Amis vs. Snelling
#1
Posted 23 November 2005 - 10:53 AM
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
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?
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.
#4
Posted 23 November 2005 - 12:50 PM
#5
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.".
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.
#6
Posted 23 November 2005 - 01:03 PM
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
Posted 23 November 2005 - 01:37 PM
But then if you scratch a liberal, you always find a fascist bleeding.
That's a lovely line, Streetworker. Does it mean anything?
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..."?
Edited by Streetworker, 23 November 2005 - 01:38 PM.
#9
Posted 23 November 2005 - 03:59 PM
#11
Posted 24 November 2005 - 05:07 AM
#12
Posted 26 November 2005 - 09:53 AM
#13
Posted 26 November 2005 - 02:27 PM
And, of course, in his Dossier, Amis remarks what a lousy incarnation of Bond Connery is....
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
Posted 26 November 2005 - 02:40 PM
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
Posted 26 November 2005 - 02:55 PM
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
Posted 26 November 2005 - 09:25 PM