Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Amis vs. Snelling


16 replies to this topic

#1 wattenscheid09

wattenscheid09

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 130 posts
  • Location:Deep Woods of Austria

Posted 23 November 2005 - 10:53 AM

Just came off reading the two "Bond Dossiers" in a row. And have to admit that after reading Snellings very amusing and intelligent analysis of the Bond books ("007 James Bond: A report"), I found Amis' "Bond Dossier" a slight let-down - I found it talky and rather empty, caught myself skipping chapters and pages. Snelling is so much closer to Bond and his world.

This is the second time around I read Amis' Bond Dossier, so I was surprised. But when you really go through it attentively Amis spends most his pages showing off how witty, liberal and intellectual he is - it is more a dissection of the literary world in Britain at the time than a real in-depth meeting with James Bond and his world. And Amis really seems to look down upon many elements in the novels, kind of "intellectuals like me shouldn't really like Bond so let's make snide little remarks and throw around leftish psycho-mumble all the time so nobody can accuse me of being sadist/macho/etc. etc.".

This is especially surprising when compared to Amis' own (brilliant) BOOK OF BOND and his great COLONEL SUN, which I will now re-read. It will be fun searching for all the elements he critizes in the Dossier, e. g. foreigners as evil-doers etc.

Thoughts on the matter?

#2 Streetworker

Streetworker

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 460 posts
  • Location:Good old Manchester

Posted 23 November 2005 - 12:23 PM

This is the second time around I read Amis' Bond Dossier, so I was surprised. But when you really go through it attentively Amis spends most his pages showing off how witty, liberal and intellectual he is - it is more a dissection of the literary world in Britain at the time than a real in-depth meeting with James Bond and his world. And Amis really seems to look down upon many elements in the novels, kind of "intellectuals like me shouldn't really like Bond so let's make snide little remarks and throw around leftish psycho-mumble all the time so nobody can accuse me of being sadist/macho/etc. etc.".

Thoughts on the matter?

View Post


But no-one did this kind of thing better than Amis, which is why his book still remains my favourite examination of the novels. Of course, the most amusing thing about it is that Amis became steadily more right-wing as he got older and probably ended up more reactionary than Ian Fleming himself. But then if you scratch a liberal, you always find a fascist bleeding.

#3 spynovelfan

spynovelfan

    Commander CMG

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5855 posts

Posted 23 November 2005 - 12:49 PM

But then if you scratch a liberal, you always find a fascist bleeding.

View Post


That's a lovely line, Streetworker. Does it mean anything? :tup:

#4 wattenscheid09

wattenscheid09

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 130 posts
  • Location:Deep Woods of Austria

Posted 23 November 2005 - 12:50 PM

I somehow wonder if, with all these mammooth-hunter genes cooking in our veins, there's anything else than fascists if you scratch *anybody*...:tup:

#5 Lounge Lizard

Lounge Lizard

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 593 posts
  • Location:Amsterdam, Netherlands

Posted 23 November 2005 - 12:57 PM

Just came off reading the two "Bond Dossiers" in a row. And have to admit that after reading Snellings very amusing and intelligent analysis of the Bond books ("007 James Bond: A report"), I found Amis' "Bond Dossier" a slight let-down - I found it talky and rather empty, caught myself skipping chapters and pages. Snelling is so much closer to Bond and his world.

This is the second time around I read Amis' Bond Dossier, so I was surprised. But when you really go through it attentively Amis spends most his pages showing off how witty, liberal and intellectual he is - it is more a dissection of the literary world in Britain at the time than a real in-depth meeting with James Bond and his world. And Amis really seems to look down upon many elements in the novels, kind of "intellectuals like me shouldn't really like Bond so let's make snide little remarks and throw around leftish psycho-mumble all the time so nobody can accuse me of being sadist/macho/etc. etc.".

View Post


That's interesting, I remember being quite disappointed by Snelling's rather slight volume when I first read it, and failing to understand why Raymond Benson was so enthusiastic about it in his Bedside Companion. I haven't picked it up for years now, but I can only remember Snelling lengthily quoting Fleming, and summarizing characters and plots, all in a tidy chronological order. One of his more original thoughts was in naming the aristocratic 'Clubland Heroes' of the 1910s (Bulldog Drummond et al) as the spiritual forefathers of Bond, more so than prissy intellectual detective heroes like Sherlock Holmes and Arsene Lupin. But Amis was in tune to Fleming's literary heritage as well, positioning 007 as the upper-middle class nephew of the Clubbies, and also calling attention to Fleming's kinship with that other master phantasist, Jules Verne. His Dossier is a careful dissection of a phenomenon, a masterful collection of essays that is a joy to read, and, at least to this reader, never boring.

Yes, Amis described Bond's world in perhaps overly political terms- but he was indeed witty and insightful in the process, not just cynically showing off. And since the Bond novels in the 1960s were read by people from all layers of society, an analysis in political terms was probably relevant enough. Despite being Cold War novels and fairly patriottic, weren't the Bond novels politically neutered in other ways? Amis is honest in his criticism, and he certainly doesn't look down on Bond- like the author himself, he views Fleming's novels as romantic fantasies first and foremost, but unlike the author he also highlights their literary qualities (the 'Fleming Sweep', the sense of detail, the poetry of Fleming's underwater sequences). His appreciation of Fleming's ability to suspend our disbelief is unquestioned, and Amis's analysis of the literary Bond as the 'everyman-as-superhero'is in my opinion still valid. If you think Amis's view of Bond is leftish, don't bother with Umberto Eco, folks. :tup:

#6 wattenscheid09

wattenscheid09

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 130 posts
  • Location:Deep Woods of Austria

Posted 23 November 2005 - 01:03 PM

That you, Kingsley? You somehow still alive?

OK, seriously. I do see the literary value of Amis' dossier. It's brilliant, no question. Still, I had a slightly empty feeling when I closed the book.

After Snelling I wanted to grab the next Fleming novel. After Amis I wanted an aspirin.

Edited by wattenscheid09, 23 November 2005 - 01:08 PM.


#7 Streetworker

Streetworker

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 460 posts
  • Location:Good old Manchester

Posted 23 November 2005 - 01:37 PM

But then if you scratch a liberal, you always find a fascist bleeding.

View Post


That's a lovely line, Streetworker. Does it mean anything? :tup:

View Post



It's some old Marxist claptrap, I think. I can't be arsed to source it. But it's something to do with the fact that those who profess to hold liberal views can often reveal themselves as being very right wing (David Blunkett, anyone?)

Maybe a better line would be, "scratch a fan and you'll find a critic bleeding..."? :D

Edited by Streetworker, 23 November 2005 - 01:38 PM.


#8 Bon-san

Bon-san

    Commander RNR

  • Veterans Reserve
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4124 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 23 November 2005 - 02:47 PM

I somehow wonder if, with all these mammooth-hunter genes cooking in our veins, there's anything else than fascists if you scratch *anybody*...:tup:

View Post


I think you'll find some anarchists, as well.

#9 wattenscheid09

wattenscheid09

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 130 posts
  • Location:Deep Woods of Austria

Posted 23 November 2005 - 03:59 PM

Oh yeah. Forgot those. Nothing to keep boredom away like a good anarchist.

#10 Bon-san

Bon-san

    Commander RNR

  • Veterans Reserve
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4124 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 23 November 2005 - 04:00 PM

Oh yeah. Forgot those. Nothing to keep boredom away like a good anarchist.

View Post


Quite right. :tup:

#11 TheSaint

TheSaint

    Commander RNR

  • Veterans Reserve
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3067 posts
  • Location:Bronx,NY

Posted 24 November 2005 - 05:07 AM

I read the Snelling book before I even knew about Amis' book. While I enjoy them both, I think I lean more towards Snelling's version, especially since he mentions Simon Templar in at.

#12 David Schofield

David Schofield

    Commander

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3026 posts

Posted 26 November 2005 - 09:53 AM

And, of course, in his Dossier, Amis remarks what a lousy incarnation of Bond Connery is, whereas Snelling states that he can't read the books now without seeing Connery because he plays the part so convincingly.

#13 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 26 November 2005 - 02:27 PM

And, of course, in his Dossier, Amis remarks what a lousy incarnation of Bond Connery is....

View Post


Does he? Does he explain why he dislikes Connery's Bond? And what are his other notable views on the films?

I own Snelling's book, which is a fun read. If I remember correctly, his chief gripe against the films was that he felt Bernard Lee was miscast.

#14 Lounge Lizard

Lounge Lizard

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 593 posts
  • Location:Amsterdam, Netherlands

Posted 26 November 2005 - 02:40 PM

Amis did think Connery was inadequate, and he related that to the plot of Fleming's OHMSS: Connery could pretend to be a Scottish businessman, but he could never pretend to be a Scottish baron (like Hilary Bray). Another sign of Amis being overly class-conscious, which is perhaps the main fault of his James Bond Dossier. As we all know, Connery never got round to shooting OHMSS; one wonders what Amis thought of the Australian 'peasant' Lazenby as Bond / Bray.

The author also said he liked the movies and their in-jokes, he just liked the Fleming novels better, because they were subtler and more complex- they were fantasies played straight, whereas the films were played for laughs. Kingsley Amis, the first of the Fleming purists?

Edited by Lounge Lizard, 26 November 2005 - 02:40 PM.


#15 Donovan

Donovan

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 974 posts

Posted 26 November 2005 - 02:55 PM

During the height of the Bond craze, there certainly wasn't a shortage of books discussing Bond. Getting into things like class is lost on us Americans (certainly on me...I have no idea what the difference is between Dukes and Lords and all that). Also, accents aren't really too noticeable to us. There are times when Connery will have an r roll a bit on him, almost making it sound like a hard consonant. And author John Brosnan feels that OHMSS is basically ruined by what he perceives as an Australian accent from Lazenby. He even suggests that his entire dialogue should have been dubbed by someone with an English accent, which would have "made a big difference."

This brings me to the upper class status of Fleming himself, which was passed onto Bond in terms of being a connoisseur who enjoys the finer things in life. That was the vital part of Bond that Connery, Moore and Brosnan nailed.

#16 Napoleon Solo

Napoleon Solo

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1376 posts

Posted 26 November 2005 - 09:25 PM

It's been 30 years or so since I read the Snelling book. But the main thing I remember is him saying Bernard Lee was too young to play M. Lee was born, I believe, in 1908, making him 54 at the time Dr. No came out. As a result, I kind of tuned out many of his conclusions.

#17 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 26 November 2005 - 09:55 PM

Kingsley Amis, the first of the Fleming purists?

View Post


Clearly the Raymond Benson of his day. :tup: