144 replies to this topic

[Joyce Carrington]

I am fascinated - fascinated - by this discussion. And not to divert the attention away from TF and her writing, but Lazenby880, may I ask if you've read Barbara Emanuele's 'Heaven Isn't Too Far Away' or any other female Bond fanfiction writer's work? It's just that I am wondering whether the issues that TF emphasizes are simply issues that female Bond fans/writers are interested in exploring. Have you noted that 'feminine' approach in any other work?

[TortillaFactory]

Excellent question, Joyce, and one that I intended to ask myself but sorta forgot about. IMHO Barbara's writing is much more classically "feminine" than mine, but Laz880 may think differently.

[TortillaFactory]

Well, I was feeling a bit down about the whole girly thing, so I had a visit from the man himself to cheer me up.

A Birthday Visit
Theme: I will show you fear in a handful of dust
Rating: PG
Blurb: "Oh, Christ," said James Bond, without a hint of reverence. "Not again."

[Lazenby880]

I am fascinated - fascinated - by this discussion. And not to divert the attention away from TF and her writing, but Lazenby880, may I ask if you've read Barbara Emanuele's 'Heaven Isn't Too Far Away' or any other female Bond fanfiction writer's work? It's just that I am wondering whether the issues that TF emphasizes are simply issues that female Bond fans/writers are interested in exploring. Have you noted that 'feminine' approach in any other work?

Interesting question Joyce, and one that could get me in some trouble. As I previously noted, I do not think it is necessary to be a woman to write with a feminine approach, although obviously it is more likely. I have read some work by very talented ladies about blood and guts and guns and 'boy's things' like that, and vice versa, so it is not strictly a gender issue per se.

That said... I have indeed read some of HEAVEN ISN'T FAR AWAY. I am afraid I did not read all of it as it is simply not my sort of thing, though I of course commend Miss Emanuele for having completed such a lengthy piece of work. I am entirely in agreement with TF on this one, Emanuele's work is far more traditionally feminine than is BLIND MAN'S BLUFF or any of the others. Of course, it is a bit of a red herring really as her primary character is not James Bond but Amanda Hightower, however the central conception of the Bond character is not one that I especially recognise. Although I have tried to seperate things such as prose from approach to character etc., this is similarly reflected in the writing itself:

"'Je sais ce que vous

Edited by Lazenby880, 16 April 2006 - 11:47 PM.

[TortillaFactory]

Laz -

Granted. I'm not perfect, I do get too introspective, and quite a few of my dialogues go on too long (including, I agree, the one you cited.) BUT. How is that really different from Domino rambling on about the man on the cigarette package for three pages in Thunderball?

I figured it was inevitable I'd be compared to Barbara at some point, the main difference being, while her characters profess their love for each other in French, mine end up talking dirty in it. (More on that later...or, you know, not.) Babs is an online friend and a dear woman, but I think I'm trying for something completely different than what she did in HITFA.

Your excerpt is indeed demonstrative of the whole, and quite frankly I can't work out what it's supposed to mean. It sounds nice, but...what? This may be more the fault of the language, in which I believe (I may be wrong) Barbara is not fluent. Bond's reply doesn't especially make sense...and, God help me, nestling?

Re: Superman gaze. Er - is "I'd just been watching Superman III" a valid excuse for this? Okay, it's really from Jess' point of view, and that's how she sees him. It honestly is meant to reveal some of her mental weakness, and I'm not just backtracking. It was supposed to be a bit icky.

Adventure novel? Who the hell told you to expect an adventure novel?! It's not, and it never will be. So...well, that settles that, I suppose. Adventures happen, but that's not what it's about.

(Interesting, semi-related sidenote: in my story research I learned, to my disbelief, that there is no French word for "kinky". I know. I KNOW. I just don't trust the French anymore.)

[Robert Watts]

Nice work on the one's I haven't commented on...

...now I'm gonna sit back and watch this debate continue.

p.s- I'm with Lazenby on this one.

[TortillaFactory]

p.s- I'm with Lazenby on this one.

Well, happy birthday to me.

Let the hogpile continue!

[Lazenby880]

BUT. How is that really different from Domino rambling on about the man on the cigarette package for three pages in Thunderball?

Well, I would say that it *is* different (but you knew I'd say that). Of course these sorts of elements are necessary for understanding characters and the like, but much depends on how it is done, how often it is done, and what it tells us about the character. Regardless, I never get the feeling of 'soapiness' in Fleming (I realise that it is most unfair of me to compare you and Fleming but hey, you brought it up).

I figured it was inevitable I'd be compared to Barbara at some point, the main difference being, while her characters profess their love for each other in French, mine end up talking dirty in it. (More on that later...or, you know, not.) Babs is an online friend and a dear woman, but I think I'm trying for something completely different than what she did in HITFA.

Your excerpt is indeed demonstrative of the whole, and quite frankly I can't work out what it's supposed to mean. It sounds nice, but...what? This may be more the fault of the language, in which I believe (I may be wrong) Barbara is not fluent. Bond's reply doesn't especially make sense...and, God help me, nestling?

It was not inevitable from me as from my reading there is a wide, gaping gulf of a difference between the works of yourself and Miss Emanuele. You are right; HEAVEN ISN'T TOO FAR AWAY does seem to be more about flowers and love and frilly things, or at least the general *approach* is of a distinctly feminine ilk. Not necessarily a bad thing, but is it Bond?

[TortillaFactory]

Please do keep up with the writing and do not let me put you off (I am, of course, probably vastly overestimating the effect my opinion has on your motivation).

This would be impossible. My skin is about as thick as French silk. I've been in a deep blue funk all day, contemplating what you've said - mostly because it's true.

Of course I'm inclined to blame soap operas for the soap-opera-y feel, rather than my own tendency to write like them. I abhor all types of melodrama and clich

[Lazenby880]

[quote name='TortillaFactory' post='544376' date='17 April 2006 - 01:37']
This would be impossible. My skin is about as thick as French silk. I've been in a deep blue funk all day, contemplating what you've said - mostly because it's true.

Of course I'm inclined to blame soap operas for the soap-opera-y feel, rather than my own tendency to write like them. I abhor all types of melodrama and clich

[TortillaFactory]

it is a love story, but is it Bond?

It's meant to be. I suppose the reader has to decide that for himself.

I like to think I've paid a great deal more attention to the character of Bond as he was supposed to be than many other writers, female and otherwise. Whether or not I have faithfully represented him is a totally different story. I honestly don't think I've ever made him do, say, or think anything that's completely offbeat or out of touch with the character. He can be quite sweet and patient sometimes - whether or not you think that's his "true nature" (I do), you can't deny that it's there.

(Just out of curiosity, what DO you think is his true nature? And why is he ever nice - only when he sees the potential to get laid, or what?)

To clarify my position, the fact that he's sweet inside doesn't mean the hard shell will ever go away. It's a part of him too, and he'll continue to be pretty much the guy he always was. I have absolutely no desire to draw out his eye-teeth; he wouldn't be any fun.

[Joyce Carrington]

Wow - a lot to catch up with. I can't possibly reply to it all. So, just a few short things:

1. TF, bravo on the birthday piece. Very very witty.
2. There's a fine line between 'soap opera' and 'drama', isn't there? The 'soapy' BMB dialogue quoted by Laz880 did seem very drama-ish to me, not soap. And I love drama. But, Laz880, if you're not so fond of it... DON'T read Joyce's upcoming sequel. It's a whole bloody soap opera in that respect.
3. I agree that HITFA was more 'feminine' than BMB (but I do believe it's hard to say Amanda is the central figure. Bond has a role just as big, if not bigger.)

With regards to your own work, again as Joyce Carrington is the central character it is difficult to conclude definitively. Moreover, it seems to me that the Bond of OFF BALANCE is not the Bond of Fleming. He wears Brioni for a start.

4. Oh, he most definitely is not Fleming's Bond. Call him the 'Messed-Up-Brosnan-Bond'. But as you say, he's not the central character.

[TortillaFactory]

Ta, Fenz, on my side as always.

I agree that there's a fine line between drama and soapy, and I don't think I've quite crossed it. The "masculine" point of view may be slightly different on that issue.

I agree that HITFA was more 'feminine' than BMB (but I do believe it's hard to say Amanda is the central figure. Bond has a role just as big, if not bigger.)

Ah. Ah ha HA. And here we hit on an interesting issue - Bond's in it an awful lot, but the focus is always on Amanda. She is ever in the spotlight...and I think you'll notice that Jess, while she's around all the time, mostly has her attention focused on Bond (about whom the story actually is - I didn't originally set out to create a heroine, but rather an

[Robert Watts]

Finally managed to catch up with everything in this thread. Unfortunately for you Tortilla Factory, I incredibly hate those kind of stories (re: the 'handful of dust' one) and this is no exception, that kind of interaction ruined Fenna's 'A Visit To Sir James' and here it ruined the potential of a great daily theme. (Why didn't you take the cliche option of villainous torture or something?) anyway, my overstated critique is over.

As for Bond being soapy, he is not. A soapy Bond would cry (or take a note from Brosnan's over acting and sniff her eyebrows) when Vesper killed herself, not call her a bitch and ice up. If you want a soapy Bond, go watch a post GE Bond film. (Why did Bond lean over Elektra's corpse! He just shot the bitch in cold blood- that is the script writers way of showing that he is OVER her and that he HATES her now rather then LOVING her!)

-rather unsupported rant over .

[Joyce Carrington]

Er, which is my exceeeeeedingly long-winded way of saying, just because the male plays a huge part in the story doesn't mean it isn't really all about the girl. And BMB is, I think, the opposite in many ways.

True, the focus was much more on the woman in HITFA. And I do like the 'reluctant' approach in BMB. ("Unfortunately, I seem to have fallen in love with you.") Perhaps BMB is more 'equal' than HITFA? I agree Jessie's focus is on Bond, but through Bond her focus is also on herself. I feel Bond and Jessie's roles really are equally big at this point (at this point, I can't see how the whole novel is going to turn out).

[TortillaFactory]

Finally managed to catch up with everything in this thread. Unfortunately for you Tortilla Factory, I incredibly hate those kind of stories (re: the 'handful of dust' one) and this is no exception, that kind of interaction ruined Fenna's 'A Visit To Sir James' and here it ruined the potential of a great daily theme. (Why didn't you take the cliche option of villainous torture or something?) anyway, my overstated critique is over.

I really can't tell if you're being elaborately fascetious, or what. A silly little romp like that doesn't seem to warrant this kind of vehemence, but...so be it, I suppose.

It's not really that "unfortunate;" you've offered no valid criticism except that you hate that kind of story, which is fine - if you hate that kind of story, then it's not meant for you. I wrote it to claw myself out of a deep depression and to reconnect with a character that I felt I'd lost somewhere along the way. I find it entertaining. You don't have to.

As for Bond being soapy, he is not. (snip)

I don't think there was any argument of Fleming's Bond being soapy - did I miss something? Laz880 was saying my Bond was, I was saying he wasn't, and that I never overstepped the boundaries that Fleming set. I am not sure what point you're trying to make here.

(Why did Bond lean over Elektra's corpse! He just shot the bitch in cold blood- that is the script writers way of showing that he is OVER her and that he HATES her now rather then LOVING her!)

Is it just me, or is there a HUGE anti-Brosnan, anti-modern-film faction at CBn suddenly? Back when I was the humble Fawn, back when BMB was NYTC, I don't seem to recall this sort of knee-jerk criticism of everything modern as it relates to Bond. No offense, Robert, but it really sounds like you're just parroting back the easy criticisms here. Everybody seems to either think Brosnan's too stiff, or he overacts - it can't be both - and endlessly rails on the modern screenwriters' bent towards more emotionally meaningful interaction (which was always present in Fleming anyway, if clumsily rendered by the filmmakers' hands). Why? I'll admit my enjoyment of the films has lessened as my appreciation for the books has grown, but that's hardly an excuse for beating Brosnan and the screenwriters about the head and shoulders with a cudgel.

You also draw a very strong distinction between love and hate, which is one of my pet peeves. Love and hate are both very strong, irrational emotions which are often related. Why the hell would Bond hate Vesper if he didn't still care for her?

[By the way, you want soapy, go watch some of the dialogue exchanges in Batman Begins. But note something Liam Neeson's character says: "Impossible anger, strangling the grief until the memory of your loved one is just poison in your veins. And one day you find yourself wishing the person you loved had never existed, so you'd be spared your pain." Forgiving the melodrama, I think he expresses pretty well what I'm talking about.]

To say that Bond's anger is his way of expressing his new feeling for Vesper is meaningless; feelings do not change that quickly, if at all. Yes, he is trying to force himself to get over her instantly. (Does that ever work?) IMHO that's an even more poignant indiciation of how much he did care for her, and still does, even as he barks into the phone. Why do you suppose she popped right into his head again as he was on death's door in GF? Because he hated her guts and never wanted to see her again?

"Cold blood"? There was nothing cold about the way he shot Elektra. He gunned her down in anger and defiance. People toss around phrases like "in cold blood" when they're talking about Bond, but no one seems to stop and think about what it means. It means premeditation, cool reflection, shooting down the target, and walking away. It does not mean emptying your chamber into the still-twitching corpse, as Connery's Bond famously did, or impulsively shooting a newly revealed traitor. I'm sorry, but Bond does not kill in cold blood - read TSWLM, he says so himself.

True, the focus was much more on the woman in HITFA. And I do like the 'reluctant' approach in BMB. ("Unfortunately, I seem to have fallen in love with you.") Perhaps BMB is more 'equal' than HITFA? I agree Jessie's focus is on Bond, but through Bond her focus is also on herself. I feel Bond and Jessie's roles really are equally big at this point (at this point, I can't see how the whole novel is going to turn out).

Glad you think they're on equal ground at the moment...I think "bitterly content" might be the best way to describe BMB's ultimate outcome. You'll see.

[Lazenby880]

Good Lord, I am offline for a day and already there is a lot of catching up to do.

I don't think there was any argument of Fleming's Bond being soapy - did I miss something? Laz880 was saying my Bond was, I was saying he wasn't, and that I never overstepped the boundaries that Fleming set. I am not sure what point you're trying to make here.

Well, to be fair to Mr Watts (got to support my one and only ally here), that is not *entirely* true. As you yourself said: "Clearly I have failed - and for that, I unreservedly apologise."

[By the way, you want soapy, go watch some of the dialogue exchanges in Batman Begins. But note something Liam Neeson's character says: "Impossible anger, strangling the grief until the memory of your loved one is just poison in your veins. And one day you find yourself wishing the person you loved had never existed, so you'd be spared your pain." Forgiving the melodrama, I think he expresses pretty well what I'm talking about.]

How *dare* you say that about that incredible example of the potential in modern-day action film-making?! Soapy? Hardly (it is possible to have dialogue scenes without bordering on the whole 'soapiness' cul de sac).

I'm sorry, but Bond does not kill in cold blood - read TSWLM, he says so himself.

On this narrow point we agree. As I am on something of a DR NO kick at the moment (although, for some reason, I must say I did find the ending oddly unsatisfying this time), permit me to demonstrate: "They would certainly be murderers many times over. Perhaps they were the ones who had killed Strangways and the girl. But there was no point in trying to ease his conscience. It was kill or be killed. He must do it efficiently" (Penguin 2002: 285). Hardly a cold killing machine having to convince himself like that. But then (and to counter TF's point about Bond's incessant 'softness'), Fleming also writes: "Bond thought of the girl and what she was going through. Oh well. Get on with it. Now let's see..." (Penguin 2002: 253). So yes, he does have a weakness for women, but that *can* be overstated. Add to that the aforementioned arranging of two decoys to drive the Sunbeam - with the roof down - full in the knowledge that they will probably be killed (see 62-3).

TF, as for the question why Bond is ever nice, I hope you realise the impossibility of answering that. Why is anyone ever nice? He is a *human* who acts and feels differently depending on a variety of circumstances. He can be, and often is, a right bastard. He can be nice, in relation to Quarrel for instance. Our difference is over the extent of these characteristics and how 'soft' a character he is.

As for the Brosnan films, I am neither Brozhater nor Brozfan. Somewhere in the muddy middle, I suppose. However, I can entirely understand the opinions of others, such as Mr Watts', that the modern films are too emotional, and not in the way apparent in the Fleming books. Take the easy example of Bond tracing the tear down Elektra's cheek in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH. Or BrozBond's constant mourning of women; Paris Carver was sort of understandable, maybe even his quick sniff of the dead Elektra, but what about the last sad look at poor Miranda Frost? She's *evil*, you idiot! (Still, I personally love her, always did like the bad ones). This sort of high emotion was not really evident in previous Bonds, especially with regards to the bad apples, and even though I do view the literary and cinematic series as separate enterprises neither is this sort of thing in Fleming. I am not the best person to argue this case (you will find *plenty* of people more qualified than me), but try not to be so harsh on Mr Watts' opinion. And this body of opinion has been around on CBn for a long time; frankly, where have you been?

2. There's a fine line between 'soap opera' and 'drama', isn't there? The 'soapy' BMB dialogue quoted by Laz880 did seem very drama-ish to me, not soap. And I love drama. But, Laz880, if you're not so fond of it... DON'T read Joyce's upcoming sequel. It's a whole bloody soap opera in that respect.

On this point Joyce we will just have to agree to disagree. You say the scene is drama, I say soap. And I probably will read the Joyce sequel, if only so that I can post my thoughts and annoy you.

All this talk about femininity and so forth I cannot help but be reminded by Fleming's superb passage in YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE. After Kissy says that she will go swim with Bond to the castle Fleming writes: "Bond took the small dry paw in his. He looked at the childish, broken nails. His voice was harsh. He said, 'No. This is man's work'" (Penguin 2004: 152).

Edited by Lazenby880, 17 April 2006 - 08:37 PM.

[TortillaFactory]

Just another one of those "to-MATE-o, to-MAT-o" incidents I suppose. All in all, I guess I'm glad it's not preventing you from enjoying those parts of my writing that don't cause you to vomit. (Though I admit I'm suspcious, as I usually tell people "but I enjoyed it!" after I lay into them, even if I don't. It's just polite. Your honesty about HITFA allayed some of my fears.)

"Bond took the small dry paw in his. He looked at the childish, broken nails. His voice was harsh. He said, 'No. This is man's work'" (Penguin 2004: 152).

A classic example of Bond being a bastardly gentleman. I love it.

try not to be so harsh on Mr Watts' opinion. And this body of opinion has been around on CBn for a long time; frankly, where have you been?

I mostly think I was harsh because I felt he was needlessly so on my story. A simple "I don't like this sort of thing" would have sufficed, Robert - but a manifesto? Honestly!

Bluntly, I have been out having a life in the real world. I dropped back in sometime last year to find the anti-Brosnan sentiment even more ugly and overgrown than it was when I left. To be fair, last time I was here I didn't run in the literary circles so much.

Quite frankly I am finding a certain amount of rigidity, snobbery, and just plain pomposity amongst the "literary Bond fans" (not you, necessarily, though I think you've occasionally taken on that attitude half-jokingly). It's hard for someone as admittedly offbeat as me to fit in; I either have to abandon the films entirely and write about nothing but Bond as a cold hard bastard, sentimentality be damned, or I have to claim Fleming bores me and write long flowery passages of some Bond-like creature, played by Pierce Brosnan of course, cuddling with an ambigiously beautiful woman who's young enough to be his daughter.

Is there no place for me in this cold, dark wasteland?

[Robert Watts]

That is a tad overblown

I agree there has been a *bit* of snobbery amoung the literary circles recently, but it is my opinion this has been brought on by the swarm of anti-Craig patrols. On MI6, and most probably here (don't post too much here) the general literary savy fans are behind Craig, and when the likes of bond_fan were around (and now some more intelligent ones have shown up on MI6) they literally spent several posts tearing these kinds of posts apart (rather well) and keeping an eye out for contradiction. (on MI6 bond_fan started a thread 'Daniel Craig is to unknown for CR' after starting one a fortnight before that was titled 'EON should've gone for a Lazenby unknown for CR')

So while it might come off as snobbery, in my opinion it is them trying to defend a film, a casting choice etc that may bring something closer to Fleming onto the screen.

Personally I don't mind Brosnan's Bond, but I use to love his films when I was younger. Currently the only two that stand up as decent Bond films are GE and TND (it was better paced in the transition to rambo machine gunning then DAD), TWINE has it's very good moments, but its pacing is all over the place, mainly due to the pointless action scenes (and I terribly dislike Richards' flat performance, or Richards in general) Don't get me wrong, I don't mind the unfaithful Bonds. My favourite Bond is Moore, simply because the films are fun and enjoyable. But unlike the Brosnan films, they actually want to be going in this direction, they know they aren't serious Fleming films. The main problem that I have with the Brosnan films is they don't know what direction they're going in, they don't have an identity. They claim to be serious, but they can't keep that up and end up being another machine gunning action film. I know this is not Brosnan's fault, but he didn't exactly do us any favours (he wanted DAD to have some rather graphic sex scenes for example- It's like he wanted to be a producer)

[TortillaFactory]

Fine theory, but I can't believe that the literary snobbishness is solely due to Craig-bashers. As Laz stated, it's been around much longer than that.

Confessions of an Elitist Snob
Theme: Dollar diplomacy
Rating: G
Blurb: This whole "everyman" thing is getting out of hand. I blame the Americans.

[Robert Watts]

After that little chat that title made me smirk... I'll give you that

[TortillaFactory]

Fine, fine, but did you like the story...it's all about the art, come on.

[Robert Watts]

I enjoyed it, some nice thoughts there.

[Lazenby880]

Quite frankly I am finding a certain amount of rigidity, snobbery, and just plain pomposity amongst the "literary Bond fans" (not you, necessarily, though I think you've occasionally taken on that attitude half-jokingly). It's hard for someone as admittedly offbeat as me to fit in; I either have to abandon the films entirely and write about nothing but Bond as a cold hard bastard, sentimentality be damned, or I have to claim Fleming bores me and write long flowery passages of some Bond-like creature, played by Pierce Brosnan of course, cuddling with an ambigiously beautiful woman who's young enough to be his daughter.

Is there no place for me in this cold, dark wasteland?

A bit of a spurious point that TF. I thought the whole point of this nice discussion (on my part, anyway) was to show that it is not one extreme or the other, I have gone to rather great lengths to emphasise that he is not always a 'cold hard bastard, sentimentality be damned'. There is no such choice as the one you propose above. You do not *have* to do anything, and since when has anyone had to fit in?

Am I rigid, snobbish and plain pompous? Possibly. That I will leave for others to decide. But I can assure you that I judge any Bond enterprise on its respective merits, I see good *and* bad in most things. I do not operate in a sheepish manner, simply following the prevailing opinion about the Brosnan films or the Benson books or anything else. This notion of a film being 'unfaithful' is a bit difficult anyway. Unfaithful to what? I would venture to suggest that *none* of the actors have been the man in the Fleming books, and 100 per cent faithful adaptations of many of the novels were plainly impossible for a motion picture.† Unfaithful to the *spirit* of Fleming? Well, okay, but surely the spirit of YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE is pretty different to the spirit of CASINO ROYALE?

In relation to your latest post, I frankly cannot see Bond thinking in that way at all. They may reflect my attitudes, but I do not think they are OO7's. I do therefore struggle with the very basis of the short as I simply doubt whether Bond really would think about socio-politics, especially in the manner you have written.

† On the other hand, I do think there could be a fascinating period adaptation of MOONRAKER, possibly on television. Most unlikely I know, but I'd watch.

Edited by Lazenby880, 18 April 2006 - 08:41 PM.

[TortillaFactory]

Perhaps it's an unfair attitude of mine, but I feel there are certain cozy groups in CBn, of which I can never be a part. This is my own insecurity, and has little to do with you.

I would never call you a snob. But I do get the feeling you want me to conform to a literary standard that isn't me, never has been, and never will be. You're only offering your opinion, I realise, but isn't the point of feedback to tell an author what he or she ought to change? "I like it, but..." There are bits of what you say that I agree with, but large parts of it that strike me as a difference of style and opinion that we'll never resolve.

I shouldn't have ever brought up the Fleming comparison; I honestly don't compare myself to Fleming, but rather to other writers that I admire. I don't aspire to write thrillers, so if it's not always terribly thrilling, that's why.

I honestly don't pretend to know how Bond feels about anything political - it was just an experiment, and you're free to disagree.

[Lazenby880]

Perhaps it's an unfair attitude of mine, but I feel there are certain cozy groups in CBn, of which I can never be a part. This is my own insecurity, and has little to do with you.

Are there any cosy groups on CBn? It had not occurred to me, guess I have not really thought about, I suppose.

I would never call you a snob. But I do get the feeling you want me to conform to a literary standard that isn't me, never has been, and never will be. You're only offering your opinion, I realise, but isn't the point of feedback to tell an author what he or she ought to change? "I like it, but..." There are bits of what you say that I agree with, but large parts of it that strike me as a difference of style and opinion that we'll never resolve.

I shouldn't have ever brought up the Fleming comparison; I honestly don't compare myself to Fleming, but rather to other writers that I admire. I don't aspire to write thrillers, so if it's not always terribly thrilling, that's why.

Is that the sole point of feedback? Is part of it not simply offering one's own thoughts? The problem, of course, in soliciting feedback is that such thoughts may not be conducive to the writer. Interesting point regarding the writing of thrillers. Whatever style a Bond novel is written, surely at their very base they are thrillers, and not anything else. Pulp novels about a secret agent specifically designed to thrill. I have trouble with any work aspiring to be associated with James Bond that does not have this as its raison d'

[TortillaFactory]

[quote]Are there any cosy groups on CBn? It had not occurred to me, guess I have not really thought about, I suppose.[/quote]

Could just be my exceedingly paranoid point of view.

[quote]Is that the sole point of feedback? Is part of it not simply offering one's own thoughts? The problem, of course, in soliciting feedback is that such thoughts may not be conducive to the writer. Interesting point regarding the writing of thrillers. Whatever style a Bond novel is written, surely at their very base they are thrillers, and not anything else. Pulp novels about a secret agent specifically designed to thrill. I have trouble with any work aspiring to be associated with James Bond that does not have this as its raison d'

[Lazenby880]

Could just be my exceedingly paranoid point of view.

You *could* be right. I tend not to think in terms of 'groups' and so on, as far as I can see CBn is just a place where an assortment of persons with nothing better to do congregate to discuss the various aspects of James Bond. We all have different opinions, although some may of course be similar in respect to certain books, characters, films or whatever.

Perhaps I am naive, but I am inclined to think you are paranoid.

The odd thing about me is I tend to find a great deal of feedback disconcerting rather than helpful.

Perhaps requesting it was a strategic misjudgement, then.

And here we come to the crux of the problem. BMB is not a James Bond story, but a story involving James Bond. (Perhaps the most dramatic example of this genre is my work-in-very-slow-progress Mostly Harmful, which is Bond in the middle of a Douglas Adams universe.) You are free to believe that Bond outside of his prescribed world must not really be Bond, but I continue to protest otherwise.

Interesting theory there. I understand what you are saying in picking up Jim's distinction between James Bond stories and stories involving James Bond. This may surprise you, but like you I prefer the inventiveness and originality of examples of the latter. Unlike you, I still feel that they should be *thrillers* of some description, as that is what James Bond novels are. Write them differently, do different things to the character, structure them alternatively, introduce whatever changes you like; they should be vaguely of the thriller genre.

And that is my problem with the very foundation of works such as HEAVEN ISN'T FAR AWAY et al. However well they might be written, James Bond, like Sam Durrell, Bulldog Drummond, Nick Carter or whomever else, is a character of the thriller.

Edited by Lazenby880, 19 April 2006 - 01:11 AM.

[Robert Watts]

Leave them be Laz, they're women- let them fantasise.

(Albeit it is like convincing themselves that they can turn a convict into a priest)

Edited by Robert Watts, 19 April 2006 - 01:24 AM.

[TortillaFactory]

Leave them be Laz, they're women- let them fantasise.

(Albeit it is like convincing themselves that they can turn a convict into a priest)

Planning on elaborating on your pithy sayings, Robert? Or am I to assume you only read things written by men?