103 replies to this topic

[Xenobia]

Two Caveats first:

1) This is with the understanding that Glidrose is in danger, which I think it is, because they are no concrete plans to continue the James Bond Literary series past reissues of the original Fleming Books.

2) This is my opinion. I encourage you to disagree.

The way that Glidrose can save itself and reinvent itself is to begin to aggressively challenge the idea that the James Bond of the literary series is much harder, much more the misogynist, much more cruel, than the 007 we see on screen. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The James Bond that Ian Fleming gave us was sexist, to be sure, but that is a long way from being a misogynist -- a true woman hater. This Bond cries, (in LALD for example), gets sick, gets hurt, gets angry, and does lots of other things that the film Bond never ever does. If anything, it can be argued that the cinematic Bond is the harder, less human of the two, because he never cries, or gets sick, or appears to be seriously injured.

I suspect many writers are scared off from even hinting that they would like to take up the Bond mantel because they think they would be trapped writing a one-dimensional zombie. If they see that they can write a very interesting character that is truly well drawn, many talented people will make their interest known in appropriate ways.

Moreover, if it is revealed that Bond is very human, and in his humanity does extraordinary things, a new generation of fans, and a new group of fans -- women specifically -- will be drawn to the series. Right now, I suspect many people share what used to be my fear, that the literary Bond would not be palatable and would negatively affect my view of the cinematic Bond. Again, nothing could be further from the truth.

Thoughts?

-- Xenobia

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Xenobia

The way that Glidrose can save itself, and reinvent itself is to begin to aggressively challenge the idea that the James Bond of the literary series is much harder, much more the mysogynist, much more cruel, than the 007 we see on screen.  Nothing could be futher from the truth.

Not much harder and crueller. Slightly harder and crueller, perhaps. While the films are, by and large, fun-for-all-the-family fare (and should be), I tend to feel that the novels ought to be grittier, sexier and more violent (which they are, generally speaking).

At the same time, the novels were never supposed to be anything more than escapist entertainments. They were never intended as truly adult, dark, angst-ridden, sexually explicit affairs (although such a Bond novel would certainly be a very interesting experiment, especially in the hands of a writer like Martin Amis or J.G. Ballard).

I'm not sure Bond was ever a woman-hater, even when Fleming was writing him. As you point out, Xen, he was sexist, but not a misogynist. And I don't believe that many fans are calling for the character to be written as a misogynist.

Originally posted by Xenobia

If anything, it can be argued that the cinamatic Bond is the harder, less human of the two, because he never cries, or gets sick, or appears to be seriously injured.

Excellent point.

Originally posted by Xenobia

I suspect  many writers are scared off from even hinting that they would like to take up the Bond mantel because they think they would be trapped writing a one-dimensional zombie.  If they see that they can write a very interesting character that is truly well drawn, many talented people will make their interest known in appropriate ways.

Moreover, if it is revealed that Bond is very human, and in his humanity does extraordinary things, a new generation of fans, and a new group of fans -- women specifically -- will be drawn to the series.    Right now, I suspect many people share what used to be my fear, that the literary Bond would not be palletable and would negatively effect my view of the cinematic Bond. Again, nothing could be further from the truth.

I feel that Fleming, Amis and Benson (and presumably Gardner, too, although I've never read his books) always tried to write a "very human" 007, although it may be argued that Benson's Bond is often rather too much the Eon superhero. I guess the problem in attracting new readers is that people who have never read a Bond novel might assume that the books are pap and little better than novelizations, and that the character of Bond is cardboard and invincible.

[zencat]

I agree with many of your points, Xen, but I'm not sure Glidrose (IFP) feels any great need to be "saved." I think they are happy to be the custodians of the Ian Fleming James Bond name, and don't really feel a great need to do that much with it. If they wanted to make money they could license the literary Bond in the way the Star Trek, Star Wars, and to a lesser extent the Indy Jones franchises have done. You know; Bond comic books, puzzle books, paperback originals, and more novels. There could easily a Bond literary universe just as there is a Star Wars literary universe. I

[Loomis]

Originally posted by zencat

But I think the folks over at IFP are happy to sit around, have lunch, reissue the Fleming books every ten years, and deal with the occasional bother of having to put out a novelization every 2 or 3 years.

But it's interesting that IFP (in its Glidrose days) was very much in the business of keeping the literary series going for 20-odd years following the publication of "Licence Renewed". What has changed? What has killed the market for new Bond novels?

If I were in charge I'd:

- Ensure that each new Bond novel was given as good a marketing campaign as possible. When I was a kid, the Gardners were everywhere (I'm kicking myself for not buying them then, but that's another story), but the new Benson paperback (which hit shelves only a few days ago here in the UK) is tough to track down even in London's leading bookshops.

- Release a new Bond novel every two or three years, rather than every year. Where's the sense in flooding the market? It only confirms the suspicions of those who believe the books are churned-out pap. Also, I feel that Benson's books might have been much better had he had an additional year to hone and polish them (the same goes for any other writer). "The Man With the Red Tattoo" is a very good Bond novel that might have been an astonishingly good one. As well as the potential for products of higher quality, a longer break between books allows for greater anticipation on the part of fans.

[Xenobia]

Originally posted by Loomis
Not much harder and crueller. Slightly harder and crueller, perhaps. While the films are, by and large, fun-for-all-the-family fare (and should be), I tend to feel that the novels ought to be grittier, sexier and more violent (which they are, generally speaking).

I agree that the novels should be grittier and sexier and more violent, in the sense that with novels, good writers can paint enough of the picture that the reader can then make the work as gritty, sexy, and violent as they want.

I'm not sure Bond was ever a woman-hater, even when Fleming was writing him. As you point out, Xen, he was sexist, but not a misogynist. And I don't believe that many fans are calling for the character to be written as a misogynist.  

The fans most definately are not. The problem there are certain circles of criticism (some feminist writers for example) who use the word misogynist too liberally, hence Bond getting an undo reputation. My problem with Glidrose is, in my humble opinion, they have not done enough to counter that unwarranted criticism.

I feel that Fleming, Amis and Benson (and presumably Gardner, too, although I've never read his books) always tried to write a "very human" 007, although it may be argued that Benson's Bond is often rather too much the Eon superhero.

I am glad to hear that. The perspective I am coming from is what I heard about the Bond novels before I actually did some reading about them, let alone read the novels. Again, the undue reputation is that the Bond of the novels is inhuman in how cold he is.

I guess the problem in attracting new readers is that people who have never read a Bond novel might assume that the books are pap and little better than novelizations, and that the character of Bond is cardboard and invincible.

That, or they come to think of him as an inhuman misogynist, courtesy of the misinformed scholars. They probably came out of the same school that turned Ted Hughes into a demon, and Slyvia Plath into victim, negating both of their work.

-- Xenobia

[Jim]

Originally posted by Xenobia


The way that Glidrose can save itself and reinvent itself is to begin to aggressively challenge the idea that the James Bond of the literary series is much harder, much more the misogynist, much more cruel, than the 007 we see on screen.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

Moreover, if it is revealed that Bond is very human, and in his humanity does extraordinary things, a new generation of fans, and a new group of fans -- women specifically -- will be drawn to the series.    

Thoughts?

-- Xenobia

Wait until you get to "all women love semi-rape" - ostensibly out of the mouth of a female character - or the "curing" of Pussy Galore - and then have another think about this.

True, those sentiments aren't coming from Bond himself (although something equally bigoted as his attitude to Oddjob's race, is), but from his creator - but the two become very difficult to divorce. If you take Bond away from Ian Fleming and make him a bland creature of multi-sexual, multi-cultural appeal, you get Pierce Brosnan. Are you sure you're not selectively reading these books to find things to cling on to in your pursuit of the belief that Mr Brosnan is an ideal James Bond? Are you sure you're not choosing to gloss over the nastier details because they don't assist this pointless hindsight reconstruction? Perhaps that's the subtext of this post. Rebrand the written Bond character to make it more like Pierce Brosnan.

Jesus.

Hasn't he done enough damage already? For God's sake, leave the book Bond be.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Jim

Wait until you get to "all women love semi-rape" - ostensibly out of the mouth of a female character - or the "curing" of Pussy Galore - and then have another think about this.

True, those sentiments aren't coming from Bond himself (although something equally bigoted as his attitude to Oddjob's race, is), but from his creator - but the two become very difficult to divorce. If you take Bond away from Ian Fleming and make him a bland creature of multi-sexual, multi-cultural appeal, you get Pierce Brosnan.

Yes, or Raymond Benson's Bond, I suppose (I cannot comment on Gardner's).

I confess that I am quite unaware of current trends in feminist criticism, but I cannot imagine politically correct academics taking kindly to the works of Fleming.

Curiously enough, true misogyny in the Fleming novels seems to come not from Bond but from allies--mentors (father figures?) like Darko Kerim, Marc-Ange Draco and Tiger Tanaka.

Darko Kerim talking to Bond in "From Russia With Love":

'I had a little Bessarabian hell-cat. I had won her in a fight with some gipsies, here in the hills behind Istanbul. They came after me, but I got her on board the boat. I had to knock her unconscious first. She was still trying to kill me when we got back to Trebizond, so I got her to my place and took away all her clothes and kept her chained naked under the table, like a dog. She had to learn who was master. Before that could happen, my mother did an unheard of thing. She visited my place without warning. She came to tell me that my father wanted to see me immediately. She found the girl. My mother was really angry with me for the first time in my life. Angry? She was beside herself. I was a cruel ne'er-do-well and she was ashamed to call me son. The girl must immediately be taken back to her people. My mother brought her some of her own clothes from the house. The girl put them on, but when the time came she refused to leave me.' Darko Kerim laughed hugely. 'An interesting lesson in female psychology, my dear friend.'

Marc-Ange Draco talking to Bond in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service":

'I was married once only, to an English girl, an English governess. She was a romantic. She had come to Corsica to look for bandits' - he smiled - 'rather like some English women adventure into the desert to look for sheiks. She explained to me later that she must have been possessed by a subconscious desire to be raped. Well' - this time he didn't smile - 'she found me in the mountains and she was raped - by me. The police were after me at the time, they have been for most of my life, and the girl was a grave encumbrance. But for some reason she refused to leave me.'

A far cry from the sort of masculinity promoted by, say, THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH, no?

[Jim]

Quite

The original post is crashingly naive. True, the more florid opinions/actions are generally (but not always) those of the supporting characters (and more often than not, the good guys) - but if one is thinking one can read the Fleming novels just for the Bond "character" and expect to ignore the surrounding elements - or expect to be able to market the Fleming novels on the basis of "Look at Bond, he is real, isn't he like Pierce, oh just ignore the rest of it" - that will just fail horrifically.

If one tries to market these things to a wider, grotesquely PC audience, on the basis of the Bond character alone, then one would be misrepresenting to an appallingly stupid extent what these books are. Face it, these books aren't just the Bond character, and the perception that people have reacted with scorn to Fleming's books simply because of the Bond character himself is depressingly ignorant.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Jim

If one tries to market these things to a wider, grotesquely PC audience, on the basis of the Bond character alone, then one would be misrepresenting to an appallingly stupid extent what these books are. ... the perception that people have reacted with scorn to Fleming's books simply because of the Bond character himself is depressingly ignorant.

Leaving aside the Fleming novels (which I believe Xenobia was doing to a large extent) and the marketing thereof (and it seems that the Flemings are selling in far greater quantities than the Bensons, while public interest in "Colonel Sun" and the Gardners is next to zip), would you agree, Jim, that the current continuation novels as provided by Benson already cater - in theory, at least - to "a wider, grotesquely PC audience"?

Let the male chauvinists, homophobes, racists and xenophobes, the Spectator-reading, Blair-despising Little Englanders, read Fleming. Let the PC brigade subsist on Benson. Everyone's happy.

[Jim]

Originally posted by Loomis


Leaving aside the Fleming novels (which I believe Xenobia was doing to a large extent)...

Quite so, and that's the flaw in the argument - how can you leave the novels, as material, aside? How can you market the character outwith the books? What would you be trying to sell the books on - about twenty pages all told of character material, out of near two thousand pages of text? The objections I've heard voiced about "Bond" is not so much James Bond the character, but "Bond" (the concept) as novels, the whole damn shebang. It's shatteringly stupid to think that just telling folk that James Bond the character isn't so bad = the books can be opened to a wider audience. It's underselling their strengths. Quite frankly, James Bond himself is - and I think this is deliberate - one of the least interesting characters in the books - it's what he does and who he does it to/with and, to be frank, how it's presented that makes the books unique.

The Benson novels read like the current films which are indeed grotesque PC flab.

As to the closing paragraph of your most recent post, Loomers...another example of hindsight revisionism. I doubt when he wrote the books Fleming had any real concept he was being any of those things.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Jim

As to the closing paragraph of your most recent post, Loomers...another example of hindsight revisionism.  

Oh, absolutely. After all, what revisionism isn't done with hindsight? I, too, doubt that Fleming consciously set out to imbue his books with antediluvian or objectionable notions. On the other hand, he was conservative in outlook (a crime in itself, according to some) and tended to exaggerate Britain's global status (at least until "You Only Live Twice" and "The Man With the Golden Gun", which seem to acknowledge American supremacy).

There's an argument, albeit one that I won't make with particular passion, that Fleming's books, far from being merely works of roaring bigotry, were occasionally rather ahead of their time in some respects. The leading black character in "Live and Let Die" is portrayed as a genius, while 007 finds a staunch friend in Quarrel, the Cayman Islander (although it's made clear that their relationship is not one of equals). In "You Only Live Twice", Bond romances a Japanese woman. In fact, he sleeps with---- Moving on swiftly (to quote Terry Christian):

Originally posted by Jim

Quite frankly, James Bond himself is - and I think this is deliberate - one of the least interesting characters in the books - it's what he does and who he does it to/with and, to be frank, how it's presented that makes the books unique.

True. Bond is really a rather dull fellow, to whom exciting things happen, a blank canvas on which male readers can project their fantasies (where that leaves female readers is open to question - any ideas, Xen?). If troubled by Fleming, perhaps the PC brigade would be better off sampling the even blanker canvas of Benson's 007.

[Jim]

Originally posted by Loomis


Oh, absolutely. After all, what revisionism isn't done with hindsight?  

True, 'twas tautology.

It's just that my impression of the original monstrous supposition at the start of the thread is that one should find some apologia for the Bond novels, try to find "some way in" for those whose minds have been desiccated by years of other people's concepts. Escape the thought police, their prisons of -isms and -ists. If you accept these concepts, you recognise your own limitations (this rant goes on for several minutes) Make up your own rules. There need not be a way in for those whose minds are full of sociological garbage because they are already dead.

There is no need to apologise for the Bond novels and no need to decide to separate out elements of the books for their enjoyment by those whose brains rattle around their heads like loose ballbrearings in a beachball. It's not that the Bond series doesn't deserve their thought; their thoughts do not deserve the Bond series.

If you only emphasise bits of it, you're not getting the full hit. Also, you're kidding yourself and creating a false impression for those who might rely on whatever crazed thoughts and value system you think you are upholding. They might not thank you for it once they start reading. It would not be a way to save Glidrose/IFP - it would kill it because people will think they have been misled.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Jim

It's just that my impression of the original monstrous supposition at the start of the thread is that one should find some apologia for the Bond novels, try to find "some way in" for those whose minds have been desiccated by years of other people's concepts.  

Well put. Words like "inclusiveness" and "outreach", and phrases like "access regulator" spring to mind. *Loomis reaches for revolver*

Originally posted by Jim

If you only emphasise bits of it, you're not getting the full hit.  

By "it", I presume that you are referring only to the series of Fleming novels, not the great big monster series comprising the books of Fleming, Amis, Gardner and Benson. The impression I get from Xenobia's posts is that she is not only interested in the question of how to promote or pay homage to the works of Fleming, but also - and perhaps to a greater extent - interested in the question of how to reinvent the literary James Bond via new fiction.

Curious how "the public at large" still does not seem to have lost its appetite for Fleming's take on James Bond, while interest in the visions of Gardner and Benson appears nonexistent.

[Jim]

Originally posted by Loomis


By "it", I presume that you are referring only to the series of Fleming novels, not the great big monster series comprising the books of Fleming, Amis, Gardner and Benson. The impression I get from Xenobia's posts is that she is not only interested in the question of how to promote or pay homage to the works of Fleming, but also - and perhaps to a greater extent - interested in the question of how to reinvent the literary James Bond via new fiction.

Admittedly "it" wasn't very descriptive. I am referring only to the Fleming series, though.

What I mean is that the rather sterile implication at the top of the thread proposed that to remarket Bond, we concentrate on the character of Bond alone and play down the elements in the Fleming Bonds which to more tawdry brains might be deemed offensive or incompatible ugh) with whatever pseudo-sociological dementia by which they have limited their own existences.

To which I say - testicles.

The Literary Bond (a concept which goes beyond the rather dull principal character and into how the books are written) does not need reinventing. It has already been invented. Live with it. To just concentrate on the individual character at the expense of the manner in which it is presented will kill Bond stone dead. That's where the uniqueness of the Fleming Bond series lies; the whole show, the book not just as a story but as a lifestyle, a worldview. The plots, themselves, let's face it - are terrible. Presented bland they would be indistinguishable from any other airport rack litter. This is where the newer books have found themselves - the plots may actually be better and they have James Bond in them, quite a lot of James Bond given the relenetless drive to make him a "character"; but they're not Literary Bond.

I'm not trying to state that Fleming was a great writer - he wasn't. But he wasn't that much in love with his own lead character to make his own lead character the sole focus of his attention. This is why if one markets the Flemings on the characater of Bond alone, you really won't and don't get "it".

That word again.

[Xenobia]

Hi there!

Can I come back to the argument please. Believe it or not Jim, Pierce Brosnan never factored into this argument. I know you won't believe me, but, to quote you, know this: I don't care.

This was about the Fleming novels, the novels that Glidrose seeks to protect at all costs, and if they had their way (I suspect) they would be the only novels featuring James Bond.

I tend to take texts in their entire contexts, so I will wait and read about Pussy Galore's "cure" and the "semi-rape" sequence from TSWLM (the latter being written by Ian Fleming pretending to be a woman, not James Bond), and yes, I will read Draco's accounts as well.

Should Fleming be divorced from Bond and vice versa? Absolutely not. However, I am not going to take the words spoken by Vivenne Michel and Draco which may reflect some of Fleming's thinking and automatically assume they belong to Bond as well. Fleming created those other characters for a reason. I suspect it is because Fleming wanted to say some things, but he didn't want James Bond to say it.

-- Xenobia

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Jim

This is where the newer books have found themselves - the plots may actually be better and they have James Bond in them, quite a lot of James Bond given the relenetless drive to make him a "character"; but they're not Literary Bond.  

So you feel the literary Bond died with Fleming, Jim? Personally, I think it ended with "Colonel Sun".

What's your view, Xenobia? Is Benson just as much authentic Bond as Fleming?

[Jim]

Originally posted by Xenobia


I tend to take texts in their entire contexts, so I will wait and read about Pussy Galore's "cure" and the "semi-rape" sequence from TSWLM (the latter being written by Ian Fleming pretending to be a woman, not James Bond)

-- Xenobia

Yes

I know

But if your proposed scheme sees light of day (all varieties of deity forbid), folks would be sold The Spy who Loved Me on the basis of "James Bond's in it and he's quite a nice fellow really" and then be met with the above sentiment. Your suggestion proposes downplaying those aspects to gather a market from those who would be offended by it (because - what? - you believe that they need protecting. Blimey, grand of you). You might not be thanked for that.

What does "take texts in their entire contexts" mean?

Both as an expression and itself in context, given that the original proposition is to effectively take Fleming's Bond out of his context and market the books based on that one deliberately dull (does not detract from loony villains) character which is an utter misrepresentation of what - and more especially how - Fleming wrote.

So what is this - you can take texts in context but others shouldn't? Uh? A little paternalistic, that, wouldn't you say? But then the whole idea is paternalistic, and hideously patronising - here's Jamie B and he's quite nice.

Marketing the Bond books just on the James Bond character as "not all that bad really" is denial of the strengths of the books. How is that any sort of strategy, except the sort labelled "bizarre self-denial"? Strikes me that in your reading of what you have read of Fleming, there have been passages which have not appealed to you (does this say more about Fleming or about you?) and therefore you seek to justify continuing with the books by latching onto one of the more undernourished elements as the one to promote. It's OK to say you don't like Fleming's style very much - better than your proposal, anyway.

Are you really recommending that the future is a series of basic spy narratives that have a character called James Bond in them, but no narrative panache, no voice, no conceivable attitude? God help us. What's the point in that?

Colonel Sun - last twitching of a long-dead corpse.

[zencat]

Really, I could give a **** about Fleming, I just want a new Bond book.

[Xenobia]

Originally posted by Jim
What does "take texts in their entire contexts" mean?

It means when I speak about specific points in the text, I want to do so knowing what went on in the paragraphs before or after it. For example, you mention what Draco said about Tracy's mother. You never mention how Bond felt about that narrative.

Both as an expression and itself in context, given that the original proposition is to effectively take Fleming's Bond out of his context and market the books based on that one deliberately dull (does not detract from loony villains) character which is an utter misrepresentation of what - and more especially how - Fleming wrote.

That's not my intention at all, and I am sorry I wasn't clear on that. My intention is to make Glidrose stand up for itself at conferences where Fleming is derried as a piss poor writer (which he is not), and where Bond is unfairly called a misogynist by people who have perhaps read selected quotations from the Fleming novels without reading the books.
*That* is what the point of this thread is.

here's Jamie B and he's quite nice.

Here's a new flash...Bond is a nice man. He has to kill people occasionally, that's his job. Better that he does it and is honest with himself and others about his work, then the corporate slime that don't even bother to have a conscience about how many lives they have destroyed (while leaving the victims breathing, I should quickly add.)

Marketing the Bond books just on the James Bond character as "not all that bad really" is denial of the strengths of the books. How is that any sort of strategy, except the sort labelled "bizarre self-denial"? Strikes me that in your reading of what you have read of Fleming, there have been passages which have not appealed to you (does this say more about Fleming or about you?) and therefore you seek to justify continuing with the books by latching onto one of the more undernourished elements as the one to promote. It's OK to say you don't like Fleming's style very much - better than your proposal, anyway.

So far I haven't read any passage from Fleming where I haven't liked Bond, because I have been able to put his actions in the context of the novel. Maybe I should ask you why you are so hell bent on making him this sort nasty beast that you favor.

And to answer your question Loomis, I'll put it this way: I read enough of Benson to know I was on the right track with my fanfiction -- and that was before Bryce and Jim helped me re-edit it.

-- Xenobia

[Loomis]

Originally posted by zencat

Really, I could give a **** about Fleming, I just want a new Bond book.  

I'm with you to a degree, zencat. I like the Bensons I've read (apart from "High Time to Kill"), especially "The Man With the Red Tattoo". In fact, I'd say that, as a novel, TMWTRT is much better written and more engaging than Fleming's "Thunderball". But is TMWTRT "authentic Bond"? I enjoy it, but, to paraphrase something Jim wrote on another thread, I have a hard time accepting it as continuing something Fleming started. Does that matter, though? The Loomis jury is still out.

zencat, I truly admire and envy your dedication to the literary Bond in all its forms, and the way you're able to see the good in all the books (and films). I do wonder, however, whether a novel only has to contain the character of Bond for you to love it.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Xenobia

It means when I speak about specific points in the text, I want to do so knowing what went on in the paragraphs before or after it.  For example, you mention what Draco said about Tracy's mother.  You never mention how Bond felt about that narrative.  

Fleming doesn't tell us how Bond felt about Draco's rape anecdote. What is made clear, however, is that Bond almost immediately comes to admire and like Draco. 007 also gets on like a house on fire with those other monsters of male chauvinism, Darko Kerim and Tiger Tanaka. I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it's much of a stretch to suppose that these men are like father or older brother figures for 007, who looks up to them as well as trusts them with his life.

Xen, which Bond novels have you read?

[Simon]

Originally posted by Loomis

I do wonder, however, whether a novel only has to contain the character of Bond for you to love it.

............in the same way that one (not necessarily zencat, I hasten to add) would buy a licenced fluffy muppet if it had the 007 logo stamped to its rear.

But not wishing to detract from the fascinating (mostly two-way) thread that this has developed into.

[zencat]

Originally posted by Loomis
zencat, I truly admire and envy your dedication to the literary Bond in all its forms, the way you're able to see the good in all the books (and films). I do wonder, however, whether a novel only has to contain the character of Bond for you to love it.

It's a fair question. I love that it exists. I'm into the continued adventures of the James Bond character in all forms. But that doesn't mean I'll always love or champion the book. I have nothing good to say about The Man From Barbarossa for instance. So, no, it takes more than just having Bond in the book for me to love it. But not much more! Hey, I'm a fan. It's my sickness.

[MrDraco]

I aggree with Zen Cat's last statement completely, I'm sorta new James Bond fan i say that meaning i've only been around since...Zero Minus Ten..and then had to read back to fleming and Gardner, Now to the point...I think Reissuing the Flemings is a good thing I have a group of friends and all we do is sit in BAM *Books-A-Million for the late* and read classics and stuff...since they put the flemings back out one of my friends has been reading bond like crazy cos he enjoys classic stuff like that, more to the point...
If Gildrose really wants to make cash or what ever there in for it....they need to do what EON has been doing and go toward the MTV idiots..no i'm not saying a Bond whos listening to the Oasis while in his Austin martin... but more flasher covers and stuff..i'm looking at the American paper backs and hardbacks they need more explosions! (LOL)
I think they should either let Benson do another book or bring someone else in and really market it well...Like Tom Clancy's stuff...its beautful! i mean you go to Ebay or Amzaon and three months before its out banners every where etc....Glidrose needs to get in to that...cos Americans love that **** its almost as good as French Cussing..
Maybe Pierce Brosnan Covers...?

[Roebuck]

Originally posted by Jim
That's where the uniqueness of the Fleming Bond series lies; the whole show, the book not just as a story but as a lifestyle, a worldview. The plots, themselves, let's face it - are terrible. Presented bland they would be indistinguishable from any other airport rack litter.

I take your point. There's a Stephen King quote along the lines of how Hansel and Gretel is, at its heart, a story about two kids who vandalise an old woman's house and then brutally murder her. It's only because of the way in which the tale is told that has made it an enduring favourite. The same could also be said for Fleming's Bond (or perhaps you just did?)

[marktmurphy]

I don't understand the point of this thread. You want Gldrose to tell people to understand that Bond wasn't all bad/Fleming was a good writer. Without getting drawn into whether those statements are true (or whether they show a particularily patronising view of the author of these suggestions of the 'I can see something all those other idiots can't' variety) how do you suggest Gildrose get people to understand this? Get them to read the novels would seem like a good idea, yes? All the information one needs about Bond and Fleming is contained within these, surely? So what would be a successful plan of attack? Reprinting all the novels with exciting new covers? What a good idea- I must ring them up and tell of my amazing insight immediately.

And if prospective authors are scared off by what they think Bond (the character) is all about; well then, either they haven't read the books or have entirely mis-understood them. If either or both of these catorgries are satisfied, well they just aren't prospective authors, are they? So what is the point of this?

[zencat]

To tell the truth, I'm not sure myself.

All I know is it's summer and for the first time in 22 years I have NO BOND BOOK TO READ!!!

(And before someone says it, yes, I know '85 was a non-book year.)

[Loomis]

Originally posted by marktmurphy

I don't understand the point of this thread.  

I think Xenobia is calling for the reinvention of Bond in future fiction as a politically correct and more sensitive character, in tune with today's sensibilities; and also calling for the Fleming novels to be marketed in a new way, to tie in with this rebranding of 007.

Is that right, Xen?

[Jim]

Bond thinking: "Bond looked thoughtfully at the girl. He decided it would be ungallant to spank her, so to speak, on an empty stomach"

OR

Bond thinking: "Bond saw luck as a woman, to be softly wooed or brutally ravaged, never pandered to or pursued"

OR

Bond thinking: "Why the hell couldn't they stay at home and mind their pots and pans and stick totheir frocks and gossip and leave men's work to the men"

OR

OR

Many, many more.

[zencat]

Originally posted by Jim
Bond thinking: "Bond looked thoughtfully at the girl. He decided it would be ungallant to spank her, so to speak, on an empty stomach"

That's great stuff.

Originally posted by Jim
Bond thinking: "Why the hell couldn't they stay at home and mind their pots and pans and stick totheir frocks and gossip and leave men's work to the men"

Not so great.