MI6 reports from The London Book Fair, where William
Boyd, author
of the new Bond continuation novel 'Solo', was 'author of the
day' and was interviewed by Erica
Wagner,
Literary
Editor of The Times. Click
here to read the press release from
Ian Fleming Publications on the announcement of the new title.
Above: William Boyd interviewed
by Erica Wagner.
|
EW - Let's go right into Bond and tell us a little bit about
the genesis of this project.
WB - Well, it's not something you can audition for. You can't
say: "I feel like writing a James Bond novel”. You
have to be asked. I was asked at the end of 2011. I was approached
by the Ian Fleming estate and I was asked if I would consider
writing a new continuation novel, as they're called. I said “yes” instantly. “What
a treat!” I said “yes” for other reasons
as well, in that I had written two spy novels myself - or types
of spy novel - so I was very familiar with the genre. I also
knew a lot about Ian Fleming, who is a man who has always fascinated
me. I'd written about Fleming in journalism - I think I even
wrote a piece for you, Erica, about Fleming - and I even put
him in one of my novels. I put him in a novel of mine called "Any
Human Heart", where Ian Fleming, in WWII, recruits the
hero, Logan Mountstuart, into the Naval Intelligence Division
where Fleming worked. When "Any Human Heart" was
turned into a Channel 4 series, an actor (Tobias Menzies, "Casino
Royale's" Villiers) played Fleming. By sheer coincidence,
three of the actors that have played James Bond have been in
films that I have written. I've even directed Daniel Craig
in a film I wrote, so there's this curious Bond/Fleming theme
in my life and to get the invitation (to write a Bond novel)
seems like some kind of perfect vindication, or somebody upstairs
knew something. So I said “yes” and then the process
began.
EW - You've spoken a little bit before, and perhaps you can
elaborate, on how you like to keep a very clear distinction between
the literary Bond and the cinematic Bond.
WB - Yes, I think what is apparent, as soon
as I started thinking about the book was that everybody thinks
about Bond in terms
of the films, inevitably, because they're so successful. Fleming
died in 1964 but the latest Bond film came out just last year.
So, Bond in the popular imagination is a celluloid Bond. Because
of the nature of the medium and because of the nature of the
film franchise, the difference between the cinematic Bond and
the literary Bond is marked. I re-read every Bond novel and Bond
short story in chronological order before I started writing my
own, and Fleming gives you a massive amount of information about
Bond: His inner life; his back story; his education; his likes;
his dislikes; his phobias; his passions. So, as a character in
a novel, there's this incredible richness, whereas in a film
- because film is photography - it's very hard to be subjective.
So, you see Bond, you see what he gets up to, but I feel that
you just don't know him at all. The literary Bond is a far more
complex and nuanced creature than even a brilliant actor like
Daniel Craig can portray.
EW - What was it like reading all those books
in that focused way? What sense did you get (of Bond)? It is
extraordinary for a character to have this kind of appeal across
the decades, aside from the “derring-do”.
|
WB - It's quite fascinating. You have
to indulge in a kind of thought experiment because the
first novel was published in 1953 and the last one was
published posthumously in 1964 - that's twelve novels in
a decade. So, that's an incredible output let alone anything
else. And you have to try to imagine Britain in 1953, or
you have to imagine the world in 1953. It was a post-war
world. And suddenly on to the scene comes this man, this
spy, but it's not so much the spying adventures, I feel,
that makes Bond live. It's what he represents, what he
does, what he likes and what he dislikes. It must have
seemed in the 50s the most exotic, glamorous, exciting
reveal that anyone could imagine. Because Fleming's life he was a wealthy
upper-class playboy stockbroker and the life he lived in
the thirties and forties was of that moneyed upper-class
crowd. It was a tiny privileged elite and people didn't know
what went on, and I think that one of the things that Fleming
did with Bond was that he lifted the lid on this world where
people gambled for huge sums of money, you could order an
iced carafe of vodka with your caviar. You were particular
about the clothes you wore, what you had for breakfast, you
had your own cigarettes made, and you could tell different
types of coffee bean. |
|
 Order Now (Amazon UK)
Order Now (Amazon USA) |
Suddenly, this kind of detail, which we
take for granted today, was being revealed to readers in the
fifties and early sixties, and I think that must have been a
revelation. Plus Bond is not just a superhero, he has flaws,
he has weaknesses, he makes mistakes, yet he is incredibly tough.
There's something very well rounded about him and I think that
was Fleming's genius, in a way. It wasn't the fact that he managed
to think of a dozen or so fascinating stories, it was that he
created a character - like Sherlock Holmes, or Alice in Wonderland
- that endures and appeals to everybody. That is the measure
of his achievement and that in a way was what stimulated me.
Let's take this character and send him off somewhere, and let's
see what he's like as a human being.
I remember saying in the
interview (with Ian Fleming Publications) I said: "I'm interested
in the man. The human being." And that's what I've tried
to do in writing this book and that's why I went back and re-read
everything. I'd read the books as a teenager, but to read them
again now, knowingly, forensically, with pen in hand and making
notes in the margin, was a fascinating experience. I learnt a
phenomenal amount. I had this incredible mass of information
about Bond and his life, and his parents, where he went to school,
that he was captain of the judo team, etc, etc. I had all this
information that I could then use for the character that I was
playing with.
EW - I have to ask, thinking about this "interview",
did you think it was an interview you might have not passed?
WB - Yes! Absolutely. I mean, I could have said appalling things,
or been facetious, or complacent. But it's a privilege to be
given the opportunity to site a novel. You're very free. That's
the other wonderful thing about the Fleming organisation is that
there's no prescription. You have to tick certain boxes: His
boss is "M"; his boss' secretary is Miss. Moneypenny.
But you are given the opportunity to create your own novel, but
the character in the centre of your novel is James Bond. So,
you have to cherish that, to a certain extent. And I can imagine
failing to get the job very easily, but luckily I had this familiarity
with Fleming in particular, so I knew a lot about his life, so
I came (to the interview) informed. Again, I'd written a lot
about John le Carré as well as Fleming, and I'd written
these two spy novels, so the world of espionage was very familiar
to me. (Writing a spy story) is tremendous fun, but I think you
have to take it really, really seriously, and that was my pitch,
if you like.
EW - One of the serious aspects of that must be getting involved
in research. What kind of research did you do for this book?
WB - Well, there's a certain amount. Once you've invented your
story and the places you're going to take Bond to, you obviously
have to research that. I decided quite early on that I was going
to set my story in 1969. Fleming wrote an obituary of Bond in "You
Only Live Twice", and so we know that Bond, according to
Ian Fleming, was born in 1924, so in 1969 he would be forty-five,
which I thought would be quite interesting. I remember being
forty-five and you're not so fast on your feet as you were when
you were thirty. So, I had to do a lot of research of the era
and the geo-political business of the world at the time, and
what people wore and what you could eat and so on. And then,
because it's James Bond there's a certain amount of weaponry
that you have to familiarise yourself with, motor vehicles, etc
etc. So, I became an expert in small arms and also cars. Cars
are very important to Bond and I'm a non-driver, but you wouldn't
believe it when you read the novel. So, I did a lot of research
into cars and transport.
Having said that I was interested in the man, I wanted to make
the novel very real. I'm a realistic novelist, not a fantasist
or a magic realist. I like my fiction to be absolutely rooted
in a place or a time. Whether it's Vienna in 1914, or London
today, or the Philippines in 1902, the setting of my novels is
scrupulously researched and, I hope, absolutely authentic, and
that gives of a sort of tang and richness of its setting. So,
I had to get that right for Bond as well. So, he goes on a real
mission to real countries, and that the world he finds himself
in is absolutely 1969. I don't think I'm giving anything away
by saying there are no gimmicks. It's a real spy story. That's
how I write anyway. And I couldn't have written a fantastical,
or silly, or gimmicky Bond novel. I had to write a really gritty,
down-to-earth, realistic one.
Many thanks to Ben Williams, Ian Fleming Publications and Colman
Getty. Part two will be published later this week.
