123 replies to this topic

[Iceskater101]

I am reading the books and I really hate them.. 

 

I think it's because I hate the racism and the sexism in them.. I mean Bond is absolutely obnoxious... he is just so unlikable.. 

 

 

[Guy Haines]

I've always thought that James Bond in print was a reflection of Ian Fleming himself. Though his exploits were probably inspired by several wartime special agents, such as Fitzroy Maclean and Dusko Popov, the tastes and foibles struck me as similar to, if not the same as, the author's.

 

As for the racism and sexism, such language and attitudes were prevalent when Mr. Fleming was writing the books. Certain words which wouldn't be used now were used then. Times have changed, rightly. If the author had written the books ten or twenty years later, I wonder if those attitudes and the language used would have been the same? I think they would have been toned down or dropped altogether - the publishers might have insisted on it. Certainly it's not something I've found in the recent continuation novels.

 

James Bond in print is not a terribly likeable man. Critics of the novels accused them of exploiting sex, sadism and one other element - snobbery. You see it in the writing, and the reference to upper bracket products Bond uses, from cars to cigarettes to breakfast marmalade! And in Bond's attitudes - there's a whole chapter in Thunderball at the start when 007 is being driven to Shrublands in a taxi by a typical "working class" driver which is revealing. And the chapter in Moonraker in which M and Bond discuss Sir Hugo Drax makes it clear that as far as M and 007 are concerned Drax may have money but he isn't in their class (Which makes one wonder how he gained membership of "Blades", but then even in 1950s Britain, money talked if the establishment was desperate!)

 

The Bond of the films lost the snobbery, at least the more extreme elements of the books, but gained a sense of humour. The racism was toned down somewhat, although there were elements in the early films which made me uncomfortable (Bond to Quarrel - "fetch my shoes" - not nice!). The early films undeniably had more than a few sexist moments, but since the 1970s Bond has often "met his match" in the leading ladies he's encountered. But it's the humour element which saved the films from the same accusations as the books faced, imho. If nothing else it may have made Bond a more appealing character than his counterpart in print might appear.

[tdalton]

I would agree that some of the novels are rather difficult to get through.  Live and Let Die was one that I had a very difficult time getting through the first couple of times out, for probably the same reasons that you're having trouble getting through the novels.  While the films have managed to steer clear of the type of sexism and racism that Fleming was notorious for, I thought that they really dropped the ball on that front with their own Live and Let Die, making a film that, while rightly steering clear of the racist elements of Fleming's novel, still managed to turn in a film that was quite disturbing in other ways. 

 

There will undoubtedly be a lot of quasi-defense of Fleming, with claims of the author simply writing his novels in a way that reflected the attitudes that were acceptable at the time, but I find that a rather weak and ridiculous defense.  Those attitudes were just as wrong then as they are now, so there's really no defending them.  If you're able to look past those elements, and it can be difficult to do in a lot of cases, there's some excellent stuff in the Fleming novels, and as a group they're miles better than any of the novels put out by the continuation authors.

[Odd Jobbies]

I am reading the books and I really hate them.. 

 

I think it's because I hate the racism and the sexism in them.. I mean Bond is absolutely obnoxious... he is just so unlikable.. 

No offence, but you're not really the target audience. Fleming himself said something along the lines of them being for red blooded males.

 

you really have to put them into the context of their times and cut yourself briefly free from the dogmas and taboos of our times in order to get past what is now rightly seen as racist, but if you can there's a lot to like. And unlike the movie's (until now) they're a true series in which the central character has an arc - a journey of ups and downs that shape him. It's a joy to witness.

 

As for the sexism, Bond never was and still isn't 'PC' in that respect. And for an assassin to suddenly get touchy feely about gender politics wouldn't really ring true. If you look at the kind of people that kill for a living, soldiers, special ops etc, they don't really strike one as touchy-feely upright proponents of feminism.

 

If you want that, then there's plenty of literature out there for you. If you only want that, then yes, perhaps Bond isn't for you.

[FlemingBond]

nope, didn't have a problem at all. Yes, i do believe Bond was a reflection of Fleming. And as much as there' s sexism, Bond ends up going soft on the women by the end. I suppose there is some racism, but it's not constant in there.

At any rate, they were written in a completely different time. As politically correct as today's times are, i still hear people say thing's that would be Shocking! Shocking ! i tell you to reporters on tv. I mean, no one says anything off color today except for an occasional wayward celebrity.

[Major Tallon]

I'd be happy to come up with a "quasi-defense of Fleming" (well, at least parts of Fleming!), if you'll be a bit more specific, Iceskater101.  I enjoy your enthusiasm, and while I might never persuade you, I might at least perhaps raise a few points for you to ponder. 

 

Hope to hear from you.

[superado]

A couple of months ago, my 19-year old son asked me to loan him my Fleming Bond books and unlike me, he began reading them in order and just loved the 1^st three.   Seeing the thread’s title of “trouble getting through the books,” he is however struggling through DAF and finds it slower.  I think what he likes about the novels is the slice of life from that period, racism, chauvinism and all, like looking through artifacts in a time capsule.

 

As for the Bond character, most Bond fans today base their perception of who Bond is through viewings of the most current movies, first and foremost, then of course through the rest of the Bond canon, but let us not forget that Bond on the screen has evolved a lot most especially in current times to better align with today’s sensibilities, most evident by the dropping of smoking, (drinking on the other hand is still largely perceived to be cool, esp. by the younger generation, which is a vice I’d love to eventually see become “uncool”), making Leiter and Moneypenny black, having a female M and a Q that resembles today’s image of a techie, e.g., a wiry, bespectacled young person with unkempt hair.  No matter how much he has changed, let’s remember though how Bond’s roots looked like, a vice-ridden, sexist (as he still is) and pedestrian racist (like most everyone then). 

[Messervy]

As Bond himself would say: "That's the trouble with the world today. No one takes the time to do a really sinister interrogation anymore. It's a lost art."

 

The thing is, everything has now become clean, neutral, PC, audience-friendly. So obviously if you look at the novels with today's eyes, you'll be a trifle disorientated. Nowadays Bond doesn't smoke, drinks little, beds little, etc. Next thing you'll know he won't be allowed to go through a red light while chasing a villain...

 

Besides, he's someone whose job is (mostly) to go out and kill people in cold blood. How nice is that?!... Would you really expect him to be Prince Charming?! Bond's not meant to be likeable from the onset. He's someone who takes care of the issues that everyone else doesn't want to deal with. And in that kind of trade, too much sympathy can be quite deadly. So, obviously, he's had to build some kind of armor, some defense mechanism that makes him somewhat impervious to correctness. That's why there are so many interior monologues in the novels; so that we get a glimpse of all that's running in his head.

 

I'm not saying that everything that's written there has to be abided. But honestly, if you "hate the books" just because of that, then they're probably indeed not meant for you, since it's part of Bond's DNA (the "novel Bond", that is).

[Turn]

For as big a Bond fan as I am I have a very checkered relationship with the book series. I own multiple copies of each novel (save Solo) but the majority I've never read.

 

I discovered the films first, as I was a preschooler. When I became a huge fan as I entered my teens I gave the books a go and was surprised they weren't more like the films and at that age sometimes struggled with Fleming's style. The Gardners came out then too and they were a little easier to get through. 

 

Over the years I began to read and reread the books and find myself enjoying and appreciating them more as a more worldly adult. But I just don't make it a priority. It's been a few years since I've attempted to read one of the novels. I recall buying the hardback of Devil May Care when it came out and taking it on a vacation and struggling to find it  interesting and haven't bothered to pick it back up. I started a thread here a while back about books in the series you've started and restarted but haven't finished. Last summer I began the first few chapters of Colonel Sun and haven't gone back.

 

Part of it is I am just not big into fiction. I have tons of other non-fiction books I've never read and read relatively slowly, as opposed to my wife who devours books at an alarming rate on her Kindle.

 

The beauty is they are all there whenever I feel the desire to explore the literary Bond world.

[Guy Haines]

I've probably mentioned him before on the site, but I have a very good friend, a few years older than me, who is a Bond fan - but only of the Bond of the books. (I guess this could also qualify for a mention on the "Unothodox Bond Opinions" thread - "None of the films are any good, only the books are worth bothering with"?)

 

He finds the films funny - even the so called "serious" ones, although he did sit through most of Skyfall and seemed to like that one - he's got the other Daniel Craig's on DVD and just hasn't got around to watching them yet, they were a present I believe.

 

My friend has said that he'd like to see the books filmed again, but in the correct order and filmed as written - in other words with the offending items left in and probably as period pieces. It would be interesting to see, although as I've pointed out to him, the certification of the films would probably be more restrictive.

 

I do know one thing he doesn't like about the films - the way the screenwriters, in the later movies, took scenes from the books which weren't used in the film of the book. The classic example he quotes is the scene from the novel Live And Let Die in which Felix Leiter loses his leg to a shark - a scene which ended up in Licence To Kill instead.

[MajorB]

I agree that the racism, snobbery, etc. in the books reflected their times, but there's also strong evidence that Fleming as a person leaned into those elements rather than away from them. Reading the books is kind of like reading Huckleberry Finn--you cringe and sigh at the parts that would be completely unacceptable today and try to focus on the more palatable ones. That's what I do, anyway.

 

As for struggling to get through DAF, I'm not surprised--I think it's a much weaker book than its predecessor, with a somewhat rambling plot and weak villains. The next book. FRWL, is much, much better (if you don't mind waiting a while for the hero to show up).

[Double Naught spy]

Anyone who picks up a Fleming novel and expects James Bond to be some lovable, charming, guy is in for a major disappointment.   The character isn't some Owen Wilson-type who is harmless and soft-spoken, nor is he a Han Solo-type of lovable rogue, nor is he the cinematic version who is quick with a one-liner and never gets his hair mussed-up.  Literary James Bond is a non-nonsense man who is assigned the tasks of completing serious (albeit fantastical and outrageous) missions to thwart deadly enemies in order to save his country.   Just like 24's Jack Bauer, Bond was not created to be likable, but rather was created to be respected and admired for his grit and tenacity.

 

As for the charges of racism - perhaps its been too long since I've read the novels, but I don't recall any overt racism in 007.  I certainly don't remember any superior attitudes on his part when he was in Japan - a nation that was part of the Axis during Bond's adulthood and whose people could understandably (being so soon after WWII) be a target for his prejudices - in You Only Live Twice.   And he sure had a lot more respect for Mr. Big and his organization in Live and Let Die than he did for the Mafia in Diamond Are Forever - who he thought of as a group of Italians that dressed up in fancy clothes and sat around and ate spaghetti all day.  (Umm, OK maybe that one is a little racist, but it certainly isn't the example most people use when leveling the racism charge - not to mention that Bond's underestimation of the Mafia sure came back to haunt him!)   

 

Sure, you can cherry-pick sentences like him telling Quarrel to "Fetch me shoes," but that ignores every other example of 007's opinion of the Cayman islander.  If memory serves, Bond (who hired Quarrel - so 007 ordering him about is about as demeaning as M ordering Moneypenny to type up a report - It's her job!) had nothing but respect for Quarrel and grieved greatly when he was killed in Doctor No.   With that logic, are we to also conclude that Bruce Wayne/Batman has something against the elderly every time he orders Alfred around? 

 

As for Bond's sexism - I don't know what to say other than complaining about his (1950's) attitudes is like being shocked that sugar is sweet or water is wet.  You might as well be offended that he kills people for a living!   

 

And finally - you can hardly accuse all of Fleming's female characters of being subservient, damsels-in-distress types who cannot function unless a man tells them what to do.  I submit Gala Brand, Tiffany Case, Honey Rider and Pussy Galore as just a few examples of independent (perhaps unconventionally so, but independent, none-the-less) women who were doing just fine on their own before 007 came into their lives.  Heck, Bond's life was even saved by Domino (not that I would classify her, considering her spoiled, gold-digging attitude, as a good role-model!)

Edited by Double Naught spy, 12 June 2014 - 09:13 PM.

[Iceskater101]

Yes I understand that obviously being a woman, that I am definitely not the target audience for the novels. I completely understand that. I also understand that this is the fifties.. I mean obviously the movies do cut that out and make Bond seem like a better person. I mean if Bond does represent Fleming then Fleming is a prick. There is no other way around it. Fleming is unlikeable.. *assuming the character is based off of himself*

 

I actually enjoyed Casino Royale a lot! I thought it was good but Live and Let Die... I just can't do it. It's very boring to read and it's very slow.

[tdalton]

I actually enjoyed Casino Royale a lot! I thought it was good but Live and Let Die... I just can't do it. It's very boring to read and it's very slow.

 

That was my opinion of Live and Let Die for a long time.  It took my about four different tries to get past the first few chapters, but once I was able to get into it (which took some effort, as there's a lot of objectionable material in there), the story itself and everything else, minus the attitudes regarding race, are much better than EON's attempt at adapting it. 

[Double Naught spy]

Iceskater101,

 

It just occurred to me - perhaps some of the problem you've run across is the fact that Fleming doesn't really flesh-out Bond's personality or character much in those first two novels.  Compared to the later novels, Bond really is more of a generic, cardboard hero in Casino Royale and Live and Let Die.  I recall Moonraker being the first book that really makes Bond 'three-dimensional' (you learn more about his day-to-day routine, etc.)   Reminds me a little of Connery's performance in Dr. No verses his performance in Goldfinger.  In Dr. No, almost every line is tersely and curtly delivered, whereas by Goldfinger, Connery's lines are delivered in a more at ease manner (Think: Connery's dinner conversation with Dr. No verses his almost laid-back discussion with Goldfinger over mint juleps).

 

Although I can see why some would conclude that literary Bond can be quite the ass at times, I don't think he's a racist ass, nor do I think his attitudes on women were that far from the norm for that time period.  I do hope these first two novels don't sour you completely and you continue reading the series. I am also hopeful that, as Fleming fleshes-out Bond's character, he might grow on you a little. 

 

Oh, and if you do continue reading the series - I found The Spy Who Loved Me to be the hardest to get through.  If it weren't for the fact that it was a 007 novel, I don't think I ever would have bothered to finish it.   Anyway, good luck and please let us all know if your opinions change (or don't change) as you continue your journey.

Edited by Double Naught spy, 13 June 2014 - 03:50 AM.

[Jim]

A number of the films are unbearable, too.

[superado]

Yes I understand that obviously being a woman, that I am definitely not the target audience for the novels. I completely understand that. I also understand that this is the fifties.. I mean obviously the movies do cut that out and make Bond seem like a better person. I mean if Bond does represent Fleming then Fleming is a prick. There is no other way around it. Fleming is unlikeable.. *assuming the character is based off of himself*

 

I actually enjoyed Casino Royale a lot! I thought it was good but Live and Let Die... I just can't do it. It's very boring to read and it's very slow.

 

Yes, you understand that it was the 50s, but again, you continue to evaluate the writings through the lens of 21st century sensibilities.  If Fleming/Bond was so deplorable, then that's a bad commentary on 50s culture that validated Fleming's books by making them best-sellers, but maybe a parallel to that is modern culture's validation of certain music genres or video games that glamorize violence and loose sexual mores.  No matter how bad the books may seem, certain movie people saw some appealing qualities in James Bond that they thought was magic they can bottle and that's the James Bond we received in 1962 and more or less the James Bond we still have today, maybe sanitized to ensure a marketability that transcends cultures, but still a sexist prick bordering on predatory behavior.

[Messervy]

 

No matter how bad the books may seem, certain movie people saw some appealing qualities in James Bond that they thought was magic they can bottle and that's the James Bond we received in 1962 and more or less the James Bond we still have today, maybe sanitized to ensure a marketability that transcends cultures, but still a sexist prick bordering on predatory behavior.

And too much sanitized, I would say. Fortunately Craig's run seems to be bringing back some of the "bad boy" attitude (drinks heavily, condescends, etc.), even if just a little.

[Messervy]

I mean if Bond does represent Fleming then Fleming is a prick. There is no other way around it. Fleming is unlikeable.

Why? Because you happen not to share his views/tastes/way of life?

[Odd Jobbies]

....obviously the movies do cut that out and make Bond seem like a better person.

Why do you expect a ruthless government sanctioned murderer to be a 'better person'?

 

Fleming described Bond as a blunt instrument, but never as a good person. He's the lesser of evils that you unleash when all else fails.

 

That's the whole point of the 'double-0s'. They're not just a gimmick - something that a branding agency came up with. They signify that this is not a 'good man' - he's a very dangerous man with a licence to kill - that means he kills for a living.  The movies don't cut that out and are compromised by the hypocrisy underlying that; all the Bonds until Craig never show a toll for the endless, often cold blooded killing - there's no character development (which features heavily throughout the books).

 

There's never a real sense of the 00s - their burden - in the movies until Daniel Craig's era.

 

Portraying such a complexity as 'better person' is a hypocrisy that the movie franchise spun to make money through mass appeal. The mantra being that while literature demands complexity, the movie business demands simplicity (in other words a PG rating = bigger ticket sales).

 

Fleming's genius and opportunity was to describe such a fellow truthfully and authentically because of his first hand experience training and running such men.

 

Thus what makes the books so unique is the wild imagination of Fleming - put to good use in the war - and his first hand knowledge of the characters involved; a meeting of fantasy and reality that i think is fairly rare in modern literature of this type.

 

Le Carre can certainly sing the authenticity, but doesn't care for the flights of fancy that Fleming weaved so well. As for those many writers who do care for the flights of fantasy and who also weave them just as well, i don't think there's a single one who claims first hand experience of the characters they involve. Fleming is maybe a one-off.

 

So, maybe you should reevaluate your need for Bond to be a 'better person'. Fleming is not writing about white knights that come to the rescue, he's giving you an authentic insight into the life of someone who does this work and the emotional and physical toll it takes. That IMO is what makes Fleming Literature, as opposed to the Melodrama  of the movie franchise. But thankfully Craig and his influence has changed that.

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 13 June 2014 - 11:13 AM.

[Guy Haines]

Iceskater 101,

 

The next one after Live And Let Die is Moonraker. One of my favourites. On the one hand, not quite your typical Bond story - he doesn't leave England, for example. On the other hand, it has the kind of science fictional stuff in it that the films had - notably, Sir Hugo Drax's rocket base - and a collection of villains that, however queasy one might be about racism or sexism in the books, are just plain bad, as bad as they were in the 30s and 40s. Plus it has a real race against time climax to stop the bad guy getting away with it.

 

(It's only the chapters about contract bridge that are a bit bewildering, if you don't play bridge - which I don't!)

[Iceskater101]

 

I mean if Bond does represent Fleming then Fleming is a prick. There is no other way around it. Fleming is unlikeable.

Why? Because you happen not to share his views/tastes/way of life?

 

 

He doesn't respect women.. at least the way he designs Bond.. women are objects so yes, I do think he is a prick because he doesn't respect women. I mean it's hard for me to separate what it was like in the 50's to now. 

 

Maybe I could try and skip Live and Let Die and move on to another novel. I have Live and Let Die and the Man with the Golden Gun at my disposal so I might try the Man with the Golden Gun and see if I like that one any better. 

[Turn]

Beyond the aspect of treatment of women, when it comes down to it the books are strong with the dramatic thriller aspect, especially later on. Before I read FRWL I was dreading the first third as it deals with SMERSH's planning of Bond's assassination and instead I found it interesting and not even caring that Bond had nothing to do with it. FRWL is Fleming at his best, IMO, especially when Grant has Bond in his grasp on the Orient Express, possibly the most tense scene in the series.

 

And I always find it entertaining to read these books with characters I'm familiar with and scenes and note the differences and similarities to their cinematic counterparts. Although I don't have any of the actors in mind with the Bond character, I sometimes imagine one saying certain lines. For example, Bond's treatment of Oddjob in the literary version is something I can easily hear Connery's Bond saying. 

[Messervy]

 

 

I mean if Bond does represent Fleming then Fleming is a prick. There is no other way around it. Fleming is unlikeable.

Why? Because you happen not to share his views/tastes/way of life?

 

 

He doesn't respect women..

 

I'm not sure I could agree with you on this.

And since you said you read Casino Royale, I doubt even you could agree with this, actually. Or else we haven't read the same novel.

[Odd Jobbies]

 

 

I mean if Bond does represent Fleming then Fleming is a prick. There is no other way around it. Fleming is unlikeable.

Why? Because you happen not to share his views/tastes/way of life?

 

 

He doesn't respect women.. at least the way he designs Bond.. women are objects...

Bond doesn't hate women, but he is afraid of them and keeps them at a distance, thus the sense of them being objectified.

 

Why is he afraid?  If you paid attention when reading Casino Royale it would be pretty obvious. He let one get close and she utterly betrayed him. Up to that point he sees thing in b/w, cowboys and indians and himself most certainly as a cowboy - a good guy. From the line 'The bitch is dead', onwards he's learnt that things aren't simple - the good can be bad and he'll do whatever it takes to kill SMERSH. He's earned that cruel smile.

 

When he finally does let another woman in she is swiftly taken from him and he finally begins to unravel in the following book until his identity is washed away between novels and he's 'reborn' in the final book. So he gets to live twice, perhaps.

 

Bond and Fleming are often accused of misogyny. I don't believe any of us here can truly speak for Fleming, but those who accuse Bond obviously haven't read the books, or failed to grasp the pretty clear subtext of Bond's true weakness, a hopeful heart.

 

ETA: Please, read them in the order they were written if you want to glean Bond's character arc. If you just dip into most things they will seem superficial, but that's your choice.

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 13 June 2014 - 08:15 PM.

[Major Tallon]

I disagree that Bond doesn't respect women.  Consider the following passage from chapter 10 of LALD.  Just to set it up, Solitaire was in Mr. Big's Harlem office, but she called Bond at his hotel and told him that he had to help her escape from the Big Man's clutches.  Bond told her that he'd kill her if she were betraying him, but agreed to take her with him on his trip to Florida by train.  The entire passage is too long to quote, but I think it tells us a lot about Bond's attitude, and his feelings.  I see nothing disrespectful, but rather romantic and protective.  Here were some of his thoughts as he was waiting for her to board the train:

 

"For better or worse, he had decided to accept Solitaire, or rather, in his cold way, to make the most of her . . . .  As for the girl, as a girl, he reflected that it was going to be fun teasing her and being teased back, and he was glad that they had already crossed the frontiers into comradeship and even intimacy . . . .  He wanted her to come back and sit down opposite him again so that he could look at her and play with her and slowly discover her."

 

After Solitaire was kidnapped, Bond went into her motel room to search it, and he was struck by the fact that her room "still smelled of her, of the Vent Vert that reminded him of their journey together."  Later, he went back to her room, got into the bed she had used and "climbed between the sheets where her warm body had lain . . . ." (chapter 14). 

 

I just don't see convincing evidence that Bond is misogynistic or disrespectful toward Solitaire. 

[Iceskater101]

Why does Bond not respect women? Well in Casino Royale, he goes on to talk about how he believes women are for pleasure. To me, that means he thinks women are for pleasuring men. To me, that seems a little demeaning to women....

 

And yeah I haven't read all of the Fleming novels, I have only fully read Casino Royale and I barely got through Live and Let Die... but still. I am allowed to formulate an opinion whether or not I have read all of Fleming's novels or not.

[Achtung74]

I recently had to put down the Iliad for similar reasons.  I couldn't even get through the second chapter with the way Homer characterizes the females of the story.

[Major Tallon]

Of course you are, Iceskater101.  I acknowledge that some of Bond's internal ruminations can lead for harsh judgments about him, though I think that his overall conduct toward women across fourteen books is chivalrous and protective and represents a more valid assessment of his attitudes.  I don't wish to be unpleasant, however, and I won't argue the point further.  Friends?

[superado]

Why does Bond not respect women? Well in Casino Royale, he goes on to talk about how he believes women are for pleasure. To me, that means he thinks women are for pleasuring men. To me, that seems a little demeaning to women....

 

Wasn't that part of his character development?  He falls for Vesper and is radicalized with his change of feelings to only have the rug pulled out from under him.  That was basically the same character arc with the film version, with Bond being predatory towards married women (self-confessed and in the act with Solange) as well as being condescending with Vesper but only to relinquish (if only temporary) "his armor"?  Did he not regard other women in QoS and SF as objects of pleasure? 

 

But if you continue to read the novels and short stories, you'll see that Bond couples with women under the mutual understanding of sexual pleasure and he doesn't force himself on women who do not want his advances (I think Connery was worse in doing that).