80 replies to this topic

[Trident]

I wonder if we have had the whole story of the construction of THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN.

There is this fellow I know, damn fine journalist and writer himself, who's a hell of a nose when it comes to sniff out truffles and digg out new and intersting facts about such curious and arcane affairs. Shouldn't be surprised if he pursues the matter further...

[Hitch]

Do you mean Julie Burchill?

[Trident]

Do you mean Julie Burchill?

She into truffles too?

[Major Tallon]

Several years ago, one of Ian Fleming's diaries was put up for auction, and The Times reproduced a couple of pages. They were, in Fleming's own hand, virtually the first paragraph or so of TMWTGG. The manuscript of the novel is not among those in the collection at the Lilly Library, but (I hope my memory is right here) there was a copy of what purported to be a manuscript in the For Your Eyes Only exhibition at the Imperial War Museum.

Edited by Major Tallon, 30 December 2008 - 02:58 AM.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Bring this back up! This is a great thread!

[sp007]

I think that Craig is playing Bond right now fit well with Fleming early Bond. We could see him transform to the middle before the end of 5 or 6 movies.

[Mr. Blofeld]

I think that Craig is playing Bond right now fit well with Fleming early Bond. We could see him transform to the middle before the end of 5 or 6 movies.

I agree; he may well become more Dalton-esque by the end of his term...

[Mr. Blofeld]

I know it's only been three days, but this is still a relevant topic.

[Mr. Blofeld]

This thread never gets old.

[Tybre]

I must agree with Superhobo up top. I love The Man With the Golden Gun. Rank it second only to Live and Let Die. Sure it has it's problems but they're minor compared to the likes of From Russia With Love, which dragged endlessly, and Goldfinger, which started out very promising and quickly turned into self-parody.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Sure it has it's problems but they're minor compared to the likes of From Russia With Love, which dragged endlessly.

Really? You think so? I feel it's wonderfully cinematic, especially the whole lead-up in the SMERSH meeting to Bond's name being brought up.

[Tybre]

Sure it has it's problems but they're minor compared to the likes of From Russia With Love, which dragged endlessly.

Really? You think so? I feel it's wonderfully cinematic, especially the whole lead-up in the SMERSH meeting to Bond's name being brought up.

I think From Russia With Love has moments of brilliance, but ultimately it's like the Brosnan Era for me -- a very good idea that ultimately never realized its full potential.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Sure it has it's problems but they're minor compared to the likes of From Russia with Love, which dragged endlessly.

Really? You think so? I feel it's wonderfully cinematic, especially the whole lead-up in the SMERSH meeting to Bond's name being brought up.

I think From Russia with Love has moments of brilliance, but ultimately it's like the Brosnan Era for me -- a very good idea that ultimately never realized its full potential.

Huh... you see, that perfectly describes The Man with the Golden Gun to me; go figure.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Back again, on how much I love this thread...

[MHazard]

A fine essay by Revelator and an interesting topic. I think of OHMSS, YOLT and TMWGG as a trilogy with TMWGG an important part of it. The first part up through the attempted assasination of M is fascinating and I seem to like the book more than most. It does lose energy (and I agree that Mary Goodnight is the least interesting Bond girl). But it leaves us with an interesting question-what kind of Bond are we left with? I think "zombie Bond" is a little too glib but the character couldn't go through what he did in those three books and not be profoundly affected. Kinglsy Amis started to try to answer the question in Col. Sun but ran out of steam and veered away from it. Apart from that the occasional story on Cb.net's own fan fiction forum delves into it, but it is the great unanswered question at the end of TMWGG. It is interesting to speculate how Fleming would have answered it or if he would have tried (of course by definition whatever Bond he would have given us would have been the answer).

[Kangch]

Perhaps he had left behind completed parts of the novel, and others (Plomer? Maschler?) had tried to string it all into a novel, each working up a little more, as sometimes happens with film scripts, especially those in 'development hell', until finally it's rather hard to distinguish who added what or what came where when. Amis doesn't seem to know this, but is guessing that something like this happened, perhaps from a hint given him by Maschler when he commissioned him to look over the book ('It's a hotch-potch now and we're in a mess and can you read it and see it makes sense' or something along those lines).

I wonder if we have had the whole story of the construction of THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN.

There is also the fact that TMWTGG is the shortest Fleming's Bond, just 17 chapters ; perhaps Fleming wanted to write more things, but he died before.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Perhaps he had left behind completed parts of the novel, and others (Plomer? Maschler?) had tried to string it all into a novel, each working up a little more, as sometimes happens with film scripts, especially those in 'development hell', until finally it's rather hard to distinguish who added what or what came where when. Amis doesn't seem to know this, but is guessing that something like this happened, perhaps from a hint given him by Maschler when he commissioned him to look over the book ('It's a hotch-potch now and we're in a mess and can you read it and see it makes sense' or something along those lines).

I wonder if we have had the whole story of the construction of THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN.

There is also the fact that TMWTGG is the shortest Fleming's Bond, just 17 chapters ; perhaps Fleming wanted to write more things, but he died before.

...and, thus, we would never truly have a fourth Age of Bond; hence, why I feel the beginning of TMWTGG was originally meant to be a separate short story altogether.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Alas, it's been a very long time since this thread was seen by anybody; let's give it another shot.

[spynovelfan]

Even a devoted Fleming fan like Kingsley Amis rightfully called the book feeble.

I don't have much to add to this thread, but just wanted to note that Amis wrote the entry on Fleming for the Dictionary of National Biography 1961-1970. I have a copy of the draft he kept, and there's nothing especially surprising in it - it's essentially a summary of the main facts of Fleming's life interspersed with some of Amis' views on his work from The James Bond Dossier. But he consolidated his opinion of The Man With The Golden Gun: he called it the weakest of the series, attributed that to Fleming's ill health at the time, and wrote that 'it never received his final revision'.

[Lachesis]

Thank you for digging this up, its a very fine analysis and a fascinating read.

[Guy Haines]

Lycett's biography states that Fleming wasn't happy with the book but that Plomer reassured him that it was up to snuff, and after Fleming's death the book was published as Fleming left it. Neither Plomer nor Kingsley Amis revised or added anything to Fleming's manuscript. To me parts of TMWTGG do seem a bit un-Flemingian, but I'm willing to attribute these to illness and the very important fact that ill-health forced Fleming to cut his writing time by half and ruined the routine he was accustomed to. I am a bit surprised that Plomer told Fleming the book was fine, but perhaps this was to save his seriously ill friend from the now strenuous task of rewriting and further thus testing his health.

In Amis' letter to Maschler about the book, which you've quoted from in the post directly above this one, Amis also wrote the following:

'There are no doubt all sorts of reasons why we can't have the book in its original version, the most telling of which is that it probably doesn't exist any more, if it ever did. I could re-jig it for you, but there are all sorts of reasons against that too.'

I think this is interesting for several reasons. First of all, the letter makes it very clear, for all time, that Kingsley Amis did not 'rewrite' THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN. He was asked to read the manuscript and comment, pointing out any typos or errors he saw and say what he thought of the book. That he did, but he expressly ruled out the possibility (which he raised himself) of 'rejigging' the manuscript. So we can put that myth to rest if it hasn't already been.

But what did Amis mean by his reference to the 'original version' of the novel? This suggests to me that Maschler had let him in on at least something of the book's providence - although not much, because Amis seems to be guessing quite a bit ('probably... if it ever did'). Amis seems to be speculating that Fleming's original manuscript might not just be unpublishable, but might not even still exist. As it is unfathomable that Cape or Glidrose would have sold, lost or otherwise disposed of a Fleming manuscript, I can only think he was speculating that Fleming had not left behind a complete manuscript. Perhaps he had left behind completed parts of the novel, and others (Plomer? Maschler?) had tried to string it all into a novel, each working up a little more, as sometimes happens with film scripts, especially those in 'development hell', until finally it's rather hard to distinguish who added what or what came where when. Amis doesn't seem to know this, but is guessing that something like this happened, perhaps from a hint given him by Maschler when he commissioned him to look over the book ('It's a hotch-potch now and we're in a mess and can you read it and see it makes sense' or something along those lines).

I wonder if we have had the whole story of the construction of THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN.

Did we ever have the complete story of TMWTGG? I always found it odd that Bond went from brainwashed security risk to on-the-case secret agent in no time at all. Were there bits meant to be included earlier in the book dealing with Bond's return to active duty which never made it to the final print, for some reason? Or did Ian Fleming never get around to writing them?

[Mr. Blofeld]

I always found it odd that Bond went from brainwashed security risk to on-the-case secret agent in no time at all. Were there bits meant to be included earlier in the book dealing with Bond's return to active duty which never made it to the final print, for some reason? Or did Ian Fleming never get around to writing them?

I don't think Fleming ever wrote them; the first few chapters seem almost like a short story set to close off the Bond series forever, but the rest... seems, I don't know, tacked on, almost. Perhaps Fleming was forced into writing the rest by his publisher, but never seriously considered how to link up the two segments (as he had to with Goldfinger)?

[Mr. Blofeld]

As I said in March, let's give this fine thread another shot.

[Mr. Blofeld]

"Another shot"? Anyone?

[Revelator]

"Another shot"? Anyone?

I'm flattered by Mr. Blofeld's insistence on keeping this thread alive, though someday it will have to ride off into the sunset. In the meantime I shall desperately try to devise food for thought. Here's one avenue for exploration--how these three ages correspond to Bond's feelings toward women. This naturally brings up the notorious misogyny angle...

For some--like Alan Moore, who did his best to blacken Bond in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: Black Dossier--"the overriding factor in James Bond's psychological makeup is his utter hatred and contempt for women." And this interpretation has become standard for many people. A widely consulted site that annotates Moore's books says, "Bond is this hatefully misogynistic in the Ian Fleming books, if not in the films. And for them what don't believe me, or haven't read the Fleming books in a while, or at all, read Scott Lynch's take on the subject."

Lynch's take is full of such profound statements as "Ian Fleming's James Bond is probably the single most relentlessly misogynistic character in twentieth century popular literature." He goes on to say that

Women (again with the single notable exception of Tracy) aren't people to Bond, they're single-function objects... impediments, sources of information, secretarial help, sex toys, or maternal fetish figures... Bond uses them to accomplish his missions, and/or uses them for sex, and/or uses them for recovery from harm...[Women] don't come back purring and begging for more because he's a skilled and attentive lover--they purr because he takes over completely and puts them in their place like nobody ever has before. Utter submission to a completely uncompromising man like Bond is an Edenic state for Fleming's women; the default, natural, blissful state of existence which other men, by treating them as adults with their own ambitions and needs, unthinkingly deny them.

I think anybody who has read the books with any amount of care will disagree with such frothing, but it's worthwhile to try and see why Lynch would think this way. Much of the tenor of his reading seems to be based on the first age of Bond, which I called "Blunt Instrument Bond (1953-1956)." In this incarnation, especially in Casino Royale, Bond was deliberately portrayed as a cold, brutal figure. Many modern readers recoil from the various misogynistic statements Bond makes in the book, not quite realizing that many of these are in place to accentuate a hardness of character that will be utterly broken down toward the end. (And some remarks are heavily ironic--Bond's infamous speech about women doing mens' work when they go back to their pots and pans is clearly at Bond's expense: he doesn't realize that Vesper, far from being incompetent, actually arranged her own kidnapping.)

But let's also grant that none of the first three Bond heroines are particularly deep characters. Solitaire, who decides to run away with Bond in seconds, is perhaps the closest a Bond heroine comes to enacting the sort of one-dimensional relationship Lynch describes above. (Though I don't remember reading anything about Bond putting Gala Brand in her place.) But Bond's relationship with Tiffany is a prototype of his relationship with Tracy, which even Lynch has to make exceptions for.
And that relationship also informs Bond's later ones, as Bond moves into his "Almost Human Bond (1957-1961)" and "Suffering Bond (1961-1964)" periods. And those relationships belie the distortions Lynch peddles. Far from being slaves needing to be put into place, the women from 1957 onward tend to be birds with a wing down--women who either haven't had much sexual experience or have had horrible ones. And much of Bond's interaction with them isn't sexual but almost therapeutic. Consider those long passages where Bond does nothing but listen to the heroine tell her story and give supporting comments, such as Honeychile's tale of her upbringing, or Domino's explanation of what she thought the sky was like as a child, and her theory about the sailor on those Players cigarettes. Consider his long chat with Tiffany Case aboard the cruise ship. Consider his gentleness and solicitude toward Vivienne Michel as he guides her through the most harrowing ordeal of her life. And consider how often sex is delayed in these narratives--for a supposed sexual predator out to use women, Bond is surprisingly chivalrous. The only character I can think of as even approximating a "maternal fetish figure" is Kissy, and even then that's a stretch--after all, the irony in YOLT is that Kissy is using the amnesiac Bond as a useful husband. Talking about maternal figures in Fleming is bunk anyway, since the Bond books--unlike the Bond films--don't go in for the Madonna/Whore complex that still bedevils portrayals of women. In Fleming there are no juxtapositions of good-but-virginal versus bad-but-sexy women. The heroines of the novels are not subjugated to Bond, instead, like Vivienne, they have good sex and then go out into the world feeling more confident and in a better place. In his private life Ian Fleming was not a jealous man, and neither is Bond. The women he meets are free to resume their own lives.

***

Lynch later takes note of the scene from the film of Casino Royale of Vesper witnessing Bond commit a brutal killing--she retreats into the shower and is comforted by Bond, who

treats her as a human being... a genuine adult human being with needs independent of his own sexual swagger. That's not Ian Fleming's Bond. That's nothing like Ian Fleming's Bond. The Fleming Bond would have slapped her. Frowning, muttering, thinking acidic thoughts about "silly creatures," he might even have yanked her to her feet and ed some "sense" back into the poor dizzy dame, and in Fleming's version of reality, that would have done the trick.

Now, in TMWTGG, Scaramanga shoots Tiffy's birds and sends the girl into hysterics, so Bond gives her a "couple of sharp slaps" on each cheek. This, is the only time in the books I can remember of Bond slapping a woman, and back then it was considered quite acceptable to slap anyone in hysterics. But if Lynch is correct, Bond would be irritated and bemoaning the sillyness of women. So what actually happens?
"Bond got to his feet. He took a cloth and wetted it at the tap, then leant down and put his arm around her and wiped the cloth gently over her face. Then he lifted her up and handed her the bag that was on a shelf behind the counter." He then tells Tiffy to put on a good face for the world and gives her money for her dead birds, before demanding that Scaramanga does so too. He warmly tells Tiffy goodbye when he leaves. Are these the actions of a character deaf to a woman's needs, who only wants to degrade them in bed? So much for Lynch's hateful fantasy then.

The Bond of TMWTGG is, as noted in my original post, a reboot Bond, a Bond that comes after the three ages I've discussed before, and seems to unify them. Regardless of whatever age we're talking about, Bond is a character whose relationships with women are, throughout the novels, above board and non-exploitive. There is nothing like disturbingly coercive seduction Sean Connery gives to Pussy Galore, or the angry slaps given to the movie versions of Tatiana and Tracy, or even the cold one given to Ms. Anders in the film of TMWTGG. Literary Bond's supposed misogyny is been derived from inner pronouncements like the ones in CR, not from the actual actions of his character.

Let's try a rough, somewhat cursory breakdown of Bond's relations with women, organized by the ages I've referred to.

01. Blunt Instrument Bond (1953-1956)
In Casino Royale Bond is extremely harsh in his attitudes. Beyond denying the use of women in the field (on mistaken premises), Bond also makes that notorious "sweet tang" comment over Vesper's body. A puzzling remark, especially since we never get any indications of such rough stuff actually occurring. By the time of Moonraker Bond no longer has any complaints about being paired up with a woman colleague (of sorts). He sneaks a kiss of Gala, but otherwise respects her. Diamonds Are Forever marks the great thaw in Bond's personality--Bond comes to find himself increasingly considerate toward Tiffany's feelings, at one point even telling himself that he will have to be a sort of therapist to her.

02. Almost Human Bond (1957-1961)
Bond has almost limitless possibilities to use Tatiana in From Russia With Love. Yet what comes out most strongly is his faith in her character. He admits that he's fallen for her and can't treat her as coldly as someone like Darko might. In Doctor No Bond plays the role of the first decent man Honeychile has ever met. He listens to her life story with interest and feels horrible for endangering her. Once they're in Dr. NO's "mink-lined prison," her eagerness to bed him becomes sheer male fantasy, but Bond's forbearance isn't. Goldfinger is an admittedly tough nut due to things Bond's linkage of women's lib to sexual confusion, or Bond making a lesbian turn straight through his sheer maleness. Such things are as retrograde, silly, and sexist as one can imagine, but GF is also the silliest and most self-parodic of the Bond novels. Let's consider it an aberration. In "For Your Eyes Only" BOnd initially grouses about Judy's mission of vengeance, but ultimately lets her perform it. He's there for her afterwards, in what is a quasi-paternal role.

03. Suffering Bond (1961-1964)
In Thunderball Bond feels anguish at having to use Domino after realizing he's fallen in love with her. Though free of the excess neuroticism of Tiffany or Tracy, Domino projects a tough exterior, and part of Bond's courtship with her involves letting her know, by listening to her at her more vulnerable moments, that she can let down her guard with him. We get a flash of Bond's residual sexism when he compares her to an Arab mare needing to be broken to bridle and saddle, but this is exactly what Bond refrains from doing--by the end of the book Domino is still her take-charge self. In The Spy Who Loved Me we have a resurgence of the bird-with-a-wing-down concept. Here Bond is practically a white knight, a fantasy figure who gives his help, enjoys a bit of sex, and is gone by daytime. Of special note is the help Bond occasionally requires from Vivienne--she is not just a damsel in distress. In On Her Majesty's Secret Service we have the final reoccurrence of the
the bird-with-a-wing-down and Bond-as-therapist angle. Unfortunately Tracy became a much less interesting character after being cured. In You Only Live Twice Bond has become a male bird-with-a-wing-down, and Kissy, the most self-sufficient female character in Fleming, offers him no what other Bond heroine has done before: a simple life in accord with nature, with an occupation of honest rustic toil. For the first time we see Bond acting as a husband (and one who works directly alongside his wife). I'm not going to discuss TMWTGG because it gives little to work with beyond the material discussed earlier.

And now for the most important part of this essay--when I ask for your thoughts and responses.

Edited by Revelator, 18 December 2010 - 10:33 AM.

[mttvolcano]

Awesome man! Very well put together and thorough!

[Mr. Blofeld]

A very good essay, and proof that Fleming's Bond is not the complete misogynist most make him out to be.

[mttvolcano]

A very good essay, and proof that Fleming's Bond is not the complete misogynist most make him out to be.

Yes I agree! I hate when people try to put Bond down for that. Those are usually the ones with not even a superficial viewing of the films.

[Major Tallon]

Brilliant work, Revelator. I'm rushed at the moment, but I hope I'll get a chance to add some thoughts tomorrow.

[Major Tallon]

As I read Revelator's quotation of the Alan Moore/ Scott Lynch assessment of Bond's attitude toward women, I had to ask myself if they've ever seriously read an Ian Fleming novel. Sure, Bond internalizes a lot of harshness toward Vesper, but his actual conduct toward her is much different. Similarly, in Live and Let Die, Bond threatens to kill Solitaire if she betrays him, but that's only because he's concerned that her professed wish to escape Mr. Big is a double-cross. If her motivations seem a bit thin to us, they do to Bond as well, but that's because we can't see how tortured she'd become at being kept in her existing situation, and how desperately she clutches at an opportunity to escape. Additionally, Bond is sexually attracted to her, but neither his suspiciouns nor his attraction translate into mysoginistic behavior. In Chapters 10 and 11 of LALD, Bond treats Solitaire with consideration and genuinely takes pleasure in her company. Here are his reflections as the journey begins: "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 frontier into comradeship or 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." Critics may, I suppose, regard Bond's attitude as regarding Solitaire as a "single function object," but I see in Bond's attitude something a great deal more than that. I see a concern for Solitaire as a person in need of protection, a companion on a perilous journey, as someone to "discover" in a romantic, not just a sexual, sense.

In Moonraker, Bond's intial thoughts about Gala Brand are equivocal. He wonders whether she'll be of any use to him, not because she'll be incompetent, but because her investigation of Drax will have taken a different path than his own. He's concerned that she'll be suspicious, even resentful, of a newcomer sent into a situation where her own mission is already well established. He understands that she has "a mind not trained for his own particular craft," but it's not dismissive. He's attracted to her, but he sums her up at once as well chosen for her assignment. "Thank heavens, he thought. A professional." At dinner, he thinks her too aloof and would like to give her a "sharp kick in the ankle," but this reflects his annoyance with her coldness toward him, instead of the "easy, friendly approach" that would be more likely to advance their mission. He's sexually attracted to her, but not in a predatory way. It's interesting to note that it's Gala in Chapter 14 who indulges in sexual stereotyping of Bond, whereas his feelings toward her grow increasingly romantic. I dispute any suggestion that Bond is looking for utter submissiveness, sexual or otherwise.

I could cite other examples, such as Bond's comments about Mary Trueblood in Doctor No ("Chief Officers W.R.N.S. don't go out of their senses"), but I often think of a little exchange between Bond and Darko Kerim in Chapter 23 of From Russia, With Love. Kerim confronts Bond with Tatiana's likely involvement in a Russian plot, but Bond confesses his feelings for her. "I admit I've fallen for her," a line that contrasts with Connery Bond's smirk when the movie version of Kerim asks Bond if he's interested in the girl only for her access to the decoding machine. Fleming's version reflects a regard for the Tatiana as a person, not as a disposable pastime, a figure of romance more than just a sexual object.

Many more examples can be cited, and Revelator does so admirably, with an analysis that strikes me as exactly right.