131 replies to this topic

[Hitch]

*headmostdecidedlyandrepeatedlydesk*

?

Would you mind translating that into English for those of us who don't speak Hitch?

Not at all. Some of the posts disparaging Fleming as a writer merely prompted a vigorous head-desk interface, otherwise known as a forehead-mahogany kiss or, if you prefer, a skull-veneered chipboard moment.

Clear enough?

Carry on.

[spynovelfan]

COLONEL SUN is both a minor work in the Bond canon and a minor work in Amis' canon, so it hasn't received that much attention. One element that hasn't really been considered is the development of the project itself, by which I mean its rather strange chronology.

March 1963: Kingsley Amis announces that he wants to break free of documentary realism, and begins considering genre fiction.

October 29, 1963: Dudley Barker in the London office of literary agency Curtis Brown writes to Emilie Jacobson in the New York office and mentions that Amis 'intends to write a book in a year or two on the Spy novel in general. As a preliminary he wants to write a major article on the James Bond novels.' This started out as a 5,000-6,000 word on-spec article, with the New Yorker in mind, but soon became book-length, replacing the project on the spy novel in general.

May 1964: Amis submits THE JAMES BOND DOSSIER to Jonathan Cape. Shortly after, he starts work on a quickie companion piece, THE BOOK OF BOND.

August 12, 1964: Death of Ian Fleming.

October 5, 1964: Amis writes to Tom Maschler at Cape regarding THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, enclosing a list of errors he has spotted and comments regarding the text. (Intriguingly, he wrote: '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.' So far from Amis rewriting this novel, as has been suggested by some, he in fact declined to do that. However, it would seem that it may have already done by others. Another topic, though.)

April 1, 1965: THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN by Ian Fleming published by Cape.

May 27 1965: THE JAMES BOND DOSSIER by Kingsley Amis published by Cape.

June 6, 1965: Sunday Times journalist John Pearson, working on a biography of Ian Fleming, writes to South African thriller-writer Geoffrey Jenkins asking him for his recollections of his old friend Fleming.

June 10, 1965: THE BOOK OF BOND, OR EVERY MAN HIS OWN 007 by Kingsley Amis published by Cape.

At some point shortly after this, Maschler apparently suggests that Amis write a Bond novel.

August 12, 1965: Amis writes to Edmund (Mike) and Mary Keeley, saying he and his wife 'have to come to Greece for roughly the month of September. I've got a bit of a novel to write which must be set thereabouts.'

September 2, 1965: Amis and his wife travel to Greece, where Amis starts researching his novel.

September 24, 1965: Geoffrey Jenkins replies to John Pearson with an eight-page letter about Ian Fleming. In it, he mentions that he once wrote an outline for a Bond novel set in South Africa that Fleming approved of and intended to write, and asks if it is in Fleming's remaining papers.

October 1, 1965: Pearson replies to Jenkins' 'splendid letter', saying he has found his Bond synopsis. 'Perhaps you should write it now?' he wonders.

November 2, 1965: Jenkins and Pearson meet in London. Sometime this month, Jenkins visits Glidrose's offices in Bucklersbury House, where he meets with Charles Tyrrell and Harry Saltzman to discuss writing a 'continuation' Bond novel based on his earlier synopsis.

March 15, 1966: Peter Fleming writes to Ann Fleming proposing to 'tell Kingsley Amis to go ahead' in writing a Bond novel.

May 12, 1966: Glidrose cable Jenkins to tell him they will shortly agree to grant him permission to write a Bond novel.

August 24, 1966: Jenkins receives a contract from Glidrose. He would be paid £5,000 on signing the contract and £5,000 on publication of the novel (the same terms as Amis), and would also be entitled to half of Glidrose's 2.5-percent share of global profits of any film or serial adaptation (excepting merchandising). As with Amis, the contract has a 'get-out clause': if Glidrose don't like the submission, they are under no obligation to publish it. Jenkins is given six months to submit a manuscript.

At some point within the next six months, Jenkins submits his Bond novel, PER FINE OUNCE, to Glidrose. They reject it.

September 19, 1966: HUNTER-KILLER by Geoffrey Jenkins published in the UK by Collins. The book opens with a tribute to Ian Fleming and James Bond, wherein scuba-suited British secret agent Commander Geoffrey Peace is buried at sea, only for it to be revealed in the next scene that he is alive:

'I blinked in disbelief. Peace stood on the terrace in the same black rubber suit in which I had seen him in his coffin. A long diving-knife was in his hand. I tried to speak, but the words would not come…
Mam'zelle Adele was still on my arm. Peace's greeting to her was level, comradely.
"Hello, Mam'zelle Adele."
She detached herself. "Good evening, Commander. Was it a good trip?"
"Get me a drink and I’ll tell you," he replied...'

The scene is studded with references to the short story THE HILDEBRAND RARITY and other Fleming works. The Daily Telegraph review ('Tremendous sea-chase in nuclear submarine... very effective') is used by Collins in publicity.

May 21, 1967: In a letter to Philip Larkin, Amis mentions that he has finished his 'Bond novel'.

June 12, 1967: The film YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE starring Sean Connery premieres in London; the film opens with Bond being buried at sea, only for the next scene to reveal him alive.

March 28, 1968: COLONEL SUN by Robert Markham (Kingsley Amis) published by Cape.

March 31, 1968: The Observer publishes Amis' article 'A New James Bond', in which he outlines his reasons for accepting the job and his thinking with the novel:

'Where? Not Jamaica - Bond had been there too often. Not the States - too expensive. Not France - too many Frenchmen about. Greece? Yes - Bond never been, I never been, sounds good, islands just right. Also, Eastern Mediterranean a sphere of Russian expansion, British interests there too. (This was in September 1965.) But Russia versus Britain too old-hat. Then Red China versus Britain and also verus Russia. So Bond could team up with Russian agent. Female. Tough, like all Bond's girls. And Red China as villain is both new to Bond and obvious in the right kind of way. And Chinese master-villain vould be fun.'


What is unusual about all this? Well, firstly, that Glidrose appear to have given Amis and Jenkins contracts at almost the same time - possibly without the knowledge of each other. It may be that they wanted to cover their bases, or stop Jenkins from publishing without their permission. There also seem to be several agendas: as well as Amis' and Jenkins', Peter Fleming's, Ann Fleming's and Tom Maschler's; perhaps also Harry Saltzman's.

Amis' involvement with Bond seems to have stemmed from a desire to diversify his fiction, and in 'A New James Bond' he stated that he had 'always vaguely wanted, and for some time had been a little more purposefully intending, to write a thriller. When the Bond thing came up it seemed like a gift from the gods.' But when, precisely, the Bond thing came up, is also a little vague. Could Amis really have been naive enough to start writing a Bond novel at least six months before he received a contract to do so (at least six months, because unless Peter Fleming was lying to Ann Fleming, it would have taken a while to draw up contracts; it took Glidrose three months to do it with Jenkins, and even that doesn't seem to have been the final version)?

What would Amis have done if he had not received a contract - or the novel had been rejected? Jenkins' contract stipulated that in such an event he could publish the novel himself as long as it did not contain any Fleming characters. Amis would probably have done the same. But Amis may have already been considering doing precisely that. His James Bond was, after all, rather anonymous. If he had renamed him 'John Brown' and changed a few other details, would COLONEL SUN be recognisable as a Bond novel? Perhaps not. In many ways, it is more similar to a Peter O'Donnell Modesty Blaise adventure (especially the first novel, published in 1965, which takes places on the Turkish island of Kalithos). So perhaps in September 1965 Amis was researching and beginning to write an adventure thriller in which Bond would or would not feature, depending on the development of the contracts.

There are a lot of missing elements here. Perhaps there were other novelists in the running for the job, too. If it were just Amis versus Jenkins, though, one can see why Glidrose went for Amis, whose reputation was considerably greater. But one can also read any of Jenkins' Sixties' novels and wonder what might have happened. And had Jenkins 'won' this particular battle, I wonder if anyone would remember Amis' 'John Brown' thriller very fondly.

[Trident]

Terrific work, Spy (as always)! You've been into this matter further than most living persons on this planet, I should think. I often wondered why things with Glidrose went the way they did.

Most interesting that there doesn't seem to be a definite date for Amis' 'go'. And yes, when I take a closer look at 'Colonel Sun' there really is little that wouldn't work with another hero. An interesting speculation: was 'Colonel Sun' perhaps conceived by Amis at first as thriller and only secondly as a Bond? Not really sure about that, but I think the starting point (M's abduction) was Amis' realization that M lived conspiciously close to an airport. Of course it could well be that this was only his entree into an 007 novel, while his real plotline (assault on a Russian meeting in by a third party, using the British as fallguys) could have started anywhere really. Would be interesting to read an alternate-reality version of 'Colonel Sun' with a no-name hero. Or even one with Modesty Blaise.

[Mr. Blofeld]

I would have loved to see what would have happened had Glidrose accepted both novels; is it possible they could have been published with a few months between them?

[Scrambled Eggs]

Interesting thread. Mostly because it includes the closest thing I've seen to criticism of Ian Fleming on this forum!

If I may offer a dodgy metaphor:

Reading a Fleming novel is like sitting down with a tipsy old gent and listening to him spin a good yarn. Maybe he meanders a little bit from time to time and bores you by describing the rules of baccarat in unneccesary detail - but ultimately his imagination, life experience and knowledge of what turns on a red blooded adult makes him great company.
Thats the magic of Fleming - the books drip with his personality.

You just don't get that with Colonel Sun. Amis's affection for the character shines through but it's missing that hedonistic touch Fleming brings to even the weakest of his novels (I'd say the middle ones, between FRWL and OHMSS).

There are some great ideas in it but I think it was actually a novella which got padded out with some quite uninspired stuff. The final chapter is pretty insipid.

[spynovelfan]

Most interesting that there doesn't seem to be a definite date for Amis' 'go'. And yes, when I take a closer look at 'Colonel Sun' there really is little that wouldn't work with another hero. An interesting speculation: was 'Colonel Sun' perhaps conceived by Amis at first as thriller and only secondly as a Bond? Not really sure about that, but I think the starting point (M's abduction) was Amis' realization that M lived conspiciously close to an airport. Of course it could well be that this was only his entree into an 007 novel, while his real plotline (assault on a Russian meeting in by a third party, using the British as fallguys) could have started anywhere really. Would be interesting to read an alternate-reality version of 'Colonel Sun' with a no-name hero. Or even one with Modesty Blaise.

Thanks, Trident, and yes, that's what I'm wondering. I think Ariadne, for instance, is a stronger character than Bond in the novel, and that's interesting considering Amis' ambitions to write a thriller, and his later praise for O'Donnell's novels (he called Blaise and Garvin 'One of the great partnerships in fiction, bearing comparison with that of Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson'). Incidentally, the Times' review of COLONEL SUN ('No touch', Roger Baker, March 30, 1968) made a similar point:

'Coming at us under its own colours Colonel Sun could have been dismissed kindly as a neat, not over-inventive thriller, low on sex, high on violence and more than usually improbable... One might, justifiably, have expected from Amis either a joyous rejuvenation or at least a devastating detour from the Fleming pattern. We get neither. It is a pale copy. What is disastrously missing is the patina of sophisticated hedonsim that made Bond the great pop-hero. A cold run-down of a rather dull menu replaces that loving relish of food; a crude coupling replaces that sustained sexuality that pervaded the previous adventures. Brand names are dutifully dropped, but the carefully accurate, detailed descriptions of the big set-pieces (card game or ski-run) are missing; both heroes and villains lack Fleming's off-beat kinkiness. Colonel Sun himself is a brave effort at a monster of sadism but without the final, chilling rococo touches. Having stripped James Bond of all that gave him his compulsive appeal, Markham/Amis offers rather cold meat. There is a strong emphasis on conscience, on remorse for cold-blooded killings. Amis also insists that 007 must fight without any mechanical aids. There is an irritating air of Boy's Own with cliched description ("living rock") and M., pompously remarking when the smoke has cleared: "Quite against the cards we've pulled off something that's going to have a favourable effect on the world balance of power." Big deal. Somehow 007's earlier battles transcended petty things like politics. Undoubtedly Ian Fleming created something completely original and captivating (underscored if anything by the violence of the anti-Bond faction); the adventures added new images to the language, created new taste-patterns, even. His touch was, for the most part, sure and inimitable. Amis neither continues the pattern nor shows any indication of creating another.'

It does seem as if Amis started with the idea of having M kidnapped, from looking at a map. But as has been pointed out, with M kidnapped Sun's plot doesn't make much sense, because nobody would believe the frame-up, and why wouldn't Sun's goal instead be to find out what's in M's head about British operations? So I think that sounds like a retro-fitted idea. Most of the references to Fleming are glancing and occur in the first chapter, and the M character could easily have started out either as someone else entirely, or a character similar to M but called something else, as was common in thrillers of the time. In Jenkins' HUNTER KILLER, the M figure is the Director of Naval Intelligence: a neat variation and a Fleming reference to boot.

[Scrambled Eggs]

There are a lot of missing elements here. Perhaps there were other novelists in the running for the job, too.

Pure speculation or do you have a hunch that a third author might have been approached, even just informally?

[spynovelfan]

There are a lot of missing elements here. Perhaps there were other novelists in the running for the job, too.

Pure speculation or do you have a hunch that a third author might have been approached, even just informally?

No, rather the other way round, ie I don't want to speculate that it was only those two in the running simply because we happen to know about them. It's hardly been trumpeted very loudly that Amis and Jenkins were both commissioned, apparently at nearly the same time, so it just seems to me that there's a big gap in our knowledge here and it would be dangerous to assume that we have anything like the complete picture. So I'm not speculating that it was just Amis and Jenkins, if you see what I mean.

[Loomis]

*headmostdecidedlyandrepeatedlydesk*

?

Would you mind translating that into English for those of us who don't speak Hitch?

Not at all. Some of the posts disparaging Fleming as a writer merely prompted a vigorous head-desk interface, otherwise known as a forehead-mahogany kiss or, if you prefer, a skull-veneered chipboard moment.

Clear enough?

Carry on.

Oops. Pardon me for disparaging Flemmmmmmmming. I'll leave y'all to continue ripping on Amis.

[spynovelfan]

Disparage Fleming all you like, Loomis. But do back it up.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Like it or not, Colonel Sun is still better than Devil May Care.

[MkB]

Interesting thread. Mostly because it includes the closest thing I've seen to criticism of Ian Fleming on this forum!

If I may offer a dodgy metaphor:

Reading a Fleming novel is like sitting down with a tipsy old gent and listening to him spin a good yarn. Maybe he meanders a little bit from time to time and bores you by describing the rules of baccarat in unneccesary detail - but ultimately his imagination, life experience and knowledge of what turns on a red blooded adult makes him great company.
Thats the magic of Fleming - the books drip with his personality.

That's a very good metaphor! I'm frankly not the most authoritative person to say something about literature, but to me Fleming is more "fascinating" than literary talented. His stories are a goldmine for anyone interested in popular culture, and particularly some subconscious layers of British society in the 60s.

[Loomis]

Disparage Fleming all you like, Loomis. But do back it up.

Well, I'm somewhat sure you've made similar observations about Fleming yourself, spy, so I'm sure you know where I'm coming from.

Besides, I can't for the moment be bothered to search for and reproduce passages of Fleming that I find longwinded and/or dull, so, by all means, carry on kickin' the COLONEL.

[Scrambled Eggs]

Like it or not, Colonel Sun is still better than Devil May Care.

True that. Colonel Sun certainly has more momentum than Devil May Care

I was going to post something about some Fleming fans perhaps wanting to like Colonel Sun - because Amis's involvement gives Fleming a touch of the literary respectability he's so often denied.

The I remembered that DMC by literary superstar Seb Faulks has been roundly trashed by Fleming fans ( by many on here anyway).

I suppose the difference is that there's something about the tone of DMC that suggests Mr Faulks didnt take his task 100% seriously.

[spynovelfan]

I've never said a lot of Fleming's prose was awful, Loomis, or anything like it! Certainly, he had his faults, but I think his prose style was one of his greatest strengths, with very few lapses. I think if you forget who Robert Markham was, you'll surely admit that his Bond novel was not nearly as well-written, exciting or entertaining as any of Fleming's books. I find it odd that you're so hostile to Faulks' novel but yet you're still so fond of Amis' new clothes. It's alright, I suppose, even good in some places. But isn't it the fact that he only wrote one, and that it was he who wrote it, that grabs your attention? Isn't it the idea of this neglected pseudonymous Bond novel written in the Sixties that appeals, rather than the novel itself? Isn't the Times review quoted above actually spot on?

[MkB]

I suppose the difference is that there's something about the tone of DMC that suggests Mr Faulks didnt take his task 100% seriously.

Yes, it was one of the problems to me. The other was that Faulks, IMO, didn't really decide what he wanted to do (a pastiche? a tribute? a continuation?), and the result is somehow awkward and disappointing from every point of view.
Amis, on the other hand, chose to write a continuation novel and did it the best he could, honestly and with a knowledge and understanding of the Bond character.

[zencat]

Like it or not, Colonel Sun is still better than Devil May Care.

True that. Colonel Sun certainly has more momentum than Devil May Care

You thinks so? Man, I don't. I just re-read Colonel Sun and while I think the book is quite excellent for the first half (and is really a beautifully written book), I think it just slams to a dead stop once Bond gets on that boat and, literally, drifts for almost the entire remainder of the story. Things don't pick up until he's tortured -- which is much less gruesome than I remembered -- and then the climax is very much an anticlimax. I've always thought CS was overrated and my re-read confirmed this. While I think CS is a better written book, I think DMC is a far better, and much pacier, Bond adventure. I think DMCs only real problem is Faulks' strange choice of "as Ian Fleming" writing style.

[Scrambled Eggs]

Like it or not, Colonel Sun is still better than Devil May Care.

True that. Colonel Sun certainly has more momentum than Devil May Care

You thinks so? Man, I don't. I just re-read Colonel Sun and while I think the book is quite excellent for the first half (and is really a beautifully written book), I think it just slams to a dead stop once Bond gets on that boat and, literally, drifts for almost the entire remainder of the book. Things don't pick up until he's tortured -- which is much less gruesome than I remembered -- and then the climax is very much an anticlimax. I've always thought CS was overrated and my re-read confirmed this. While I think CS is a better written book, I think DMC is a far better, and much pacier, Bond adventure.

Its more a criticism of DMC than praise of CS. For me, DMC has some really nice passages but has none of the drive you want from a thriller. For me it just meanders.

I agree with you about the ending of CS. It dribbles to a forgettable climax (ahem...) but at least it gets off to a rollicking good start.

[zencat]

Colonel Sun takes an apologetic and sympathetic tone towards the Soviet Union and its communist allies.

It really does! I never noticed this until my recent re-read. It's quite a remarkable thing to find in a James Bond novel.

[Loomis]

I've never said a lot of Fleming's prose was awful, Loomis, or anything like it! Certainly, he had his faults, but I think his prose style was one of his greatest strengths, with very few lapses.

In that case, I apologise. My mistake.

I think if you forget who Robert Markham was, you'll surely admit that his Bond novel was not nearly as well-written, exciting or entertaining as any of Fleming's books. ... But isn't it the fact that he only wrote one, and that it was he who wrote it, that grabs your attention? Isn't it the idea of this neglected pseudonymous Bond novel written in the Sixties that appeals, rather than the novel itself?

No. And, if that were indeed the case, why would I not be similarly pleased with DEVIL MAY CARE? Especially given the fact that, prior to reading DMC, I was a frothing-at-the-mouth Faulks fan? (A FOOL'S ALPHABET and ENGLEBY are two of the best novels I've ever read.)

The fact is, though, that I find that it's Faulks' one-off that's "not nearly as well-written, exciting or entertaining as any of Fleming's books" (or even as well-written, exciting or entertaining as something by Gardner or Benson), while Amis' strikes me as, well, genuinely good. I certainly found the torture scene exciting - well, that's the wrong word, I guess, makes me sound like a sadist. I found it, let's say, edge-of-seat. Although I do appreciate that one really cracking torture scene does not in itself a good book make. Still, I find there's plenty of other good things about COLONEL SUN, as I'm sure I must have pointed out on more than a few occasions in nauseating detail.

Now, I admit "the idea of this neglected pseudonymous Bond novel written in the Sixties" does appeal, but so, crucially, does The Book Itself™. I mean, I've got no particular pro-Amis axe to grind here - I've never even read anything else he did (although perhaps I should), and I seem to recall reading that he was something of an unpleasant fellow. Still, I do genuinely like his COLONEL SUN.

[spynovelfan]

Sorry to be so aggressive with you, Loomis. I suppose I'm channelling myself: I know I'm prone to being attracted to underdogs and obscure works, and I also often struggle to locate what my real feelings and thoughts are about books and films, and so on.

[Loomis]

No probs, spy. At least we share the same seething, visceral loathing of DEVIL MAY CARE. Or at least I should hope so.

[Willowhugger]

Fleming is a wonderful author, if you like what Fleming likes.

For example, I am quite fond of women and Fleming's ability to wax poetically on them and their little quirks works wonders. He also has a way of making villains wonderful and handling action sequences in a way that few writers can match. However, Fleming waxes poetically on EVERYTHING he likes. It's a lovable quirk when it's fine caviar but it gets a trifle strange when he's waxing Poetically on what amounts to a family trip to Vegas and Gold Coin collections.

[zencat]

Fleming is a wonderful author, if you like what Fleming likes.

Ha! That is a brilliant line/observation, Willowhugger.

[MkB]

For example, I am quite fond of women and Fleming's ability to wax poetically on them and their little quirks works wonders.

Now that's a very Fleming way of putting things!

Mind you, I understand what you mean. I, myself, am very fond of puppies and men (though I allow neither of them in my house... frankly they're cute but not very smart, and you quickly get tired of their antics)

[Hitch]

*headmostdecidedlyandrepeatedlydesk*

?

Would you mind translating that into English for those of us who don't speak Hitch?

Not at all. Some of the posts disparaging Fleming as a writer merely prompted a vigorous head-desk interface, otherwise known as a forehead-mahogany kiss or, if you prefer, a skull-veneered chipboard moment.

Clear enough?

Carry on.

Oops. Pardon me for disparaging Flemmmmmmmming. I'll leave y'all to continue ripping on Amis.

I likes a good disparaging, I does.

Castigate the man's writing, by all means - I've done the same in the past. I've never pretended that Phlegming was a Great Writer, and have often mentioned that his Bond novels, while tremendous fun to read, are full of structural flaws, creaky plots and suspect attitudes to Johnny Foreigner and the mysterious skirt-wearing half of the species. It's just that it seems a bit strange to read trenchant criticism of his prose (which I happen to think is often marvellous) on a site dedicated to his work and its offshoots - not that I dislike reading an informed disembowelment of Fleming's work. But I respect anyone who can create a fictional world that seems destined to live on in the popular imagination, and whose prose is still largely crystal clear and invigorating some fifty years after it was written. Characters with the longevity of James Bond (and his brother in arms, Sherlock Holmes) don't come along too frequently; their respective proses can't be too bad. (Respective proses? *holds gun to temple* It's amazing how easy it is to torture the English language while praising someone else's use of it.)

It's strange, but whenever I want to talk about those popular, erm, James Bond book thingies, I get a nagging feeling that I should apologise for dragging a droning, half-cut, splenetic Old Etonian into an online discussion about them.

Hi Jim!

Surely, if there's one place in the world where one can expect to indulge in a mancrush on the crusty creator of 007, without fear of (much) contradiction, it's at the biggest and best James Bond forum on the net? Or even this place?

As for Colonel Sun, although it sags in the middle like a Yorkshire Pudding and is about as fast-moving, I'd still take it any day over the pallid, lackadaisical and disappointing exercise in will-this-do-ism that rests between the covers of DMC. Leave that kind of tripe to fan fiction writers who can't do any better. Faulks can do so much more.

And for the record, I'm rather fond of the notion of a lost 60s Bond novel written by a secretly commissioned thriller writer. SNF, are you sure you can't conjure up anything else beside Per Fine Ounce? Can't you write something yourself?

Also, and partly because I wanted to start another paragraph with the letter "a" (for Amis, naturally), I must say that I too am fond of women and, to use Willowhugger's felicitous phrase, would love to wax poetically on them.

[spynovelfan]

Now there's a post that should be pay-per-view!

[Safari Suit]

It's just that it seems a bit strange to read trenchant criticism of his prose (which I happen to think is often marvellous) on a site dedicated to his work and its offshoots.

But surely by extension that would make all Bond above criticism on this website?

[Hitch]

Not at all. This thread has morphed into a discussion of various authors' prose styles, Fleming's among them; it's not an evaluation of the showbusiness, merchandising and cultural phenomeneon that Bond has become. Everything Bondian can still be criticised without restriction, you'll be relieved to hear. Yes, you have my express permission. Fly, my pretties.

The thing is, poor old IF's pristine blunt instrument of an alter-ego has suffered many indignities and one or two improvements through many different mediums over the years, but if we're now going to pull his prose to pieces after deciding that he was responsible for ropey plots, dodgy racial sterotypes, rampant sexism and overt snobbishness, we may as well exclude his novels from CBn because they have less to do with the world of 007 than James Bond's Birds of the West Indies.

All of which would mean that Kingsley Amis wrote the first James Bond novel; something that would please the dyspeptic old buffer enormously. His good mood would last until the arrival of a curt letter from Geoffrey Jenkins claiming precedence in the Bond stakes.

Lawyers ahoy!

[Safari Suit]

But I think to say that Fleming's work contained dodgy racial sterotypes, rampant sexism, overt snobbishness (all of which I think are pretty undeniable to be honest), ropey plots and flawed prose (both of which are pretty much just a matter of opinion) is not to label them worthless.