131 replies to this topic

[Hitch]

Fleming's just popped into this forum, only to find his wife and friends reading his work out loud and having a jolly good laugh at it.

At times, the Bond novels can clunk with the best of them. I'm all for heartfelt criticism of his writing - it can reveal so much about the books that was only dimly acknowledged before, and often serves to highlight what's good and bad about them. His work is most uneven, sometimes meretricious and at times patently outmoded and even offensive. And yet...

I finished reading Octopussy today. It's yet another of Fleming's crimes against literature because it uses more of that seemingly outlawed grammatical pointer, the exclamation mark, than one would think possible. They're everywhere!

In my opinion, it's an exemplary short story and a really fine piece of literature, one which any publisher today would be glad to have land on their desk. The narrative arc, the exploration of character, the depiction of Jamaican society and customs, the stunning descriptions of marine life, the knowledgeable portrayal of a heavy drinker parcelling out his hours, the weighing up of a life, the finding it wanting and issuing a suitably macabre punishment - it all flows along like an uninterrupted stream. It may have bumped Quantum of Solace off the top of my personal Fleming short story chart. Both stories barely feature 007.

Diamonds Are Forever reminds me that Fleming could misfire; Octopussy shows me that he could be dead-on. There's room between the two of them for brickbats and bouquets.

And I'm still waiting for a good continuation novel.

[Willowhugger]

Odd fact, I'm now listening to the audio book version of Colonel Sun with some of the things that this thread spoke about it and may be re-evaluating some of my opinions on it.

[Superhobo]

If you don't agree with what I wrote and find it hollow, superhobo, nobody's stopping you from elaborating on why - you haven't really in your post here, and you've also missed out the rest of the point I was making, namely that the way in which Fleming combined the elements changed the nature of the thriller and meant that plot was not nearly so important. I agree, broadly speaking, with your categorisation of his novels, but don't really see how it addresses the above point.

Well, I did elaborate, in the very next sentence, actually. The second paragraph wasn't really supposed to - it was something I'd written in another thread, and - seeing the current conversation - thought it might hold a little relevance.

[spynovelfan]

If you don't agree with what I wrote and find it hollow, superhobo, nobody's stopping you from elaborating on why - you haven't really in your post here, and you've also missed out the rest of the point I was making, namely that the way in which Fleming combined the elements changed the nature of the thriller and meant that plot was not nearly so important. I agree, broadly speaking, with your categorisation of his novels, but don't really see how it addresses the above point.

Well, I did elaborate, in the very next sentence, actually. The second paragraph wasn't really supposed to - it was something I'd written in another thread, and - seeing the current conversation - thought it might hold a little relevance.

Sorry, but which next sentence? I've read your post again and don't see any elaboration or dissection of why my argument about Fleming's attitude to plot was 'kind of hollow' at all.

Did you read my post near the top of the last page yet (post 62)? Perhaps come back and tell me it's a hollow argument then. Perhaps with a counter-argument this time. Then we can discuss.

Thanks,

spyhollowfan

[Superhobo]

Sorry, but which next sentence? I've read your post again and don't see any elaboration or dissection of why my argument about Fleming's attitude to plot was 'kind of hollow' at all.

"Apart from one instance, there's been no real dissection of these arguments. It was said that Fleming, "seemed more interested in the accouterments of thrillers than the plot itself," and then it has passed us."

Your essay, while well-written on its intent, isn't really centered around that criticism, in itself, and doesn't really elaborate on it - you say, and restate it numerous times, but you do not 'show.' Which is fine, in itself, because it's not really centered around that criticism, as I said before.

Did you read my post near the top of the last page yet (post 62)? Perhaps come back and tell me it's a hollow argument then. Perhaps with a counter-argument this time. Then we can discuss.

There's no reason to get snippy about it, you know. Apart from 'that one instance,' which was referring to your oft-mentioned essay, there's been no real elaboration - and, as someone else has said, the same often goes for their counter-arguments; and, as you said, that essay isn't much of a criticism of Fleming, by itself.

Edited by Superhobo, 01 January 2009 - 11:11 PM.

[spynovelfan]

"Apart from one instance, there's been no real dissection of these arguments. It was said that Fleming, "seemed more interested in the accouterments of thrillers than the plot itself," and then it has passed us."

If I'm being a little snippy, it's because you used quotations for a point I'd made but didn't quote me accurately, called that point 'hollow' (I think most people would get a bit snippy at that!), and rued that it had been passed by, but did not - sorry, really did not - present any counter-argument or dissection of it yourself. You just called it hollow and rued that nobody else had countered it! So, for the third time, why is the point hollow - what is your counter-argument? I'm interested to know.

And one of my points in the essay was that in FROM A VIEW TO A KILL Fleming put his hero's ordering of a drink centre-stage for much longer and in much more detail than one would expect - or had really ever seen before - in the thriller genre, and that this was because he was more interested in Bond's life while he was engaged on his missions than the missions themselves. In other words, the background to the plots were of more interest, and so on. It's a very concrete example of it, and whatever you think of the essay, I did at least go into it at some length, and to this point.

I think there's a misapprehension that inconsistencies in plotting were par for the course in thrillers and that Fleming was the same in this regard as everyone else. I don't think that's the case at all: with some writers, like Cheyney, for instance, it was almost all about the plot, and his readers wouldn't have forgiven inconsistencies or a slowing in the pace. In a 1965 article for Dipomat magazine, Leslie Charteris bemoaned this:

'In the broader plan, [Bond] habitually commits tactical blunders which can hardly be diagrammed in much less space than Fleming took to work them out, but which must regularly have his brighter audiences squirming for him. To be sure, no matter what bloopers he makes, he has only the simpletons of SMERSH or SPECTRE or whatever to worry about. In this he is unlike other operators in the field who have had to cope with jeopardy from the Law as well; operators such as the Four Just Men, Bulldog Drummond (with whom Amis and Snelling both persist quite irrelevantly in comparing Bond), or even, if I dare mention him, the Saint.'

An example of a tactical blunder is in LIVE AND LET DIE. Solitaire is openly working for the enemy, and yet when she calls to say she wants to switch sides, for no reason other than that Fleming wants it to happen, Bond takes 'an unpardonable gamble' and decides she is telling the truth and being sincere. It is unpardonable, in traditional thriller terms.

Another plot problem is the repeated use of coincidence, such as in YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, where Bond is recovering from the death of his wife and is sent to Japan - where, by complete chance, the murderers of his wife are now hanging around. Or the end of THUNDERBALL: without Domino's interference Bond would be dead (same in CASINO ROYALE, with the Smersh agent): quite the hero.

In traditional terms, all of this was simply not done. Readers of these thrillers wanted these things to be right. But Fleming turned it all on its head and said, effectively 'You don't really care about that. Look how interesting Jamaica is! Look at this astonishing villain!' And he used a dazzling prose style to make it work.

All of this is my opinion. It can't, of course, be proved. But it can be discussed. If you want to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of Fleming's work, as you complained in your post was not being done, by all means do. So far, you've merely called my point hollow and not even explained why you feel that.

It's your move, if you want to make it.

[Revelator]

If anyone actually wants to criticize Fleming, I can think of some genuine concerns to be honest.
1) Values Dissonance

You mean the fact that Fleming was a sexist Imperialist who thought God was an Englishman and that Britain's real crime was in liberating its colonies too soon?
This is certainly the most disagreeable aspect of the novels, but it's hard to do anything about it, and writers can produce lasting work without holding social attitudes similar to our own. Though that does help--John LeCarre certainly gets plaudits because he expresses attitudes closer to our own. (I'm assuming we don't have that many right-wing readers on this thread.)

One real concern is whether socially retrograde attitudes cripple the artist's work. In Fleming's case there is some evidence of this--his female characters demonstrate that on a certain level he didn't understand women. These characters often seem like characters based more on male wish fulfillment than on real women. Only a few Bond girls--Tiffany Case, Domino, Vivienne Michel, and Kissy Suzuki--seem like truly vivid characters. Similarly, his racial outlook could be stunningly insensitive. You wouldn't know from reading LALD that African Americans lived in a soul-destroying domestic apartheid--you'd only know that the NAACP was Communist infiltrated and other nonsense. But LALD still stands as a crackling thriller--just one whose attitudes now make us wince. It brings up the old issue we know from Birth of a Nation--Griffith's film is a great work of art, yet it is quite possibly the most hurtfully racist film ever made. We can't forget either of these when discussing the film, and so our attitudes remain unsettled. Fleming's attitude toward Blacks was thankfully much less noxious, but his story is still built on the idea of almost all Blacks being supertitious.

I think the rather disappointing element is that with a little foresight, Ian probably would have been able to make most of his grandiose and deformed villains without having to resort to crude racial stereotypes.

LeChiffre might be partially Jewish, but he doesn't carry any stereotypical traits. Mr. Big is an aesthete of crime, and hardly fits the stereotype of the lazy, brutish "Negro". (The problem is that his followers do...) Drax perhaps has something of the ranting German stereotype, just as Klebb and Kronsteen embody the cold, merciless Soviet archetype, but I don't think anyone really cares in those cases. Dr. No is derived from Fu Manchu, but personally carries little offensive about him--it's actually his "Chigroes" who draw the most offensive lines. Fleming personally made sure Goldfinger couldn't be identified as Jewish, and Blofeld fits no convenient labels. Largo fits the ladykiller Italian playboy stereotype, just as Scaramanga is the American hood archetype, but no one really complains about these figures. The problem is this more with the villains' henchmen than with the villains themselves.

2) Bad Plotting

There's certainly not defending Fleming on this count, but has anyone really tried to do so? Plus, as Spynovelfan has demonstrated in his brilliant posts, plotting was not Fleming's main priority. His books are too sensual and oneiric to be plot-powered. I think the fact that Fleming came from a generation watching movies is of importance here--in movies you can sometimes leave gaping plotholes and let the movie carry you more on the basis of mood, pace, characters and action. But of course even the movies sometimes had to rescue Fleming--the film of Goldfinger improves vastly on the plotting of the original. But many of the other movies sometimes even make less sense plotwise than the films. The dreamlike feel of unfurling, inexorable action was sometimg both Fleming and the movie thriller pursued constantly.

3) Not All Fleming is Created Equal

I think all fans acknowledge this. The problem is that sometimes the fans attack works that deserve further study. TSWLM gets frequently rubbished, and yet it may well be the most fascinating Bond novel of all, if you look at it from a gender-studies point of view, as well as an autobiographical one. To me it's a much more interesting book than a mess like Goldfinger. On the other hand, I think most people are right in downgrading TMWTGG. DAF is certainly lesser Fleming when it comes to being a thriller, but its characters are some of Fleming's best. And Fleming's short stories have been undervalued too--QoS and Octopussy are quite rich works. The bigger issue of course is that while his fans may overvalue Flmeing, pretty much everyone else has undervalued him.

4) Characterization Problems

There are no three-dimensional, fully-drawn characters in Fleming. That is the biggest characterization problem. On the other hand, I don't think Bond would be better off if he had more character traits, since he's an identification figure. And Fleming's villains work well enough when they're fairytale monsters or Olympians of evil--things get problematic when they're not, as in Scaramanga's case, or that of the Spangs. You bring Blofeld, but Blofeld's real problem is that he has a completely different personality in each book. In TB he's a cold, calculating, and cautious terrorist CEO, in OHMSS he's a slightly decadent, creepy and desperate aristocrat, and in YOLT he's a ranting Germanic supervillain. There's no connective personality for the three of these characters--the Blofeld of the books is even more vaporous than that of the films.

5) Purple Prose
... I'm sure Ian found Florida to be quite enchanting but I'm not sure that even his original readers were going to believe it was quite up to the same level as Istanbul.

You picked a bad example. Fleming doesn't want you to think Florida is an exotic Istanbul-like metropolis. He wants you to think it's a sinister living tomb where oldsters go to die in slow motion. And he succeeds. Fleming's travel writing isn't purple. If other passages are, it would help if people would point them out and say what's wrong with them. Fleming could be erratic, but his fellow writers, such as Chandler and Ambler, and Burgess, Betjeman, Simon Raven, Elizabeth Bowen and so forth, were right in saying he wrote on high level. (I guess Charteris was an exception, but maybe he was grumpy out being outgrossed...)

[Superhobo]

quote]If I'm being a little snippy, it's because you used quotations for a point I'd made but didn't quote me accurately,

I didn't realize paraphrasing was so grave an offense!

called that point 'hollow' (I think most people would get a bit snippy at that!) and rued that it had been passed by, but did not - sorry, really did not - present any counter-argument or dissection of it yourself.

Yes, you're completely right. I'm content to sit back and watch all of you dissect these arguments and criticisms - but, the thing is, there's been no elaboration on these criticisms, which was what I was taking ere with.

Make no mistake, Fleming is a writer with faults - "Goldfinger," I think, being a prime example.

You just called it hollow and rued that nobody else had countered it!

I don't remember saying anything about the fact that nobody has tried to counter it.

So, for the third time, why is the point hollow

Lack of elaboration. The assertion itself? I have no problem with it, and there's no doubt that it is a problem present in one or two of his novels at the very least, "Goldfinger" being one.

- what is your counter-argument? I'm interested to know.

And one of my points in the essay was that in FROM A VIEW TO A KILL Fleming put his hero's ordering of a drink centre-stage for much longer and in much more detail than one would expect - or had really ever seen before - in the thriller genre, and that this was because he was more interested in Bond's life while he was engaged on his missions than the missions themselves. In other words, the background to the plots were of more interest, and so on. It's a very concrete example of it, and whatever you think of the essay, I did at least go into it at some length, and to this point.

Granted; I was about to mention this, but you've done it for me - still, this isn't really an elaboration of the criticism by itself, as much as it is an elaboration of the differences between Faulks and Fleming, which is how I read it.

Another plot problem is the repeated use of coincidence, such as in YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, where Bond is recovering from the death of his wife and is sent to Japan - where, by complete chance, the murderers of his wife are now hanging around. Or the end of THUNDERBALL: without Domino's interference Bond would be dead (same in CASINO ROYALE, with the Smersh agent): quite the hero.

I do take issue with this, however. In "Live and Let Die," it's hard to avoid, as it is in one or two others, but those are generally smaller - but, in "Casino Royale" and "You Only Live Twice," the coincidence is far, far more organic and less of a - well, you wouldn't call Solitare's acceptance a "deus ex machina," but I'm sure there's a centered term for it.

It's your move, if you want to make it.

Ahuh.

[Superhobo]

You mean the fact that Fleming was a sexist Imperialist who thought God was an Englishman and that Britain's real crime was in liberating its colonies too soon?

To be fair, that's a little much, don't you think?

This is certainly the most disagreeable aspect of the novels, but it's hard to do anything about it, and writers can produce lasting work without holding social attitudes similar to our own. Though that does help--John LeCarre certainly gets plaudits because he expresses attitudes closer to our own. (I'm assuming we don't have that many right-wing readers on this thread.)

One real concern is whether socially retrograde attitudes cripple the artist's work. In Fleming's case there is some evidence of this--his female characters demonstrate that on a certain level he didn't understand women. These characters often seem like characters based more on male wish fulfillment than on real women. Only a few Bond girls--Tiffany Case, Domino, Vivienne Michel, and Kissy Suzuki--seem like truly vivid characters.

A few do; but I think that there are more of them that could constitute 'vivid characters' than there are 'wish fulfillment vehicles.' Vesper, even Tracy - I don't know if I'd place Tatiana under that level, but she is considerably more fleshed out than a number of others.

Similarly, his racial outlook could be stunningly insensitive. You wouldn't know from reading LALD that African Americans lived in a soul-destroying domestic apartheid--you'd only know that the NAACP was Communist infiltrated and other nonsense.

Well, on the former, none of that was relevant to the story that was being told - one of the more pulp-esque/potboiler novels in Ian's gallery, like I previously mentioned.

Fleming's attitude toward Blacks was thankfully much less noxious, but his story is still built on the idea of almost all Blacks being supertitious.

Well, I don't know if I'd go that far. That makes up a bit of Mr. Big's backstory, but nothing in the real story-current demonstrates this - for all that we see of Mr. Big's operations, he's a ganglord and is treated as such.

LeChiffre might be partially Jewish, but he doesn't carry any stereotypical traits. Mr. Big is an aesthete of crime, and hardly fits the stereotype of the lazy, brutish "Negro". (The problem is that his followers do...)

Well, not really; Fleming is, surprisingly, deft in his characterization of a lot of Mr. Big's operators - the muscle that Felix Leiter makes friends with, et. al.

Largo fits the ladykiller Italian playboy stereotype,

Really? I never got that, whenever reading Thunderball.

the film of Goldfinger improves vastly on the plotting of the original. But many of the other movies sometimes even make less sense plotwise than the films. The dreamlike feel of unfurling, inexorable action was sometimg both Fleming and the movie thriller pursued constantly.

I think this is really the only case of outright improvement on the novels, though - and, "Goldfinger" was never really one of Fleming's best.

I think all fans acknowledge this. The problem is that sometimes the fans attack works that deserve further study. TSWLM gets frequently rubbished, and yet it may well be the most fascinating Bond novel of all, if you look at it from a gender-studies point of view, as well as an autobiographical one. To me it's a much more interesting book than a mess like Goldfinger. On the other hand, I think most people are right in downgrading TMWTGG. DAF is certainly lesser Fleming when it comes to being a thriller, but its characters are some of Fleming's best. And Fleming's short stories have been undervalued too--QoS and Octopussy are quite rich works. The bigger issue of course is that while his fans may overvalue Flmeing, pretty much everyone else has undervalued him.

Well, there's my categorization of the 'two types of novels' from him, I think that still kind of stands.

There are no three-dimensional, fully-drawn characters in Fleming. That is the biggest characterization problem. On the other hand, I don't think Bond would be better off if he had more character traits, since he's an identification figure.

Well, I'd disagree with you, there. In Fleming's more 'pulp-esque' novels, maybe - although, even then I wouldn't go that far. Fleming's Bond is the most three-dimensional of his characters, but that doesn't diminish the attention lavished on the others - Leiter, M, etc., the latter especially, who is sketched out superbly.

I've always thought that was one of the particular highlights of Fleming's work - even those aforementioned 'wish fulfillment vehicle' characters are fleshed out, at length.

And Fleming's villains work well enough when they're fairytale monsters or Olympians of evil--things get problematic when they're not, as in Scaramanga's case, or that of the Spangs.

What of Le Chiffre? He's far from any fairy-tale monster - and, wasn't that (one of them, anyway) the point?

You bring Blofeld, but Blofeld's real problem is that he has a completely different personality in each book. In TB he's a cold, calculating, and cautious terrorist CEO, in OHMSS he's a slightly decadent, creepy and desperate aristocrat, and in YOLT he's a ranting Germanic supervillain. There's no connective personality for the three of these characters--the Blofeld of the books is even more vaporous than that of the films.

It's an overarching character arc, I think - you can see this from "Thunderball" to "OHMSS," and by the time YOLT has come around, he's become more than a little far gone. The characters, particularly Bond, do make note of this, if I'm remembering correctly.

[Willowhugger]

You mean the fact that Fleming was a sexist Imperialist who thought God was an Englishman and that Britain's real crime was in liberating its colonies too soon?

Oddly, I'd not choose those words since plenty of those just put Ian at the charmingly eccentric of today's British upper crust. Personally, I think a certain amount of Ian Fleming's Anglophilia is actually a major key to James Bond's success. There's nothing wrong with a certain level of wish fulfillment in one's protagonists.

James Bond would not be nearly so successful as a character as he was if he wasn't a Pro-British Nationalist Icon with his strong undercurrent of Masculinity that taps into various traditions of it across numerous country lines.

Honestly, what's really surprising about Sir Ian Fleming's rather offensive writing stores is the fact that so much of it is incidental rather than anything really tied to the plot itself. Oddjob is a Korean because Goldfinger is selling up he's a terrifying figure. Fleming could have made him any race at all or even made up one of his own to make it work. It's merely part of the atmosphere that he's trying to cultivate.

I think it's one of the reasons that Fleming is surprisingly more forgiven than in other settings, because there's not really an agenda behind the work. The difference between Birth of a Nation and Sir Ian Fleming's James Bond novels is the former is a glorious proclamation of the KKK's glory and triumph over Post-Reconstruction black emancipation through terrorism. The later is just, effectively, Sir Ian making a couple of racist asides while telling a story.

(I wonder if we should make a thread for this or see if its possible to retitle this one)

The difference is huge and prevents the work from being dismissed as any form of propaganda. Thus, allowing Bond ot be appreciated for what he is. Effectively, a seemy Spy Fiction version of a detective novel with no greater agenda than telling a gripping good yarn.

There's certainly not defending Fleming on this count, but has anyone really tried to do so? Plus, as Spynovelfan has demonstrated in his brilliant posts, plotting was not Fleming's main priority.

Actually, I'd argue that the journey was very much the point in many of Fleming's stories. While Spynovelfan phrases it very wonderfully, Fleming was not an author who could be quite pigeonholed so easily. The atmosphere was the point in some novels and it was the journey in others. Moonraker, for example, is very much about the story that he's telling.

On the other hand, I think most people are right in downgrading TMWTGG.

My take on the work is that I'm glad that Fleming wrote a simple and comprehensible tale of Bond versus an assassin. I happen to like TMWTGG very much, personally. I just, oddly, think he could have done more with it.

There are no three-dimensional, fully-drawn characters in Fleming. That is the biggest characterization problem. On the other hand, I don't think Bond would be better off if he had more character traits, since he's an identification figure.

I'd also agree. I think Bond is, at least by most standards, a very well developed character. We know why Bond does what he does, where he comes from, and where he's likely to go (dead before 42). Others suffer tremendously but I think that most of Ian's villains are equally well developed by most literary standards.

You're correct on Blofeld, though.

[spynovelfan]

I didn't realize paraphrasing was so grave an offense!

You used quotation marks, though, which is slightly different than paraphrasing because it suggests, well, that you're quoting. It's not a grave offence at all, usually, but coupled with calling my point hollow but not expanding on why, it was mildly irritating.

Yes, you're completely right. I'm content to sit back and watch all of you dissect these arguments and criticisms - but, the thing is, there's been no elaboration on these criticisms, which was what I was taking ere with.

But, if you don't mind my saying, that's a mite annoying. 'Just popping my head in to complain about the level of discourse of everyone else - I'm not going to contribute to making it better myself, I'm just going to moan that you're not all dancing the way I'd like you to.' Do you see my point?

Make no mistake, Fleming is a writer with faults - "Goldfinger," I think, being a prime example.

I'm really a bit lost as to what kind of elaboration you're expecting from others, when this is as far as you got with this one! Sorry, I forgot - you're content to sit back and watch. (Except you're not that content...?) I'm afraid I still don't really understand what it is your beef is, or what it is you would like to see in the thread. 'Be more constructive with your feedback, please' to quote the Flight of the Conchords.

I don't remember saying anything about the fact that nobody has tried to counter it.

'It was said that Fleming, "seemed more interested in the accouterments of thrillers than the plot itself," and then it has passed us." What did you mean by the words I've italicised?

Granted; I was about to mention this, but you've done it for me - still, this isn't really an elaboration of the criticism by itself, as much as it is an elaboration of the differences between Faulks and Fleming, which is how I read it.

Well, I also compared it at some length to the works of earlier practitioners, especially Wheatley. I'm really not sure what it is you're looking for - you want an elaboration of the specific point that Fleming was not as interested in plots as he was in exploring the textural world of the thriller?

I do take issue with this, however. In "Live and Let Die," it's hard to avoid, as it is in one or two others, but those are generally smaller - but, in "Casino Royale" and "You Only Live Twice," the coincidence is far, far more organic and less of a - well, you wouldn't call Solitare's acceptance a "deus ex machina," but I'm sure there's a centered term for it.

I agree that in CR it is softened, because Fleming managed to make Bond being rescued a dramatic irony that fitted with some of the other themes and ideas expressed in the novel regarding the nature of good and evil and so on. In YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, I can't see how Blofeld's being in Japan is organic at all. It is, by all usual standards of thriller-writing, very poor plotting, and the kind of thing that is fixed by the writer or editors at a fairly early stage. It would have been relatively easy to find some way round it - that M had known all along and felt that Bond had to see the thing through with Blofeld before he was functional again. Sir James Moloney could have fed him the idea. As it is, the coincidence is simply not commented on - and it's too large a coincidence for that!

Again, I would stress that this is the kind of 'mistake' you don't usually see in earlier thrillers in this mould, where the plotting was the main draw. Fleming really didn't overly care, because he wanted both to have M send Bond on a very small-scale mission as punishment and to reintroduce Blofeld with the Garden of Death idea he'd had and the samurai stuff and so on - he was writing fast, and he was going to get it all in however he could. The plots are, in my view, the least important elements of the novels, and in some they are almost so disjointed as to be non-existent. There is also very little suspense in Fleming's novels. He simply wasn't writing that sort of a thriller, but a whole new kind: a Fleming thriller.

All of which, I think, is a broad assertion I've made plenty of times, but with quite a lot of concrete examples and elaboration. I still don't really understand whether you agree or disagree with the assertion, or what your reasons for either position might be.

And sorry if I appear snippy, but if you were looking to complain about a thread not having discourse up to snuff or points being elaborated sufficiently, I do think this isn't the best thread to have picked.

[spynovelfan]

Fleming's just popped into this forum, only to find his wife and friends reading his work out loud and having a jolly good laugh at it.

This probably deserves a thread of its own, but Ann Fleming's daughter Fionn has just written a rather fascinating article about Peter Quennell in the Spectator - Ian is to the forefront, and that incident is mentioned:

http://www.spectator...etachment.thtml

Quills and scrolls enough for you, Hitch? I'd love to know who exactly was laughing at Fleming in that instance, as the more you look the more it seems that all likely suspects loved him to death and would never have dreamed of doing such a thing: was Ann Fleming, I wonder, gifted at the art of mimickry and/or a ventriloquist? While I think it is a valiant effort on Fionn Morgan's part and Fleming was clearly celebrated to a large degree because his character has become, through the films, iconic (and commercially viable), I suspect Quennell's centenary wasn't celebrated because he was never a major writer even in his own time; he wrote lots of different type of book (and too many, as he said himself) so there's no strong image of him as a writer; and his books were very much of their time and place.

And whoever it was in the set who was laughing at Ian - apart from his wife - isn't it ironic that most of them are now hardly known at all? I'm sure if she were alive Ann would feel that it was undeserved and wholly a result of these beastly films, but I'm not so sure; I think the others may also have been barking up the wrong trees. I also love OCTOPUSSY and think it shows that, had he been allowed to by his publishers, public, his era and perhaps himself, Fleming could have been a great literary figure.

[Trident]

Erm, just to clarify any qualms about this as I've seen it several times now. To the best of my knowledge Fleming never was knighted. Of course there'd be ample opportunity for a discussion whether he would have deserved knighthood (yes, IMHO) or if he would have been granted this honour nowadays, would he still be alive (certainly, IMHO). But fact is that up to now he's just Ian Fleming, without 'Sir'.


Apart from this, truly very minor point, I've absolutely no complaints regarding the quality of discussion in this thread. In fact I think most points and arguments have been given a sufficient degree of explanation, devotion and detailed elaboration. Of course at some points we digressed a bit from the original theme and I have to admit my fair share of the guilt here. But on the whole I'd judge this to be a most interesting and informative thread.

[Superhobo]

You used quotation marks, though, which is slightly different than paraphrasing because it suggests, well, that you're quoting.

Not at all, and especially not if I was paraphrasing a certain point that one had stated, and that was restated by others.

It's not a grave offence at all, usually, but coupled with calling my point hollow but not expanding on why, it was mildly irritating.

Mildly.

But, if you don't mind my saying, that's a mite annoying. 'Just popping my head in to complain about the level of discourse of everyone else - I'm not going to contribute to making it better myself, I'm just going to moan that you're not all dancing the way I'd like you to.' Do you see my point?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing.

I'm really a bit lost as to what kind of elaboration you're expecting from others, when this is as far as you got with this one!

Eh?

'It was said that Fleming, "seemed more interested in the accouterments of thrillers than the plot itself," and then it has passed us." What did you mean by the words I've italicised?

It was mentioned in passing, and then went unexplored. It's an assertion that, while I do agree with it - to an extent, it must be said - 'came and went.'

Well, I also compared it at some length to the works of earlier practitioners, especially Wheatley. I'm really not sure what it is you're looking for - you want an elaboration of the specific point that Fleming was not as interested in plots as he was in exploring the textural world of the thriller?

Exactly.

I agree that in CR it is softened, because Fleming managed to make Bond being rescued a dramatic irony that fitted with some of the other themes and ideas expressed in the novel regarding the nature of good and evil and so on. In YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, I can't see how Blofeld's being in Japan is organic at all. It is, by all usual standards of thriller-writing, very poor plotting, and the kind of thing that is fixed by the writer or editors at a fairly early stage. It would have been relatively easy to find some way round it - that M had known all along and felt that Bond had to see the thing through with Blofeld before he was functional again. Sir James Moloney could have fed him the idea. As it is, the coincidence is simply not commented on - and it's too large a coincidence for that!

On the contrary - a lot of reviewers have actually posited that this might be what Fleming was aiming for, implicitly rather than explicitly.

All of which, I think, is a broad assertion I've made plenty of times, but with quite a lot of concrete examples and elaboration. I still don't really understand whether you agree or disagree with the assertion, or what your reasons for either position might be.

Well, I agree with it partially. It is a fate that does befall a few of Fleming's 'lesser' novels - "Goldfinger," et. al., but those that he seemed to really exert himself on seem to have emerged unscathed from it, having a proper balance between these two elements.

And sorry if I appear snippy, but if you were looking to complain about a thread not having discourse up to snuff or points being elaborated sufficiently, I do think this isn't the best thread to have picked.

You all need a very, very stiff drink.

Edited by Superhobo, 02 January 2009 - 12:19 PM.

[spynovelfan]

But, if you don't mind my saying, that's a mite annoying. 'Just popping my head in to complain about the level of discourse of everyone else - I'm not going to contribute to making it better myself, I'm just going to moan that you're not all dancing the way I'd like you to.' Do you see my point?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing.

Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, Superhobo. If not, and you really think that popping into a discussion and saying that the points being made have all been a bit hollow for your liking, can you add some more to it chaps, it's not good enough for me, what me, add something? no couldn't possibly, just feel what you've all written wasn't that hot, could you perhaps put a bit more effort in... well, I'm afraid I'm not quite ready to fetch your shoes!

[Superhobo]

But, if you don't mind my saying, that's a mite annoying. 'Just popping my head in to complain about the level of discourse of everyone else - I'm not going to contribute to making it better myself, I'm just going to moan that you're not all dancing the way I'd like you to.' Do you see my point?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing.

Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, Superhobo. If not, and you really think that popping into a discussion and saying that the points being made have all been a bit hollow for your liking, can you add some more to it chaps, it's not good enough for me, what me, add something? no couldn't possibly, just feel what you've all written wasn't that hot, could you perhaps put a bit more effort in... well, I'm afraid I'm not quite ready to fetch your shoes!

It was sarcasm. I thought that was kind of obvious.

[spynovelfan]

I'm afraid it wasn't obvious - I think that is pretty much what you've done!

It was mentioned in passing, and then went unexplored. It's an assertion that, while I do agree with it - to an extent, it must be said - 'came and went.'?

So add to it, then! You're complaining that it came and went - but not doing anything about it. Can you really not see that that's a rather high-minded and irritating attitude?

Well, I also compared it at some length to the works of earlier practitioners, especially Wheatley. I'm really not sure what it is you're looking for - you want an elaboration of the specific point that Fleming was not as interested in plots as he was in exploring the textural world of the thriller?

Exactly.

[Spynovelfan dances to the tune set to him by some random person off the interweb who's not impressed by his previous 18,000 words on the same subject]

The strongest indication of this tendency outside the novels themselves is that Fleming admitted it himself:

'I am excited by the poetry of things and the pace of my stories sometimes suffers while I take the reader by the throat and stuff him with great gobbets of what I consider should interest him.'

But in the novels themselves:

CASINO ROYALE. I think the plot of Bond's mission was clearly retro-actively fitted on by Fleming, who wanted to have his hero in northern France gambling. The idea that MI6 would send the 'finest gambler' available to them on a mission to humiliate a Smersh asset is absurd even by the standards of thrillers of this era, by some mark. Apart from anything else, it ignores the obvious point that everyone knows, which is that even if you're a 'fine gambler' it's still fairly unlikely you will go into a casino on a given date and win. That's how casinos make money. So from the off we have a pretty serious indication Fleming's not interested in a plausible or coherent plot, but in atmosphere, high-living, and so on.

LIVE AND LET DIE. Largely ignores the events of CR, and even contradicts them a little (Bond is now out for revenge on Smersh, though that is not quite what he was thinking at the end of the last book, where in fact Smersh saved his life). Solitaire switching sides believed for no apparent reason. Utterly implausible and illogical plot involves a Smersh agent who is also an American gangster who is also using voodoo to scare Jamaicans. All of this is delicious stuff, but is not a real plot.

MOONRAKER. Drax's plot would never have been uncovered had it not been for the enormous coincidence that M shares a club with him and the man cheats at cards, and Bond knows about cards so is brought in, and that reveals that of course the chap's a rotter and a bounder so Bond investigates and oh, look, a huge plot to destroy London... Not very well thought through, is it? Fleming is far more interested in the card game than in Drax's plot - so are we, I think.

I won't go through every one, but others would include THUNDERBALL - massive plot unravelled because Bond happens to be at a health spa and gets entangled with one of the villains. Extraordinary coincidence. DAF - very weak plot, as Bond is sent to investigate the pipeline we already know all about and only succeeds in discovering what we already knew about it. YOLT I've already mentioned. OHMSS: Master villain in hiding from Britain's secret services as well as everyone else gives his name and address to London heritage chaps because he's vain and status-driven, while he's actually plotting to destroy Britain's agriculture industry with biological warfare - lucky Bond finds out from the father of a girl he meets where the chap is just before all of that goes down, isn't it?

I repeat: this sort of thing did not happen in earlier thrillers. A bit of it happened, but Fleming repeatedly used extremely weak and disjointed plots that relied heavily on implausible motivations and wild coincidence to make any sort of sense at all, and sometimes even then they make little sense. We don't read the books for the plots, or remember them much, either. We remember Blofeld, Tiffany Case, Count Lippe, Mr Big, Vesper Lynd, Jamaica, Switzerland, Japan...

[/Spynovelfan dances to the tune set to him by some random person off the interweb who's not impressed by his previous 18,000 words on the same subject]

In YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, I can't see how Blofeld's being in Japan is organic at all. It is, by all usual standards of thriller-writing, very poor plotting, and the kind of thing that is fixed by the writer or editors at a fairly early stage. It would have been relatively easy to find some way round it - that M had known all along and felt that Bond had to see the thing through with Blofeld before he was functional again. Sir James Moloney could have fed him the idea. As it is, the coincidence is simply not commented on - and it's too large a coincidence for that!

On the contrary - a lot of reviewers have actually posited that this might be what Fleming was aiming for, implicitly rather than explicitly.

A lot of reviewers (which ones, incidentally?) thinking something doesn't make it true, does it? Do you not have your own views and ideas? I can't see it in the novel myself, even implicitly. I see an unexplainable coincidence that is never explained. What is the counter-argument to it - in the text itself, not what other people might have said retrospectively without backing it up!

Well, I agree with it partially. It is a fate that does befall a few of Fleming's 'lesser' novels - "Goldfinger," et. al., but those that he seemed to really exert himself on seem to have emerged unscathed from it, having a proper balance between these two elements.

See above - I think there are major plot problems in all of Fleming's novels. I missed out FRWL. That's got quite a strong plot, partly I think because he got the idea for it from a Wheatley thriller, COME INTO MY PARLOUR. In that novel, the plot is also retro-fitted in that Wheatley obviously came up with the idea of the Nazis plotting to trap Sallust first and then wondered why they'd want to do it second. He wraps it around a new super-weapon they're developing - a couple of the scientists have gone missing so it's only a matter of time before the British send someone to investigate. Sallust is their top agent and speaks fluent German, so it'll probably be him. How can we forestall him, then? Then it leads off. Fleming used the same basic idea, but the rationale is stretched much thinner, whereby the Soviets spend their meeting discussing which country they should target for an impressive provocation, narrow it to England, then narrow it to one agent, Bond, then come up with the whole lure of the Spektor and so on. It's a pretty implausible way to mount an espionage operation!

[Superhobo]

I'm afraid it wasn't obvious - I think that is pretty much what you've done!

It should've been pretty obvious, friend - regardless of your thoughts of my conduct, who in their right mind would type something like that 'seriously?'

So add to it, then! You're complaining that it came and went - but not doing anything about it. Can you really not see that that's a rather high-minded and irritating attitude?

Not especially - ?

[Spynovelfan dances to the tune set to him by some random person off the interweb who's not impressed by his previous 18,000 words on the same subject]

Dance, puppet. Dance.

The strongest indication of this tendency outside the novels themselves is that Fleming admitted it himself:

'I am excited by the poetry of things and the pace of my stories sometimes suffers while I take the reader by the throat and stuff him with great gobbets of what I consider should interest him.'

Writers are always, always aware of their faults - you should know that.


But in the novels themselves:

CASINO ROYALE. I think the plot of Bond's mission was clearly retro-actively fitted on by Fleming, who wanted to have his hero in northern France gambling. The idea that MI6 would send the 'finest gambler' available to them on a mission to humiliate a Smersh asset is absurd even by the standards of thrillers of this era, by some mark. Apart from anything else, it ignores the obvious point that everyone knows, which is that even if you're a 'fine gambler' it's still fairly unlikely you will go into a casino on a given date and win. That's how casinos make money. So from the off we have a pretty serious indication Fleming's not interested in a plausible or coherent plot, but in atmosphere, high-living, and so on.

I don't see how - it's obvious they're not setting him up to make any large amount, but to bankrupt Le Chiffre. Of course it's unlikely to win, and that's a given, obviously - but, wouldn't that be why they'd sent Bond in the first place, don't you think?

LIVE AND LET DIE. Largely ignores the events of CR, and even contradicts them a little (Bond is now out for revenge on Smersh, though that is not quite what he was thinking at the end of the last book, where in fact Smersh saved his life). Solitaire switching sides believed for no apparent reason. Utterly implausible and illogical plot involves a Smersh agent who is also an American gangster who is also using voodoo to scare Jamaicans. All of this is delicious stuff, but is not a real plot.

I've a number of problems with LALD - the plot isn't really one of them, but again, it is one of Fleming's more "potboileresque" novels.

MOONRAKER. Drax's plot would never have been uncovered had it not been for the enormous coincidence that M shares a club with him and the man cheats at cards, and Bond knows about cards so is brought in, and that reveals that of course the chap's a rotter and a bounder so Bond investigates and oh, look, a huge plot to destroy London... Not very well thought through, is it? Fleming is far more interested in the card game than in Drax's plot - so are we, I think.

Except that wasn't really it, at all - though a coincidence, the card game and the incident at Drax' - what, would you call it a 'facility?' A 'firing hole,' maybe? - are unrelated, par by sheer coincidence. That's one of the larger problems with the plot - not that it bounds along, like you've said - but that it hinges on coincidence, and a fair bit more than even YOLT. But, it's excusable. It's a ripper, that "Moonraker."

I won't go through every one, but others would include THUNDERBALL - massive plot unravelled because Bond happens to be at a health spa and gets entangled with one of the villains.

Again, it's largely a coincidence, the two. It's a problem, but a very, very excusable one that befalls the best works - it really does. Really - go read, say, "Dracula" - a deserved classic, but it also hinges on coincidence.

Extraordinary coincidence.

Yes, but nigh unrelated. Lippe is killed, but that's the only real consequence of their meeting on the overall story.

DAF - very weak plot, as Bond is sent to investigate the pipeline we already know all about and only succeeds in discovering what we already knew about it.

I've never been a particularly large fan of DAF - it was always one of the driest of the novels.

YOLT I've already mentioned. OHMSS: Master villain in hiding from Britain's secret services as well as everyone else gives his name and address to London heritage chaps because he's vain and status-driven, while he's actually plotting to destroy Britain's agriculture industry with biological warfare - lucky Bond finds out from the father of a girl he meets where the chap is just before all of that goes down, isn't it?

The only real coincidence here is that which drives most stories, great and terrible.

[/Spynovelfan dances to the tune set to him by some random person off the interweb who's not impressed by his previous 18,000 words on the same subject]

Yes, yes you do. Did you get lessons from Jason Samuels Smith?

A lot of reviewers (which ones, incidentally?) thinking something doesn't make it true, does it? Do you not have your own views and ideas? I can't see it in the novel myself, even implicitly. I see an unexplainable coincidence that is never explained.
What is the counter-argument to it - in the text itself, not what other people might have said retrospectively without backing it up!

I'm going to have to crack open YOLT again, for this one. Sigh. I'll come back and edit this post later on, for that.

See above - I think there are major plot problems in all of Fleming's novels.

Oh, and I'd disagree with you.

Fleming used the same basic idea, but the rationale is stretched much thinner, whereby the Soviets spend their meeting discussing which country they should target for an impressive provocation, narrow it to England, then narrow it to one agent, Bond, then come up with the whole lure of the Spektor and so on. It's a pretty implausible way to mount an espionage operation!

SMERSH (the real-life counterpart, anyway) ran operations of this sort quite often, actually - as with much of the background for Grant, and the workings of SMERSH, to a fine point; perhaps not hinging on the attraction of an office girl to a faraway agent, but - the only real point of discontent I've ever heard about FRWL is that Tatiana is allowed to run from Kleb, when she shows up in the doorway in a lacey; where, in actuality, she'd have been forced to have sex with her numerous, numerous times.

Also, you should explain why it's implausible. You know, for us laymen.

[spynovelfan]

It should've been pretty obvious, friend - regardless of your thoughts of my conduct, who in their right mind would type something like that 'seriously?'

Nobody - but I'm not sure you're in your right mind.

Incidentally, the real Smersh was disbanded in 1946 and never conducted operations remotely comparable to the one in FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, being mainly concerned with finding, interrogating and punishing traitors to the Soviet Union. Perhaps you could elaborate on your assertion and give examples of a few operations of this sort it conducted, with dates and names and so on? I'm finding your argument a bit hollow so far - it was sort of there and then we went past it...

[Superhobo]

Nobody - but I'm not sure you're in your right mind.

Oh, of course you're not. What am I thinking?

Incidentally, the real Smersh was disbanded in 1946 and never conducted operations remotely comparable to the one in FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, being mainly concerned with finding, interrogating and punishing traitors to the Soviet Union.

Actually, much like the 'Deuxieme Bureau' and 'MI5,' SMERSH remained as the common name for the country's intelligence agency, but - they did also have a rather active counterespionage section.

Perhaps you could elaborate on your assertion and give an example, with dates and names and so on? I'm finding your argument a bit hollow so far - it was sort of there and then we went past it...

This just has to be the best part of discussing something with somebody, on some forum or another. It's my fav'rit. But, well - Kleb, for example was based around Tamara Nikolayeva, and quite a bit of the backstory of Red Grant is quite real (ish) -

"Grant’s training as a SMERSH agent begins with extensive studies. First he is held for a year in what is described as “a semi-prison which Grant had devoted to keeping fit and learning Russian,” (Fleming 23). During this time he is examined by doctors concerning his health and fitness while Soviet spies in England and Ireland investigated his past. He then embarked on two years of schooling which included subjects ranging from history to politics to the ideology of Russian leaders. The education also involved technical subjects that focused on codes and ciphers and fieldwork that required the recruits to plan and execute dummy operations. Finally, and most interesting from the standpoint of fiction, are the two years Grant spends at the School for Terror and Diversion where he learns to hone his killing skills in a variety of circumstances and with a variety of weapons. Here he also receives extensive physical training in judo and boxing as well as general athletics (Fleming 25).
The training that is described in the novel correctly reflects KGB practices. Once selected for training, a KGB recruit would spend two to four years as an “aspirant” or iskatel who would be schooled in a variety of subjects, like Grant had been (Cookridge 81). Almost all of the men and women chosen for this stage of training had an education at the university level and had taken routine training courses for intelligence work. They were also required to be fluent in at least two languages. Grant certainly was not educated although his stint as a British soldier probably afforded him some advantages over the average citizen. He spoke English and learned Russian within his first year in the Soviet Union. For KGB recruits, their coursework would be determined for them at the discretion of their superiors, the Selection Commission of the Recruiting and Training Department (Cookridge 97). A candidate’s nationality and appearance are factors in this placement. In 1955, more than 200 schools for KGB recruits existed in cities in Russia. The schools taught subjects such as modern languages, technology, physics, chemistry, engineering, economics and geography. Less than 30 of these were schools for external studies, or educating potential spies for work outside of the Soviet Union. One of these schools, for example, might train recruits to work in Germany, teaching them to speak the language fluently and mesh with German customs (Cookridge 97). Like the novel, recruits in the KGB would have trained in several sports, judo, boxing and self defense chief among them. Many intelligence agents were world class athletes.
The most intriguing reality of KGB practice that is described in the novel is the existence of the Section for Terror and Diversion. The school where Grant learns the fine art of killing seems to be an embellished work of fiction however it actually did exist in Kuchino, Russia a suburb of Moscow, just as described by Fleming. Among the itinerary for a student of the school were courses in special weapons and poisons (Cookridge 99).
Upon completion of his training, Grant quickly moves up the ranks of the intelligence system. He receives generous compensation for his work, is lauded with the title “Major”, granted Russian citizenship and finally a villa in the Russian vacation region of Crimea (Fleming 27). Truly, Grant is living an extremely posh lifestyle for a Soviet spy."

As for Tatiana -

"In the real world of KGB sexpionage, girls like Romanova were recruited from across the Soviet Union and from a variety of backgrounds. An investigation into their history is always conducted to be sure of their reliability. The most significant factor in their selection is their beauty, although intelligence, charm and a knowledge of foreign languages are also of importance, qualifications that Klebb identifies in Romanova (Lewis 35). Using contraband luxuries as bait was also common in the KGB. In the real life recruitment of prostitute spies, the scenario played out in much the same way it did between Romanova and Klebb in the novel. The girl was called first into a meeting with a KGB officer and told she was being considered for an important position in secret intelligence. Sex is never mentioned; it is finally brought to light after several meetings and the girl’s acceptance into her post. It is then that she would be sent to a sex school in order to learn her trade.
The novel is quite conservative in discussing the training of a prostitute spy, leaving much to the imagination. In her initial interview with Klebb, Romanova is propositioned by her superior at the end of the night to “get to know each other better,” (Fleming 85). Klebb, after changing into lingerie and donning makeup, quickly turns a business meeting into a sexual lesson, attempting to seduce Romanova into engaging in sex with her. Romanova, displaying the virtuous qualities that Fleming strives to portray in her, flees the situation frightened. The sexual training of Romanova is not discussed in the novel in any further detail......An example of an actual sexpionage agent would be Laura Martinez, the KGB spy who betrayed the powerful Cuban revolutionary Che Guevara. An interesting point in the Martinez case is that the swallow did indeed fall in love with her target. Her enthusiasm when first meeting Guevara in Berlin was not manufactured and Martinez openly loved and supported Guevara throughout the nearly ten years that she spied on him for the KGB. Despite her feelings and intimate relationship with him, Martinez was faithful to the KGB and betrayed Guevara in 1967 when Russian leaders deemed him too dangerous to continue revolutionary actions. Her target never knew that his beloved mistress had been a Soviet spy (Lewis 61). This case bridges the reality of sexpionage agents and the fiction of Romanova. Despite their orders and their training that stripped them of feelings for their targets, it was still possible for a swallow to fall in love with her target much like Romanova did. The difference in the novel of course is that Romanova did not remain faithful to the KGB in the end and chose to defect with Bond instead. "


Specific cases? Surely, you jest.





(source - https://www.msu.edu/~riestere/spy.htm)

[Jim]

It may not be intended, but there would appear to be a bit of needle going on here. Please be wary of tipping it over the edge. Be fluffy. Many thanks.

[spynovelfan]

Actually, much like the 'Deuxieme Bureau' and 'MI5,' SMERSH remained as the common name for the country's intelligence agency, but - they did also have a rather active counterespionage section.

What's your source for that? Because it's untrue. The common name for the country's two major intelligence agencies were the KGB and the GRU. Smersh's duties were handed over to a sub-section of the MGB, as the KGB then was, in 1946 (Sources: pp350-1 KGB: The Inside Story Of Its Foreign Operations From Lenin To Gorbachev by Christopher Andrew and Oleg Gordievsky, Sceptre, 1991; and pp192 Nights Are Longest There: SMERSH From The Inside by A.I. Romanov, Hutchinson, 1972.) I'm not aware of anybody ever using Smersh as a general term for Soviet intelligence: enlighten me.

But, well - Kleb, for example was based around Tamara Nikolayeva,

You mean Tamara Nicolaeva Ivanova, the existence of whom as a KGB agent (not Smersh) exists in only one non-fiction work prior to FRWL's publication - SOVIET SPY NET by EH Cookridge. The only problem being that Cookridge appears to have created most of his book from whole cloth.

and quite a bit of the backstory of Red Grant is quite real (ish) -

Not really. It's based very closely on Cookridge's claims - almost all of which are unsupported - about the training of Nikolai Khoklov, who was of course not a Smersh agent but a KGB one, as Smersh didn't exist anymore and was not in common parlance anywhere, despite your bluff up top. Even Cookridge says Smersh didn't exist any more, on the first page of his introduction, in a book published in 1955.

The training that is described in the novel correctly reflects KGB practices...

I'm afraid not. Cookridge (Spiro was his real name) was an extremely unreliable chronicler of the espionage game, and very few of his claims in SOVIET SPY NET have ever been supported by any reliable source (declassified files, memoirs or anything else). Fun to read, and one can see why Fleming used him - but a very long way from evidence that Fleming's depiction was realistic. I went into a lot of detail on how Fleming used Cookridge as a source here: http://debrief.comma...mp;#entry964583

Soviet honey traps were indeed quite common - they also tried one on Einstein! However, what I was objecting to was not the general principle of the Soviets using a honey trap but the precise nature of the one in the book. As you say, the attraction of an office girl to a faraway agent. The way in which Bond is targeted and the lengths to which they go to do it are very unlikely. As likely, in fact, as Colonel Sun's plot to frame M. But Fleming wrote it rather better.

And, once again, all your examples are KGB, not Smersh, which did not exist at that time, and never existed at all in anything like the way Fleming portrayed it.

(source - https://www.msu.edu/~riestere/spy.htm)

Doesn't work.

[Hitch]

At least I'm fluffy.

Jim, can't I have an honour for services to fluffiness? You know, a discreet little bar in the top right of my posts, a sort of Order of the British Teddy-bear? No? Harrumph.

Incidentally, my apologies to the OP for helping to drag this thread off-topic. But now it's veered wildly away...

On the back of my battered (this word subject to copyright by I.F.) Pan 1968 paperback of Octopussy, there's an extract of a review by Anthony Burgess. It reads:

"Two stories which, in their fascinated poring on things - guns, techniques, foodstuffs - remind us that it is the mastery of the world of things rather than people that gives Fleming his peculiar literary niche. I admired all the Bond books and I'm sorry there'll be no more."

I mention this because it seems relevant to the debate that's surfaced here about Fleming's techniques and aims. Whereas Burgess, in that admittedly short extract, subscribes to the commonly held view that Fleming was better at writing about objects than about people, I'm of the view that, with regard to Bond, the cataloguing and exploration of "things" revealed much about the protagonist's character: his right to indulge himself due to his risky career; the sublimation of his feelings into objects (cars, food, alcohol, clothes) that he could rely on and trust; and the regular evaluations of equipment and the finer things in life that almost amount to daydreams, preserving Bond's mental equilibrium and allowing him a respite from the harsh realities of life. I've heard both arguments put forward in this thread (I think - please don't ask me to find them!), and the only conclusion I've drawn is that there must be something to Fleming if his work will support both views. Not exactly profound, but there you are.

I'd love to read Burgess's complete review from The Listener. (I might add that The Listener was much more worthy of the Reithian aims of the BBC than that overblown TV listings pamphlet masquerading as the Radio Times.) If only there were someone at CBn who could research such arcane material.

By the by, wouldn't it be fun if reviews of the Fleming novels were published in a collection? It would probably appeal to the nerdier end of the Bond spectrum, but, judging by that taste of Burgess and Roger Baker's superb review of Colonel Sun (thank you for that, Spynovelfan), it might be a pleasurable read - unlike this post!

[spynovelfan]

No idea where The Listener's archives are, Hitch, sorry. Henry Chancellor reproduced snippets from the reviews of OP in the TLS and by Philip Larkin in the Spectator, but I agree it would be interesting to have a collection of the full versions. To add to that fantasy idea of leather-bound volumes of all of Fleming's work, with a volume of his uncollected writings (story ideas, notes, Atticus and other assorted articles, letters, introductions to other people's books, etc), you could probably add all the major contemporaneous reviews and criticism that appeared of the books. Peter Fleming collected his columns as books during his lifeftime; so did Cyril Connolly; Burgess got the treatment posthumously with ONE MAN'S CHORUS. Why on earth hasn't Ian Fleming?

[Superhobo]

Gee, boy - was that a lovely, lovely nap.

What's your source for that? Because it's untrue. The common name for the country's two major intelligence agencies were the KGB and the GRU. Smersh's duties were handed over to a sub-section of the MGB, as the KGB then was, in 1946 (Sources: pp350-1 KGB: The Inside Story Of Its Foreign Operations From Lenin To Gorbachev by Christopher Andrew and Oleg Gordievsky, Sceptre, 1991; and pp192 Nights Are Longest There: SMERSH From The Inside by A.I. Romanov, Hutchinson, 1972.) I'm not aware of anybody ever using Smersh as a general term for Soviet intelligence: enlighten me.

Down below. Keep going. I answered that part preemptively. On reflection, I could've just copied and pasted it up here, but, eh.

You mean Tamara Nicolaeva Ivanova, the existence of whom as a KGB agent (not Smersh) exists in only one non-fiction work prior to FRWL's publication - SOVIET SPY NET by EH Cookridge. The only problem being that Cookridge appears to have created most of his book from whole cloth.

I do hate dealing with common names like Ivanova, and Nicolaeva. That makes it that much more difficult to dig up any real sources, or et. al. I keep getting clogged down in various other mentions of the two, unrelated.

Not really. It's based very closely on Cookridge's claims - almost all of which are unsupported - about the training of Nikolai Khoklov, who was of course not a Smersh agent but a KGB one, as Smersh didn't exist anymore and was not in common parlance anywhere, despite your bluff up top. Even Cookridge says Smersh didn't exist any more, on the first page of his introduction, in a book published in 1955.

See below.

I'm afraid not. Cookridge (Spiro was his real name) was an extremely unreliable chronicler of the espionage game, and very few of his claims in SOVIET SPY NET have ever been supported by any reliable source (declassified files, memoirs or anything else). Fun to read, and one can see why Fleming used him - but a very long way from evidence that Fleming's depiction was realistic. I went into a lot of detail on how Fleming used Cookridge as a source here: http://debrief.comma...mp;#entry964583

While Fleming may have used Cookridge as a reference, none of the information being contrasted, up there, comes from Cookridge, to my knowledge.

Soviet honey traps were indeed quite common - they also tried one on Einstein! However, what I was objecting to was not the general principle of the Soviets using a honey trap but the precise nature of the one in the book.

Aha.

As you say, the attraction of an office girl to a faraway agent. The way in which Bond is targeted and the lengths to which they go to do it are very unlikely.

Well, the amount of accuracy doesn't really seem a stickler - especially in light of, say, John Vassall, or any of a few others. Or, even Che Guavera. To my knowledge, I can't really place any that would have been used in tandem with assassination, but that doesn't seem all that far-fetched, considering.

As likely, in fact, as Colonel Sun's plot to frame M. But Fleming wrote it rather better.

Granted. But, really - none of the continuation authors have really mastered Fleming's style. I'm sure you'd agree with that.

And, once again, all your examples are KGB, not Smersh, which did not exist at that time, and never existed at all in anything like the way Fleming portrayed it.

You don't have to keep saying this, over and over again. Message boards, being text-based, aren't like a person-to-person conversation. If I've read it, I'll process it, and likely remember it.

However, it's acknowledged that SMERSH was gradually merged with the KGB and/or MGB (March 16, 1946, when SMERSH was merged with the MGB's Third Chief Directoriate), and SMERSH -- the name, itself - was often misused to refer to KGB's Second Main Directoriate's Ninth Section, the Spetsburo. The Spetsburo, "who were, in a word, in charge of terror."

Doesn't work.

Damnation. Do a google search for "The Makings of a Soviet Spy," and it should show up - it's a comparison and contrasting of Fleming's depiction of SMERSH with the reality; it's main objections are to the nature of the characters themselves, and not of any real factual inaccuracy.


(source for above - the jumping off point was John Griswold's extensive analysis of Ian Fleming's work, aptly titled "Ian Fleming's James Bond: Annotations and Chronologies for Ian Fleming's James Bond Stories," which wouldn't seem from the title as useful a book as it really is.)

Edited by Superhobo, 03 January 2009 - 02:19 AM.

[Revelator]

LIVE AND LET DIE. Largely ignores the events of CR, and even contradicts them a little (Bond is now out for revenge on Smersh, though that is not quite what he was thinking at the end of the last book, where in fact Smersh saved his life).

Before I write anything else, I just want to say that I'm in near complete agreement with you regarding your points in this discussion.
With regard to CR, I would point out that in this case, Bond does vow to go after the force "that makes other spies spy", and that he will leave the normal spy-work to the blue-collar spies, or something like that. What struck me as odd in LALD is that Bond's desire for revenge seems to have died down a bit. You wouldn't know from reading LALD that Bond had vowed so heatedly to go after Smersh in the previous book.

MOONRAKER. Drax's plot would never have been uncovered had it not been for the enormous coincidence...

This is quite true. I think what makes this ramshackle idea appealing in the book is what I would call the "acorn principle": from one small, seemingly insignificant and inconsequential event grows a chain of events that leads to a world-shaking apocalyptic plot. Though almost nonsensical, the acorn principle plot "feels right" in some odd way. It's one of the features I've always loved in Bond, and which I'm glad they retained in the films. It definitely isn't part of good plotting.

DAF - very weak plot, as Bond is sent to investigate the pipeline we already know all about and only succeeds in discovering what we already knew about it.

Yes, that exactly sums up the book's structural flaw.

We don't read the books for the plots, or remember them much, either. We remember Blofeld, Tiffany Case, Count Lippe, Mr Big, Vesper Lynd, Jamaica, Switzerland, Japan...

Very true. I would just add that the villain's schemes, are also part of what we remember, but those are not actually plot, but rather part of the motivating force of the books.

In YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, I can't see how Blofeld's being in Japan is organic at all. It is, by all usual standards of thriller-writing, very poor plotting, and the kind of thing that is fixed by the writer or editors at a fairly early stage.

True. Fleming does make this slightly more plausible by noting that Bond gets sent to Japan nearly a year (IIRC) after Tracy's death, and has had other missions in between. And in some way, this is another case where a rather illogical case of poor plotting "feels right." We would have been disappointed if Bond hadn't encountered Blofeld in the book right after OHMSS, and the "of course" aspect of this--Bond gets sent to Japan and of course who should he encounter?--feels both outrageous and karmically just. It has emotional logic and no plot logic. It's the sort of logic that often makes more sense in movies--or dreams--than books. As you've noted, it would have been easy to have found a logical way around the coincidence, but though far more logically sound, it would not have felt as right. But lest these points seem like contradiction, I want to register my agreement with your main point: plots were of third-tier priority with Fleming, and his lesser regard for them shows through.

[spynovelfan]

I'm not aware of anybody ever using Smersh as a general term for Soviet intelligence: enlighten me.

Down below.

Where? All you've shown me is that some writers confused Smersh for other branches of Soviet intelligence, which is nowhere near the same thing.

I do hate dealing with common names like Ivanova, and Nicolaeva. That makes it that much more difficult to dig up any real sources, or et. al. I keep getting clogged down in various other mentions of the two, unrelated.

Yes, it is a beastly nuisance having to back up unsubstantiated arguments you make with people who know what they're talking about, isn't it? Especially when they were right! Why not research Cookridge a bit, and you'll then see that he was very unreliable and that there's a reason he's the only person who mentions her?

While Fleming may have used Cookridge as a reference, none of the information being contrasted, up there, comes from Cookridge, to my knowledge.

What do you mean by 'the information being contrasted, up there?' Sorry, I just don't follow what you mean. You said Tatiana was based on a real agent - but she was in fact based on someone Cookridge seems to have invented. You said the training methods reflected real KGB practice: all of the training methods described in FRWL were taken directly from Cookridge, who again seems to have invented them. The only other source to corroborate all his Kuchino training school stuff, for instance, is Ronald Seth, who like Cookridge was a former British agent who wrote several books containing sensationalist and largely invented (and anti-Communist) 'information' about the espionage world. Seth repeated most of Cookridge's claims about the MGB in THE EXECUTIONERS: THE STORY OF SMERSH (1967) - attributing it all to the defunct Smersh, presumably to capitalise on the success of James Bond. He did roughly what you have done, which is to say 'Alright, Smersh was made obsolete, but anything else I find that sounds juicy and interesting can be attributed to them anyway because, well, everyone calls that department Smersh - actually the whole of Soviet intelligence can be called Smersh - actually Smersh still survives in this other department.' John Gardner did this, too. And it's fine in novels, and can be made to sound convincing. But it doesn't make these books realistic depictions of Soviet intelligence.

Well, the amount of accuracy doesn't really seem a stickler - especially in light of, say, John Vassall, or any of a few others. Or, even Che Guavera. To my knowledge, I can't really place any that would have been used in tandem with assassination, but that doesn't seem all that far-fetched, considering.

The targeting by distance is pretty far-fetched. The targeting of a known field agent ditto. The whole idea that she's in love with him, that the British will know that that's absurd and therefore a trap but not be able to resist... The idea that they would think 'let's trap someone' first and then discuss the whole world until they narrowed it down to Bond. It's enormous fun, but I don't think it's a plausible operation in espionage terms - or even in espionage fiction terms. But this is just a matter of opinion, so I don't think we'll reach agreement on this point.

Granted. But, really - none of the continuation authors have really mastered Fleming's style. I'm sure you'd agree with that.

Of course I would agree with it, as it's the point I've been trying to make. Fleming didn't care about plots that much, and he had other strengths that over-rode that, so it wasn't really a problem.

However, it's acknowledged that SMERSH was gradually merged with the KGB and/or MGB (March 16, 1946, when SMERSH was merged with the MGB's Third Chief Directoriate), and SMERSH -- the name, itself - was often misused to refer to KGB's Second Main Directoriate's Ninth Section, the Spetsburo. The Spetsburo, "who were, in a word, in charge of terror."

The term was occasionally misused by misinformed writers in the West many years later, but that's an entirely different matter. You claimed that the real-life Smersh undertook similar operations to the one in FRWL. I said Smersh no longer existed and you said, ah, but Soviet intelligence in general was known by the name Smersh. Which is simply not true. Some writers have confused it with others parts of Soviet intelligence - but by that token your misunderstanding of Smersh means Fleming was rather accurately reflecting Soviet espionage activity!

Additionally, Griswold - who seems to be your source for this (you're a bit vague about what your source is for what piece of information, understandably!) - specifically stated in his book that Fleming's use of Smersh 'appears to be one of artistic licence and a very active imagination'. Which is my point.

Damnation. Do a google search for "The Makings of a Soviet Spy," and it should show up - it's a comparison and contrasting of Fleming's depiction of SMERSH with the reality; it's main objections are to the nature of the characters themselves, and not of any real factual inaccuracy.

I've read it now, thanks. It does indeed conclude that Fleming presented Soviet espionage accurately, but there are lots of articles written on the internet by lots of different people. How about an article by a credible expert on the subject? Why do you feel that the author of this article knows their stuff? They don't. The article has just four sources, other than Fleming's novel, and two of those are not in any way credible: Cookridge and Seth. Much of the article's claim for Fleming's accuracy uses Cookridge, and you used chunks of the argument in your last post, which I already debunked. But as you don't seem to have read the link I provided, here's a bit from Cookridge's SOVIET SPY NET:

'Lt. Colonel Nicolai Godlovsky, director of the Cheka small arms section, is the Soviet rifle marksmanship champion… The training for the budding “executioners” is carried out in a barrack-like building on the corner of Metrostroveskaya Sreet and Turnaninsky Pereulok in Moscow. The director of this training establishment is Colonel of the M.V.D., Arkady Fotoyev. The syllabus includes rifle and pistol shooting, driving (motor-cars and motor-cycles), judo, boxing, photography and elementary courses in radio technique. This course is only for beginners. Graduates of the “Section for Terror and Diversion” are trained at special establishment at Kuchino, a large country house outside Moscow…'

And here's how Fleming used it:

'The next year was spent, with only two other foreign students among several hundred Russians, at the School for Terror and Diversion at Kuchino, outside Moscow. Here Grant went triumphantly through courses in judo, boxing, athletics, photography and radio under the general supervision of the famous Colonel Arkady Fotoyev, father of the modern Soviet spy, and completed his small-arms instruction at the hands of Lieutenant-Colonel Nikolai Godlovsky, the Soviet Rifle Champion.'

If you read both passages carefully, you'll see that Fleming changed around Cookridge's passage, and in doing so inaccurately presents what Cookridge claimed to be the procedure. Cookridge claimed all these activities were just for the beginners in Moscow – that’s actually rather more dramatic. But unfortunately, he didn't go on to reveal what the experts got up to, which left Fleming with a problem as his character is an expert assassin. He got round it simply by listing all the beginners' activities and saying the graduates were taught them at Kuchino. He also got all the authentic-sounding stuff in, all the courses, both instructors, the menacing name of the school and the place it's in, even though it meant directly contradicting his source, Cookridge. Incidentally, the names Godlovsky and Fotoyev have never been cited by any creditable source on Soviet espionage - nor has most of Cookridge's information.

So: Fleming took most of the details about the workings of Soviet espionage in FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE from Cookridge's SOVIET SPY NET, which was not about Smersh (which no longer existed) but the MGB. Cookridge's book did not accurately reflect Soviet espionage - and Fleming did not even accurately represent Cookridge's book! FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE is a brilliant thriller for many reasons, but it was a very long way from being an accurate portrayal of Soviet espionage.

Why don't you just admit that you're talking out of your hat, and we'll shake hands and move onto something else?

[spynovelfan]

With regard to CR, I would point out that in this case, Bond does vow to go after the force "that makes other spies spy", and that he will leave the normal spy-work to the blue-collar spies, or something like that. What struck me as odd in LALD is that Bond's desire for revenge seems to have died down a bit. You wouldn't know from reading LALD that Bond had vowed so heatedly to go after Smersh in the previous book.

Sorry, I didn't explain myself very well. I agree with that last sentence, but the contradiction I mentioned is still there, I think.

CASINO ROYALE ended with Bond vowing to hunt down Smersh, 'the threat behind the spies'. In Chapter Two of LIVE AND LET DIE, Bond fleetingly hopes that his appointment with M will set him off on a 'trail of revenge' - but Bond had vowed to go after Smersh because it was the organisation responsible for tracking down traitors to the Soviet cause – without the fear that it instils, he reasoned, Russia’s espionage machine would be ineffective. He didn’t vow to seek vengeance from Smersh: Vesper betrayed him and the book ended with his calling her a bitch (and Smersh saved his life). His motives seem to have changed, then, but there's no explanation for or elaboration of the idea. And, as you say, after this there's no indication that he's really interested in Smersh at all, for either reason. This is because Fleming wrote LALD as a standalone, before CR had even come out, not knowing how many readers his first book would attract. He left in the mere wisp of continuity, but even that is slightly at odds with CR. It's the sort of thing that some writers are scrupulous about. Fleming was more concerned with other things.

You're absolutely spot-on about both the emotional logic and the acorn principle, I think.

[spynovelfan]

I'd love to read Burgess's complete review from The Listener. (I might add that The Listener was much more worthy of the Reithian aims of the BBC than that overblown TV listings pamphlet masquerading as the Radio Times.) If only there were someone at CBn who could research such arcane material.

By the by, wouldn't it be fun if reviews of the Fleming novels were published in a collection? It would probably appeal to the nerdier end of the Bond spectrum, but, judging by that taste of Burgess and Roger Baker's superb review of Colonel Sun (thank you for that, Spynovelfan), it might be a pleasurable read - unlike this post!

Incidentally, for those interested in COLONEL SUN - yes, we were discussing that, a long time ago! - in 2005, there was a very detailed 12-page article about it in Issue 47 of OO7 magazine by Hank Reineke. Reineke traced the history of Amis' involvement with Bond, and quoted at length from many of the (mostly somewhat negative) reviews the novel received. Reading the article again now, I see that Amis' appointment to write the novel was announced to the press on April 24 1967. On April 13 1967, Ann Fleming wrote to Lord Campbell saying 'Since Peter Fleming agrees to the counterfeit Bond, I am prepared to accept his judgement.' And on May 21, 1967 Amis mentioned in a letter to Philip Larkin that he had finished his 'Bond novel'.

If Amis' appointment hinged on having Ann Fleming's permission - which I'm not sure it did, mind - this is all rather extraordinary, because Amis had started researching the book in September 1965 - what state was the book in a year and a half later? He can't have finished it in a month, so who was the central character? What would have happened if Ann hadn't given the green light - or had they already given it to Amis without her knowing? Add in the contract with Jenkins and it's a pretty curious state of affairs!

Reineke also discussed two mentions by Amis in The New York Times in 1968 regarding a follow-up to COLONEL SUN to be set in Mexico, featuring an assassination on a train: 'I can just see the beginning: Bond had never cared for Acapulco. That's the way to start.'

Not mentioned in the article, and something I suppose I might have mentioned earlier, as it is fairly arcane (I don't believe it has ever been mentioned in Bond articles or books, but I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong), is that Amis seems to have developed this idea a little more. And it might surprise you who was going to be assassinated. On 24 October 1970, several newspapers around the States ran a very short Associated Press story, with minor variations in some cases. Here's the one that appeared in the Daily Globe, Ironwood, Michigan, on that date:

'James Bond to Die

(London (AP) - James Bond is about to die for what may or may not be positively for keeps. Kingsley Amis, who succeeded the late Ian Fleming as author of the agent 007 series said today that in the next book his hero will be blasted by a bazooka-wielding bartender on a train in Mexico.'

Quite a headline, no?

[Trident]

Not mentioned in the article, and something I suppose I might have mentioned earlier, as it is fairly arcane (I don't believe it has ever been mentioned in Bond articles or books, but I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong), is that Amis seems to have developed this idea a little more. And it might surprise you who was going to be assassinated. On 24 October 1970, several newspapers around the States ran a very short Associated Press story, with minor variations in some cases. Here's the one that appeared in the Daily Globe, Ironwood, Michigan, on that date:

'James Bond to Die

(London (AP) - James Bond is about to die for what may or may not be positively for keeps. Kingsley Amis, who succeeded the late Ian Fleming as author of the agent 007 series said today that in the next book his hero will be blasted by a bazooka-wielding bartender on a train in Mexico.'

Quite a headline, no?

It was mentioned, although only briefly and in a different context in Siegfried Tesche's 'James Bond - Autos, Action und Autoren' (James Bond - Cars, Action and Writers). Tesche writes that this bazooka/Mexico/bartender-affair would have been Amis original idea for a continuation. Most unlikely, as it basically meant to ask Glidrose to slaughter their goose.

Another idea of Amis was mentioned in the same book a little bit more extensive: the 70 year old Bond enjoying his holidays in the Swiss Alps where he meets the daughter of a US-Senator. Said Senator would have been abducted by the KGB General Moriarvsky. Said daughter asks Bond for help, offering to do 'everything you want'. Bond answers 'A bit late for everything but I'll help you anyway.' and sets off to rescue the father. The end would have been Bond and Moriarvsky both entangled in a fight, dropping into a waterfall.

I would have liked to read both the Mexican story and the Holmes-ripoff. Tesche writes that the latter one supposedly would have been another reason for Ann Fleming to deny Amis any further assingments regarding 007. Once more this seems unlikely IMHO. A 70 year old Bond would have been an idea that would have come later, say towards the end of the 70's or mid-80's. I don't think it was an option by 68/69. But I think the basic idea of an older Bond was never pursued so resolutely. This is what makes up much of my admiration for Amis. He seemed to have rather bold ideas. Once more: oh, what could have been...