Religion, Politics, Death and Sex: 'The Man With The Golden Gun', Jacques Stewart's examination of Ian Fleming's last novel Options

[Mister Asterix]

Religion, Politics, Death and Sex: 'The Man With The Golden Gun'

Part 1 of Jacques Stewart's examination of Ian Fleming's last novel

-----

Sex And The Single Agent: 'The Man With The Golden Gun'

Part 2 of Jacques Stewart's examination of Ian Fleming's last novel

Part One

by Jacques Stewart

Oft-criticised as ill conceived and insubstantial, The Man with the Golden Gun is the last of Fleming and stands as a curious conclusion to the literary Bond. The popular analysis of the novel as a weaker entry in the series is understandable. The book was unfinished or, perhaps more accurately, unpolished at Fleming

[Mister Asterix]

By the way for those who don't know, Jacques Stewart is better known in these forums as Jim.

And thanks to Jim for giving us our first article for the New CBN Literary 007 Section. I personally can't wait for part 2.

[Dr. Tynan]

Jacques (Jim), You're a genius mate, you really are.

You're essay makes me feel proud to be a Bond fan.

[General Koskov]

Bravo, fantastic article! I knew there was something to Scaramanga, other than Fleming's half-arsed attempt most would have us believe he is.

[Mister Asterix]

Part Two

By Jacques Stewart

He said it and meant it, "Goodnight. You're an angel." At the same time, he knew, deep down, that love from Mary Goodnight, or from any other woman, was not enough for him. It would be like taking "a room with a view". For James Bond, the same view would always pall.

-The Man with the Golden Gun[/i], Ian Fleming

[i]

Then what of this last paragraph of this last book? There are interpretations abundant. Likening Mary Goodnight to an angel coheres with the religious metaphors already considered; Goodnight is SIS, she is one of those amongst the gods whom Bond now rejoins. Additionally, the entire paragraph is possibly a remembrance of Tracy Bond, and we read "from any other woman

[Jim]

I think I need a cold shower

[rafterman]

good work...

[Willowhugger]

The Man With The Golden Gun I think actually doesn't have the subtext Mister Stewart is ascribing it I think. It certainly is a book charged with subtext but I took it from the context of a man of Flemmings time rather than necessarily a context of retrospect to look back. You may well prove to be more right than me but my take on the matter was one more of racism and class than the charged ideals of homosexuality and British irrelevance that you seem to be forwarding.

Paco Scaramanga is very different from the urbane darker Bond portrayed by Ian Fleming's cousin. This goes without saying but he nevertheless is a mirror to James Bond. Paco is somewhat similiar to Mr. Big of Live and Let Die in that he's a decidedly ethnic character. A representation of the enroachment of non-European characters into the world of the Cold War. Flemming is kinder to those of the Carribean in this book as opposed to blacks. Paco may be a Spanish descended character but he decidedly represents the underside of the Cuban regime. One interesting note is the confusion as to whether Paco is representing Baptista money or Castro in his hotel project. Paco's reaction to Bond's question is to pretty much ignore it. The implication is the Scarface like gangster (preceding Al Pachino's character by decades) is he couldn't care less whose money he represents. While supposedly a latent homosexual, it is questionable if Fleming actually meant for Paco to be one. The implications of the report to M's office seem so drearily ridiculous that one has to wonder if Fleming isn't making a commentary on bureaucracy (I doubt he ever thought homosexuals really couldn't whistle).

Bond is facing down a mafia man and he well knows that he is. Had the situation been turned around then Paco gladly would have been killing people for the British as well as the Soviet Union. His motivation is money and he has no idealogical tie to communism. The fact that the character of Paco Scaramanga is so reprehensible a human being is established primarily so that James Bond has a reason to kill the man in a showdown. License to Kill's Sanchez seems to have been influenced by the character of Scaramanga even if all of his quick draw elements were given to Lee's version of the character. At heart, killing Scaramanga is the action for a policeman rather than that of a secret agent.

This is a travelogue down into the ambiguities of the Cold War for the most part rather than a testament to Christ metaphor rebirth. The fact that Bond immerses himself into the Cold War world of Cuba and the Carribean comes out absolutely reaking of machismo is only to be expected since those qualities were even more pronounced then than they are now (where they are still one of the most masculine places of the planet). Bond's cultured virility is essentially being pitted against the macho qualities of a younger and more blatantly reaking macho attitude of foreign national. That there are no women in this game is more a side effect of the fact that they tend to distract from competition amongst men. They're a prize to be won as opposed to characters in their own right.

This post has been edited by Willowhugger: 10 December 2006 - 07:43

[The White Tuxedo]

This is exactly the thread I was looking for! Thought I wouldn't find it.

I wanted to say that I thought it was a smashing article. It's exactly the topic I've been interested in. You expressed very well some thing I had on my mind from reading GOLDEN GUN again recently. It's one of the most intrigueing of the books to me, and it certainly seems like the beginning of a new direction for the books. I seriously lament that Fleming died when he did.

I'd love to see Bond (and M in his limited way) react to the changing world of the 60's. And see if Bond's tether would have steadily shortened. Not that I think Fleming would have killed him off. He'd be raking in too much cash to do that!

A point I noticed that you brought up was showing rather than expressly telling, and leaving the reader to interpret an event. I think Fleming sometimes got perhaps a little too effusive with Bond's thoughts in his books. Though only on occasion.

What also strikes me is that Bond could seem have to lost a couple of his marbles. He doesn't seem totally rejuvinated, even in the end. He really kills Scaramanga out of self defense after he leaps at Bond. Though Bond does do a pretty decent job of rendering Hendriks dead. What I'm left thinking is did Bond really "win back his spurs" by the end?

That's what interests me. Where would have that have gone. I hope, for his part, Sebastian Faulks handles a little of this change in Bond in DEVIL MAY CARE. And what a terrific title, as Bond does seem to me a little c'est la vie at the end.

This post has been edited by The White Tuxedo: 11 November 2007 - 00:44

[Mr. Blofeld]

You know, it seems Fleming was almost rejuvenated by the films: OHMSS and YOLT, written during the filming of both Dr. No and FRWL, proved to be some of his best work, and TMWTGG might have been even better, even launched a new era for Bond, had not Fleming died before getting a proper polish in.

Shame.

[The White Tuxedo]

And now we face a polish problem with Bond 22! Oh no!

I wonder if politics would have crept into Bond's world more after GOLDEN GUN. They started to with YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE.

[Qwerty]

So they're easier to locate, the main page articles have been updated with a quick link to this thread...

Religion, Politics, Death and Sex: 'The Man With The Golden Gun'

Part 1 of Jacques Stewart's examination of Ian Fleming's last novel

-----

Sex And The Single Agent: 'The Man With The Golden Gun'

Part 2 of Jacques Stewart's examination of Ian Fleming's last novel

[HildebrandRarity]

Nearing seven years since you wrote this article...and i'm wondering if the time that's passed has made you want to 'edit' or modify the piece in any way, Jim?

Also, what proportion, if any, would you attribute the homosexual subtext in TMWTGG to the 'polisher' or 'finisher' of the book as opposed to Ian Fleming himself?

[Jim]

Nearing seven years since you wrote this article...and i'm wondering if the time that's passed has made you want to 'edit' or modify the piece in any way, Jim?

Also, what proportion, if any, would you attribute the homosexual subtext in TMWTGG to the 'polisher' or 'finisher' of the book as opposed to Ian Fleming himself?

1. No.

2. Dunno.

[Trident]

Also, what proportion, if any, would you attribute the homosexual subtext in TMWTGG to the 'polisher' or 'finisher' of the book as opposed to Ian Fleming himself?

Perhaps it's necessary here to remind that the 'homosexual subtext in TMWTGG' is something several fans (me included) assume. Assume because, for my part, several elements in the book make sense in that assumed context and stick out rather odd without it. But as nobody amongst us has any definite clue as to what direction Fleming might have taken had his health not prevented him, we can merely speculate. And if somebody one day comes up with a different explanation for the parts in question, that is absolutely on par with any other reading. The final version of the book might haven been an entirely different one, also with regard to this homosexual theme. It could have been an item, might have played a more prominent role. Or it could have been entirely cut and buried in Fleming's notebooks and papers.

[dee-bee-five]

Also, what proportion, if any, would you attribute the homosexual subtext in TMWTGG to the 'polisher' or 'finisher' of the book as opposed to Ian Fleming himself?

Perhaps it's necessary here to remind that the 'homosexual subtext in TMWTGG' is something several fans (me included) assume. Assume because, for my part, several elements in the book make sense in that assumed context and stick out rather odd without it. But as nobody amongst us has any definite clue as to what direction Fleming might have taken had his health not prevented him, we can merely speculate. And if somebody one day comes up with a different explanation for the parts in question, that is absolutely on par with any other reading. The final version of the book might haven been an entirely different one, also with regard to this homosexual theme. It could have been an item, might have played a more prominent role. Or it could have been entirely cut and buried in Fleming's notebooks and papers.

Once, when Fleming had the flu, Noel Coward helped nurse him and Fleming grumbled to his wife that he thought Coward was trying to get into his pants. All part of the Fleming-Coward affectionate bantering, of course. But beneath that lies the perennial straight man's fear - or fantasy? - of being seduced by the homosexual (in my experience all it usually takes is six lagers...). I suspect this is something that Fleming was well aware of and, given his fascination with all things sexually offbeat (beat being the operative word when it came to his marriage), it's a theme I can well imagine Fleming wanting to explore in a novel. For that reason, I'm inclined to believe the homosexual theme (which may have been fleshed out more in later drafts) was intended from the start.

[ACE]

Religion, Politics, Death and Sex: 'The Man With The Golden Gun'

Part 1 of Jacques Stewart's examination of Ian Fleming's last novel

-----

Sex And The Single Agent: 'The Man With The Golden Gun'

Part 2 of Jacques Stewart's examination of Ian Fleming's last novel

Part One

by Jacques Stewart

Oft-criticised as ill conceived and insubstantial, The Man with the Golden Gun is the last of Fleming and stands as a curious conclusion to the literary Bond. The popular analysis of the novel as a weaker entry in the series is understandable. The book was unfinished or, perhaps more accurately, unpolished at Fleming�s death, and the plot is not the missile-napping and germ warfare of earlier books, nor is this tale (which on one level is that of a Cuban thug trying to raise a mortgage) the apparent equal to the histrionics of Goldfinger the film, released in the same year.

On that analysis, the story is indeed flat. There is no immediate threat to the world. There is no colossally evil ultravillain. Accordingly, the book appears to be a significant discrepancy, a disappointment even, after the narratively extravagant On Her Majesty�s Secret Service and You Only Live Twice.

Query whether this maligned reputation is deserved. Hiding its nature, Golden Gun has several bullets in its chambers which suggest that Fleming was at work on his most geopolitically and psychosexually expansive work, disguised as a spy tale of a relatively minor scale. Completed by others it may have been, but there are clues in the book to indicate that Fleming was determined to expand this James Bond novel beyond the others. Had he lived to complete and redraft it where necessary, Golden Gun may have gained what is arguably its proper reputation: Fleming�s most mature book, perhaps even his best.

The key to Golden Gun is, of course, Bond�s resurrection at the opening of the novel. The assassination attempt on M as an incident is striking and its narrative purpose is plain, to tie up loose ends hanging over from the previous book. It is also significant thematically, and has a marked effect upon the development of the book�s ideas.

In this opening, we are presented with Bond back in the introspective and self-obsessed world of espionage, where Bond is utilised as a pawn between M and Colonel Boris, ostensibly men with a huge effect on the world, but using Bond on a very small scale, a personal vendetta. Men with too much power using it, not for survival, but for their own amusement. This is not the real world; this is a game played out on a plane divorced from the world. The only context is their own, and one of their own devising. The result of Bond�s actions is banishment from this world. That the next occasion we encounter Bond is at Kingston airport, having descended from the clouds, is not accidental.

The fallen angel is a routine religious metaphor, as indeed is its unsurprising conclusion, the redemption at the end of the novel, the key back into the gods. Golden Gun follows that basic Judeo-Christian construction. What is interesting is that Fleming effectively kills Bond off from that other world, and for the remainder of the book, prior to his ascension, he is reborn into a politically and socially authentic world, where there are no supervillains. It�s time to get real.

Furthermore, this is not the same Bond. Bond has been "unbrainwashed", and the cleansing subtext is intriguing. A common criticism of the book is that there is little or no reference to Tracy, or indeed anything from the previous novels. That is not undeliberate. The book does not need it. This is New Bond, and because of the way that the political background of the book is presented to us, it is important that this is New Bond, not Old Bond, he who is dead. This is because the regeneration metaphor is prevalent to the book�s analysis of the real world into which Bond is reborn. The world has changed and Bond will change with it.

Being a Jamaican by extraction, I have in equal measure been amused at the quaintness and depressed at the elitism of Fleming�s depiction of Jamaica in Dr No, his other major "Jamaica book". The world presented to us in Dr No is Old Bond�s world. There is little to doubt that Dr No himself is to be destroyed because he is impinging on the Empire, on Britain�s possession. That book sends out a signal, which is fundamentally "Hands off. Ours". Although the stuffiness of the Governor and his staff is mocked, Bond can rely upon the backbone of the Imperial system to get him out of a fix if need be. Additionally, British agent 007 foils Dr No�s plot, which is attacking the interests of the United States, not directly Britain�s interests. To the rescue of the world, here comes Britain. You cannot pull the lion�s tail, you half-German, half-Chinese freak.

All very jolly, but fundamentally historically na�ve. The Suez Crisis, contemporaneous to Dr No, would expose the lion as a gummy old cat. The Cuban Missile crisis, despite its geographical proximity to Jamaica and political proximity to a war, Britain did not get involved in, leaving it to the Americans. Dr No is not real world. Dr No is Old Bond world, where those in Whitehall can convince themselves they still have global relevance. Even as late as You Only Live Twice, with the negotiations over Magic 44, we see Old Bond world deluding itself as important.

Golden Gun is revolutionary. The dregs of Empire into which HazardBond descends are politically more realistic and more mature on the part of the author than his futile flag-waving had been. There are express changes: at the conclusion of the novel, the inquests and congratulations are dealt with, not by British civil servants as in Dr No, but Jamaican dignitaries. Government House, such resolute support in Dr No, is impotent. Ross is killed, Mary Goodnight offers little real practical support (also relevant to the sexual themes of the book) and it is the Americans, the new colonisers, who have managed to infiltrate the Thunderbird Hotel. It is the Americans who rescue Bond. The British are now bit-players in a three way drama between the US, the USSR and Cuba. They are of little real significance. This is the New World.

Could Old Bond have survived in this world? Old Bond, who wraps himself in the flag and the language of the bigot (cf: dialogue with Drax, Tanaka, Dr No)? Would he have coped? Arguably, no. To be pertinent to this new, real world, to function at all, New Bond must be "clean" of that baggage. Thus Bond must be cleansed and the subtextual importance of the assassination attempt is becoming clearer. It is critical and consistent that this Bond is undeveloped His character is not that of the Bond of the previous books; like Britain itself, he is a child newly thrust into this world, Empire and personality and all their respective memories are eradicated and of no practical use.

Not everything has changed. With Scaramanga�s scheme, Fleming still persists in bizarre polemic, lumping terrorism, black power and Cuba together as one, likening the civil rights movement and trade unions to those promoting communism. Although these observations are made by the villain rather than Old Bond (how times change), it�s pretty plain what Fleming�s spin on the issue is. On its surface, therefore, this book retains the reactionary nature of its forbears. What has changed, however, is the undercurrent of utter futility.

Scaramanga�s concerns are the US and Cuba, not Britain. He kills British agents for fun. They are not to be taken seriously. The Bond/Scaramanga duel at the end of the book will ultimately change nothing. It will not end the Cold War, in the manner that Bond ended Blofeld�s plans by destroying Piz Gloria, or Goldfinger�s plans by putting a message in the toilet bowl of a small aeroplane. The demented personal politics aside, Golden Gun is a notably more politically astute book. Nothing changes as a result of the climax. Scaramanga�s death will ultimately mean very little. The optimistic certainty that destroying a great, if evil, man, like Goldfinger or Dr No, will achieve something, will change or better the world, is replaced with the more prosaic ambivalence that the destruction of Scaramanga could well be futile. Unlike its parallel of the duel between M and Colonel Boris at the book�s opening, great men playing games in a small world, the concluding sequence in the swamp is a small scale fight between small scale men but set against a huge world they do not control. New Bond world is not an arena for great men. They are fantasy. It is now the world of the Scaramangas.

The achievement Bond has at the end of the novel is not having bettered the world to any noticeable extent, but a far more credible personal one, his redemption and his ticket back to the gods. Although, of course, for otherwise there would be no pat happy ending, Bond accepts that ticket, he rejects the knighthood, and that has thematic resonance in this New World: of what importance could that offshoot of Empire now be? Logically, to refuse the bauble is the correct action. Even if accepting it would have made for an even happier ending, it would have been inconsistent with the subtext, it would have been a jarring theme. Bond is welcomed back amongst the gods having lived amongst men and having seen their world. It remains an ambiguous ending; is wilful resurrection to the Old World the right choice?

At the book�s conclusion, the rebirth is complete, and rebirth is not a word chosen lightly. Birth was Casino Royale, and of all the preceding Bond novels, it is Casino Royale that Golden Gun most closely resembles. The overall humourless tone aside, the basic plot has marked similarities; Bond foils an attempt by an enemy agent to raise funds to promote disruptive USSR interests abroad. Bond has come full circle. He has died, and this is his second life. The book is not distinct from OHMSS and You Only Live Twice; it is the necessary conclusion to its trilogy. This second life just happens to start in a similar manner to his first. This is the authorial joke behind Golden Gun. Bond has come the full 360 degrees and emerged out of the Old World into the New. Fleming is starting again, leaving the baggage of personal and political history behind. That we never saw how this New World developed is unfortunate, but because of this circularity, fate renders Golden Gun the appropriate place to conclude the literary Bond. The character has revolved as the world has evolved. Had he been afforded the opportunity, it would have been fascinating to see where Fleming took Bond beyond Golden Gun. Sadly, with the chance to recreate his character in a developed world denied to Fleming, that future is only one of themes, schemes and impossible dreams.

So much for Religion, Politics and Death. Part two of this essay will examine the sexual themes of the book. In a book as rich in subtext as The Man with the Golden Gun, that concluding paragraph must mean something, surely?

Part Two

By Jacques Stewart



<p ALIGN=CENTER><FONT COLOR="#000000" face="Times New Roman,Times,serif" size="3">He said it and meant it, "Goodnight. You're an angel." At the same time, he knew, deep down, that love from Mary Goodnight, or from any other woman, was not enough for him. It would be like taking "a room with a view". For James Bond, the same view would always pall.</font></p>
<p ALIGN=RIGHT><FONT COLOR="#000000" face="Verdana,Arial,san-serif" size="1">-The Man with the Golden Gun, Ian Fleming</font></p>


Then what of this last paragraph of this last book? There are interpretations abundant. Likening Mary Goodnight to an angel coheres with the religious metaphors already considered; Goodnight is SIS, she is one of those amongst the gods whom Bond now rejoins. Additionally, the entire paragraph is possibly a remembrance of Tracy Bond, and we read "from any other woman�" as "from any other woman but Tracy�." That would be consistent with the book�s place at the conclusion of the closing trilogy, and yet the argument lacks conviction. Golden Gun is a book notable for the absence of Bond casting his mind back. To do so at the end seems out of character for the new, "cleansed" Bond of this new, dirty world. Bond has been returned to his initial silhouette, and will be coloured anew by the changed world.

Are we then to read "any other woman�" as "any woman�"? If it is intended to refer to Tracy, why not mention her? Not a particularly original reading, perhaps, but is Golden Gun the Bond book in which Fleming examines homosexuality?

Examining Fleming's attitudes to homosexuality in his earlier books, his opinion is clear. Wint and Kidd are portrayed as soulless, cringing and flawed psychopaths. However sadistic they are as killers, their flaws undermine them and render them no match for Bond. Rosa Klebb is fundamentally horrific, and it's interesting to see how Fleming exposes her horror to his reader. We are told about her skills as a violent torturer, but such tortures happen offstage. With the shorthand that his bigotry allows him, Fleming makes her one terrible act not a killing, but her attempt to seduce Tatiana, and he makes it a deliberately disgusting incident. Additionally, Bond is sorry, but has no time, for Tilly Masterton, albeit that he makes time to "cure" Pussy Galore, which is most kind of him. In Old Bond World, homosexuals are deformed or disgusting or damaged or die, and often a combination of the four.

And then, in the New World, there's Scaramanga. It�s a curious thing, but Fleming's major villains are generally sexless. Save for noting that the Thunderball Blofeld had not been known to sleep with anyone of either sex, it's rare to see a comment about the libido of any of the main antagonists, even when Fleming is at his most descriptive about their background. Le Chiffre, Mr Big, Drax, General G, Dr No and Goldfinger escape substantial personal revelation. That may be just as well, because they're physical grotesques, but until Blofeld and Irma Bunt, more grotesques, we have no villainous coupling. Even then, however vile it is, it's incidental. With Scaramanga, Fleming is making the villain's sexuality a specific character point. He is making it relevant to the tale.

But then, where does it go? What does he do with it? At the end of the tale, we have a shoot-out; Bond survives, and will wander off with the girl. The dossier on Scaramanga at the start of the book, assessing him as homosexual with a pronounced sexual drive, albeit not a noted whistler, does not appear to be correct in its conclusion. There is no explicit incident in the book to illustrate this defining character point, and as it stands, it appears to be a jarringly irrelevant revelation.

As ever, subtext. As ever, imagery. As ever, perhaps more by accident than design, there is plenty in Golden Gun to suggest that Fleming is still capable of playing games with his readers and subverting his own hero. This is not the ferociously, and tersely, negative Fleming of the earlier books. There are incidents and concepts in Golden Gun to suggest that Fleming is obsessed with, and intrigued by, homosexuality enough to even cast his hero in a new light. This is all pre-Wolfenden, and the implicit must remain so.

Examine the scene at 3 and a half Love Lane. We are told that Scaramanga is upstairs with a woman, albeit that we never see the woman, and Bond flirts with a girl. All's well in the world. Scaramanga's entrance changes things wholesale. The scene then becomes solely about the two men, the girl is largely forgotten until the end, and we have one man hiring another man in a brothel whilst one waves his gun about and starts shooting off, to impress. The gun�s notoriety as a phallic symbol is well ventilated; is making it golden emphasising its glory, its potency? Additionally, Scaramanga's express motives for hiring Bond seem undernourished. He has not seen Bond in action as a labour relations operative, and has barely been talking to him in anything other than euphemisms. It's not the most rigorous job interview. The reasons for Scaramanga renting Bond are weak and unconvincing and render Scaramanga an idiot, unless, of course, in this one place where a sexual atmosphere is guaranteed, that sexual atmosphere pervades and clouds his judgment.

Having prostituted himself to Scaramanga, query Bond�s reaction to the man. Given the opportunity to kill him straight away, Bond withdraws, for no better reason than he would have to kill Scaramanga�s driver too. Bond is showing new qualms; he would not previously have hesitated. Whilst he chides himself for losing this opportunity, Bond is given another one when he watches an unarmed Scaramanga trampolining. Instead, he considers the man�s physical prowess. Not an entirely willing participant, however, Bond will block off the door to his bedroom to try to prevent Scaramanga getting in, and remove one bullet from Scaramanga�s gun, and images of rape prevention and impotence emerge. Bond�s attitude throughout the book is hard to fathom. It may be a consequence of the unpolished text. It may be a consequence of New Bond experiencing New World. It may be Fleming keeping deliberately ambivalent his hero�s reaction to his surroundings. Bond has had all his emotions exposed in earlier books; now, the author is making us guess what those emotions might be, dropping hints along the way, some quiet, some thunderous.

Another page, another reference. When challenged upon his true identity by Nick Nicholson, he and Bond share a look of the specie shared by crooks, spies and homosexuals. Another express reference, that ultimately need not have been there, unless it was meant to be. Grouping all three together may be Fleming�s little joke at the expense of Burgess and Maclean; it�s also a joke at Bond�s expense, in the environment in which he has found himself.

Consider also the dramatis personae. Gone are the stronger female characters of the previous books, good or bad. Scaramanga surrounds himself with men, Bond included. Women are secretaries, dancers or prostitutes and have very little to do. The character of Mary Goodnight is the most significantly underwritten Fleming woman; again, accident of an incomplete book, or by design? She is not in distress, she does not need saving at the end of the book. Bond must save himself. She is of no narrative consequence whatsoever. She does not drive the story. Bond does not need to win her or woo her as with his previous conquests. On a pure story basis, she might as well not exist.

Metaphorically, however, she is of importance. An examination of the Bond/Scaramanga relationship occurs in the scene in Bond�s room when Goodnight climbs through his window. Bond has tried to defend his entrance, but still, Scaramanga gets in. Two half-naked men and a girl in a bathroom. Scaramanga�s explanation that he heard talking does not cohere with the care Bond and Goodnight have taken to ensure that the water is running, to avoid being overheard. It is therefore possible that Scaramanga was going to come in, gun out, regardless of what was going on. A man and a woman together is the guilty coupling. One of the men must protect himself from exposure by pretending that the girl is his fianc�e, which she is not. Scaramanga lets her go; he�s not interested in her. His trick with the tailor�s dummy Goodnight on the railway line continues the metaphor; kill off the shell that is Mary Goodnight, and you�ll expose James Bond. It�s an interesting joke.

And prior to this bathroom confrontation, where has Old Triple Nipple been hiding? He�s been hiding in the closet.

That final paragraph. Bond has reclaimed himself, both in the eyes of his superiors, but furthermore, he�s killed the villain, seen off Scaramanga�s express and implicit threats and got the girl. Having dragged himself back into the gods, we see here a moment of self-awareness and regret. It�s difficult to say what Bond�s emotions are at the end of the novel. There is no definite conclusion.

Such is life.

Certainly, Bond does not express any devotion to Scaramanga, and neither would he. The final paragraph does not indicate that James Bond is homosexual. Confused and frustrated, perhaps, and the book is riddled with confusion and frustration, political, religious, social and sexual. With Scaramanga, there are undercurrents, which Bond has not experienced before in his black and white destruction of a succession of evil people. The subtext of the relationship with Bond and Scaramanga is another uncertain, incomplete, fluctuating grey area in a New World full of them.

Such is life.

The Man with the Golden Gun is as close as Fleming gets to an examination of the ill-defined politics, social and sexual, that are the distinguishing feature of reality rather than fantasy. The plot? The plot only needs to service this examination. A recognition of the less rigid structures of its age than its predecessors had been, there is in Golden Gun need for serious critical re-evaluation and the groundwork for a more advanced Bond novel, and a more ambivalent and complex lead character than previously presented to us. Denied to us, like many things.

Such is life.

Terrific stuff, Jacques Stewart!

[FLEMINGFAN]

Wonderful work to a novel greatly underappreciated.

[HildebrandRarity]

Also, what proportion, if any, would you attribute the homosexual subtext in TMWTGG to the 'polisher' or 'finisher' of the book as opposed to Ian Fleming himself?

Perhaps it's necessary here to remind that the 'homosexual subtext in TMWTGG' is something several fans (me included) assume. Assume because, for my part, several elements in the book make sense in that assumed context and stick out rather odd without it. But as nobody amongst us has any definite clue as to what direction Fleming might have taken had his health not prevented him, we can merely speculate. And if somebody one day comes up with a different explanation for the parts in question, that is absolutely on par with any other reading. The final version of the book might haven been an entirely different one, also with regard to this homosexual theme. It could have been an item, might have played a more prominent role. Or it could have been entirely cut and buried in Fleming's notebooks and papers.

Quite. Hence my two questions to the writer which partially implied whether he'd reconsidered his, um, assumptions with the benifit of nearly seven years of time/wisdom/reflection/etc.

As a merely casual reader of the books (as opposed to a serious reader looking for 'subtext') I can't help but think that TMWTGG is not 'entirely' Fleming and I don't know what percentage to attribute to him with respect to the 'change' that took place in this book vis-a-vis the rest of them, save 'Spy.

[Trident]

As a merely casual reader of the books (as opposed to a serious reader looking for 'subtext') I can't help but think that TMWTGG is not 'entirely' Fleming and I don't know what percentage to attribute to him with respect to the 'change' that took place in this book vis-a-vis the rest of them, save 'Spy.

I agree that TMWTGG is severely lacking Fleming in some respects. But I suppose this is mostly due to there not being left much of Fleming himself by the time he wrote it. That he wrote it at all in his by-then serious state must have been an enormous effort for him. I really suspect there wasn't that much 'finishing' done by the publisher.

[Loomis]

Perhaps all this talk of a "gay" subtext is a bit overstated. I don't really hold with it myself. Where's the evidence?

[Trident]

Perhaps all this talk of a "gay" subtext is a bit overstated. I don't really hold with it myself. Where's the evidence?

Absolutely true! Evidence there is none. Indications there are several. But proof is an entirely different question altogether. One that will most likely stay unanswered.

[Loomis]

No, what I'm saying is that I don't see any indications, any evidence. I've read the book three times and on each occasion it's failed to arouse my gaydar.

[HildebrandRarity]

No, what I'm saying is that I don't see any indications, any evidence. I've read the book three times and on each occasion it's failed to arouse my gaydar.

Seems like Jacques has a bigger gaydar than you!

Size matters, eh, Trident?

[Trident]

No, what I'm saying is that I don't see any indications, any evidence. I've read the book three times and on each occasion it's failed to arouse my gaydar.

Seems like Jacques has a bigger gaydar than you!

Size matters, eh, Trident?

LOL!

Well, there were several discussion about the topic already here. I'm not entirely sure if I can contribute something new to the discussion. But here is what I wrote in another thread about it:


From the discussion:

Then, at Scaramanga's hotel Bond is woken by a nightmare. Something that hasn't happened previously with this force. And the nightmare is a telling tale regarding Bond's present state of mind (and would probably be further material for the inspection of sexual undercurrents in the novel).

'A nightmare woke him, sweating, around two in the morning. He had been defending a fort. There were other defenders with him, but they seemed to be wandering around aimlessly, ineffectively, and when Bond shouted to rally them they seemed not to hear him. Out on the plain, Scaramanga sat bassackwards on the caf� chair beside a huge golden cannon. Every now and then, he put his long cigar to the touch-hole and there came a tremendous flash of soundless flame. A black cannon ball, as big as a football, lobbed up high in the air and crashed down into the fort with a shattering noise of breaking timber. Bond was armed with nothing but a longbow, but even this he cold not fire because, every time he tried to fit the notch of the arrow into the gut, the arrow slipped out of his fingers to the ground. He cursed his clumsiness. Any moment now and a huge cannon ball would land on the small open space where he was standing! Out on the plain Scaramanga reached his cigar to the touch-hole. The black ball soared up. It was coming straight for Bond! It landed just in front of him and came rolling very slowly towards him, getting bigger and bigger, smoke and sparks coming from its shortening fuse. Bond threw up an arm to protect himself. Painfully, the arm crashed into the side of the night table and Bond woke up.'(from 'The Man With The Golden Gun', Ian Fleming 1965, Coronet paperback 1989, page 84-85)

The late-night raid of Bond's room by Scaramanga, maybe an attempt at rape? And what about Bond's blocking of the door? Did he actually expect such an attempt? After all, Scaramanga could have shot him already a dozen times before. What was he after in the middle of the night? And what did Bond suspect as he took pains to block his door?

My opinion is that there are several points in TMWTGG that would allow for a kind of sexual motive in Scaramanga's hiring of Bond and his subsequent behaviour towards his employee. Why the nightime-visit, for example? And there would also seem to be sufficient indication of Bond's awareness of Scaramanga's interest in him (the dream sequence and Bond's (ineffective) precautions agains Scaramanga surprising him in the night). In my readig these elements would tally without major discrepancies with an intended emphasis of a sexual element in TMWTGG. But of course this wasn't developed any further. Due to what reasons we may only speculate. Spynovelfan has mentioned in this discussion that Amis in a letter to Maschler expressed his belief that TMWTGG couldn't be published in its original version. Room for endless speculation regarding this 'original version'.

Loomis, you're of course right. None of this is any kind definite indication, let alone of proof. If your reading of these aspects of TMWTGG is a different one, that's completely within one's own personal reading. For me, these aspects make the most sense if I assume an idea of homesexual theme behind these. But any kind of explanation (or lack thereof) is as good as any other. I cannot prove my reading, nor do I want to do so. I think Fleming had a remarkable boldness in his works at some times, but I may be entirely wrong here.

[SILHOUETTE MAN]

I've posted this little article by Kingsley Amis from the New Statesman current affairs magazine in another thread, but it is useful to add to this thread as it reveals where the idea of the homosexuality subtext between Francisco Scaramanga and James Bond in TMWTGG originated from. It's particularly interesting that Amis read the Fleming final draft of the TMWTGG and allegedly did some work on it, although this is disputed by some. The article was later reprinted (along with other Bond pieces) in Amis' collection of non-fiction entitled 'What Became of Jane Austen? And Other Questions' (1970).

THE STORY FLEMING DARED NOT TELL! by Kingsley Amis ('New Statesman', April
2, 1965)

In most of the Bond books it was the central villain on whom interest in
character was fixed. 'Moonraker', for instance, is filled with the physical
presence of Hugo Drax with his red hair and scarred face, bustling about,
puffing cigars, playing the genial host when he isn't working on his scheme
to obliterate London. Scaramanga, in the last of them, 'The Man With The
Golden Gun', is just a dandy with a special (and ineffective) gun, a stock
of outdated American slang, and a third nipple on his left breast. We hear a
lot about him early on in the ten-page dossier M consults, including
mentions of homosexuality and pistol-fetishism, but these aren't followed up
anywhere. Why not?
It may be relevant to consider an outstandingly clumsy turn in the
narrative. Bond has always been good at ingratiating himself with his
enemies, notably with Goldfinger, who took him on as his personal assistant
for the Fort Knox project. Goldfinger, however, had fairly good reason to
believe Bond to be a clever and experienced operator on the wrong side of
the law. Scaramanga hires him after a few minutes' conversation in the bar
of a brothel. (At this stage he has no idea that there's a British agent
within a hundred miles, so he can't be hiring him to keep him under his
eye.) Bond wonders what Scaramanga wants with him: 'it was odd, to say the
least of it... the strong smell of a trap.' This hefty hint of a concealed
motive on Scaramanga's part is never taken up. Why not?
I strongly suspect - on deduction alone, let it be said - that these
unanswered questions represents traces of an earlier draft, perhaps never
committed to paper, wherein Scaramanga hires Bond because he's sexually
interested in him. A supposition of this kind would also take care of other
difficulties or deficiences in the book as it stands, the insubstantiality
of the character of Scaramanga, just referred to, and the feeling of
suppressed emotion, at any rate the build-up to and the space for some kind
of climax of emotion, in the final confrontation of the two men. But of
course Ian Fleming wouldn't have dared to complete the story along those
lines. Imagine what the critics would have said!
To read some of their extant efforts, one would think that Bond's
creator was a sort of psychological Ernst Stavro Blofeld, bent on poisoning
British morality. An article in this journal in 1958 helped to initiate a
whole series of attacks on the supposed 'sex, snobbery and sadism' of the
books, as if sex were bad per se, and as if snobbery resided in a few
glossy-magazine references to Aston Martin cars and Pinaud shampoos and
what-not, and as if sadism could be attributed to a character who never
wantonly inflicts pain. (Contrast Bulldog Drummond and Spillane's Mike
Hammer.)
These are matters that can't be argued through in this review. But it
seems clear that Ian Fleming took such charges seriously. Violent and bloody
action, the infliction of pain in general, was very much scaled down in what
he wrote after 1958. Many will regard this as a negative gain, though others
may feel that a secret-agent story without violence would be like, say, a
naval story without battles. As regards the 'sex' and 'snobbery' and the
memorable meals and the high-level gambling, these, however unedifying, were
part of the unique Fleming world, and the denaturing of that world in 'The
Man With The Golden Gun' and parts of its immediate forerunners is a loss.
Nobody can write at his best with part of his attention on puritanical
readers over his shoulder.
Ian Fleming was a good writer, occasionally a brilliant one, as the
gypsy-encampment scene in 'From Russia With Love' (however sadistic) and the
bridge-game in 'Moonraker' (however snobbish) will suggest. His gifts for
sustaining and varying action, and for holding down the wildest fantasies
with cleverly synthesised pseudo-facts, give him a place beside long-defunct
entertainer-virtuosos like Jules Verne and Conan Doyle, though he was more
fully master of his material than either of these. When shall we see
another?

[spynovelfan]

It's particularly interesting that Amis read the Fleming final draft of the TMWTGG and allegedly did some work on it, although this is disputed by some.

Including Amis! It's clear from his letter to Tom Maschler that all he was asked to do was read the manuscript and give his thoughts on it. Apart from pointing out a few typos and theorising about Scaramanga's sexuality, he didn't do anything with it. He did seem to be under the impression that it wasn't the 'original' of the novel he had been asked to read, however, which suggests that he may have believed others had done some work on it prior to his reading it. Whether or not they did is another issue, but it would seem if they did they didn't do that much - it's still notably thinner in texture to most of Fleming's other novels.

[Mister Asterix]

It's particularly interesting that Amis read the Fleming final draft of the TMWTGG and allegedly did some work on it, although this is disputed by some.

Including Amis! It's clear from his letter to Tom Maschler that all he was asked to do was read the manuscript and give his thoughts on it. Apart from pointing out a few typos and theorising about Scaramanga's sexuality, he didn't do anything with it. He did seem to be under the impression that it wasn't the 'original' of the novel he had been asked to read, however, which suggests that he may have believed others had done some work on it prior to his reading it. Whether or not they did is another issue, but it would seem if they did they didn't do that much - it's still notably thinner in texture to most of Fleming's other novels.

This is close to what Raymond Benson told me that Amis told him. Amis apparently and essentially said the The Man With The Golden Gun can be considered all Fleming and that Amis’ part was pointing out very minor issues.

[SILHOUETTE MAN]

It's particularly interesting that Amis read the Fleming final draft of the TMWTGG and allegedly did some work on it, although this is disputed by some.

Including Amis! It's clear from his letter to Tom Maschler that all he was asked to do was read the manuscript and give his thoughts on it. Apart from pointing out a few typos and theorising about Scaramanga's sexuality, he didn't do anything with it. He did seem to be under the impression that it wasn't the 'original' of the novel he had been asked to read, however, which suggests that he may have believed others had done some work on it prior to his reading it. Whether or not they did is another issue, but it would seem if they did they didn't do that much - it's still notably thinner in texture to most of Fleming's other novels.

Yes, I know the letter you're referring to here. I just wanted to reference the rumour on Amis's involvement. Personally I think there is too much made of his involvement. I'm pretty sure it's mostly Fleming's work, but who can say? As you say, it is noticably thinner than the other novels and just sort of "ends" at Chapter 17.

It's particularly interesting that Amis read the Fleming final draft of the TMWTGG and allegedly did some work on it, although this is disputed by some.

Including Amis! It's clear from his letter to Tom Maschler that all he was asked to do was read the manuscript and give his thoughts on it. Apart from pointing out a few typos and theorising about Scaramanga's sexuality, he didn't do anything with it. He did seem to be under the impression that it wasn't the 'original' of the novel he had been asked to read, however, which suggests that he may have believed others had done some work on it prior to his reading it. Whether or not they did is another issue, but it would seem if they did they didn't do that much - it's still notably thinner in texture to most of Fleming's other novels.

This is close to what Raymond Benson told me that Amis told him. Amis apparently and essentially said the The Man With The Golden Gun can be considered all Fleming and that Amis’ part was pointing out very minor issues.

In a letter from Raymond Benson he said that he believed Fleming had almost finished the first draft of TMWTGG when he died, so this fits. It's hard to say whether any other writer besides Amis was involved in any minor 'touching up' of the novel, or whether it is entirely Fleming's work. I'd personally like to think that it is all Fleming's work, as a Fleming purist.

[spynovelfan]

Yes, I know the letter you're referring to here. I just wanted to reference the rumour on Amis's involvement. Personally I think there is too much made of his involvement. I'm pretty sure it's mostly Fleming's work, but who can say?

Well, we can! At any rate, we can say that Amis was definitely not involved, precisely because of the letter. Why reference the rumour Amis worked on it when we have a letter written by him at the time to the editor of the book that comprehensively disproves it? Let's just put a stop to the rumour instead. Amis did not rewrite THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN. He pointed out a few small errors and inconsistencies and asked whether there was anything to suggest that Fleming originally intended Scaramanga to be homosexual. There are enough incorrect rumours floating around literary Bond as it is. This is one that can be put to bed with firm primary evidence from the party involved.

Whether or not anyone else did any reworking of the novel is, I'd agree, rather more open to question. Amis even suggested that several passages 'need to be rewritten by someone with a feeling and flair for style'. But he explicitly ruled himself out of doing such a thing.