
Out of curiosity, what do you feel Boyd failed to capture? I’m a big fan of both Solo and the Horowitz novels and I fail to see the disparity between them that others do.
Boyd was such a hard case when it comes to the colonial mistakes made that it was more an apologist tale than a James Bond story, and the story lacked any tension .
But that is just my humble opinion.
The book never reached the quality of its opening sequence, Boyd never reached that level in his book again.
Interesting. The colonial criticism is what I consider a merit of the novel. Bond and the world have changed in the 1.5 decades since 1953. It would be more jarring to see a Bond with the same attitudes as Casino Royale.
The lack of tension and pace is sadly a main shortcoming of Solo. It tries to make up with other qualities but never quite manages. If this didn’t feature James Bond it’s not sure it would have been picked up by a publisher. It’s not suspenseful enough to be a thriller - and not literary enough to be a literary novel with thriller elements.
I respect this point of view and chalk it up to a matter of taste. I appreciated a slower-paced Bond with a little more literary flair, even if it doesn’t approach true literature. And on a recent re-read I found several parts legitimately thrilling (the forest fight, airport scene, evading the CIA, and mansion infiltration).
I also tend to find arguments along the lines of “if X wasn’t Y, etc etc” to be a bit flimsy, since of course the fact that it is a Bond novel allowed it to be written in the way it was. The book is interesting for me precisely because we see our character in the kind of story we normally don’t. Could the execution have been improved? Absolutely, but seeing as we likely won’t get a novel like this again, I’m grateful that we have it.
I remember reading a article at one point with Anthony Horowitz where he said that he liked Solo better than Devil May Care or Carte Blanche. I think he thought that Bond’s character was more like Fleming’s. He also holds Colonel Sun in higher regard than some of Fleming’s material.
My biggest criticism of Solo is that it never really felt like a Bond story. It was more of a traditional spy story, but Bond isn’t a traditional spy. Also, there is no closure with the main villain. Kobus Breed is still out there.
It didn’t even feel like a spy story.
Bond goes to Africa to sort out a deal…why? There was no point in him being involved with something so mundane and even trivial. All Boyd does with Bond is have him drink from sheer boredom…as well as break into some woman’s house only for him to leave a note afterwards.
Oh yeah, the deal goes wrong and Bond takes it personally for no good reason.
Assassins do not handle ‘sensitive’ government purchases for fuel or oil, diplomats do. M had no real reason to send Bond when someone from Parliament, or even the UN would have served a better purpose.
Boyd arrogantly claimed…at the time…he was a better writer than Fleming. So much so that after I finished Solo I placed it where it rightfully belonged: the big garbage bin behind my flat. lol
Might I recommend donating your book next time? Lots of people in need out there and less waste for the planet.
Just noticed the pre-order up on Amazon US for May 24. It will be a treat to get it 2 days before the UK release as we usually get the Bond’s released months after. This is definitely the US version too as the publisher is Harper and not Jonathan Cape. Guess we have more cover art to look forward to!
Anyone want a signed one? 
Waterstones has it for a pound less, and other than WHSmith, they actually ship to places outside the UK.
https://www.waterstones.com/book/with-a-mind-to-kill/anthony-horowitz/2928377080983