2121 replies to this topic

[whiteskwirl]

What kind of insight does he give in the intro?

[Righty007]

What kind of insight does he give in the intro?

James Bond is a spy. His number is 007.

[Loomis]

I can't be arsed to transcribe the whole intro, but it's a worthwhile read, even though Deaver doesn't offer any groundbreaking new observations on CASINO ROYALE or the Bond phenomenon. However, his love of 007 and Fleming shines through. Read it and you'll be convinced that Bond is in safe hands.

Here's an interesting article reacting to Deaver's hiring. It quotes from his CASINO ROYALE introduction.

http://www.licenseto...aver-right.html

[mcdonbb]

I have tried to stop myself being involved in this one because I can be such a pessimist. But I can hold back no longer. So far the whole Jeffery Deaver thing fills me with horror. For a start, (and I know I am going be shot down in flames here) the fact he is American is so wrong. I really believe only a British author can capture and just plain get that curious upper class snobbery and manners that are so prevalent in Fleming’s and even Amis’s books. No disrespect but you just don’t get it, as we just don’t get some of your mannerisms. That is one of the fatal flaws that run through Benson’s books. The only American writer that seems to capture it is Maibaum and I suspect Terence Young had a lot to do with it.

It's a reasonable fear, MarkA. But I think the calculation is that what Deaver may lack when it comes to really understanding the British he will make up with the fact that he really understands the thriller. Certainly the calculation worked (or didn't) with Faulks going the other way. Also think IFP may hope Deaver helps crack the US market, which has been a trick and is important for the continuation of the Project X series.

I would be more concerned if Deaver didn't love Bond. I think getting the nature of the Bond universe is more important than understanding Britain (but I'm sure an argument could be made it's the same thing). I think being a reboot will help. He's not stepping into the shoes of Fleming the way other authors had to. And he's just doing one book, so if it's not your cup of tea (Brits still drink tea, right?) then you can hope for a British writer the next time. Again, I'm less worried about the nationality of the writer than I am the nature of what they love to write and their understanding of Bond. But I understand being apprehensive about an American writer. We'll see.

Agree...btw would like to see Charlie Higson have a shot at an X novel.

[godwulf]

Yeah, that's exactly what I want. Still, you can't win em all. Maybe the second book will reflect our desries.

Right...Fleming's stories never had some big, ugly event hanging over Bond's head...nothing like the luanching of a nuke-carrying rocket, or an international blackmail scheme with a deadline, or anything like that. That's really all the "ticking clock" concept means, you know; it isn't like there's going to be a little clockface at the bottom of each page, or some such gimmick. I don't know what the percentage of thrillers, overall and by all writers, would be, that would fit into this broad category, but I'd be willing to wager that it's a large one, including the majority of Bond novels to date, by all authors.

As for Loomis' Leiter portrayal...Hell, I thought it was a much closer approximation of most of the Texans I've known in real life than anything Fleming or Gardner ever wrote.

Oh, one other, non-Bond remark that Deaver made the other night, that I think is illustrative of his sense of humor. He mentioned that one of his stories had been adapted for t.v., and was appearing soon (on the Hallmark Network, or some such), but they'd told him that it wasn't a "movie" - that it was an "event". Someone in the audience asked Deaver what the difference was, and he said, "Two more commercials".

[Simon]

This is getting silly (and a little overly obsessive, even for my tastes). There has never been a strict continuity to James Bond. Even Fleming was a little loose in exactly when things are happening and how old Bond is. I think every author, like every actor, is only really responsible for their own timeline and can change things to fit their universe as they wish. Trying to fit every permeation of Bond into one master timeline, mental or otherwise, is an exercise in futility because it just doesn't fit and really doesn't matter in the world of James Bond. I say accept this and just enjoy each block of books (or films) as their own thing. Become a Trekker if you want continuity.

Thought I should respond to this, although I see a further three pages have been added since this statement.

I personally do not have any hang ups over trying to create or insisting on timelines. I couldn't care any less. They are totally irrelevant and unimportant.

It was merely an observation for those who may be newly coming to the interest as someone who distantly (late '70s) remembers feeling momentarily confused as to why the book Live and Let Die did not have any resemblance to the film, while Thunderball did.

Hope this absolves me of any silliness.

[Trident]

A number of British people on this thread have explained quite clearly the problem with this but people just aren't getting it. It's wrong, just plain wrong. If I were writing the next Bond novel and the setting were somewhere in the U.S. and I turned around and said "I've done thousands of pages of research and I conclude that most domestic help in the U.S.A. is provided by Canadians", I'd look like an idiot. Does that help anyone see what we're trying to say?

Do you mean the actual mistake, or is your concern more of a general matter? The actual mistake can happen, regardless of the amount of research you do. Whenever you write something there's the risk of getting a major bug into the thing. Neither thousands of pages research nor years of personal experience can prevent it for sure. Although the actual risk is of course considerably lower if you have a base of solid research. Write what you know goes only ever so far and all writers, regardless of genre, topic and subject, also write about what they don't know.

In general I agree that Bond should feature some kind of perspective that's, if not British, at the very least not the diametric opposite to British. But I do not really see how much of a concern that can be in work that's primarily conceived for entertainment, not for a sociological inventory of modern day UK. Yes, some of the best books manage to also give their readers a glimpse into the reality of their subject beyond the actual plot on the pages. But I've hardly ever seen a book condemned for being 'just' entertaining instead of being very exceptionally ingenius or for lacking culturally valuable snapshots of its historical/political/sociological context.

Perhaps interesting as some kind of (alternate?) counter-example for Bond fans is the British writer Lee Child's success in the US, with an American setting and mainly American characters. Not the success itself, for that is mostly of no relevance for our discussion here, beyond the fact perhaps that most of his American readers simply took for granted that Child is an American and does therefore so well in depicting stories that are perceived as 'American'. But what I find most remarkable with Child's example is the apparent lack of any (chauvinistic?) outrage amongst Child's American readers that a Britisher is able to write so convincingly about Americans, their settings, concerns and beliefs. I suspect that even Child must have 'pulled a ' in the thousands of pages he's published up to now, but either such mistakes didn't survive good editing or American readers simply didn't mind as much.

[David Schofield]

Perhaps interesting as some kind of (alternate?) counter-example for Bond fans is the British writer Lee Child's success in the US, with an American setting and mainly American characters. Not the success itself, for that is mostly of no relevance for our discussion here, beyond the fact perhaps that most of his American readers simply took for granted that Child is an American and does therefore so well in depicting stories that are perceived as 'American'. But what I find most remarkable with Child's example is the apparent lack of any (chauvinistic?) outrage amongst Child's American readers that a Britisher is able to write so convincingly about Americans, their settings, concerns and beliefs. I suspect that even Child must have 'pulled a ' in the thousands of pages he's published up to now, but either such mistakes didn't survive good editing or American readers simply didn't mind as much.

In mitigation, Trident, it should be noted that Child has lived in the United States for many years, emmigrated there becasue he loved the culture. Isn't his wife American, and now his kids? Surely, that would have made a natural understanding of Americana easier? Mr Deaver has no such advantages that I'm aware of.

Finally, I should add that I find Child's book's shocking dirivative and very poorly written. Though that's totally irrelevant.

[Trident]

Perhaps interesting as some kind of (alternate?) counter-example for Bond fans is the British writer Lee Child's success in the US, with an American setting and mainly American characters. Not the success itself, for that is mostly of no relevance for our discussion here, beyond the fact perhaps that most of his American readers simply took for granted that Child is an American and does therefore so well in depicting stories that are perceived as 'American'. But what I find most remarkable with Child's example is the apparent lack of any (chauvinistic?) outrage amongst Child's American readers that a Britisher is able to write so convincingly about Americans, their settings, concerns and beliefs. I suspect that even Child must have 'pulled a ' in the thousands of pages he's published up to now, but either such mistakes didn't survive good editing or American readers simply didn't mind as much.

In mitigation, Trident, it should be noted that Child has lived in the United States for many years, emmigrated their becasue he loved the culture. Isn't his wife American, and now his kids? Mr Deaver has no such advantages.

Finally, I should add that I find Child's book's shocking dirivative and very poorly written. Though that's an irrevance, I guess.

You're perfectly right re. Child living in the US and his wife being American, but that was not the point I was trying to make here. He chose his subject and settings after his preference and that of his audience. My point is that his audience didn't object to him being essentially foreign to said subject and setting.

My further point would be that Bond's main subject and setting do not happen to be the UK and distinctively British themes. They are of course present in some form, an ingredient that helps defining Bond's background. But that was always also a romanticised version, not just of Bond, of Fleming, of the Secret Service (Fleming didn't use SIS until OHMSS and never used MI6), but also of Great Britain and its particular (much more mundane) reality. Fleming certainly wasn't more authentic in depicting his country than (for example) both Kingsley and Martin Amis or Virginia Woolf in her time. But no one is to claim Fleming was entirely wrong merely because he depicted 'his' version of his country either.

[David Schofield]

My further point would be that Bond's main subject and setting do not happen to be the UK and distinctively British themes. They are of course present in some form, an ingredient that helps defining Bond's background. But that was always also a romaticised version, not just of Bond, of Fleming, of the Secret Service (Fleming didn't use SIS until OHMSS and never used MI6), but also of Great Britain and its particular (much more mundane) reality. Fleming certainly wasn't more authentic in depicting his country than (for example) both Kingsley and Martin Amis or Virginia Woolf in her time. But no one is to claim Fleming was entirely wrong merely because he depicted 'his' version of his country either.

I'm not sure that Fleming's 50s Britain can be viewed entirely as his own whimsical version of the country.

Bond is constantly saved by the might and patronage of the USA - see CR, Goldfinger, Thunderball. Bond's defence of Britain with Tanaka is one in which Bond admits Britain diminshed role in the political world, against some sporting achivement. In Thunderball, he admits to the decline of British youth in the conversation with the taxi driver

Further, he litters the book with recogisably genuine 50s British brand names.

Finally, does Len Deighton name the SIS/MI6 in any of his novels? Similarly, Le Carre? Aren't there sparsely furnished, portable gas heated offices obscure, faceless departments?

That said, I do not think Deaver's mandate will be to "invent" a "version" of Britain as Fleming may or may not have done; as you suggest, he will take his Bond out of the UK anyway.

Deaver's trick will be to convince us he is writing about a 28 year old Briton, wherever he may take him, though. That I suspect, will be the hardest part of his job.

[Trident]

My further point would be that Bond's main subject and setting do not happen to be the UK and distinctively British themes. They are of course present in some form, an ingredient that helps defining Bond's background. But that was always also a romaticised version, not just of Bond, of Fleming, of the Secret Service (Fleming didn't use SIS until OHMSS and never used MI6), but also of Great Britain and its particular (much more mundane) reality. Fleming certainly wasn't more authentic in depicting his country than (for example) both Kingsley and Martin Amis or Virginia Woolf in her time. But no one is to claim Fleming was entirely wrong merely because he depicted 'his' version of his country either.

I'm not sure that Fleming's 50s Britain can be viewed entirely as his own whimsical version of the country.

Bond is constantly saved by the might and patronage of the USA - see CR, Goldfinger, Thunderball. Bond's defence of Britain with Tanaka is one in which Bond admits Britain diminshed role in the political world, against some sporting achivement. In Thunderball, he admits to the decline of British youth in the conversation with the taxi driver

Further, he litters the book with recogisably genuine 50s British brand names.

Finally, does Len Deighton name the SIS/MI6 in any of his novels? Similarly, Le Carre? Aren't there sparsely furnished, portable gas heated offices obscure, faceless departments?

That said, I do not think Deaver's mandate will be to "invent" a "version" of Britain as Fleming may or may not have done; as you suggest, he will take his Bond out of the UK anyway.

Deaver's trick will be to convince us he is writing about a 28 year old Briton, wherever he may take him, though. That I suspect, will be the hardest part of his job.

Completely agree there. Although the last paragraph makes me wonder indeed.

I had the great pleasure of living in London for a bit over a year twenty years ago. As a German I naturally noticed countless differences between my country and yours on the surface, which was what back then was my primary focus of attention. Over the years I pondered that experience time and again and today I would say that a great many differences between European countries (if one insists to count GB as European) have subtly lost their significance. I would claim that today, close under the surface, most Western peoples' concerns, dreams and aspirations are surprisingly similar, even for us middle agers.

If I take into account that the surface of things throughout the Western world has also seen a certain assimilation/adaptation/harmonisation, then I'm not exactly so sure if younger generations indeed perceive as many cultural differences between Western countries any more.

I'm not talking here about phenomena on the very extreme edges of society that claim a far greater importance and relevance than they actually deserve and that have largely served to open a cultural gap that's supposedly running midway through the Atlantic but in reality divides the US society today. What I mean are ordinary young people of the 21st century that grow up in a world so much smaller than the one we've known. I daresay they'll be also far more forgiving where such cultural significances are concerned.

[David Schofield]

I had the great pleasure of living in London for a bit over a year twenty years ago. As a German I naturally noticed countless differences between my country and yours on the surface, which was what back then was my primary focus of attention. Over the years I pondered that experience time and again and today I would say that a great many differences between European countries (if one insists to count GB as European) have subtly lost their significance. I would claim that today, close under the surface, most Western peoples' concerns, dreams and aspirations are surprisingly similar, even for us middle agers.

If I take into account that the surface of things throughout the Western world has also seen a certain assimilation/adaptation/harmonisation, then I'm not exactly so sure if younger generations indeed perceive as many cultural differences between Western countries any more.

I'm not talking here about phenomena on the very extreme edges of society that claim a far greater importance and relevance than they actually deserve and that have largely served to open a cultural gap that's supposedly running midway through the Atlantic but in reality divides the US society today. What I mean are ordinary young people of the 21st century that grow up in a world so much smaller than the one we've known. I daresay they'll be also far more forgiving where such cultural significances are concerned.

Let me put it this way.

As a Brit travelling in Europe, I subscribe to your theory 100%.

As an Englishman who has spent some time in urban London, I would agree that the same attitude is reflected here.

However, outside of cosmpolitan London - I've spent much of my life in notherern England - I suspect Little Englanderism is still most prevalent.

However, I think when it comes James Bond, we Brits are naturally more proprietorial, whether we empathise with Europe of not. James Bond is our hero. I'd speculate that a lot of this protectionist attitude comes from the fact that most Brits of my generation grew up with AMERICAN heros littering our popular culture - James Bond stood alone.

And we still need him to.

[Trident]

I had the great pleasure of living in London for a bit over a year twenty years ago. As a German I naturally noticed countless differences between my country and yours on the surface, which was what back then was my primary focus of attention. Over the years I pondered that experience time and again and today I would say that a great many differences between European countries (if one insists to count GB as European) have subtly lost their significance. I would claim that today, close under the surface, most Western peoples' concerns, dreams and aspirations are surprisingly similar, even for us middle agers.

If I take into account that the surface of things throughout the Western world has also seen a certain assimilation/adaptation/harmonisation, then I'm not exactly so sure if younger generations indeed perceive as many cultural differences between Western countries any more.

I'm not talking here about phenomena on the very extreme edges of society that claim a far greater importance and relevance than they actually deserve and that have largely served to open a cultural gap that's supposedly running midway through the Atlantic but in reality divides the US society today. What I mean are ordinary young people of the 21st century that grow up in a world so much smaller than the one we've known. I daresay they'll be also far more forgiving where such cultural significances are concerned.

Let me put it this way.

As a Brit travelling in Europe, I subscribe to your theory 100%.

As an Englishman who has spent some time in urban London, I would agree that the same attitude is reflected here.

However, outside of cosmpolitan London - I've spent much of my life in notherern England - I suspect Little Englanderism is still most prevalent.

However, I think when it comes James Bond, we Brits are naturally more proprietorial, whether we empathise with Europe of not. James Bond is our hero. I'd speculate that a lot of this protectionist attitude comes from the fact that most Brits of my generation grew up with AMERICAN heros littering our popular culture - James Bond stood alone.

And we still need him to.

Indeed!

[Santa]

But what I find most remarkable with Child's example is the apparent lack of any (chauvinistic?) outrage amongst Child's American readers that a Britisher is able to write so convincingly about Americans, their settings, concerns and beliefs. I suspect that even Child must have 'pulled a ' in the thousands of pages he's published up to now, but either such mistakes didn't survive good editing or American readers simply didn't mind as much.

The fact of JD being American doesn't bring out the xenophobe in me at all. I couldn't care less if the author is American, British, Japanese or Inuit, as long as he/she captures the British sensibilities of Bond and his world. The pessimism comes from my experience that, all too often, this doesn't happen. It was certainly obvious when reading Benson's books that he wasn't British. It's anal, I know, I admit it. I iron my underwear and alphabetise EVERYTHING, I'm as retentive as a person can be, but the little things are important to me, and it's the little things that tend to go wrong in these situations.

I had the great pleasure of living in London for a bit over a year twenty years ago. As a German I naturally noticed countless differences between my country and yours on the surface, which was what back then was my primary focus of attention. Over the years I pondered that experience time and again and today I would say that a great many differences between European countries (if one insists to count GB as European) have subtly lost their significance. I would claim that today, close under the surface, most Western peoples' concerns, dreams and aspirations are surprisingly similar, even for us middle agers.

Oh wow, I find the absolute opposite. As a half Brit/half Frog living in Spain, where locally we also have many Germans, Dutch, Norwegians and Swedish, I find all of us shockingly disparate.

[Harry Fawkes]

Good points made by Trident and David Schofield and both your opinions make for very interesting reading indeed.

Having been around Europe more times than even I can remember in my years, I find myself fully agreeing with Trident when he writes:-

...a great many differences between European countries have subtly lost their significance. I would claim that today, close under the surface, most Western peoples' concerns, dreams and aspirations are surprisingly similar, even for us middle agers.

'What I mean are ordinary young people of the 21st century that grow up in a world so much smaller than the one we've known. I daresay they'll be also far more forgiving where such cultural significances are concerned.'

2 points well made.

Harry Fawkes

[Harry Fawkes]

Further to the above post, I think Jeffery Deaver himself sums it all up beautifully during an interview with the BBC (and found, thanks to a certain member called Mr. Slate, on CBn):-

‘…Ultimately a writer’s task is to step into the role of the character he or she is creating. We need to bring all our skills of empathy to the task. We need to do a lot of research. I have had characters in my books who were teenage African Americans. I’ve had elderly folks in my books. I’ve had women that I’ve tried to create as realistically as possible so we role up our sleeves and we do what we can to make sure that the book resonates for the reader…’

As a recreational writer of sorts myself I agree with him fully.

Harry Fawkes

[Trident]

But what I find most remarkable with Child's example is the apparent lack of any (chauvinistic?) outrage amongst Child's American readers that a Britisher is able to write so convincingly about Americans, their settings, concerns and beliefs. I suspect that even Child must have 'pulled a ' in the thousands of pages he's published up to now, but either such mistakes didn't survive good editing or American readers simply didn't mind as much.

The fact of JD being American doesn't bring out the xenophobe in me at all. I couldn't care less if the author is American, British, Japanese or Inuit, as long as he/she captures the British sensibilities of Bond and his world. The pessimism comes from my experience that, all too often, this doesn't happen. It was certainly obvious when reading Benson's books that he wasn't British. It's anal, I know, I admit it. I iron my underwear and alphabetise EVERYTHING, I'm as retentive as a person can be, but the little things are important to me, and it's the little things that tend to go wrong in these situations.

No, I don't think that's necessarily xenophobic or anal at all (unless one prefers ones national peculiarities in an 'anal' way). It merely struck me as odd that the Child example apparently didn't spur much fuss. It's indeed debatable how much of an issue British sensibilities inside a Bond novel still are today.

I had the great pleasure of living in London for a bit over a year twenty years ago. As a German I naturally noticed countless differences between my country and yours on the surface, which was what back then was my primary focus of attention. Over the years I pondered that experience time and again and today I would say that a great many differences between European countries (if one insists to count GB as European) have subtly lost their significance. I would claim that today, close under the surface, most Western peoples' concerns, dreams and aspirations are surprisingly similar, even for us middle agers.

Oh wow, I find the absolute opposite. As a half Brit/half Frog living in Spain, where locally we also have many Germans, Dutch, Norwegians and Swedish, I find all of us shockingly disparate.

That would of course be a question of individual perception. My own is indeed quite different, but it would largely depend on our respective contexts. I don't think there is a 'right' or 'wrong' here, but I feel sure the whole complex becomes less important with each new year and each new generation. I wouldn't go as far as to declare it will become completely redundant one day, but I suspect this would in the near future boil down to 'each individual of us being shockingly disparate', regardless of nationality.

Further to the above post, I think Jeffery Deaver himself sums it all up beautifully during an interview with the BBC (and found, thanks to a certain member called Mr. Slate, on CBn):-

‘…Ultimately a writer’s task is to step into the role of the character he or she is creating. We need to bring all our skills of empathy to the task. We need to do a lot of research. I have had characters in my books who were teenage African Americans. I’ve had elderly folks in my books. I’ve had women that I’ve tried to create as realistically as possible so we role up our sleeves and we do what we can to make sure that the book resonates for the reader…’

As a recreational writer of sorts myself I agree with him fully.

Harry Fawkes

Very wise words indeed!

[MarkA]

I'd speculate that a lot of this protectionist attitude comes from the fact that most Brits of my generation grew up with AMERICAN heroes littering our popular culture - James Bond stood alone.

And we still need him to.

I agree 100%. So much of our culture has been hijacked and yet Bond has remained at the top of his game and still essentially British. This is something that has made Bond unique and I also think kept him popular. I would love to be proven wrong (and essentially I was with Higson) but I still think to get to the core of why Fleming has lasted is the British-ness inherent in his writing, and that includes all the snobbery, racism and misogyny that goes with it. It’s not that we agree with it. But it makes Bond who he is and such a fascinating character. Re-boot to clean him up is a really terrible idea.

[whiteskwirl]

Jeffery Deaver's The Burning Wire is currently #7 on the New York Times bestseller list. That kind of selling power was likely a big reason for going with Deaver, and it's good news for Project X. Bringing in new readers to the franchise is arguably more important long term than Deaver writing a good Bond novel.

http://www.nytimes.c...?ref=bestseller

[Trident]

I'd speculate that a lot of this protectionist attitude comes from the fact that most Brits of my generation grew up with AMERICAN heroes littering our popular culture - James Bond stood alone.

And we still need him to.

I agree 100%. So much of our culture has been hijacked and yet Bond has remained at the top of his game and still essentially British. This is something that has made Bond unique and I also think kept him popular. I would love to be proven wrong (and essentially I was with Higson) but I still think to get to the core of why Fleming has lasted is the British-ness inherent in his writing, and that includes all the snobbery, racism and misogyny that goes with it. It’s not that we agree with it. But it makes Bond who he is and such a fascinating character. Re-boot to clean him up is a really terrible idea.

Perhaps this is a case of 'British-ness' retrospectively assimilating Fleming's Bond? Claiming him as epitome where initially he wasn't perceived (nor conceived) as outstandingly 'British'? I'm not sure if Fleming's originals were regarded as particularly 'English'/'British' at their time by their contemporaries. Nonetheless it seems Bond has, by sheer force of appeal, moved the direction of the general understanding of the terms British and/or English towards his own figure. Remarkable and I daresay Fleming would have been not a little surprised.

[godwulf]

...I still think to get to the core of why Fleming has lasted is the British-ness inherent in his writing, and that includes all the snobbery, racism and misogyny that goes with it. It’s not that we agree with it. But it makes Bond who he is and such a fascinating character. Re-boot to clean him up is a really terrible idea.

Two questions, if I may:

I think we can all remember passages in Fleming's writing that reflected snobbery and racism - particularly, I think, the latter - but, how much of that really rubbed off on the thinking, character and behavior of James Bond? What did Bond, himself - as opposed to the narrative voice of Fleming - really say or do that shows him to have been a snob, a racist or, for that matter, a misogynist?

Second - assuming that, to some extent, Fleming's Bond was a snob, etc, how much "cleaning up" of Bond's character, brought into the 21st Century, is going to be the natural and inevitable result of writing about someone born in 1981, rather than sixty or so years earlier, and not just some artificial, politically correct overlay, aimed at appealing to a modern readership?

In more practical terms, I guess what I'm really asking (with the second question) is, would the '50-'60s Bond, as Fleming presented him, likely exist in 2010?

As for myself, when I think of what makes reading about Fleming's Bond so pleasurable and addictive, I think of 007's tenacity and almost suicidal willingness to throw himself into hazardous situations; his fighting skills and the ruthlessness with which he uses them; his patriotism and selflessness; the often incredible good luck that often seems to accompany him on his adventures; his ingenuity under pressure, even his attention to the details of how his breakfast is cooked, and a lot of other, perhaps lesser but still pervasive elements.

Those are the things that I remember about Fleming's Bond - not what might have gone through his head about a Jamaican taxi driver, or his bad opinion of some other country's cooking or standards of hygeine, or what-have-you. So, in answer to my own question - can Fleming's James Bond reasonably, convincingly and even uncompromisingly live in the 21st Century? - I believe that the unequivocal answer is YES.

[whiteskwirl]

I think we can all remember passages in Fleming's writing that reflected snobbery and racism - particularly, I think, the latter - but, how much of that really rubbed off on the thinking, character and behavior of James Bond? What did Bond, himself - as opposed to the narrative voice of Fleming - really say or do that shows him to have been a snob, a racist or, for that matter, a misogynist?

So these dark, ugly, neat little officials were the modern Turks. He listened to their voices, full of broad vowels and quiet sibilants and modified u-sounds, and he watched the dark eyes that belied the soft, polite voices. They were bright, angry, cruel eyes that had only lately come down from the mountains. Bond thought he knew the history of those eyes. They were eyes that had been trained for centuries to watch over sheep and decipher small movements on far horizons. They were eyes that kept the knife-hand in sight without seeming to, that counted the grains of meal and the small fractions of coin and noted the flicker of the merchant's fingers. They were hard, untrusting, jealous eyes. Bond didn't take to them.

These are Bond's own thoughts, so make what you will of it. I tend to think of this kind of attitude as British condescension more so than racism. Britons seem to like to make sweeping, immediate, general judgments on others (ever watch Jeremy Clarkson on Top Gear?), but I don't detect any real hate or malice in it. Even Bond in From Russia With Love takes to Darko Kerim, claiming him to be a candidate as one of Bond's few real friends. So obviously Bond doesn't hate the Turks, or he wouldn't be able to like this man.

Perhaps my impression of British attitudes of this sort of thing is inaccurate. I'm not British, so I can only go on what I've witnessed, which may not be representative.

[godwulf]

These are Bond's own thoughts, so make what you will of it.

I understand, and I'm sure that there are other examples in Fleming, of Bond thinking in these kinds of (very human, not necessarily British) ways. My point, however, is - how much of all that do we consciously think of when we remember what we enjoy about Bond? If someone were to go back and edit out all of the passages where Fleming had Bond mentally denigrating people (perhaps even an entire race or nationality) like that, would it make the stories less enjoyable? Would it change who James Bond is, or what he does, in any fundamentally important way?

[whiteskwirl]

These are Bond's own thoughts, so make what you will of it.

I understand, and I'm sure that there are other examples in Fleming, of Bond thinking in these kinds of (very human, not necessarily British) ways. My point, however, is - how much of all that do we consciously think of when we remember what we enjoy about Bond? If someone were to go back and edit out all of the passages where Fleming had Bond mentally denigrating people (perhaps even an entire race or nationality) like that, would it make the stories less enjoyable? Would it change who James Bond is, or what he does, in any fundamentally important way?

None of it has really a lasting impression on me. But I don't think I would like it being edited out, because it would lose some authenticity. People, from anywhere, do size up strangers like Bond did in that passage I quoted. We still do that. We wouldn't say it, but people do think things like this. So to take a passage like that out would be dishonest, I think. I have no problem with a contemporary Bond thinking the same way. It makes him more human.

[Loomis]

So these dark, ugly, neat little officials were the modern Turks. He listened to their voices, full of broad vowels and quiet sibilants and modified u-sounds, and he watched the dark eyes that belied the soft, polite voices. They were bright, angry, cruel eyes that had only lately come down from the mountains. Bond thought he knew the history of those eyes. They were eyes that had been trained for centuries to watch over sheep and decipher small movements on far horizons. They were eyes that kept the knife-hand in sight without seeming to, that counted the grains of meal and the small fractions of coin and noted the flicker of the merchant's fingers. They were hard, untrusting, jealous eyes. Bond didn't take to them.

This is a brilliant, vivid piece of writing, and shows why there will never be any true substitute for Fleming.

[Jack Spang]

"They were hard, untrusting, jealous eyes."

Indeed, it is wonderful writing.

Not that this is particularly relevant, but when I was in Istanbul last year, I noticed the Turks did have hard, cold eyes and I thought this would be reflected in their personality but when I talked to them they were very friendly, helpful and relatively warm.

Anyway, overall I am happy with the plans for this book. My only major gripe so far is that the story will only take place over the course of a few days and the book itself will be very fast paced. For a rebooted film or book more time should be spent in establishing all the necessary essentials. While I really like the 2006 film Casino Royale, I don't think it was as good a reboot as Batman Begins. It would be nice, if in this new book, a reasonable amount of time is devoted to Bond's roots/background history. I know we didn't get much background history in Fleming's CR book but I feel it is necessary now seeing this is a reboot.

Edited by Jack Spang, 13 June 2010 - 11:50 PM.

[Harry Fawkes]

It is well known that James Bond's mother was Swiss. His father was Scottish; a Highlander from near Glencoe.

(However, Fleming once said to John Cruesemann, in an interview in the Daily Express dated 2 January 1964, that 'James Bond is Scottish. On both sides, as I shall explain in my next book.')

Which 'next book' Fleming was refering to I have no idea at the moment, but I'll be looking into that.

Anyway, I wonder if dear Mr. Deaver will be faithful to Bond's 'roots' as laid down by Ian.

One more thing: Raymond Chandler once wrote in the Sunday Times that '...The remarkable thing about Ian Fleming's Diamonds are Forever is that it is written by an Englishman. The scene is almost entirely American, and it rings true to an American.'

The question is, if an Englishman can capture the 'Americanism' in one of his novels, why, pray, does one qualm an American doing the equivalent with regards to the ‘Englishness’ of James Bond?

Harry Fawkes

[Byron]

So these dark, ugly, neat little officials were the modern Turks. He listened to their voices, full of broad vowels and quiet sibilants and modified u-sounds, and he watched the dark eyes that belied the soft, polite voices. They were bright, angry, cruel eyes that had only lately come down from the mountains. Bond thought he knew the history of those eyes. They were eyes that had been trained for centuries to watch over sheep and decipher small movements on far horizons. They were eyes that kept the knife-hand in sight without seeming to, that counted the grains of meal and the small fractions of coin and noted the flicker of the merchant's fingers. They were hard, untrusting, jealous eyes. Bond didn't take to them.

This is a brilliant, vivid piece of writing, and shows why there will never be any true substitute for Fleming.

Even if he is capable, I doubt Deaver will write a passage like this, mainly out of fear of it sounding even remotely racist/prejudiced.

Despite this, for better or worse, i think the 50's/60's era Fleming/Bond mentality regarding other cultures/races is alive and well even today, not just in Britain but other European countries, especially in areas outside of big metro centres like London. Big metro areas are being increasingly homogenised.

Naturally we are all patriotic and protective of our culture and way of life to some extent. This is part of the charm with Fleming's Bond - he is free to voice his opinions without fear of the PC police however he is never an outright racist.

Will Deaver try this today? I sincerely doubt it.

[David Schofield]

It is well known that James Bond's mother was Swiss. His father was Scottish; a Highlander from near Glencoe.

(However, Fleming once said to John Cruesemann, in an interview in the Daily Express dated 2 January 1964, that 'James Bond is Scottish. On both sides, as I shall explain in my next book.')

Which 'next book' Fleming was refering to I have no idea at the moment, but I'll be looking into that.

Anyway, I wonder if dear Mr. Deaver will be faithful to Bond's 'roots' as laid down by Ian.

One more thing: Raymond Chandler once wrote in the Sunday Times that '...The remarkable thing about Ian Fleming's Diamonds are Forever is that it is written by an Englishman. The scene is almost entirely American, and it rings true to an American.'

The question is, if an Englishman can capture the 'Americanism' in one of his novels, why, pray, does one qualm an American doing the equivalent with regards to the ‘Englishness’ of James Bond?

Harry Fawkes

Harry

You've just mentioned the elephant in the room, Bond's parentage.

Personally, I believe this to be a total McGuffin from Fleming. Clearly, James Bond has never perceived himself as anything other than English. He has never at any time behaved in anyway that might indicate he is anything other than English Upper Middle Class. He may have a Scottish father and Swiss mother but has never demeonstrated any characteristics that were remotely Scottish or Swiss. His behaviour is one of someone who has been brought up as an Englishman and believes that is the way he should behave.

The Cruesman quote I believe is from prior to Fleming outing Bond's parentage in OHMSS. The second book he refered to is YOLT in which he rubber-stamps the history. I could be wrong.

Interesting mention of Chandler's views on Fleming's Americanisms; it has, however, been suspected that Chandler was tapped up to give very good reviews to his close friend's American - based Bond novels, and therefore might not be entirely subjective.

While I personally do not agree that there was anything wrong with Fleming's American writings and that Chandler's praise is valid, there are threads on here on which some American fans believe Fleming's writing of American is poor, regardless of Chandler's praise.

In conclusion, why are we fearful Deaver may not be able to convince he is writing as an Englishman? I think that ha s much to do with our suspicions of Deaver's limitations as a writer. However, we will see.

Now, if only Raymond Chandler were around to pen a Bond novel....

[Trident]

I suspect some of the criticism towards Fleming's American characters and their dialogue may also stem simply from the fact that these scenes and lines were written over 50 years ago. Take a look at Hollywood films of ca. 1955 or thereabouts. Of course people behave and talk in a different manner compared to our hip-hop-gangsta-hood fashion.

Fleming may not have been entirely spot-on with his own American characters, but I don't think they were received as completely ludicrous back in the day by their American readers. Otherwise I doubt the books would have held themselves on the fierce American market prior to EON's 'Doctor No'.

It's of course easy to give a verdict today that 'these people and their dialogue are just plain wrong and that never an American - gangster, FBI agent or ordinary support character - talked and/or behaved in that manner'. But the depiction of characters in fiction and film has also come a long way since then and films of that era sometimes sport a certain 'operetta' acting and dialogue.

Now, if only Raymond Chandler were around to pen a Bond novel....

A tragic missed opportunity. Alas, when Fleming met Chandler the latter was already so far gone into his own depression and grief that his writing had suffered and I doubt he would have been able of any longer effort any more. If Chandler had written a Bond in his prime, well...