“He just kept walking…”
Honestly, I think he wants to end on a high note. Not many people in James Bond can say that like he did. Still, I think EON should talk to him about future ideas for movies.
My dream is to have Mr. Horowitz examine the possible Sherlock Holmes/James Bond family tree.
It’s been implied in other forms of media. His take would be wish fulfillment. He’s demonstrated his mastery writing both characters.
A year ago I’d say impossible, I don’t see the ACD estate and Danjaq playing nice with each other, now the Holmes IP has expired in the US, I’d say it should be looked into.
Spin-off author interviewing the continuation author. Horowitz is as excited to talk books as he ever is.
This was posted earlier, but it’s only recently moved to YouTube.
His excitement on just reading is a joy to listen to.
So I am very late to this party but I just finished the book. I thoroughly enjoyed it up to the end. For those who haven’t read it I will try to use the spoiler feature (first time for me)….
Summary
I am not necessarily opposed to unresolved/open endings. In fact, I actually liked the Sopranos ending. That said, I just felt let down with the “He kept walking” ending. It just didn’t work at all for me.
But a bigger issue to me is this ending given his criticism of the NTTD ending (which I loved). While he was opposed to Bond dying, he has no issue at least dangling (if not out right suggesting) that’s what’s about to happen with his last novel. So it’s better that Bond probably died (though we’re not sure) by being shot in the back by border guards than wanting to save the world from a brutal weapon and protecting the life of his daughter and his lover?
The Evening Standard reported that Horowitz wanted to do a Bond novel but heartily disliked Faulks and Deaver’s efforts and in any case wasn’t sure he would as the other two had mucked about with it too much.
That’s fair criticism, as Faulks was too similar and Deaver was too different. I don’t know what he said about William Boyd and Solo. Ironically, I like all six books. Also, I know that some people are wondering why I’m not criticizing him for criticizing others. He still has a lot to catch up on Richard Maibaum. Plus, he has said some things that at least he got in trouble and apologized for them. Also, I’m happy that he is giving Kim Sherwood and her Double-00 trilogy support.
Don’t expect EON to have them as screenwriters in the future! I wonder if SF got a novelization, if Horowitz would have read it, and changed his mind. As for Faulks, talk about the pot calling the kettle black! At least SF tried something different but still felt like both literary and cinematic Bond. He DID NOT write like Fleming, and added nothing new! He’s so smug, and it makes me wish that he hadn’t written Bond. At least Jeffery Deaver seems happy about his time on Bond. Even it was considered a mixed bag. He could have pulled off a decent SF novelization. Carte Blanche felt more like Cinematic Bond than Literary Bond for me, honestly.
I think that NTTD is the main reason that we got an abrupt (Sopranos type ending) because Horowitz wasn’t happy with Bond dying. He was right in his way, and that’s fair. I know he likes Colonel Sun above some of Fleming’s novels. I kind of wish WAMTK would have followed CS, as there was some material that could have worked after it. Not to mention, get the bad after taste of Devil May Care out of Bond fans’ minds. He clearly overwrote it. However, I think that Horowitz wanted to go out on a high note. I feel that he generally succeeded both for himself and for the average Bond fan. I think he and IFP wanted to move forward. I’m thankful that Anthony Horowitz wrote Bond, and I feel IFP feels that way as well. Modern day Bond adventures for the future, for now please.
I’m guilty of underappreciating Carte Blanche at the time of its release. I read it again well over a year ago now probably and had a great time with it. Deaver’s book would’ve been a solid foundation for a contemporary series and it feels like a missed opportunity now.
I enjoyed Carte Blanche (even at the time) and in general support the idea of a literary reboot. With so many novels and short stories over the years, taking place over so many decades, I think a fresh start had the potential to be rather liberating, opening up new vistas for a Bond that could be unabashedly contemporary (and unshackled from any existing continuity).
Now Carte Blanche feels like the odd man out, an “alternate universe” Bond with no connective tissue to anything before or after.
And I’m stuck wondering if any of the recent “contemporary” novels are even intended to be in the same timeline (Sherwood, OHiMSS, etc…). At least Horowitz’s trilogy told us plainly that it was intended to fit into the Fleming canon.
Also a fan of Carte Blanche but sadly I think it’s on an island. I enjoy Jeffrey Deaver’s writing, too, and having just read The Bone Collector I’m sad he didn’t get to do more, especially given that there were some lessons to be learned from CB that could have led to something special. I have hope that we’ll get more from Higson once Sherwood is done with her run. I have a feeling a lot of folks (myself included) sent that very message to IFP when they had that survey earlier in the year. No reason why literary Bond can’t be contemporary. I’m all set on period Bond.
Many younger fans may not be aware of this, but IFP picked up a lot fan suggestions after Benson ended his tenure and IFP announced - more than 20 years ago now - there wouldn’t immediately come a new continuation by a successor.
-
adventures in between the Fleming timeline
-
adventures right after The Man with the Golden Gun/Colonel Sun
-
adventures penned by a succession of contemporary literary and thriller writers
-
adventures of other 00-agents
all were ideas pitched by the fandom back then and later picked up by IFP.
Of the output since 2002 only Higson’s Young Bond caught fans unaware - and the ‘Project X’ that would turn out to be a return to contemporary Bond, only this time as a confirmed reboot and ‘re-imagination’ of the literary version*. Everything else served, the 60s adventures and the snippets from unpublished Fleming material, was more or less what we’ve been clamouring for.
According to Lee Child they even approached him to pen a continuation (he declined), also one of the suggestions of the early 00s. It’s reasonable to assume IFP also contacted other popular thriller writers for the same purpose. Overall, IFP seem to have been listening to fans for quite some time - and if the outcome hasn’t always been the desired one, that’s not necessarily always their fault.
I’m sure IFP are still working to keep literary Bond alive, possibly even with other ideas fans wanted to see for a long time. A contemporary full length novel by Higson or ‘War Bond’ might always be in the cards.
*Okay, the Q-throyd Murder Mystery is another one nobody had on their bingo card…,
It’s a shame that Anthony Horowitz badmouthed (but in a fair way) EON in recent years. He could have been a good ally for story ideas. But alas, he said what he said. There are other people who can write Bond stories.
Oh my, badmouthing…
Frankly, everybody is entitled to their opinion. These are creatives, which more or less guarantees they’ve got their own ideas and will usually be critical of the ones not coming from that stock. I wouldn’t put too much import on those comments. Horowitz is just a fan like the rest of us - only he got to write some books out of being a fan. Can’t blame him for being passionate about it.
I’m happy to see Carte Blanche get some love around here. I can understand why some people were put off by it. For me, it is a unique adventure in the literary Bond. I relate it in some ways to OHMSS and LALD in the movie series. They prove (along with WAMTK, keeping it related to the thread topic) that Bond stories are not truly all the same. They can look, feel and be read differently.
I put Anthony Horowitz in a class by himself.
After that Carte Blanche remains my favorite single continuation novel