80 replies to this topic

[Revelator]

Thanks to Daniel Craig (and his underrated predecessor Timothy Dalton) we've heard a lot of the phrase "Fleming's Bond," as in "Craig comes closest to Fleming's Bond, the ruthless government assassin" and so forth. This phrase has always rang false to me, perhaps because Fleming's version of the character was never a fixed concept. There are a few Bonds we could call "Fleming's Bond." Here's my own loose breakdown of the Ages of Bond--please feel free to post your versions:

01. Blunt Instrument Bond (1953-1956)
Fleming's original conception of Bond, the relatively characterless government assassin: the man who must always be a silhouette.

In Casino Royale Bond could almost be a figure out of the hardboiled noir genre, either the American tradition of Chandler and Hammett or the continental corpus exemplified by Peter Cheyney and Georges Simenon. He is a hard, tough man who kills because it's his job. In Casino Royale he almost threatens to turn into a human being, thanks to LeChiffre and Vesper, but the perfidy of Smersh convinces him to remain a "wonderful machine."

The wonderful machine is the figure who stars in Live and Let Die, Moonraker, and Diamonds Are Forever, all carefully-controlled, often procedural and mostly down-to-earth books. He is the consummate professional and as a character is intentionally kept flat. This is the humorless Bond that people often compare his film incarnation to. But when he falls in love with Tiffany Case (perhaps Fleming's best female character), he threatens to become human again. This leads to...

02. Almost Human Bond (1957-1961)
After the slack of DAF, Fleming decided to better his previous books with From Russia With Love. The book demanded a more rounded Bond, and Fleming was forced to delve deeper into his hero. We're told exactly what Bond looks like and given bits of his past history. In MR Fleming had given us the details of Bond's "everyday" life in London. Now we're given a fuller profile--Bond reminisces about his youth, worries that he's "pimping for England," experiences fear when his airplane's caught in a storm, etc. Because FRWL revolves entirely around a deathtrap for one man, it's important that this man be someone the reader can empathize with; he must be a recognizable human being. This Bond even has a distaste for cold-blooded killing greater than that of Instrument Bond.

FRWL exhausted Fleming with its realism and relatively tight plotting. He'd literally left the character for dead. Both Bond and Fleming recuperated with a ripping adventure story. With Doctor No Fleming hurled Bond into an overripe modernist homage to Fu Manchu. Having established a less brutal and more human, relaxed and approachable Bond to ground his narratives, Fleming could now pit him against giant squid, a "dragon" and a villain cut directly from the cloth of pulp fiction.

With Goldfinger Fleming, comfortable with his routine, plunged into full-blown self-parody. The book was a self-pastiche (much as the movie versions of YOLT and TSWLM are pastiches of the movies that preceded them) that ventured into the most fantastic realms of any Bond yet, thanks to the Fort Knox plot and characters such as Oddjob and Pussy Galore. Against all this outrageousness and implausibility, it was important for Bond to be a grounded character with a sense of the absurd. GF marks the point where Bond truly develops a sense of sardonic humor, all the better to help him cope with the fantastic adventures and people he encounters. The book is also notable because Fleming uses more free indirect speech than ever before, which puts us inside Bond's head. We get an intimate look at Bond's increasing unease with killing (the Bond of CR would have dismissed such feelings as vin triste) and are treated to his mental quotations of St.Augustine and so forth.

Fleming had arrived at an irony: his books had become more self-parodic while his hero's character has gained in depth. The stories collected in For Your Eyes Only, due to their often experimental nature, delve further into Bond's humanity. In FYEO he feels guilt about being M's hitman; in The Hildebrand Rarity Bond's love for nature is further explored; in Quantum of Solace Bond repudiates his job in empathy with the everyday "comedie humaine" of human relations.

03. Suffering Bond (1961-1964)
By the time of FYEO Bond was no longer a wonderful machine. He was not quite a fully-dimensional, complex human being--Bond wouldn't have worked as one, being a male-fantasy projection and figure for reader identification--but he was more human than ever before. Why? Because Ian Fleming failed.
Let's allow Fleming to explain:

Now, you’ll notice that the James Bond of the first book was a straightforward man who didn’t really possess a total personality. In fact, in the first several books you’ll find absolutely no discussion of his character, few of his mannerisms, no character study in depth...I kept him quite blank, in a way, at first, giving him no quirks, no particular morality or immorality, not even a definite detailed personal appearance. As the series has gone on, however, James Bond has become encrusted with mannerisms and belongings and individual characteristics. This is probably a natural outgrowth of getting to know him better. I don’t know if this is good or bad, and I don’t know where all the elements that compose Bond come from, but there they are...As to quirks and tastes, likes and dislikes, bits of me probably creep in. But not important bits.

Fleming was being slightly disingenuous--important bits did creep in. In the first place, Fleming began sharing his health problems with his creation, as demonstrated in Thunderball, where Bond's body has begun showing serious strain for the first time. The book begins in a sanitarium and ends in a hospital. This is the beginning of Suffering Bond, a man battered by life and clearly showing it. It is also the beginning what we could call Loving Bond--from here on Bond's relations with women deepen and grow more meaningful. He falls in love with Domino, Tracy and Kissy, all of whom register as vivid characters (the first and last rival Tiffany, and Kissy may be the strongest Bond girl of them all). These are not light-hearted affairs, and in many respects they are dream fulfillments likely inspired by Fleming's now increasingly unhappy marriage.

After the strain (on author and character) of TB, Fleming made a dramatic right turn with The Spy Who Loved Me. Bond shows up as a knight in shining armor, but a humanly fallible one: he's almost squeamish about killing Sluggsy and Horror in cold blood and at times looks borderline incompetent. Having begun exploring his health problems in his books, Fleming now began inserting bits of disguised autobiography: Vivienne Michel's loss of virginity was based on Fleming's own first time (as noted by Andrew Lycett in his biography)--it isn't a stretch to see the callow, upper-class Derek as a veiled self-portrait of Fleming as a young man, penned by an older man now looking back ruefully on his treatment of women. After all, that is what The Spy Who Loved Me is really about: the mistreatment of women. A bright, intelligent young girl is disgracefully treated by a host of men from all sorts of backgrounds and nationalities, and the only decent man in the book is a completely unattainable one. This makes TSWLM even more devastating as a lament for the plight of women. One wonders why feminist critics have not given this rich and curious novel further attention.

Most of the critical attention it did get was uncomprehending, and the failure of TSWLM must have badly hurt Fleming. He retreated to a more conventional format but even then experimented: in On Her Majesty's Secret Service Bond falls in love and marries. This is the fullest portrait of Loving Bond, Bond as Caregiver, the man attracted to birds with a wing down who he feels the need to protect. (By now he's older and tired of messy affairs.) As in CR, he feels the call to put aside his career and settle down to marriage. But whereas SMERSH gave Bond a concept to fight against that helped him recover from Vesper's death, his guilt over not being able to protect Tracy almost destroys him.

In You Only Live Twice we find the apotheosis of Suffering Bond. In the beginning of the book he's been reduced to an helpless wreck. (When he wonders about where dead insects go he's touchingly human.) If misery demands company, Fleming demanded that Bond share it with him. That's not all that gets shared: in YOLT he demonstrates a greater sense of humor than ever before. Some have seen this as the influence of the movies, but that seems unlikely: the sardonic wisecracks of YOLT are different from the punning one-liners of the films. It's more likely that Fleming, after having given Bond his health problems and gloom, also gave Bond his sense of humor--it's of the sort Fleming repeatedly demonstrated in his letters. After a decade of living with Bond, Fleming had begun merging him with his own character (and other characters too--Dexter Smythe in Octopussy is another veiled self-portrait, one of Fleming gone to seed).

The ultimate end to Suffering Bond would have been death, but it was Bond who killed Fleming, not the other way around. Instead YOLT chronicles Bond's spiritual and near physical death and rebirth. He loses his memories and even his sex drive(!) and attains a short-lived happiness as a Japanese fisherman. It's rather a pity that he couldn't have stayed that way. James Bond had come to the end of his natural life and died, and out of his corpse emerged Taro--for a while anyway. Eventually the dying Fleming dragged himself to his typewriter and tried to feed the beast one more time.

The Man With the Golden Gun was nothing less than a reboot of the entire series. Introduced as a zombie, Bond regains life as a near-blank slate. Once a wonderful machine, and then a human being, Bond is now a broken-down machine trying to start up again. Practically the only human quality he exhibits is his complete inability to kill in cold blood--his final scene with Scaramanga is rather piquant. Had Fleming been in better health he might have gone further with the idea of Bond having totally lost his killer instinct, the quality that made him a Double O. (The Bond of Casino Royale would have been disgusted with how bad he'd become at his job.) Alas, Fleming had run out of zest and time. TMWTGG ends with the promise of the bland Bond, a man without a past or personality, poised for further inconsequential adventures with more cardboard women. And so Fleming ceded his character to the movies. It was the end of an age, and James Bond would not have a fourth.

Edited by Revelator, 18 November 2008 - 12:47 AM.

[Single-O-Seven]

What a wonderfully written and insightful little article. Well done! It certainly provides some unique breakdowns of Bond's character, and the fact that Fleming did this - unknowingly, perhaps - in such well-ordered blocks is definitely, as you've suggested, a hint at the shifting phases of Fleming's own life. Great read - thanks for sharing!

[Cruiserweight]

Great read!

[00Twelve]

Indeed, good read. When I compare the actors to "Fleming's Bond," certain actors seem particularly suited to one of these phases (and I always broke them up in my mind at the same points! Weird.) rather than all of them. Indeed, that wouldn't make sense. Time changes people.

Craig's Bond reminds me of Fleming's early Bond, but has plenty of potential to become the mid-canon Bond as well. Dalton, on the other hand, reminds me of the later Bond, perhaps circa FYEO or even later. He embodied the "world-weary" aspect of the character very well.

Thanks again for the "revelation."

[Double-Oh Agent]

Good job. Very interesting article. You make some fascinating points Revelator.

[Cruiserweight]

Where would you place the bond seen in OP & TLD?

[jaguar007]

Great read and I agree 110% As with 00twelve, I have always felt Dalton was the Bond of the later books.

[avl]

I enjoyed reading that immensely and will certainly have it in mind when I next re-read the books.

Until now I've always seen the Dr No Connery in the early books, and I can see Dalton in the later ones.

I wonder if Craig will approximate this character arc? One of the key differences we now have is that Bond is changing as a character during the course of each film - and I fully expect this to continue. If Craig were to do 5 or 6 films, we could perhaps see his transition towards a world-weary, nearly burnt-out case.

[spynovelfan]

This is a brilliant, astute, thought-provoking article and should be put on the front page of this site at the earliest possible opportunity.

[Ravenstone]

A very enjoyable read. Thank you for the obvious time and careful thought that has gone into it.

[Revelator]

Where would you place the bond seen in OP & TLD?

I forget the exact dates of those stories, but the Bond of both would probably be a transition figure between Almost Human and Suffering Bond. OP is less concerned with Bond than with Dexter Smythe, who I view as a sort of autobiographical figure for Fleming. TLD on the other hand further explores Bond's revulsion with cold-blooded killing, which reaches its apex in TMWTGG. I find it somewhat poignant how Bond becomes increasingly incompetent at his job. It says something about the decreasing resolve of his creator: despite his enjoyment of sadomasochistic bedroom games, Fleming was not a sadist.

Several members have said that Dalton best embodies the Bond of the later books. I think this is mostly true, aside from literary Bond's increased sense of humor and sardonic temperament, which Connery probably captured best. However, the older Bond he played in NSNA seemed better adjusted than his earlier one. But as he showed in the excellent Robin and Marian, Connery can play a hero in his twilight years quite movingly.

This is a brilliant, astute, thought-provoking article and should be put on the front page of this site at the earliest possible opportunity.

This compliment especially means a lot to me because so much of the brilliant, astute, and thought-provoking writing on this board has come from your hand. Thanks very much.

[David Schofield]

A brilliant, thought provoking analysis!

[plankattack]

What a wonderfully written and insightful little article. Well done! It certainly provides some unique breakdowns of Bond's character, and the fact that Fleming did this - unknowingly, perhaps - in such well-ordered blocks is definitely, as you've suggested, a hint at the shifting phases of Fleming's own life. Great read - thanks for sharing!

What a terrific article - required reading for all I would hope.

I would like to follow up on Single Oh's comment and ask the more knowledegable to throw in their ten cents - was it Fleming's intent or was it unknowing, in terms of how he choreographed his character's development/changes?

[Revelator]

That's why six (official EON) actors have so far been able to bring their own unique interpretations to the character, and each in their own way has been valid and had great merit.

True. By that same token, none have fully captured every aspect of the literary character, partly because none enjoyed a multi-film character arc. Whenever folks acclaim one actor or another for capturing "Fleming's Bond" we're reminded that Fleming's version of the character was not fixed.

The Bond of TMWTGG is, as Amis said, almost a "return to an even keel," like the Bond of MR again.

But a considerably less interesting character than the Bond of MR I think. He's rather opaque and lacks the earlier Bond's edge, without anything to compensate for it. His near inability to kill in cold blood is a fascinating attribute, but Fleming didn't explore this sufficiently. I sometimes wish Fleming had left only the first few chapters of TMWTGG (as Chandler did with Poodle Springs), ending with Bond being dragged out of M's office after the assassination attempt. We could have spent years wondering what Fleming would have done after such a splendid beginning, instead of being disappointed by what followed.

I would like to follow up on Single Oh's comment and ask the more knowledegable to throw in their ten cents - was it Fleming's intent or was it unknowing, in terms of how he choreographed his character's development/changes?

I don't think it was planned--the choreography was done on the fly, sometimes unconsciously. Fleming wrote on the seat of his pants, and that gives his books their drive and oneiric quality--too much self-awareness and planning would have killed them. As John Pearson noted, Bond is Fleming dreaming about himself in the third person, and in the beginning Bond really was a dream figure--an impersonal avatar--but after living with the character for so many years Fleming couldn't help merging parts of his real self with him, and Bond became more earth-bound and tied to Fleming's life.
There's also a more prosaic explanation--Fleming was easily bored and enjoyed shaking things up for his character. He was sometimes opportunistic about this--the idea for marrying Bond to a Countness seems to have come from fan-letter by a longtime reader.

Incidentally, I would like to thank everyone for their very kind words about 'The Three Ages of Bond". I had no idea when I posted this off-the-cuff post that it would receive such an enthusiastic response. What makes the experience even more delightful is the insightful nature of the responses.

Edited by Revelator, 22 November 2008 - 08:49 AM.

[Leon]

Here's one more, fantastic little read. I fully agree with what you say, though I always felt there were little character traits to pick up on from the very first book (Casino Royale). Perhaps not as much as later on, certainly, but odd little things always drew my attention, such at the fact Bond touches wood in CR when he gets an uneasy feeling about Vesper on first meeting.

He physically touches wood that is, a really odd superstitious side to Bond was born there which he often denies. In From Russia With Love he thinks the idea of the plane he's on crashing because it's a Friday 13th is nonsense, but when the bad turbulance from the storm rocks the plane he starts to remember Loelia's warning to him. The fact that he notices there are thirteen passengers as well show his superstitious nature, yet he denies it.

I love how this occurs within chapter 13 also.

A good little quote from the same chapter:

"Never job backwards. What-might-have-been was a waste of time. Follow your fate and be satisfied with it, and be glad not to be a second-hand motor salesman, or a yellow-press journalist pickled in gin and nicotine, or a cripple - or dead." - From Russia With Love, ch.13

Followed shortly after, when the plane is going wild, by:

"Now he retired to his citadel, closed his mind to the hell of noise and violent movement, and focused on a single stitch in the back of the seat in front of him, waiting with slackened nerves for whatever fate had decided for BEA flight no130." - From Russia With Love, ch.13

[Colossus]

I remember reading here somewhere a similar division where CR-DAF he's the more greenhorn, FRWL-GF is him at the top of his game, TB-TMWTGG is him seasoned and weary.

Edited by Colossus, 23 November 2008 - 09:30 PM.

[Revelator]

I fully agree with what you say, though I always felt there were little character traits to pick up on from the very first book (Casino Royale)....

Very good catch--Bond's self-denied superstition is definitely one of those traits. I suppose someone with a job as highly stressful and unpredictable as Bond's would take some solace in superstition, even if he knows it's not rational. Bond's line "Follow your fate and be satisfied with it" reminds me of Nietzsche's idea of eternal recurrence.

I remember reading here somewhere a similar division where CR-DAF he's the more greenhorn, FRWL-GF is him at the top of his game, TB-TMWTGG is him seasoned and weary.

I haven't yet read that piece, but I would probably disagree with the idea of Bond improving as an agent. It seems to me that as he becomes more human he becomes less competent. The idea that Bond really isn't a very good agent, voiced by many 60s commentators, seems to have been based on reading the later books.

[Mr. Blofeld]

A fantastic piece, Revelator; if I may make a pun, your article is a true revelation!

By the way, I'm curious; since the mid- to late-Fleming books were adapted before the much earlier novels (and those were poorly adapted, at that!), do you think the image of the Almost Human, Wisecracking Bond stuck inadvertently in the public's mind?

[spynovelfan]

I haven't yet read that piece, but I would probably disagree with the idea of Bond improving as an agent. It seems to me that as he becomes more human he becomes less competent. The idea that Bond really isn't a very good agent, voiced by many 60s commentators, seems to have been based on reading the later books.

Yes, although he does make some pretty poor mistakes in the early books, too. In Casino Royale, of course, it's deliberate on Fleming's part, in that he's showing how he's fallen for the girl and then he's missed her betrayal and has to grow up quite a lot and address some of his notions about his job. But in the next book, he makes an error that I don't think is meant to be a character point but is just poor plotting: Solitaire offers to switch sides, and he just blindly trusts her. This is unlikely for several reasons, not the least of which being that she is described in almost identical terms to the woman from the last book who betrayed him! Fleming skips over it very fast, and of course, she doesn't betray him - phew.

I think the most shocking incident regarding Bond's proficency as an agent is the one related in The Living Daylights. He's ordered to kill someone, and he countermands the order because he likes the look of her. That's the human element, of course, but most would say the man has gone soft: a testament to Fleming's skill that we side with him and dislike his colleague, who is in fact absolutely right. In terms of the spy game, Bond has acted completely irresponsibly, and should surely be sacked on the spot!

It's interesting that people continue to say that Fleming depicted the character as a tough, ruthless assassin, despite such evidence to the contrary.

[Trident]

Truly terrific article, Revelator! Tremendously enjoyed it (especially since you seem to share my opinion that TMWTGG's Bond is really only a hollow shell and shadow of his former self; no just kidding ). Most insightful observations.

[Revelator]

By the way, I'm curious; since the mid- to late-Fleming books were adapted before the much earlier novels (and those were poorly adapted, at that!), do you think the image of the Almost Human, Wisecracking Bond stuck inadvertently in the public's mind?

Good point--I'd say yes, with the proviso that Bond would had to have been lightened for the movies during that period. Both Dr. No and Goldfinger are among Fleming's most over-the-top works, and that definitely played into the cinematic idea of a hero prepared to wryly wisecrack at the absurdity of his world. Goldfinger is probably the only self-parodic novel Fleming wrote, and that tone was preserved and enlarged for the rest of the series. It's ironic--GF is the successful film in the series but the one that nearly ruined it. The Bond formula was basically a parody of a self-parody. It's also worth noting that the very first novel adapted by EON was Thunderball (since Maibaum's adaptation pre-dates Dr. No), so middle-late Bond was there at the outset. Even the idea of Bond sleeping with more than one woman per adventure comes from GF and TB.

But in the next book, he makes an error that I don't think is meant to be a character point but is just poor plotting: Solitaire offers to switch sides, and he just blindly trusts her.

This also ties into one of the defects of Fleming's female characters--if they're good looking they will surely fall for Bond. Even Gala Brand's resistance is less formidable than it seems.

I think the most shocking incident regarding Bond's proficency as an agent is the one related in The Living Daylights.

Yes. For most most pathetic I would nominate letting Scaramanga have a last prayer (after having told Scaramanga "Okay, this is it" several thousand times). A rare occasion of Bond being both dumb and a wuss.

Just out of interest, Revelator, what exact Ian Fleming interview is this quote taken from? I'm just curious, as I'm really interested in all of the interviews Fleming gave in print, on TV and radio.

From a 1963 interview by Roy Norquist for a publication called Counterpoint. Link here.

Edited by Revelator, 25 November 2008 - 09:04 PM.

[Mr. Blofeld]

By the way, I'm curious; since the mid- to late-Fleming books were adapted before the much earlier novels (and those were poorly adapted, at that!), do you think the image of the Almost Human, Wisecracking Bond stuck inadvertently in the public's mind?

Good point--I'd say yes, with the proviso that Bond would had to have been lightened for the movies during that period. Both Dr. No and Goldfinger are among Fleming's most over-the-top works, and that definitely played into the cinematic idea of a hero prepared to wryly wisecrack at the absurdity of his world. Goldfinger is probably the only self-parodic novel Fleming wrote, and that tone was preserved and enlarged for the rest of the series. It's ironic--GF is the successful film in the series but the one that nearly ruined it. The Bond formula was basically a parody of a self-parody. It's also worth noting that the very first novel adapted by EON was Thunderball (since Maibaum's adaptation pre-dates Dr. No), so middle-late Bond was there at the outset. Even the idea of Bond sleeping with more than one woman per adventure comes from GF and TB.

I wonder... if Diamonds Are Forever had been adapted first, as Fleming had originally suggested to Xanadu before they convinced him to craft a new adventure, would the general public have the same stereotype view of Bond they do now?

[Mr. Blofeld]

Hey, let's bring this back up! This is a great thread!

[Revelator]

Hey, let's bring this back up! This is a great thread!

Your wish is my command. Or maybe the other way around...

I wonder... if Diamonds Are Forever had been adapted first, as Fleming had originally suggested to Xanadu before they convinced him to craft a new adventure, would the general public have the same stereotype view of Bond they do now?

That's a tricky one, especially since the Xanadu company probably would never have been able to launch a film in the first place. Fleming's first real mistake with McClory was in thinking too much of him. Had another company stepped in, Bond's eventual fate would have also been hard to predict. It's clear in the case of Broccoli and Saltzman that they were essentially in search of a formula and happy to stick to it after developing it. For the most part it was a sound business practice, since it created a familiar brand that the public could count on to deliver a standard set of thrills with a much familiar character. Other producers would ultimately have probably tried something similar. And before Bond most Hollywood action series that starred the same character were usually prone to immense diminishing returns and treated as little more than B movies, which they were (as in the case of the Saint series or the later Sherlock Holmes characters). Bond would have probably been run into the ground, even if he had started out with a harder edge. But perhaps the eventual formula would at least have been a little less formulaic had DAF been the first adapted novel. And while DAF isn't a successful novel, it would probably make a pretty good film. Its episodic, loose plot works better in the movies, where you can build a story around set-pieces, and the novel's set-pieces probably work better onscreen than on the page. And had movie Tiffany been relatively faithful to her original version, it would have set a precedent for emotionally complicated and more fully characterized Bond girls.

One last consideration: Broccoli and Saltzman's own slide into formula might have worked differently had Fleming lived a little longer. I remember reading that he was angered by the omission of the crab scene in Dr, No and only pacified by the filmmakers with the inclusion of the rat scene in FRWL. And IIRC, he vetted the script for Goldfinger and visited the set. So while he may not have been closely involved with the films' production, he did keep tabs on them and was hardly indifferent. I doubt Fleming would have been quiet about the YOLT adaptation, and might have even requested that the filmmakers use a different novel.

[TheREAL008]

This thread has inspired me to re-read all of the Fleming cannon to see if I can actually spot out the differences in Bond's chatacter.

Wonderfully written and a job well done.

[Mr. Blofeld]

One last consideration: Broccoli and Saltzman's own slide into formula might have worked differently had Fleming lived a little longer. I remember reading that he was angered by the omission of the crab scene in Dr, No and only pacified by the filmmakers with the inclusion of the rat scene in FRWL. And IIRC, he vetted the script for Goldfinger and visited the set. So while he may not have been closely involved with the films' production, he did keep tabs on them and was hardly indifferent. I doubt Fleming would have been quiet about the YOLT adaptation, and might have even requested that the filmmakers use a different novel.

Very true; if Fleming had lived, however, I don't think they would've been able to adapt Thunderball, as I think part of the reason McClory gave them the rights that one time was partly out of guilt for the court case a year earlier.

Also, I have a question to ask about TMWTGG: Wasn't it confirmed that William Plomer, Fleming's editor, wrote most of the book?

[Revelator]

Very true; if Fleming had lived, however, I don't think they would've been able to adapt Thunderball, as I think part of the reason McClory gave them the rights that one time was partly out of guilt for the court case a year earlier.

I'm not sure about that--I think McClory gave them the rights because he knew a rival production without Connery would have died in the water. Had Fleming still been alive I think Thunderball would have still been possible as long as McClory retained his piece of the pie. Money can make anyone hold his nose for long periods of time.

Also, I have a question to ask about TMWTGG: Wasn't it confirmed that William Plomer, Fleming's editor, wrote most of the book?

No, unless I've missed some recent news. Lycett's biography states that Fleming wasn't happy with the book but that Plomer reassured him that it was up to snuff, and after Fleming's death the book was published as Fleming left it. Neither Plomer nor Kingsley Amis revised or added anything to Fleming's manuscript. To me parts of TMWTGG do seem a bit un-Flemingian, but I'm willing to attribute these to illness and the very important fact that ill-health forced Fleming to cut his writing time by half and ruined the routine he was accustomed to. I am a bit surprised that Plomer told Fleming the book was fine, but perhaps this was to save his seriously ill friend from the now strenuous task of rewriting and further thus testing his health.

[Superhobo]

Perhaps it's just me, but I've never seen any flaw with TMWTGG.

What, uh - what's the deal?

[Revelator]

Perhaps it's just me, but I've never seen any flaw with TMWTGG.
What, uh - what's the deal?

Even a devoted Fleming fan like Kingsley Amis rightfully called the book feeble.
As Amis wrote:

My greatest discovery has been to spot what it is that has done most to make the book so feeble. As it stands, its most glaring weaknesses are:

i. Scaramanga's thinness and insipidity as a character, after a very lengthy though pretty competent and promising build-up on pp. 26-35;

ii. The radical and crippling implausibility whereby Scaramanga hires Bond as a security man (p.67) when he doesn't know him and, it transpires, doesn't need him. This is made much worse by Bond's suspicions, ‘there was the strong smell of a trap about' and so on.

My own objections...

* The brainwashed Bond story is resolved much too quickly. "Oh, he was cured by lots of electroshock therapy" is not a satisfactory way of advancing the story, especially since it would have been interesting to see Bond retraining and trying to recover his memories and skills.

* Mary Goodnight is an utterly boring Bond girl--the most boring Bond girl Fleming ever created (consider what a strong character Kissy Suzuki was in comparison). She's given very little to do and almost nothing to contribute. The real Bond girl should have been Tiffy, who has one of Fleming's most outrageous names and is also a spunky girl who has a reason to hate Scaramanga and help Bond. And she would have also been the first Black Bond girl.

* Jamaica again!? Setting a story in your backyard is acceptable one or two times, but the third time is not the charm. There were so many other places Bond had yet to visit. Why not set the book in Cuba instead? That would have guaranteed a definite frisson.

* The villain's big scheme involves...sugar futures?? Could Fleming think of anything possibly more boring? What on earth are sugar futures doing in a Bond novel? Who cares?

* The reuse of the gangland convention motif from Goldfinger, with much diminished results. We also get a train-side shootout that seems like a devolution from DAF.

* The utter banality of Bond's character. After nearly becoming a full human being in YOLT, the recovered Bond has become a cardboard booby. You'd never have guessed from reading TMWTGG that Bond was a widower with mental baggage. This Bond doesn't have much going on in his head. He has however, become an incompetent dimwit when it comes to doing his job, as when he lets Scaramanga have his prayers (of all things!). The one interesting element in Bond's character is his near-inability to kill in cold blood. Fleming could have used this to have Bond worry about having lost his touch and being no longer fit to be a double oh after all of his ordeals. But he didn't. Bond is a stiff.

Amis provided a theory on Scaramanga's weak character and why he hired Bond in the first place:

Now I am as sure as one could be in the circumstances that as first planned, perhaps as first drafted, the reason why Scaramanga asks Bond along to the Thunderbird is that he's sexually attracted to him, which disposes of difficulty no. ii right away and gives a strong pointer to the disposal of no. i. I wouldn't care to theorise about how far Scaramanga was made to go in the original draft; far enough no doubt, to take care of no. i.
At some later stage, Flemings own prudence or that of a friend induced him to take out this element, or most of it...He was unable to think of any alternative reason for Scaramanga's hiring of Bond, and no wonder, since the whole point of this hiring in the first version was that it had to be inexplicable by ordinary secret-agent standards. And then he was forced to hold on to the stuff about Bond's suspicions, and its always better to leave an implausible loose end than make your hero look a nit.

I don't agree with Amis on Fleming intentionally having Scaramanga be sexually attracted to 007, but it would have been a terrific idea. Scaramanga's downfall would have then been caused by his sexual rapacity rather than sheer stupidity. And a homosexual Bond villain would have been a great innovation (Wint and Kidd were only henchmen after all, and they weren't sexually interested in Bond). This would have added a real charge to the book. And it would have stayed true to the promise of Scaramanga's wonderful dossier, with its hints of homosexuality, phallic gun worship, all-around perversity and so forth, (Even the wretched movie did more with the third nipple stuff.)since after reading the dossier it's an immense letdown to see that Scaramanga is just a thug.

So TMWTGG could have easily been a better book: keep the brainwashing and assasination attempt on M, but follow up with Bond's relearning to be a 00 while haunted by his past and fearing his killer instinct has vanished; keep the Jamaican brothel scene but have Scaramanga pick Bond up for sexual interest and take him to Jamaica, with a vengeance-thirsting Tiffy not far behind; and sub in any other plot besides the sugar futures business (it's not as if anything else could be more dull). As it is, TMWTGG is the weakest Bond novel and the one most bereft of genuine inspiration. Aside from its first few chapters, it's mostly forgettable. Fleming was thrown off his usual routine by illness and depression, his writing time was cut in half by health problems, and he was unable to fully revise work that he expressed major doubts about. Together this was a recipe for disaster, and TMWTGG was the result.

[spynovelfan]

Lycett's biography states that Fleming wasn't happy with the book but that Plomer reassured him that it was up to snuff, and after Fleming's death the book was published as Fleming left it. Neither Plomer nor Kingsley Amis revised or added anything to Fleming's manuscript. To me parts of TMWTGG do seem a bit un-Flemingian, but I'm willing to attribute these to illness and the very important fact that ill-health forced Fleming to cut his writing time by half and ruined the routine he was accustomed to. I am a bit surprised that Plomer told Fleming the book was fine, but perhaps this was to save his seriously ill friend from the now strenuous task of rewriting and further thus testing his health.

In Amis' letter to Maschler about the book, which you've quoted from in the post directly above this one, Amis also wrote the following:

'There are no doubt all sorts of reasons why we can't have the book in its original version, the most telling of which is that it probably doesn't exist any more, if it ever did. I could re-jig it for you, but there are all sorts of reasons against that too.'

I think this is interesting for several reasons. First of all, the letter makes it very clear, for all time, that Kingsley Amis did not 'rewrite' THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN. He was asked to read the manuscript and comment, pointing out any typos or errors he saw and say what he thought of the book. That he did, but he expressly ruled out the possibility (which he raised himself) of 'rejigging' the manuscript. So we can put that myth to rest if it hasn't already been.

But what did Amis mean by his reference to the 'original version' of the novel? This suggests to me that Maschler had let him in on at least something of the book's providence - although not much, because Amis seems to be guessing quite a bit ('probably... if it ever did'). Amis seems to be speculating that Fleming's original manuscript might not just be unpublishable, but might not even still exist. As it is unfathomable that Cape or Glidrose would have sold, lost or otherwise disposed of a Fleming manuscript, I can only think he was speculating that Fleming had not left behind a complete manuscript. Perhaps he had left behind completed parts of the novel, and others (Plomer? Maschler?) had tried to string it all into a novel, each working up a little more, as sometimes happens with film scripts, especially those in 'development hell', until finally it's rather hard to distinguish who added what or what came where when. Amis doesn't seem to know this, but is guessing that something like this happened, perhaps from a hint given him by Maschler when he commissioned him to look over the book ('It's a hotch-potch now and we're in a mess and can you read it and see it makes sense' or something along those lines).

I wonder if we have had the whole story of the construction of THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN.