'Double O' Novel Trilogy by Kim Sherwood - First Novel Coming in September 2022

2

Comments

  • emtiememtiem SurreyPosts: 4,775MI6 Agent

    It's certainly a sign of the times that I read this announcement and immediately thought "This book will be woke nonsense full of virtue signalling and thinly veiled political correctness" without digging any further.

    It's a sign of your attitude and approach to the world, it's not a sign of the times because there's nothing there of that and you haven't read any of it to discover if it is indeed any of those things.

  • k5211k5211 UKPosts: 131MI6 Agent

    Hmm, I think you've misunderstood what I have said, and at least misunderstood the context, its a personal comment. Each to their own, it's my opinion.

  • caractacus pottscaractacus potts Orbital communicator, level 10Posts: 3,394MI6 Agent

    emtiem has a point though @k5211 you haven't read the book nor have any of us.

    which is the announcement you're basing your opinion on? is it this Guardian article from the opening post? could you quote the bits that are making you worry? that'd be good discussion points. other than Bond being missing in action and three new characters having the adventures, I cant really tell what's going to happen. I think we know more about Horowitz's new book.

    if there's another article you've seen perhaps you could give us a link or some quotes from that, as I'm sure we'd all like a bit more info

  • k5211k5211 UKPosts: 131MI6 Agent

    You have also missed the point and context of my message. In short, my personal, instinctive, initial thoughts, like many here, are not favourable and the plot does nothing to encourage my reading. Does that make it clearer. If you feel differently, then great, you also have a different opinion.

  • emtiememtiem SurreyPosts: 4,775MI6 Agent

    If you're saying you were being sarcastic and taking the mick out of people who tediously drone on about 'woke' and 'virtue signalling' in ignorance about everything they see, then I apologise for indeed misunderstanding your message.

  • k5211k5211 UKPosts: 131MI6 Agent

    Hmm, I think we'll leave it there, you haven't understood my message and I sense that this tedium could continue endlessly.

  • emtiememtiem SurreyPosts: 4,775MI6 Agent

    Who do we think has really misunderstood, kids? 😉

  • caractacus pottscaractacus potts Orbital communicator, level 10Posts: 3,394MI6 Agent

    the pair of you knuckleheads!, since topic of the thread is Kim Sherwood's new book, and since the new page has started theres been 8 posts and not one mention of the book!

  • k5211k5211 UKPosts: 131MI6 Agent

    Yet you seem obsessed in continuing to attempt to rubbish my personal opinion and malign it as ignorant or ill thought through, in an effort to have your opinion as the only one that could possibly be correct. Very tedious. As you can see from previous comments, the consensus so far , in this forum, seems to be that this book may be underwhelming and will be unsatisfying to those who thoroughly enjoyed Flemings original books and want to continue to see a hard nosed Bond literary character that is not a woke virtue signaller. That is the draw of the original books. I'd love to be proved wrong, but Junior Bond lite has no appeal to me - personally.

  • caractacus pottscaractacus potts Orbital communicator, level 10Posts: 3,394MI6 Agent

    so please feel free to expand upon your opinion in your own words, and share it with us all. This is a discussion forum and it actually works better if there's a range of opinions, including yours!. but looking up-page, I cant actually find what your opinion is, just a lot of personal bickering.

    emtiem is not helping, I concede, which is why I called you a pair of knuckleheads, and I realise that was rude and I apologise (but his question was perfect setup for an obvious punchline).


    this is now the tenth post on the page, I think there are usually 30 posts per page. Hopefully there can be some actual discussion of this upcoming book in the remaining 20 posts?

  • emtiememtiem SurreyPosts: 4,775MI6 Agent

    I'm not engaging any further. What would you like to discuss, Caractacus?

  • caractacus pottscaractacus potts Orbital communicator, level 10Posts: 3,394MI6 Agent

    I don't know, something about the book...

    apologies once again about calling you a knucklehead. It seemed funny when I wrote it but of course it was just rude.

  • emtiememtiem SurreyPosts: 4,775MI6 Agent
    edited February 7

    No it's fine, I was being one. I never learn to not bother engaging with people who use the word 'woke' without irony.

  • Silhouette ManSilhouette Man The last refuge of a scoundrelPosts: 7,899MI6 Agent
    edited February 7

    Unfortunately in today's world a lot of people (generally of the younger generation) do use the word "woke" without any degree of irony. However, most of them are in fact, paradoxically, asleep.

    Anyway, back to discussing the book...

    "The tough man of the world. The Secret Agent. The man who was only a silhouette." - Ian Fleming, Moonraker (1955).
  • superadosuperado Regent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,622MI6 Agent

    Because none of us have read any of the books yet, does that mean we can't speculate what we can expect from this new author based on what's publicly known about her?

    "...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
  • caractacus pottscaractacus potts Orbital communicator, level 10Posts: 3,394MI6 Agent

    hi @superado thats exactly what we should do! please please speculate. and good to see you again old buddy.

    Do we know anything else about the author then? thatd be good information to share


    I objected to people getting scrappy and not even referencing the book and I'm now really really sorry I tried to intervene. I definitely wont be doing that again.

  • superadosuperado Regent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,622MI6 Agent

    Hi, CP! I'll try to recall what I've looked at so far. As mentioned, there are several articles about the selection of Kim Sherwood and as these typically go, we do need to be careful of the angle these journalists take because after all, they are after readership. Strictly from memory, one article was stating that IFP is taking its cue from the direction of the film series, which have been culturally and socially progressive. As that's been discussed ad nauseum here, that direction can be good or bad depending on how people see it, i.e., Bond purists insisting that his sensibilities be preserved, vices, warts and all, or that responsibly, Bond has changed with the times.

    Well, Kim Sherwood as a 32-year old author with two books under her belt is to be envied! And being selected to author for IFP is the top prize, IMO. I have to confess that the "woke" suggestion took hold when I saw her appearance, at first thought that she was from the LGBT community and to quote Seinfeld, "though there's nothing necessarily wrong with that!" But as recent as 2019 it's been mentioned she has a partner named "Nick." Until we know further, that doesn't necessarily confirm one thing or another. But in terms of motivations in writing, quickly seeing the backgrounds of the continuation authors, esp. the recent ones who've been mostly "conventional," this young author certainly goes against the grain.

    Speaking of these other authors, one can guess why they were selected, based on their publishing credentials in mystery fiction, historical fiction, children's books, etc., the two books I've read about that Kim Sherwood authored are certainly grounded in serious societal concern. The title escapes me, but the book that established was about the effects of the Holocaust at multigenerational levels (a grandfather's tribulations seen through the lenses of his granddaughter's sensibilities). The other book, co-authored by another, elder Sherwood (don't know the relations) is about the Slave Trade in Great Britain during the 19th Century. Here in America, there's much social debate about the 1619 Project that's been dubbed as a plank of the "Critical Race Theory" that delve into the severe blemish of slavery in America's founding history.

    Based on these credentials, should it be revealed that she was a ghost writer for the Daniel Craig screenplays (as the history of the Bond series went, there were many uncredited writers who contributed to the final, shooting scripts), it wouldn't be a huge surprise. Therefore, in short of even a more fleshed out synopsis beyond the basis they've stated, a narrative within Bond's Secret Service, but with a Bond that's presumed dead, seeing characters not that unlike of what we've seen lately on screen, a female M, an Eve Moneypenny in a bi-racial, non-traditional (unmarried) relationship, and a younger, Millennial Q who happens to be gay...I think, would be a very good guess.

    More about Kim Sherwood, she is/was a university professor, which to me is very impressive and she's the granddaughter of George Baker, who played the real Hilary Bray in OHMSS!

    "...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
  • JellyfishJellyfish EnglandPosts: 405MI6 Agent

    "an Eve Moneypenny in a bi-racial, non-traditional (unmarried) relationship"

    Superado, please can you tell me where this is from? I don't remember seeing much about Moneypenny's personal life in the films.

  • superadosuperado Regent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,622MI6 Agent
    edited February 9

    It’s in the car chase scene from SPECTRE when Bond calls Eve while she’s in her home.

    EDIT:

    Moneypenny's Boyfriend

    Played by



    Tam Williams - Spectre

    "...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
  • emtiememtiem SurreyPosts: 4,775MI6 Agent

    She has a man friend in GoldenEye too: I think describing two adults as being in a 'non-traditional relationship' because they're unmarried seems a touch puritan. Bond has quite a few of them!

    I'm also not sure what the author's sexuality has to do with anything.

  • superadosuperado Regent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,622MI6 Agent

    Of course that stuff mattered and it still does when the film producers and book publishers consider their demographics. At least in the early decades of the books and series, their following included what you choose to be “puritan” since you like to use labels, and it was for such that JB was an escapist diversion. It was entertainment for tbe entire family as Cubby would say.

    And of course an author’s sexual orientation can possibly be a factor in writing, because one who doesn’t fall into the conservative mindset would be more sensitive to intolerance that others might take for granted as the norm. That in a nutshell is cause for the current social revolution as it had been in the mid to 20th Century that made interracial relationships an issue whereas the Bond movies played a part in shattering social norms so that it isn’t an issue anymore.

    "...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
  • emtiememtiem SurreyPosts: 4,775MI6 Agent
    edited February 9

    Of course that stuff mattered and it still does when the film producers and book publishers consider their demographics. At least in the early decades of the books and series, their following included what you choose to be “puritan” since you like to use labels, and it was for such that JB was an escapist diversion. It was entertainment for tbe entire family as Cubby would say.

    I'm not even sure what you're referring to here. The unmarried thing? I hate to point it out again but James Bond 007 goes through quite a number of affairs with women without being married to them (in Cubby's films too) - it seems a bit late to be labelling it as 'non-traditional' now! 😄

    And of course an author’s sexual orientation can possibly be a factor in writing, because one who doesn’t fall into the conservative mindset would be more sensitive to intolerance that others might take for granted as the norm. That in a nutshell is cause for the current social revolution as it had been in the mid to 20th Century that made interracial relationships an issue whereas the Bond movies played a part in shattering social norms so that it isn’t an issue anymore.

    That's just stereotyping though: it's quite possible to have homosexuals who are bigots- there are as many examples as there are heterosexuals (I'm not referring to Ms Sherwood in any way with this). It's like concluding that John Gardner was probably a racist because he was a white man, a massive generalisation drawing conclusions based on almost nothing.

    Yes, she's a woman in her early 30s in the 2020s so she's probably not going to write something like "homosexuals can't whistle". Beyond that there's very little to conclude from her personal circumstances so it's a little intrusive, and bear in mind there's a good chance she may actually be reading what you're writing. Professional circumstances, sure, that's obviously fair game as she's been hired in a professional capacity.

  • superadosuperado Regent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,622MI6 Agent

    You call it stereotyping (ironically what you’ve been doing in this thread) but marketeers call it segmentation, a principal upon which industries in the billions are built. Everyone one has preconceptions and presuppositions, like you for example. Why has there been so much talk of a black Bond? Or a woman or gay Bond? Why are political candidates selected? Some primarily for their gender, race or orientation specifically because they resemble particular segments of the populations. A an actor’s or writer’s orientation has become the elephant in the room that powers that be are now curious to talk about to rightfully win greater appeal in society.

    "...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
  • emtiememtiem SurreyPosts: 4,775MI6 Agent

    You call it stereotyping (ironically what you’ve been doing in this thread) 

    Why do you feel you have to keep accusing me of stuff? What are you even talking about?

    I see you ignored my question about the unmarried relationship stuff. I presume that means you agree it was a bit weird.


    Everyone one has preconceptions and presuppositions, like you for example.

    Again. What are you talking about? I don't get why you're being so aggressive.

    Why has there been so much talk of a black Bond? Or a woman or gay Bond? Why are political candidates selected? Some primarily for their gender, race or orientation specifically because they resemble particular segments of the populations.

    What has this got to do with anything? My point was that the one single aspect of the writer's personal circumstances which you've attempted to glean from photos of her (you thought she's gay because she's got short hair? Seriously?) do not necessarily feed into a stereotyped extrapolation of guesswork what her work will be like: in fact it's a pretty terrible basis and would be based on nothing but presumption. That was my point: her sexuality is none of our business and tells us nothing.

    Unless your point is that she got the job because she's got short hair, like the political candidates you mention?

    an actor’s or writer’s orientation has become the elephant in the room that powers that be are now curious to talk about to rightfully win greater appeal in society.

    That's kind of the opposite of what an elephant in the room is: the meaning of that phrase is that it's something people don't want to talk about. It can't have become the elephant in the room that people want to talk about: that's contradictory. And what do you mean when you say they're 'curious' to talk about it? That's an unusual use of that word in a sentence, I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. Do you mean 'eager'? I'm not trying to insult your grammar in case English isn't your first language, but it makes it tricky to understand what you're trying to say.

  • JellyfishJellyfish EnglandPosts: 405MI6 Agent

    Thank you! I don't remember this at all. I'll have to get my copy out and have a look at that bit.

  • superadosuperado Regent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,622MI6 Agent

    Trying not to insult me? Please don’t be coy with your intentions! What if English is my second language, should I just refrain from joining the discussion? Is English YOUR native language? In America, it’s become vogue to chalk up your behavior to white privilege, without me even knowing your skin colour; is that how you want to proceed? See, it’s easy to assume orientation when you don’t immediately grasp an idea being communicated, or simply a perspective that disagrees with your self-righteous sensibilities, so you resort to ad hominem attacks.

    Curious=keen, if that registers better. And by the Elephant in the room, that means issues that are on people’s minds but which some are reluctant to talk about lest people like you pounce for someone saying what you may correctly or mistakenly read meaning into. Should the publishers be explicit with their selection process apart from an author’s credentials? Do you think that the powers-that-be are void of any internal subjectivism, personal scrutiny and even judgment when surveying candidate authors and eventually meeting with them face-to-face in successive interviews? We haven’t actualized the world of Lennon’s “Imagine” but there are those in charge who want to sell books and movie tickets to those segments who imagine there’s no heaven nor a hell below us and above only sky. But that’s an angry sky for you, mate!

    "...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
  • emtiememtiem SurreyPosts: 4,775MI6 Agent
    edited February 10

    Trying not to insult me? Please don’t be coy with your intentions!

    No, I was being genuine: there was something about the odd construction of that sentence which didn't seem to be from the hand of an English speaker, that's all.

    In America, it’s become vogue to chalk up your behavior to white privilege, without me even knowing your skin colour; is that how you want to proceed? See, it’s easy to assume orientation when you don’t immediately grasp an idea being communicated, or simply a perspective that disagrees with your self-righteous sensibilities, so you resort to ad hominem attacks.

    Your point is unclear. But yes, that's why I was saying that assuming anything about an author's work based on assumption of their sexuality (based on a photograph!) is a dead end to pursue: an easy assumption of orientation.

    And your ad hominem attacks on me are evidence of what you say, yes.

    Curious=keen, if that registers better. And by the Elephant in the room, that means issues that are on people’s minds but which some are reluctant to talk about lest people like you pounce for someone saying what you may correctly or mistakenly read meaning into. 

    'People like you'. There's another ad hominem for your record. But no, that's still not what 'elephant in the room' means: a subject can't become an elephant that everyone is keen to talk about, because then it's not an elephant in the room. An elephant in the room is a bad situation which everyone is very much avoiding talking about or confronting: you seem to be talking about the opposite- a good situation which people are keen (curious?) to talk about and exploit in a positive way.

    Do you think that the powers-that-be are void of any internal subjectivism, personal scrutiny and even judgment when surveying candidate authors and eventually meeting with them face-to-face in successive interviews? We haven’t actualized the world of Lennon’s “Imagine” but there are those in charge who want to sell books and movie tickets to those segments who imagine there’s no heaven nor a hell below us and above only sky. But that’s an angry sky for you, mate!

    Are you okay?



    Anyway, I fear I'm being one of Caractacus' 'knuckleheads' again with engaging with this. It's all very odd and angry and I think I'll leave you to it.

  • superadosuperado Regent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,622MI6 Agent

    Hmm, meds schedules are good I suppose.

    From “How To Write A Thriller,” by Ian Fleming (1963)

    “I am not an angry young, or even middle-aged, man. I am not “involved.” My books are not “engaged.” I have no message for suffering humanity and, though I was bullied at school and lost my virginity like so many of us used to do in the old days, I have never been tempted to foist these and other harrowing personal experiences on the public. My opuscula do not aim at changing people or making them go out and do something. They are written for warm-blooded heterosexuals in railway trains, airplanes and beds.”

    Take note of IF’s objective in writing and his intended target audience. Do these still hold true for IFP, at least for this new series? I think it’s the opposite now and again, judging by Ms. Sherwood’s credentials, she was not selected for being bereft of “a message” and I don’t think the foundation still seeks to limit their audience to Fleming’s straight rail commuters. I’m not here to ask “would Fleming approve?” ..,but instead that there’s an intentionality on who the publishers tap for their books and that societal concerns are integrally part of that and lastly, it’s a huge departure from their decades long status quo.

    "...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
  • Miles MesservyMiles Messervy Posts: 1,647MI6 Agent

    You’re right about this, but I make no judgement as to whether IFP should be engaging in this effort. Reasonable minds can differ on that. But it seems quite apparent that they’re going for a different audience. It also seems that this novel (or trilogy) is set in the present day. Continuation authors since Gardner have understood that certain elements of Bond need to be updated to stay current. Indeed, removing Bond from the narrative completely seems to be the least controversial way to do this. Although, to paraphrase a recent interview given by Ms Broccoli, it’s not Bond if he’s not in it. For this reason, I assume he’ll show up at some point in the narrative arc, whether via flashback or some other means.

    I think it’s worth noting that IFP does not seem to be abandoning the old audience just because they’re trying to reach a new one. After all, we do have a Horowitz book coming out this year. I think this is just an experiment.

  • JellyfishJellyfish EnglandPosts: 405MI6 Agent

    I had some thoughts similar to those above, regarding the plot of this upcoming book being a bit 'woke' with the climate crisis being a feature. However, it occurred to me that the Bond books and films have always tried to reflect contemporary times, such as the Cold War, war on drugs, terrorism etc. and I've mellowed a bit, given that a focus on the climate crisis fits in with this.

    I can't see any of the young agents in this book smoking 70 fags in a day though!

Sign In or Register to comment.