Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Crisis of faith as a literary bond fan


5 replies to this topic

#1 Sutter Cane

Sutter Cane

    Recruit

  • Crew
  • 4 posts

Posted 17 December 2014 - 02:23 PM

I feel like the more that I reread the James Bond novels, the less I feel I understand Ian Fleming as a person. I mean it's obvious that there are certain elements of the bond novels that would not be considered acceptable, for example the diatribe about how women getting the vote caused homosexuality to flourish or the random and seemingly out of place line in Casino Royale about how Bond's sex with vesper would always have the "sweet tang of rape," so it'd be easy to write stuff like this off as the rantings of a deeply prejudiced man, but at the same time I find it difficult to just do that because of how inconsistent such elements are throughout Fleming's writing.

 

A good illustration of this appears in the novel Live and Let Die. Fleming makes a point of having 2 different characters at different points of the novel give a speec about how African-Americans are just as capable as white people are, so it seems clear that he's trying to make a point about the inherent equality of the races, but inbetween those two points his characterizations of PoC seem to mostly consist of harmful stereotypes, and with the more fleshed out characters (Mr. Big and Quarrell) Fleming makes a point of telling us that either thay have white blood in the case of mister big, or in Quarrell's case that his features do not appear "negroid" (that word makes me cringe, and it is Fleming's word rather than mine). Also later in Dr No, he has a character characterize Jamaicans as "lazy" and "child-like". which seems to directly contradict the speeches Fleming gave us in LaLD.

 

Furthermore in Goldfinger he includes some very bigoted sentiments towards Koreans (though always given through a character rather than exposited by a narrator), and makes the character of Dr No a blatant "yellow peril" style villain, but then later goes on to write You Only Live Twice which is essentially a love letter to Japan in the form of a james bond novel. I guess theoretically he could just be prejudiced against the Chinese and Koreans while being perfectly fine with the Japanese, but somehow that seems unlikely to me. 

 

Then we get to the sexist undertones of the books. So on top of the aforementioned "sweet tang of rape comment" and the diatribe against giving women the vote, Fleming is quite fond of using the "rape as backstory" trope for his female characters. He also seems to have an affinity for making his female protagonists entirely uninterested in men until bond comes along, at wich point they fall for his charms. Obvious examples here would be Tiffany Case, Solitare (potentially. It's stated by Mr. Big that while she Lived in Haiti she was completely uninterested in men, which is how she got her nickname, but later she specifically states that she's always wanted to be with a man), Pussy Galore (who is specifically stated to be a lesbain), and potentially Vesper Lynd but I may be misremembering that one. Running counter to that though, is the fact that outside those tropes Fleming typically depicts his female protagonists as very capable individuals, with Solitare escaping from the villain's clutches on her own in the first half of Live and Let Die, Gala Brand being depicted as an extremely talented agent of Special Branch in Moonraker, and Honeychille Rider (if I remember correctly, it's been years since I've read Dr. No, and i've not yet reached that one in my rereading of the series yet) being depicted as essentially a female tarzan, being very physically capable and demonstrating great knowledge of the local area despite Bond's sexist attitudes toward her.

 

Due to this it's very hard for me to get a handle on who Fleming was as a person and what his attitudes were, and it's also making it very hard to get through the series again at points, as the more positive aspects can draw me in and put me at ease, allowing me to essentially be sucker-punched as a reader by the negative, prejudiced aspects of his work.



#2 Revelator

Revelator

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 572 posts
  • Location:San Francisco

Posted 18 December 2014 - 09:20 PM

I feel like the more that I reread the James Bond novels, the less I feel I understand Ian Fleming as a person. I mean it's obvious that there are certain elements of the bond novels that would not be considered acceptable, for example the diatribe about how women getting the vote caused homosexuality to flourish or the random and seemingly out of place line in Casino Royale about how Bond's sex with vesper would always have the "sweet tang of rape," so it'd be easy to write stuff like this off as the rantings of a deeply prejudiced man, but at the same time I find it difficult to just do that because of how inconsistent such elements are throughout Fleming's writing.

 

I think some of these elements are less deeply-believed rants than attempts to shock the reader. "Sweet tang" thoughts aside, Bond isn't anything close to a rapist. The sex-equality line is pretty outrageous though a bit more nuanced--Fleming is saying that gender equality and the breakdown of gender roles is creating sexual misfits who aren't fully homosexual or heterosexual. Swap out "misfits" for a more positive term and you'll have something any gender studies might approve of.

 

A good illustration of this appears in the novel Live and Let Die. Fleming makes a point of having 2 different characters at different points of the novel give a speech about how African-Americans are just as capable as white people are, so it seems clear that he's trying to make a point about the inherent equality of the races, but inbetween those two points his characterizations of PoC seem to mostly consist of harmful stereotypes

 

I think that stems from Fleming being caught between an Imperial viewpoint--where every nationality and earth was meant to be subservient to the British--and the emerging consensus on civil rights. I think it's clear that he likes African-Americans and other black nationalities, but he also patronizes them and has no real connection to them as equals. Most of the black people Fleming knew were his servants at GoldenEye, and there was a class divide alongside the racial one.

 

Furthermore in Goldfinger he includes some very bigoted sentiments towards Koreans (though always given through a character rather than exposited by a narrator), and makes the character of Dr No a blatant "yellow peril" style villain, but then later goes on to write You Only Live Twice which is essentially a love letter to Japan in the form of a james bond novel.

 

I used to be puzzled by that as well, until I recalled Fleming's usage of the word "races," which implies races within the usual races we speak of nowadays (white, black, asian, etc). And he obviously had his favorites within those races. Why he should have disliked Koreans, especially when the Japanese had a far worse war record, still puzzles me. But perhaps he viewed Koreans as more exotic and more amenable to being viewed villainously. 

 

Then we get to the sexist undertones of the books..Fleming is quite fond of using the "rape as backstory" trope for his female characters. He also seems to have an affinity for making his female protagonists entirely uninterested in men until bond comes along, at wich point they fall for his charms. Obvious examples here would be Tiffany Case, Solitare (potentially. It's stated by Mr. Big that while she Lived in Haiti she was completely uninterested in men, which is how she got her nickname, but later she specifically states that she's always wanted to be with a man), Pussy Galore (who is specifically stated to be a lesbain), and potentially Vesper Lynd but I may be misremembering that one.

 

Vesper's interest in men is actually what dooms her--recall her Polish boyfriend held hostage by SMERSH. But the larger point is that most of Fleming's heroines are either not interested in men or have had terrible experiences with them (sometimes rape, but also bad previous relationships, as with Vivienne, Domino and Tracy). Regardless of circumstance, Bond represents the first genuinely caring and decent man they come in contact with, and they often leave the books happier and more fulfilled than how they entered them. In that larger sense, the idea of Bond being the first "real man" the women encounter is more along the line of wish-fulfillment than misogyny.

 

Due to this it's very hard for me to get a handle on who Fleming was as a person and what his attitudes were, and it's also making it very hard to get through the series again at points, as the more positive aspects can draw me in and put me at ease, allowing me to essentially be sucker-punched as a reader by the negative, prejudiced aspects of his work.

 

Fleming was someone caught between the world of Edwardian clubland and the jet-age. He was anarcho-Tory Imperialist who held extremely permissive views on sex and morality. The fact that he and his books are full of striking contrasts and incongruous attitudes helps them remain interesting and provocative.



#3 saint mark

saint mark

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 146 posts

Posted 18 December 2014 - 09:22 PM

The books are situated in an earlier time where some of the views described by you were mainstream and acceptable, which does not mean that they are the absolute truth. The fact that you see certain aspects and have your thoughts about it means that you think about what you read so kudos to you.

 

For me Fleming's "hero" becomes more human through his "flawed" human opinions. He is not a superhuman of the white knightly variety but a blunt instrument that is very good at his job. and his personal opinions even if I might disagree with them make him a product of his time. 

 

I read Flemings' spy stories as what they are mid twenty century cold war spy adventures their content belangs in another era and as a matter of fact Fleming does know how to really write about that era and its lost romanticism albeit often cross in the eyes of the modern human..



#4 Sutter Cane

Sutter Cane

    Recruit

  • Crew
  • 4 posts

Posted 22 December 2014 - 11:29 AM

 

 

-Snip-

That's actually a really good and useful analysis of Fleming as a person there. Thank You.



#5 Revelator

Revelator

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 572 posts
  • Location:San Francisco

Posted 22 December 2014 - 10:59 PM

That's actually a really good and useful analysis of Fleming as a person there. Thank You.


 

 

You're very welcome. Fleming's attitudes can be very difficult to understand, and many modern-day readers have had difficulties in stomaching them.



#6 FlemingBond

FlemingBond

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 610 posts
  • Location:Phoenix, Az U.S.

Posted 23 December 2014 - 09:42 PM

They were written at a time when people were just brought up with different views. i've heard it posed was this person or that person a racist; people born 100 years ago mind you. Well the truth was people were brought up much more segregated. I've known older people that would say slightly bigoted thing's, but at the same time over the years they had made friend's with people of other race's.

As for the question of his views on sex, there again, a different time.

 

So for me it hasn't been particularly difficult to get a handle on who Fleming was.