6 replies to this topic

[Superhobo]

- the assumption that Fleming was, himself, racist is a bit disingenuous, I think. Reading the novels over again, I think it becomes exceedingly obvious that these were intended to be, just like Bond's misogyny, flaws of the character, himself - it's an approach, I think, that works, and gives an entirely new view of Fleming's skills as a writer, but that (should have) seems pretty obvious, and especially for those of us who've read interviews from Fleming himself, about his thoughts on the character.

Beyond the use of contemporary terminology - and, I've actually read quite a few reviews that criticized, of all things, Fleming's use of the word "negro" instead of "African American;" I mean, good god - all of these statements that reviewers cherry-pick out are from Bond's internal monologue, and this is no more obvious than in "Goldfinger."

The criticism of Fleming's writing of dialogue - particularly in "Live and Let Die" - is also a little redundant - if you were going to criticize him for that, you should damned well criticize Stephen King, as well, who used a similar device with, among others, the character of Dick Halloran in "The Shining." It's authenticity - much like any approximation of an accent, or slang, and we still see it used to some extent today.

Fleming never thought of Bond as a hero - in his notes that he gave to Cubby Broccoli, he notes numerous times that Bond should "not endear himself to us," and that he is a quite "ruthless, quiet, hard sardonic, and fatalistic" guy - the oft-quoted "blunt instrument," etc. In still other interviews, he expresses his dislike for the character himself quite clearly, and on and on.

Besides all of this, the sheer attention Fleming lavished upon Jamaica and its' peoples is enough to diffuse such notions, as well as his friendship of Errol Flynn - but that's an argument for another day, entirely.

Edited by Superhobo, 07 December 2008 - 05:29 PM.

[Righty007]

Ian Fleming wasn't a racist but some of the things he wrote are considered racist by today's standards. When reading his Bond novels, one should remember that he wrote them in the 1950s/1960s.

[Revelator]

I think it's very understandable to be protective of a writer who's often been dismissed and reviled for his attitudes toward sex and race, and to a certain degree I'm sympathetic to your viewpoint. On the other hand, I think pretty much any reader would conclude that Fleming's attitudes were racist, and with good cause. The trouble with this is that "racist" is ultimately an unhelpful word in understanding any racial attitude different from the consensually accepted racial attitudes of today. Calling Fleming racist doesn't tell us if his racism was different from that of, say, Sapper or John Buchan's, or whether it qualifies as racial hatred or not.

the assumption that Fleming was, himself, racist is a bit disingenuous, I think. Reading the novels over again, I think it becomes exceedingly obvious that these were intended to be, just like Bond's misogyny, flaws of the character, himself

I don't see how this is obvious or that Bond's racial views were much different from Fleming's. Despite what Fleming said interviews, it seems pretty clear that Bond was Fleming's dream persona, and it's hard to think of many opinions that Bond and Fleming didn't share. There are exceptions, such as Bond's misogynistic outburst when Vesper gets kidnapped. This is clearly dramatic irony, since, far from being a blithering incompetent, Vesper engineered the fake kidnapping and played Bond for a fool. But it's hard to think of any similar instances when it comes to racial matters. How is Bond's hatred for Koreans portrayed as a flaw in his character? Both Bond and Goldfinger agree that they're apish brutes, and Oddjob does little to dispel the impression Fleming gives. (I've always wondered what Fleming had against Koreans--the Japanese acted far worse in wartime, and yet Fleming adored them.) We also have to deal with the opinions of the narrator of the Bond novels--when the narrator says that Blacks have a "feral" smell, we can't write this off as a character's opinion.

Beyond the use of contemporary terminology - and, I've actually read quite a few reviews that criticized, of all things, Fleming's use of the word "negro" instead of "African American;"

Those reviewers are of course being silly, but perhaps they were put on edge by Fleming's use of "N----- Heaven" and Solitaire complianing about Mr. Big and "his N----- gangsters." Now, both of these can be slightly mitigated in Fleming's favor--N-word Heaven is obviously a place name, and one could say that the British were less aware of the toxic nature of the n-word and used it longer in polite society than Americans. But this wouldn't mitigate the novel's suggestion that Blacks are inherently susceptible to Voodoo, or that the NAACP was a Communist front (racists like J. Edgar Hoover would have surely agreed). Fleming never seems to have realized how awful life often was for African-Americans--nowhere does he touch on the pain of segregation. Instead, he plays upon the idea of Communist infiltration of civil rights groups. That is ultimately what's most offensive about the racial attitudes in LALD. Fleming didn't hate Blacks--he had affection for many of them and approved of their upward mobility. But his affection was patronizing (the idea of Blacks "just starting" to release geniuses in all sorts of fields, or that they're law-abiding when they haven't drunk too much) and thus implicitly placed them on a lower level.

The criticism of Fleming's writing of dialogue - particularly in "Live and Let Die" - is also a little redundant -

I quite enjoy some of that dialogue--some of which strikes me as accurate--but it's problematic. If Fleming is going to transcribe their speech as it sounds, why doesn't he do the same for Bond? It's not as if he doesn't pronounce things differently with his accent. He doesn't because those Blacks are the "other" and Bond's speech represents the white norm.

Fleming never thought of Bond as a hero

And yet he compares him to St. George and has the Bond women compare him to all sorts of heroic figures. You have to trust the tale, not the teller. Fleming himself gradually let more of himself slip into Bond--the fact that Bond has such lengthy internal dialogues in GF, as compared to the earlier novels, is evidence that he grew more comfortable with the character, and even gave him his own sense of humor, as in YOLT.

Besides all of this, the sheer attention Fleming lavished upon Jamaica and its' peoples is enough to diffuse such notions, as well as his friendship of Errol Flynn - but that's an argument for another day, entirely.

Evidently, since I can't quite see what Errol Flynn has to do with it. Judging a man's attitudes by his friends is tricky business--Fleming was friends with Noel Coward and got on famously with Truman Capote, and yet no one could call his attitudes on homosexuality progressive.

I'm not trying to argue that idiot critics are right to dismiss Fleming. Fleming was both sexist and racist, and that should be admitted. But it shouldn't be used by those critics to automatically dismiss Fleming, especially since calling Fleming racist tells us nothing about the specific nature of his racial views. Racism can encompass everything from hatred to fear to patronizing. Fleming veered toward the latter (except when it came to Koreans...), and, unlike what Daniel Craig mindlessly said, probably wouldn't have minded a Black James Bond, provided the public would accept one (as it now would). So what lies ahead for Fleming's critical champions and detractors is to move beyond the was-he/wasn'-he-racist discussion and to examine Fleming's attitudes in detail, and to reveal their complexity.

[Superhobo]

I think it's very understandable to be protective of a writer who's often been dismissed and reviled for his attitudes toward sex and race, and to a certain degree I'm sympathetic to your viewpoint. On the other hand, I think pretty much any reader would conclude that Fleming's attitudes were racist, and with good cause. The trouble with this is that "racist" is ultimately an unhelpful word in understanding any racial attitude different from the consensually accepted racial attitudes of today. Calling Fleming racist doesn't tell us if his racism was different from that of, say, Sapper or John Buchan's, or whether it qualifies as racial hatred or not.

It's not really any sort of racial hatred - par for those certain passages in "Goldfinger" - and, I wouldn't even really call it patronizing, but - as I say later on, Fleming, like Hunter S. Thompson, was something of a "unibigot -" he had a general distaste for everyone, his fellow Englishmen included.

I don't see how this is obvious or that Bond's racial views were much different from Fleming's. Despite what Fleming said interviews, it seems pretty clear that Bond was Fleming's dream persona, and it's hard to think of many opinions that Bond and Fleming didn't share. There are exceptions, such as Bond's misogynistic outburst when Vesper gets kidnapped. This is clearly dramatic irony, since, far from being a blithering incompetent, Vesper engineered the fake kidnapping and played Bond for a fool.

Of course.

But it's hard to think of any similar instances when it comes to racial matters. How is Bond's hatred for Koreans portrayed as a flaw in his character? Both Bond and Goldfinger agree that they're apish brutes, and Oddjob does little to dispel the impression Fleming gives. (I've always wondered what Fleming had against Koreans--the Japanese acted far worse in wartime, and yet Fleming adored them.)

Nothing at all, really - upon going back to the novel, earlier, at first glance a few of those statements could raise a few eyebrows, but again, Fleming, like Thompson, was something of a "unibigot." He gave no real favor to his own people in the novels, either way.

We also have to deal with the opinions of the narrator of the Bond novels--when the narrator says that Blacks have a "feral" smell, we can't write this off as a character's opinion.

I do think this instance simply comes from a misunderstanding of that passage, actually - not by itself, but the 'meaning' behind it.

Those reviewers are of course being silly, but perhaps they were put on edge by Fleming's use of "N----- Heaven" and Solitaire complianing about Mr. Big and "his N----- gangsters." Now, both of these can be slightly mitigated in Fleming's favor--N-word Heaven is obviously a place name, and one could say that the British were less aware of the toxic nature of the n-word and used it longer in polite society than Americans.

Well, the word 'coloured' still circulates without any of the larger connotations that it holds here in America, so -

But this wouldn't mitigate the novel's suggestion that Blacks are inherently susceptible to Voodoo,

Zuh?

Fleming never seems to have realized how awful life often was for African-Americans--nowhere does he touch on the pain of segregation.

It isn't relevant to the story he was trying to tell, simply enough.

But his affection was patronizing (the idea of Blacks "just starting" to release geniuses in all sorts of fields, or that they're law-abiding when they haven't drunk too much) and thus implicitly placed them on a lower level.

I'm failing to see how the latter is actually patronizing, in any way - the same is often said of the Irish, even. As for the former, it's semi-true, to an extent - because up until recently, at that time, they hadn't had the ability to, in Western society.

I quite enjoy some of that dialogue--some of which strikes me as accurate--but it's problematic. If Fleming is going to transcribe their speech as it sounds, why doesn't he do the same for Bond? It's not as if he doesn't pronounce things differently with his accent. He doesn't because those Blacks are the "other" and Bond's speech represents the white norm.

No, not really. One could say the same of any writer - again, Stephen King. King doesn't approximate any sort of accent for the Torrence's, in (again) "The Shining," while he does for Halloran. So, do the Torrence's, in "The Shining," represent the "white norm," or did - more probably - the author simply figure that those characters had not enough of an accent to be worth transcribing?

And yet he compares him to St. George and has the Bond women compare him to all sorts of heroic figures. You have to trust the tale, not the teller.

I remember him being compared to St. George, and the hero that Romanova recalls in FRWL, but I can't recall much else - and even elsewhere in those novels, Bond does a bit to contradict those previously held "ideas" about him. ("For God's sake! That's the worst insult you can pay a man!")

Fleming himself gradually let more of himself slip into Bond--the fact that Bond has such lengthy internal dialogues in GF, as compared to the earlier novels, is evidence that he grew more comfortable with the character, and even gave him his own sense of humor, as in YOLT.

Well, true enough - although, I don't think it was all of "himself."

Evidently, since I can't quite see what Errol Flynn has to do with it. Judging a man's attitudes by his friends is tricky business--Fleming was friends with Noel Coward and got on famously with Truman Capote, and yet no one could call his attitudes on homosexuality progressive.

I was referring to how that could dispel such notions as Fleming's homophobia - but, that only held a small connection to the current writing.

Edited by Superhobo, 09 December 2008 - 01:58 AM.

[Zoidberg]

Hello Superhobo,
How do you suggest that "feral" passage should be read and understood?

[Superhobo]

Hello Superhobo,
How do you suggest that "feral" passage should be read and understood?

Well, depends. It could be read as referring to the "sweet, feral smell" of two hundred bodies in general - Fleming did often point out the race of certain characters and people, for purely descriptive purposes, and this could be no different, really.

Or, I could be wrong.

[dee-bee-five]

- the assumption that Fleming was, himself, racist is a bit disingenuous, I think. Reading the novels over again, I think it becomes exceedingly obvious that these were intended to be, just like Bond's misogyny, flaws of the character, himself - it's an approach, I think, that works, and gives an entirely new view of Fleming's skills as a writer, but that (should have) seems pretty obvious, and especially for those of us who've read interviews from Fleming himself, about his thoughts on the character.

Beyond the use of contemporary terminology - and, I've actually read quite a few reviews that criticized, of all things, Fleming's use of the word "negro" instead of "African American;" I mean, good god - all of these statements that reviewers cherry-pick out are from Bond's internal monologue, and this is no more obvious than in "Goldfinger."

The criticism of Fleming's writing of dialogue - particularly in "Live and Let Die" - is also a little redundant - if you were going to criticize him for that, you should damned well criticize Stephen King, as well, who used a similar device with, among others, the character of Dick Halloran in "The Shining." It's authenticity - much like any approximation of an accent, or slang, and we still see it used to some extent today.

Fleming never thought of Bond as a hero - in his notes that he gave to Cubby Broccoli, he notes numerous times that Bond should "not endear himself to us," and that he is a quite "ruthless, quiet, hard sardonic, and fatalistic" guy - the oft-quoted "blunt instrument," etc. In still other interviews, he expresses his dislike for the character himself quite clearly, and on and on.

Besides all of this, the sheer attention Fleming lavished upon Jamaica and its' peoples is enough to diffuse such notions, as well as his friendship of Errol Flynn - but that's an argument for another day, entirely.

The problem only arises when idiotic critics try to apply prevailing social mores to novels written half a century ago. Read cold today, some of the novels do appear racist; but I do not accept that they were written with that intention.