Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

An academic approach to Bond?


6 replies to this topic

#1 nanolark

nanolark

    Cadet

  • Crew
  • 18 posts

Posted 08 July 2015 - 08:43 AM

I’ve noticed that several universities offer courses devoted to spy thriller genre or Fleming’s novels alone. To me, it would be wonderful to be able to study his writing.

 

I have this rare opportunity to discuss Fleming’s works, from the philosophical and historical point of view, with my lecturer. However, quite unfortunately, I do not attend any classes connected with this author. The more we get into the details, the more questions I have. Some of them I post on the forum because I wish to give my ideas a ‘crash test’.

 

How many of you had an opportunity to start an intellectual conversation about Bond with an academic teacher? Or have ever studied Fleming’s writing? Would you like to?

 

To Emrayfo, with love



#2 Major Tallon

Major Tallon

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2107 posts
  • Location:Mid-USA

Posted 08 July 2015 - 10:16 AM

Back in the 90's, Raymond Benson taught a course on Bond at a suburban Chicago community college located about a ten minute drive from my home.  He taught the course just after he was selected as the new Bond continuation author, and just a few months after I moved to another city.   Just my luck.



#3 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 08 July 2015 - 10:28 AM

This is of course not, strictly, aimed at me. I shall nonetheless take the opportunity to give an answer, of sorts...

Nanolark, in my experience the first and foremost requirement, prerequisite to any kind of serious discussion of an author's oeuvre, is simply that you read it. And read it in whole, the entire text, not simply the parts that might suit to support your theories about this author. Actually, even formulating a sensible theory would call for more than a cursory familiarity with the writer, his style, his characters and the background of the entire affair. In short, without reading the books there's a fair likelihood you won't get far in your discussions with your lecturer.

But I also have good news for you. In fact you are able to study Fleming's writing. Because all it takes is some time off to sit down and just read, nothing else. You can even take notes if you so desire.

#4 nanolark

nanolark

    Cadet

  • Crew
  • 18 posts

Posted 08 July 2015 - 10:55 AM

This is of course not, strictly, aimed at me. I shall nonetheless take the opportunity to give an answer, of sorts...

Nanolark, in my experience the first and foremost requirement, prerequisite to any kind of serious discussion of an author's oeuvre, is simply that you read it. And read it in whole, the entire text, not simply the parts that might suit to support your theories about this author. Actually, even formulating a sensible theory would call for more than a cursory familiarity with the writer, his style, his characters and the background of the entire affair. In short, without reading the books there's a fair likelihood you won't get far in your discussions with your lecturer.

But I also have good news for you. In fact you are able to study Fleming's writing. Because all it takes is some time off to sit down and just read, nothing else. You can even take notes if you so desire.

 

 

Back in the 90's, Raymond Benson taught a course on Bond at a suburban Chicago community college located about a ten minute drive from my home.  He taught the course just after he was selected as the new Bond continuation author, and just a few months after I moved to another city.   Just my luck.

 

That would be something. I had similar situation this year, actually. Jeremy Black was said to give a lecture on Bond, February this year. Sadly, I could not attend it ..but, found it online a month later.


This is of course not, strictly, aimed at me. I shall nonetheless take the opportunity to give an answer, of sorts...

Nanolark, in my experience the first and foremost requirement, prerequisite to any kind of serious discussion of an author's oeuvre, is simply that you read it. And read it in whole, the entire text, not simply the parts that might suit to support your theories about this author. Actually, even formulating a sensible theory would call for more than a cursory familiarity with the writer, his style, his characters and the background of the entire affair. In short, without reading the books there's a fair likelihood you won't get far in your discussions with your lecturer.

But I also have good news for you. In fact you are able to study Fleming's writing. Because all it takes is some time off to sit down and just read, nothing else. You can even take notes if you so desire.

 

Thank you for your reply. I do not wish to get into a quarrel with you. You certainly have much more experience on this forum and knowledge considering Fleming’s novels.  I’d like to know, however, why do you assume I have never read any of Fleming’s novels? I assume it is because of the type of questions I ask (too obvious) and/or because of I underline the fact that I read secondary sources. If there are other reasons that may have led you to think so, I am eager to discuss them, in private – if you do not mind.


Edited by nanolark, 08 July 2015 - 02:14 PM.


#5 Emrayfo

Emrayfo

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 193 posts
  • Location:Severnaya

Posted 08 July 2015 - 01:24 PM

Hi nanolark,

Thank you for being willing to open this discussion.

I fully embrace any genuine contributions to these fora. And the more new engaged members the better! You started with us by simultaneously posting many new thread topics based on own-ended questions. My original reaction to that approach was that your motivations came across as a little suspect and disingenuous. It didn't seem like you were contributing many ideas of your own but seemed more intent on farming the ideas of others - possibly to pass off as your own in an academic paper? If the users at CommanderBond.net are recognised and attributed for their contributons then that may be a bit different, but it was all very unclear.

I am more than happy to be corrected on those assumptions if they are wrong. I did acknowledge that you had started many interesting discussions, so thank you for that. I don't want to discourage your interest or your participation here. The opposite!

Dustin queried your familiarity with Fleming because your previous statements encouraged that view. I am still only part way through reading all his Bond books myself. If you have read some, then please by all means get amongst it and share your views!

So thank you for persisting. If you plan on continuing to hang around here and getting involved then that is fantastic. I look forward to seeing your contributions.

You are fortunate to have a lecturer who shares your interests and is willing to discuss Bond and Fleming. We are more than happy to have discussions with you too.

If you are here in sincerity, then please allow me to welcome you. ☺

Cheers

Edited by Emrayfo, 08 July 2015 - 01:32 PM.


#6 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 08 July 2015 - 02:41 PM




This is of course not, strictly, aimed at me. I shall nonetheless take the opportunity to give an answer, of sorts...

Nanolark, in my experience the first and foremost requirement, prerequisite to any kind of serious discussion of an author's oeuvre, is simply that you read it. And read it in whole, the entire text, not simply the parts that might suit to support your theories about this author. Actually, even formulating a sensible theory would call for more than a cursory familiarity with the writer, his style, his characters and the background of the entire affair. In short, without reading the books there's a fair likelihood you won't get far in your discussions with your lecturer.

But I also have good news for you. In fact you are able to study Fleming's writing. Because all it takes is some time off to sit down and just read, nothing else. You can even take notes if you so desire.


Thank you for your reply. I do not wish to get into a quarrel with you. You certainly have much more experience on this forum and knowledge considering Fleming’s novels. Thus, I believe I’d like to know, however, why do you assume I have never read any of Fleming’s novels? I assume it is because of the type of questions I ask (too obvious) and/or because of I underline the fact that I read secondary sources. If there are other reasons that may have led you to think so, I am eager to discuss them, in private – if you do not mind.

Sorry if I came across there as hostile, wasn't my intention. However, I have to admit I probably was wrong inasfar as your familiarity with Fleming's books is concerned. In one of your threads another member asked for the cheapest way to get all the Flemings in a bundle and I wrongfully thought it was you. Once again, sorry. Only now I see you mention in another thread having reread YOLT, so chances are your reading of Fleming goes further than his penultimate novel.

That said, I have to wonder about your hope to establish Bond as an example of 60s rebelliousness in your other thread. It's an idea that I think few people would come up with after having read the canon. As mentioned over there, there are numerous examples of insubordination in the novels - one might say Bond's boozing and womanising are perhaps the most basic indications of a streak that, at heart, longs to break free of the authority and discipline M and the Secret Service stand for - but one would be hard-pushed to connect any of these to that decade in particular, mainly because most of Fleming's writing was done in the 50s and Fleming himself was a character whose spiritual home was probably located in the war and the years leading up to that, not the less than two decades Fleming enjoyed after the war. In the films, however, you might find more signs of contemporary 60s influence, though seldom of the kind that we would immediately recognise as 'rebellious' as such. That brand of Bond would have been all for 'make love' but just as prepared to 'make war', too.

But by all means, please do continue your quest, my remark wasn't meant to discourage you, to the contrary!

#7 Bryce (003)

Bryce (003)

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10110 posts
  • Location:West Los Angeles, California USA

Posted 10 July 2015 - 04:59 PM

A great course I had in college was "Adventure Fiction into Film" - One of the required books for the class was Goldfinger. Hence, I didn't need to buy it.  B)  It was kind of cool to see about twenty copies stacked on the shelves in the student bookstore. When it came time for Bond, I ended up writing two papers and giving three presentations. That was a great week of the semester. We also watched it of course but, with yours truly pausing the film periodically and offering the differences between the novel and the film.

 

The head of the film department told me later that I should have petitioned the school to let me change my major to "Bond". Hey, it was, at the time, a liberal arts college. It might have flown. :laugh: