Guess Bond IS going to be an assassin then...
#1
Posted 29 June 2010 - 12:27 PM
So it looks like Bond's now going to be less a spy and more an assassin. Which, to be fair, is kinda like what hes been portrayed as mostly
#2
Posted 29 June 2010 - 01:30 PM
However Deaver will have to make Bond's character far more dark to match an assassin.
#3
Posted 29 June 2010 - 01:46 PM
#4
Posted 29 June 2010 - 02:05 PM
Besides, even in the Fleming books, there have been mentions of Bond's role as an assassin within the Service (though the word isnt explicitly used). In Live and Let Die he mentions how is assignment is not only to destroy Mr. Big's organisation, but to possibly 'destroy' Mr. Big himself. In 'The Living Daylights' his mission is to kill a Soviet sniper (which he fails to do). In 'The Man with the Golden Gun' his mission is to kill Francisco Scaramanga. So there have been occassions when Bond has acted like an assassin, even if it hasnt been stated as such.
#5
Posted 29 June 2010 - 02:56 PM
Yes, it's pretty clear M uses the Double-Os as assassins when need be, and it's clear Bond's mission has been assassination from time to time. Not just TLD and TMWTGG, but remember in Goldfinger he's coming back from an assassination mission (reflections in a double bourbon). Heck, Bond became a double-O by assassinating two targets in cold blood. There's nothing really new here in that regard. Bond IS a trained assassin. What's new is the disavowed part, which I really like.Besides, even in the Fleming books, there have been mentions of Bond's role as an assassin within the Service (though the word isnt explicitly used). In Live and Let Die he mentions how is assignment is not only to destroy Mr. Big's organisation, but to possibly 'destroy' Mr. Big himself. In 'The Living Daylights' his mission is to kill a Soviet sniper (which he fails to do). In 'The Man with the Golden Gun' his mission is to kill Francisco Scaramanga. So there have been occassions when Bond has acted like an assassin, even if it hasnt been stated as such.
#6
Posted 29 June 2010 - 03:48 PM
#7
Posted 29 June 2010 - 04:05 PM
#8
Posted 29 June 2010 - 04:14 PM
(Odd how I'm so much more excited about this than I was about DMC.)
#9
Posted 29 June 2010 - 04:34 PM
Now, did Bond show much spying in the books? I can only remember Casino Royale as real spying. Must be plenty of other examples........
#10
Posted 29 June 2010 - 04:43 PM
Think you have something there. Don't get me wrong, I was excited about DMC, but I was spooked by how Faulks talked about it. It just seemed he wasn't into it or the genre. I wasn't sold that his genius would magically produce a great Bond novel (ironically, I appear to be the only fan who actually liked it).Maybe your excited so much more than DMC because Jeffery Deaver is so excited. I can just tell the Chap is excited to be doing it. So it's rubbing off on some of us.
JD is clearly VERY into it.
BTW, it was fun at the signing when JD, near the end, revealed he's going to do the next Bond book. Not many people there knew about this and there was an excited gasp when he revealed it.
#11
Posted 29 June 2010 - 04:49 PM
Deaver wont be doing this, it's clear he actually has a lot of time for his readers, just look at the tour schedule. And a quick glance at his website shows his fans approval at him writing the next Bond. It's in his genre so it mega exciting. Besides, the man can write a ripping good thriller.
Back on topic. So, Bond, Spy much? Really?
#12
Posted 29 June 2010 - 05:48 PM
Maybe your excited so much more than DMC because Jeffery Deaver is so excited. I can just tell the Chap is excited to be doing it. So it's rubbing off on some of us.
Now, did Bond show much spying in the books? I can only remember Casino Royale as real spying. Must be plenty of other examples........
Well, to be fair to Bond, in the Fleming books he did do a fair amount of spying, or at any rate his original assignment was related to espionage matters.
Casino Royale didnt really involve spying at all. If nothing else, it was an assassination-by-proxy mission, in that Bonds purpose was to beat Le Chiffre at the card tables, cause him to lose all the Soviet funds he'd embezzled, which would force the Soviets to get him bumped off. Nothing remotely to do with intelligence gathering in this (the movie actually did introduce an aspect of intelligence gathering to the story, in that M wanted Le Chiffre alive so that they could learn about a global terrorist network).
A lot of the other early books, namely LALD, Moonrake and DAF did have Bond assigned to investigate something, though it wasnt really 'spying' and/or gathering intel about the Soviets-Bond acted more as a special police agent than anything else.
From Russia with Love was actually THE first Bond spy novel...Bond's whole mission involved getting a decoder machine that is crucial to future intelligence gathering efforts on the part of the Western intelligence servives, so yeah, theres definetly some good old Cold War espionage.
OHMSS was also possibly a spy novel, with Bond having to spend a larger part of the book infiltrating the enemy hideout, though it was actually all in preparation of capturing Blofeld rather than merely gathering intel so I'm not sure if that counts.
I consider Bond's original assignment at least, in YOLT, to be espionage related, in that he had to get Tanaka to reveal to him intel the Japanese had gotten on the Soviets which was crucial to England's security. Later, it became an assassination mission/revenge story.
But yeah, I know what you mean, most of the time Bond behaved less as a spy and more as a commando/one-man paramilitary force.
#13
Posted 30 June 2010 - 09:33 AM
However there are exceptions to the rule, and M does occasionally send Bond on relatively mundane tasks are more habitual to a spy.
#14
Posted 30 June 2010 - 11:40 AM
Bond muses in MR that he ordinarily has between one and three assignments per year that call for his specific talents. And in GF we learn that plans to fold the whole 00 operation are at least considered. Of course, given how extraordinarily bad the 00-sections 'productivity' is to be rated. Then again, one can hardly order them to kill more people if there's no need for it, isn't it?
#15
Posted 30 June 2010 - 02:44 PM
Also in CR, we are told that a Double O number is basically a distinction awarded to any agent who has killed in cold blood. Its only in Moonraker that we're told that 00 agents are the only men in the Service who can be 'asked to kill' implying that they do serve as assassins sometimes. FRWL is actually the first time the concept of the 'license to kill' is introduced, suggesting that these are agents who have killed and who are permitted to kill on duty. Goldfinger confuses the issue further by suggesting that the 'license to kill' is a special permission given by M to a 00 to eliminate a particular target, essentially an assassination order.
The general idea one gathers from Bond's activities in the books, and in the films, is that the 00's are elite agents of the Secret Service who are 'licensed to kill' while on a mission. They are given the most sensitive, the most dangerous assignments, which often send them into a variety of dangerous situation where they need to exercise that license.
#16
Posted 30 June 2010 - 04:21 PM
Perhaps you're right. It'll be very interesting to see Bond's skills as an assassin rather than a spy who mostly kills when he's attacked.
However Deaver will have to make Bond's character far more dark to match an assassin.
Ian Fleming wrote the following:
It was part of 'Bond's' profession to kill people. He had never liked doing it and when he had to kill he did it as well as he knew how and forgot about it. As a secret agent who held the rare double-O prefix - a licence to kill in the Secret Service - it was his duty to be as cool about death as a surgeon. If it happened, it happened. Regret was unprofessional - worse, it was a death-watch beetle in the soul.
Deaver might be 're-booting' the Bond series but it seems he is sticking with what Fleming actually created, as can be seen from the extract above.
My point is, in Fleming's novels Bond is an assassin.
As for Bond's character being far more dark to match an assasin, as O.F. Snelling aptly put it, 'He is as tough and as accomplished as a commando - probably more so. Ian Fleming's James Bond is a killer, he always was. He kills as a soldier kills; in the field, destroying his enemies in the name of his queen and his country. He has long ago discarded any public school sentiments about fair play and sporting chances. He has killed in hot and in cold blood, but he is very different from the hired hoodlums of gangland, who will murder a man they have never known or seen before as dispassionately as they will step on an insect ... violent death, of which he has seen and metted out so much, has never given him pleasure - or any great pain, for that matter.
So, to say that Bond IS going to be an assassin is strange given the fact that he always was one.
#17
Posted 30 June 2010 - 04:43 PM
Perhaps you're right. It'll be very interesting to see Bond's skills as an assassin rather than a spy who mostly kills when he's attacked.
However Deaver will have to make Bond's character far more dark to match an assassin.
Ian Fleming wrote the following:
It was part of 'Bond's' profession to kill people. He had never liked doing it and when he had to kill he did it as well as he knew how and forgot about it. As a secret agent who held the rare double-O prefix - a licence to kill in the Secret Service - it was his duty to be as cool about death as a surgeon. If it happened, it happened. Regret was unprofessional - worse, it was a death-watch beetle in the soul.
Deaver might be 're-booting' the Bond series but it seems he is sticking with what Fleming actually created, as can be seen from the extract above.
My point is, in Fleming's novels Bond is an assassin.
As for Bond's character being far more dark to match an assasin, as O.F. Snelling aptly put it, 'He is as tough and as accomplished as a commando - probably more so. Ian Fleming's James Bond is a killer, he always was. He kills as a soldier kills; in the field, destroying his enemies in the name of his queen and his country. He has long ago discarded any public school sentiments about fair play and sporting chances. He has killed in hot and in cold blood, but he is very different from the hired hoodlums of gangland, who will murder a man they have never known or seen before as dispassionately as they will step on an insect ... violent death, of which he has seen and metted out so much, has never given him pleasure - or any great pain, for that matter.
So, to say that Bond IS going to be an assassin is strange given the fact that he always was one.
Not sure if I agree completely there. My reading would be that Bond really is a soldier (often forgotten: soldiers are the people that all have a licence to kill by their very nature) that is forced to act like an assassin. But the soldier can stop killing once the enemy surrenders, while the real assassin would shoot on and indeed have no qualms, no regrets, no remorse about it. Bond has to fight all these side effects of his profession almost permanently. He's not an assassin by nature and only his ability to overcome his own doubts and fight on makes him the instrument the SIS and M need so badly.
#18
Posted 30 June 2010 - 04:54 PM
Me too.What's new is the disavowed part, which I really like.
#19
Posted 30 June 2010 - 05:26 PM
#20
Posted 30 June 2010 - 05:43 PM
#21
Posted 30 June 2010 - 06:57 PM
#22
Posted 30 June 2010 - 07:20 PM
Me too.What's new is the disavowed part, which I really like.
Oh come on, Gardner did that on at least one occasion.
#23
Posted 30 June 2010 - 07:31 PM
I wouldn't know if he did. I've willfully forgotten the Gardner novels.Oh come on, Gardner did that on at least one occasion.Me too.What's new is the disavowed part, which I really like.
#24
Posted 30 June 2010 - 07:35 PM
I wouldn't know if he did. I've willfully forgotten the Gardner novels.Oh come on, Gardner did that on at least one occasion.Me too.What's new is the disavowed part, which I really like.
Oh.
#25
Posted 30 June 2010 - 09:32 PM
No Deals, Mr. Bond. That is what the title refers to, being disavowed if caught.I wouldn't know if he did. I've willfully forgotten the Gardner novels.Oh come on, Gardner did that on at least one occasion.Me too.What's new is the disavowed part, which I really like.
Oh.
What's different about Deaver's world is it isn't mission specific. It's a permanent part of being a double-oh. At least that's how I understand it.
#26
Posted 01 July 2010 - 05:11 AM
Perhaps you're right. It'll be very interesting to see Bond's skills as an assassin rather than a spy who mostly kills when he's attacked.
However Deaver will have to make Bond's character far more dark to match an assassin.
Ian Fleming wrote the following:
It was part of 'Bond's' profession to kill people. He had never liked doing it and when he had to kill he did it as well as he knew how and forgot about it. As a secret agent who held the rare double-O prefix - a licence to kill in the Secret Service - it was his duty to be as cool about death as a surgeon. If it happened, it happened. Regret was unprofessional - worse, it was a death-watch beetle in the soul.
Deaver might be 're-booting' the Bond series but it seems he is sticking with what Fleming actually created, as can be seen from the extract above.
My point is, in Fleming's novels Bond is an assassin.
As for Bond's character being far more dark to match an assasin, as O.F. Snelling aptly put it, 'He is as tough and as accomplished as a commando - probably more so. Ian Fleming's James Bond is a killer, he always was. He kills as a soldier kills; in the field, destroying his enemies in the name of his queen and his country. He has long ago discarded any public school sentiments about fair play and sporting chances. He has killed in hot and in cold blood, but he is very different from the hired hoodlums of gangland, who will murder a man they have never known or seen before as dispassionately as they will step on an insect ... violent death, of which he has seen and metted out so much, has never given him pleasure - or any great pain, for that matter.
So, to say that Bond IS going to be an assassin is strange given the fact that he always was one.
Not sure if I agree completely there. My reading would be that Bond really is a soldier (often forgotten: soldiers are the people that all have a licence to kill by their very nature) that is forced to act like an assassin. But the soldier can stop killing once the enemy surrenders, while the real assassin would shoot on and indeed have no qualms, no regrets, no remorse about it. Bond has to fight all these side effects of his profession almost permanently. He's not an assassin by nature and only his ability to overcome his own doubts and fight on makes him the instrument the SIS and M need so badly.
I agree completely Trident and that is what I tried ‘thrusting’ out too.
When I wrote: So, to say that Bond IS going to be an assassin is strange given the fact that he always was one I was using the word assassin in its broadest definition - that is to say that Bond is already a killer.
The gist of my piece rests on the point that:-
Bond kills as a soldier kills; in the field, destroying his enemies in the name of his queen and his country. He has long ago discarded any public school sentiments about fair play and sporting chances. He has killed in hot and in cold blood, but he is very different from the hired hoodlums of gangland, who will murder a man they have never known or seen before as dispassionately as they will step on an insect ... violent death, of which he has seen and metted out so much, has never given him pleasure - or any great pain, for that matter.
Which is, if I understood correctly, what you, in the end, are pointing out yourself, no?
Harry
#27
Posted 01 July 2010 - 05:22 AM
I always enjoyed the part in Licence Renewed when Bond reflects on the Double-O section being dismissed but M assuring him he would still retain his status as "007" and be the blunt instrument. The old sailor never gave up on his favorite son and knew that more so than ever in the early 80's and with the Cold war still heating up, that a seasoned agent of Bond's experience would be needed from time to time.
I look forward to this. Now, if some blunt instrument will get this MGM debacle squared away and the films back on track, I'll be really happy.
#28
Posted 01 July 2010 - 05:43 AM
The gist of my piece rests on the point that:-
Bond kills as a soldier kills; in the field, destroying his enemies in the name of his queen and his country. He has long ago discarded any public school sentiments about fair play and sporting chances. He has killed in hot and in cold blood, but he is very different from the hired hoodlums of gangland, who will murder a man they have never known or seen before as dispassionately as they will step on an insect ... violent death, of which he has seen and metted out so much, has never given him pleasure - or any great pain, for that matter.
Which is, if I understood correctly, what you, in the end, are pointing out yourself, no?
Harry
I see him as someone able to put his emotions aside when the assignment calls for it, doing his duty much as a soldier in a war. He's in effect always rationalising his actions as self-defence, even when he knows the analogy doesn't always hold the water. And I also see him piling up an emotional debt he knows he will one day have to settle. His duty hasn't indented on his courage yet, but it calls for a steady effort on his side and he suspects the outcome.
#29
Posted 01 July 2010 - 06:52 AM
The gist of my piece rests on the point that:-
Bond kills as a soldier kills; in the field, destroying his enemies in the name of his queen and his country. He has long ago discarded any public school sentiments about fair play and sporting chances. He has killed in hot and in cold blood, but he is very different from the hired hoodlums of gangland, who will murder a man they have never known or seen before as dispassionately as they will step on an insect ... violent death, of which he has seen and metted out so much, has never given him pleasure - or any great pain, for that matter.
Which is, if I understood correctly, what you, in the end, are pointing out yourself, no?
Harry
I see him as someone able to put his emotions aside when the assignment calls for it, doing his duty much as a soldier in a war. He's in effect always rationalising his actions as self-defence, even when he knows the analogy doesn't always hold the water. And I also see him piling up an emotional debt he knows he will one day have to settle. His duty hasn't indented on his courage yet, but it calls for a steady effort on his side and he suspects the outcome.
Nicely put Trident.