Which Bond novel are you currently reading?

echo

I just finished Octopussy and The Living Daylights. Of the four stories (also The Property of a Lady and 007 in New York), I liked Octopussy the best this time around. And the relevance of the story to Bond is pretty cool; I had forgotten that.

Lancaster007

BondWillReturn wrote:

I've just read 2 of Fleming's Bond's on my holiday in Portugal: On Her Majesty's Secret Service and Moonraker. For both it was the first time i'd read them. I've read some of the Fleming books (TMWTGG, TB, LALD) when I was younger, and enjoyed them. But I as too young then to fully understand Fleming's genius.

I'm 18 now, and I feel I'm starting to truly understand what Fleming created with the novels (very diffrent from the movies IMO). And so I hugely enjoyed both the novels. I think I liked OHMSS the best.

So now that I'm back home, I've started reading Diamonds Are Forever. Not far enough into it to have an opinion yet. Feel very free to share your opinion of it.

yes, the character is different from most of the films (especially Old Roger), but the stories are great. Have to say though, DAF is not the best book to start on (I am currently re-re-re-re-reading the set, and have just started DAF), but having said that when I started reading I started at TMWTGG, an equally poor Fleming, and not a great one to start on, but that didn't stop me getting right into the books. Hope you enjoy reading them, and continue to do so as you get older. I'm 50 now and still get a great thrill from Bond.

Bounine

BondWillReturn wrote:

I've just read 2 of Fleming's Bond's on my holiday in Portugal: On Her Majesty's Secret Service and Moonraker. For both it was the first time i'd read them. I've read some of the Fleming books (TMWTGG, TB, LALD) when I was younger, and enjoyed them. But I as too young then to fully understand Fleming's genius.

I'm 18 now, and I feel I'm starting to truly understand what Fleming created with the novels (very diffrent from the movies IMO). And so I hugely enjoyed both the novels. I think I liked OHMSS the best.

So now that I'm back home, I've started reading Diamonds Are Forever. Not far enough into it to have an opinion yet. Feel very free to share your opinion of it.

Did you spend most of your time lying on the beach in Portugal? ;)

BondWillReturn

Bounine wrote:

BondWillReturn wrote:

I've just read 2 of Fleming's Bond's on my holiday in Portugal: On Her Majesty's Secret Service and Moonraker. For both it was the first time i'd read them. I've read some of the Fleming books (TMWTGG, TB, LALD) when I was younger, and enjoyed them. But I as too young then to fully understand Fleming's genius.

I'm 18 now, and I feel I'm starting to truly understand what Fleming created with the novels (very diffrent from the movies IMO). And so I hugely enjoyed both the novels. I think I liked OHMSS the best.

So now that I'm back home, I've started reading Diamonds Are Forever. Not far enough into it to have an opinion yet. Feel very free to share your opinion of it.

Did you spend most of your time lying on the beach in Portugal? ;)

I did :) And at the pool, also watched the Dutch football/soccer team getting their behinds kicked :(

DB5

Finished the "For Your Eyes Only" collection on Sunday. So so. Just finished the first chapter of "Colonel Sun." I like the fact that the story line is set right after "The Man with the Golden Gun," it makes it all the more believable. I'll give my full review after I finish the book.

echo

I just finished rereading Doctor No, the novel that led to the famous "sex, sadism, and snobbery" critique.

It contains some of Fleming's most beautiful passages, such as the chapter where Bond arrives in Jamaica. Honey is much more interesting in the book than in the movie. Doctor No and his backstory are fascinating, as is his demise.

But I feel that both Fleming, and the filmmakers, botched the "human endurance obstacle course." In the book, Bond is closely watched by No's underlings...why then would they not see it through to make sure he died at the hands of the squid? And in the movie, it doesn't come across as an obstacle course at all, just as an escape tunnel, which takes away an interesting aspect of No's character (and arguably, the reason why Fleming made him a doctor in the first place). Maybe it was too much of 1962 movie audiences to accept, although it seemed to be fine by 1958 reading audiences.

DB5

I also really enjoyed DN, but I agree with a lot of others that it seems Fleming got to the pint where he had written the requsite number of pages and just felt he had to wrap it up. Dr. No's death under a pile of guano just seemed anticlimactic, and I agree that it didn't make sense for him not to witness Bond's fight with the squid. As far as the movie goes I agree that didn't make sense as well, what kind of jail cell has a window that you can pop out with your shoe?

Sandy

Dr. No is my favourite, I find it much more interesting than the film. There are bits of the obstacle course that in fact reminded me, at the time, of Indiana Jones and the Lost Temple. I wonder if Spielberg, a self-confessed Bond-fan, was inspired by it.

thelivingroyale

GF is my favourite.

DB5

I'm currently reading and really enjoying "Colonel Sun." Amis has a much better take on Bond than Gardner or Deaver, I would even argue that "Colonel Sun" is just as good if not better than some of Flemings novels and short stories.

Lancaster007

Sandy wrote:

Dr. No is my favourite, I find it much more interesting than the film. There are bits of the obstacle course that in fact reminded me, at the time, of Indiana Jones and the Lost Temple. I wonder if Spielberg, a self-confessed Bond-fan, was inspired by it.

Dr No was always my favourite as a teen and young adult, but having re-read the books (currently re-reading) as a slightly older (hmm) person, my favourite changed to FRWL (also my favourite film - which it always has been). Still enjoy reading all the Flemings and have three complete sets of the books.

DRush76

I'm reading "From Russia With Love". It has some good moments. But overall, I found it flawed and overrated.

DB5

DRush76 wrote:

I'm reading "From Russia With Love". It has some good moments. But overall, I found it flawed and overrated.

FRWL is different in that it takes a while to get going (we don't actually see Bond untl almost half way in). I certainly wouldn't recommend it for someone who'd never read Fleming before (I'd probably go with either CR or OHMSS). I just finished Amis' "Colonel Sun." One of the best Bond novels I've read. Reading "Goldfinger" next.

Samuel001

Not a novel per say but I'm reading Volume 3 of the James Bond comic strips.

echo

Just finished Goldfinger. Bit of a mixed bag. Fleming clearly was most interested in the villain this time around, at the expense of pretty much everything else. Goldfinger is of course a great creation, although the long passages describing the various gangsters reminded me of the bad aspects of DAF. The girls are really underdeveloped this time around, and the anti-Korean racism (how many times does Bond call Oddjob an "ape"?) is as off-putting as anything in LALD. And certain things--why does GF let Oddjob destroy his shelves, etc.?--don't become clear until much later, too much later.

But I loved how Fleming handled the Vesper mention. And it's funny how trains play a significant part in yet another novel. Fleming had a thing about train climaxes.

I agree with the popular consensus that this is the rare Bond novel where the movie was better. It is still ridiculous that GF keeps Bond and Tilly on as his assistants (GF even mentions this at several points!) The elements of the atomic bomb and the mention of a nerve gas are on the page but the script rearranged them in a (slightly) more believable fashion. Tilly is not much of a character beyond her driving, and the script wisely took her out of the action early.

thelordflasheart

echo wrote:

Just finished Goldfinger. Bit of a mixed bag. Fleming clearly was most interested in the villain this time around, at the expense of pretty much everything else. Goldfinger is of course a great creation, although the long passages describing the various gangsters reminded me of the bad aspects of DAF. The girls are really underdeveloped this time around, and the anti-Korean racism (how many times does Bond call Oddjob an "ape"?) is as off-putting as anything in LALD. And certain things--why does GF let Oddjob destroy his shelves, etc.?--don't become clear until much later, too much later.

I just finished re-reading the Flemings over a period of about a year and it was interesting to read them as an adult as opposed to a teen (and also to read them so close together). I now see what my girlfriend's father says about Fleming - although he has all of the books (bought in the 60s!) he found Fleming to be a "terrible writer". My hackles immediately went up but now I see what he meant. The books are eminently readable and even the bad ones are still enjoyable in their own way. But as they go on Fleming recycles ideas, descriptions, and even specific turns-of-phrase. He also has characters speak rather clumsily in exposition instead of dialogue and relies hugely on coincidence to advance the plots. Not only that but he has things happen that at first seem cool but then seem ridiculous as soon as you think about them (i.e. Oddjob destroying the shelves). And the less said about his racial, gender and sexual politics the better (he has Bond think that homosexuality was caused by giving women the right to vote!).

BUT - and this is a big but - there are still so many good things about the books too - especially the early ones. I'll still read them again in the future but not in a slavishly worshipful way as I did as a teen.

Lancaster007

thelordflasheart wrote:

echo wrote:

Just finished Goldfinger. Bit of a mixed bag.

I just finished re-reading the Flemings over a period of about a year and it was interesting to read them as an adult as opposed to a teen (and also to read them so close together). I now see what my girlfriend's father says about Fleming - although he has all of the books (bought in the 60s!) he found Fleming to be a "terrible writer". My hackles immediately went up but now I see what he meant. The books are eminently readable and even the bad ones are still enjoyable in their own way. But as they go on Fleming recycles ideas, descriptions, and even specific turns-of-phrase. He also has characters speak rather clumsily in exposition instead of dialogue and relies hugely on coincidence to advance the plots. Not only that but he has things happen that at first seem cool but then seem ridiculous as soon as you think about them (i.e. Oddjob destroying the shelves). And the less said about his racial, gender and sexual politics the better (he has Bond think that homosexuality was caused by giving women the right to vote!).

BUT - and this is a big but - there are still so many good things about the books too - especially the early ones. I'll still read them again in the future but not in a slavishly worshipful way as I did as a teen.

Know what you mean thelordflasheart, but like yourself I still get a great kick out of reading them, half-way through the weakest at the moment (DAF - if you take TSWLM right out of the equation), but I find a lot of books, even the classics rely on coincidence to move the story along, it is after all fiction. One thing I would not like and that is to see the books edited for the 'politically correct' brigade - they are of their time and should remain so.

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

Lancaster007 wrote:

thelordflasheart wrote:

echo wrote:

Just finished Goldfinger. Bit of a mixed bag.

I just finished re-reading the Flemings over a period of about a year and it was interesting to read them as an adult as opposed to a teen (and also to read them so close together). I now see what my girlfriend's father says about Fleming - although he has all of the books (bought in the 60s!) he found Fleming to be a "terrible writer". My hackles immediately went up but now I see what he meant. The books are eminently readable and even the bad ones are still enjoyable in their own way. But as they go on Fleming recycles ideas, descriptions, and even specific turns-of-phrase. He also has characters speak rather clumsily in exposition instead of dialogue and relies hugely on coincidence to advance the plots. Not only that but he has things happen that at first seem cool but then seem ridiculous as soon as you think about them (i.e. Oddjob destroying the shelves). And the less said about his racial, gender and sexual politics the better (he has Bond think that homosexuality was caused by giving women the right to vote!).

BUT - and this is a big but - there are still so many good things about the books too - especially the early ones. I'll still read them again in the future but not in a slavishly worshipful way as I did as a teen.

Know what you mean thelordflasheart, but like yourself I still get a great kick out of reading them, half-way through the weakest at the moment (DAF - if you take TSWLM right out of the equation), but I find a lot of books, even the classics rely on coincidence to move the story along, it is after all fiction. One thing I would not like and that is to see the books edited for the 'politically correct' brigade - they are of their time and should remain so.

You mean like how Tom Sawyer was a while back? The racial slur edited from the text and all?

Lancaster007

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:

Lancaster007 wrote:

thelordflasheart wrote:

echo wrote:

Just finished Goldfinger. Bit of a mixed bag.

I just finished re-reading the Flemings over a period of about a year and it was interesting to read them as an adult as opposed to a teen (and also to read them so close together). I now see what my girlfriend's father says about Fleming - although he has all of the books (bought in the 60s!) he found Fleming to be a "terrible writer". My hackles immediately went up but now I see what he meant. The books are eminently readable and even the bad ones are still enjoyable in their own way. But as they go on Fleming recycles ideas, descriptions, and even specific turns-of-phrase. He also has characters speak rather clumsily in exposition instead of dialogue and relies hugely on coincidence to advance the plots. Not only that but he has things happen that at first seem cool but then seem ridiculous as soon as you think about them (i.e. Oddjob destroying the shelves). And the less said about his racial, gender and sexual politics the better (he has Bond think that homosexuality was caused by giving women the right to vote!).

BUT - and this is a big but - there are still so many good things about the books too - especially the early ones. I'll still read them again in the future but not in a slavishly worshipful way as I did as a teen.

Know what you mean thelordflasheart, but like yourself I still get a great kick out of reading them, half-way through the weakest at the moment (DAF - if you take TSWLM right out of the equation), but I find a lot of books, even the classics rely on coincidence to move the story along, it is after all fiction. One thing I would not like and that is to see the books edited for the 'politically correct' brigade - they are of their time and should remain so.

You mean like how Tom Sawyer was a while back? The racial slur edited from the text and all?

Hell yes, I'd forgotten about that - probably tried to expunge that from my mind! No one should mess with someone else work - if you find it offensive don't read/watch it, don't force you views/opinions on other folk.

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

Lancaster007 wrote:

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:

Lancaster007 wrote:

thelordflasheart wrote:

echo wrote:

Just finished Goldfinger. Bit of a mixed bag.

I just finished re-reading the Flemings over a period of about a year and it was interesting to read them as an adult as opposed to a teen (and also to read them so close together). I now see what my girlfriend's father says about Fleming - although he has all of the books (bought in the 60s!) he found Fleming to be a "terrible writer". My hackles immediately went up but now I see what he meant. The books are eminently readable and even the bad ones are still enjoyable in their own way. But as they go on Fleming recycles ideas, descriptions, and even specific turns-of-phrase. He also has characters speak rather clumsily in exposition instead of dialogue and relies hugely on coincidence to advance the plots. Not only that but he has things happen that at first seem cool but then seem ridiculous as soon as you think about them (i.e. Oddjob destroying the shelves). And the less said about his racial, gender and sexual politics the better (he has Bond think that homosexuality was caused by giving women the right to vote!).

BUT - and this is a big but - there are still so many good things about the books too - especially the early ones. I'll still read them again in the future but not in a slavishly worshipful way as I did as a teen.

Know what you mean thelordflasheart, but like yourself I still get a great kick out of reading them, half-way through the weakest at the moment (DAF - if you take TSWLM right out of the equation), but I find a lot of books, even the classics rely on coincidence to move the story along, it is after all fiction. One thing I would not like and that is to see the books edited for the 'politically correct' brigade - they are of their time and should remain so.

You mean like how Tom Sawyer was a while back? The racial slur edited from the text and all?

Hell yes, I'd forgotten about that - probably tried to expunge that from my mind! No one should mess with someone else work - if you find it offensive don't read/watch it, don't force you views/opinions on other folk.

Yes, it is from another time, and though it may seem racist, it has to be respected as the literature it is. I am waiting for LALD the novel, to be edited. Just look at chapter 7. Yikes.

echo

thelordflasheart wrote:

The books are eminently readable and even the bad ones are still enjoyable in their own way. But as they go on Fleming recycles ideas, descriptions, and even specific turns-of-phrase. He also has characters speak rather clumsily in exposition instead of dialogue and relies hugely on coincidence to advance the plots. Not only that but he has things happen that at first seem cool but then seem ridiculous as soon as you think about them (i.e. Oddjob destroying the shelves). And the less said about his racial, gender and sexual politics the better (he has Bond think that homosexuality was caused by giving women the right to vote!).

BUT - and this is a big but - there are still so many good things about the books too - especially the early ones. I'll still read them again in the future but not in a slavishly worshipful way as I did as a teen.

I completely agree, thelordflasheart. Reading them as an adult is a different, although still rewarding, experience. I find that what impresses me now is how Fleming weaves details of previous missions and women casually into the text (e.g. Vesper in GF). I always find the Bond/M scenes consistently engaging. And the last chapter of almost every book is just about perfect. He knew how to give you just enough of a wrap-up.

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:

Yes, it is from another time, and though it may seem racist, it has to be respected as the literature it is. I am waiting for LALD the novel, to be edited. Just look at chapter 7. Yikes.

I think the LALD chapter title was originally edited in the American version. However, now it is restored.

I agree. I'm not a believer in censorship.

DB5

I also just finished "Goldfinger." Yeah, Fleming really jumped the shark on this one. He keeps Bond and Tilly Masterton alive because he needs them for secretarial assistance? Are you friggin kidding me? Give me a break! And Fleming's open homophobia as expressed through the James Bond character. The reason Tilly Masterton gets killed? Because she's a lesbian, of course! Why is Pussy Galore a lesbian? Because her uncle molested her when she was twelve. And yes, the anti-Asian racism is just as bad or worse than the anti-black racism in LALD. And let's not forget the sexism. Fleming is writing this in 1959, and he expresses the view that female equality has made women less feminine? And how many more times is Bond going to threaten giving one of the female characters a spanking? This seems to be in almost every novel. Is this a sexual fetish of Fleming, expressed through the Bond character? "You Only Live Twice" next.

thelordflasheart

DB5 wrote:

I also just finished "Goldfinger." Yeah, Fleming really jumped the shark on this one. He keeps Bond and Tilly Masterton alive because he needs them for secretarial assistance? Are you friggin kidding me? Give me a break! And Fleming's open homophobia as expressed through the James Bond character. The reason Tilly Masterton gets killed? Because she's a lesbian, of course! Why is Pussy Galore a lesbian? Because her uncle molested her when she was twelve. And yes, the anti-Asian racism is just as bad or worse than the anti-black racism in LALD. And let's not forget the sexism. Fleming is writing this in 1959, and he expresses the view that female equality has made women less feminine? And how many more times is Bond going to threaten giving one of the female characters a spanking? This seems to be in almost every novel. Is this a sexual fetish of Fleming, expressed through the Bond character? "You Only Live Twice" next.

Those who are more knowledgeable about Fleming the man would be able to comment on this but I have a supposition. I guess that Fleming was a man like my father - deeply unhappy despite his relative privilege and therefore prone to lashing out at "the other". My father seems to believe that there is a limited amount of happiness and of rights in the world - and therefore if someone else has some happiness or if someone is given a right (i.e. inter-racial marriage being made legal in '72) then it somehow must be taking something away from him. The only thing being taken away is a slight amount of privileged power - the top of the food chain is still the top, just not as dizzyingly high above everyone else as it was. It doesn't even affect his everyday life; it's just the *idea* that someone has something that he has that upsets him so. So he has the need to demonize everyone and everything that isn't part of his "identity group" so that he feels superior to them. Therefore women, gays, non-whites, non-christians etc are "inferior"...

(This reminds me of a hilarious image my girlfriend posted on Facebook, taken from an interview that Stephen Colbert did with Neil Patrick Harris. Colbert says "You're the most dangerous kind of homosexual because you make me feel like your happiness does nothing to diminish my own!")

On this subject, can anyone recommend a good biography of Fleming? Not necessarily one that is filled with tales of his derring-do in WWII (though that would be interesting too) but one that explores the character of the man and how that influenced his writing.

Nightfire88

Currently reading Carte Blanche. I'm glad there doing away with the present after this book. Bond comes off as a teenage girl always on his smartphone texting, talking, and taking pictures. But apparently anyone can be a spy because there's an app for every situation.

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

Nightfire88 wrote:

Currently reading Carte Blanche. I'm glad there doing away with the present after this book. Bond comes off as a teenage girl always on his smartphone texting, talking, and taking pictures. But apparently anyone can be a spy because there's an app for every situation.

There apparently isn't an app for writing a good Bond book...

thelivingroyale

I've finally started TB. It's pretty good so far, just finished the bit when

Bond traps Lippe in the steam room

Agent005

I spend about three hours a day on the train commuting to work and back home, so I have a lot of reading time. This past week, I decided to start the Fleming novels again. I've read CR, LALD, and now I'm half-way through MR.

emilbertillo

I just re-read Carte Blanche. Still have mixed feelings about it.

I can't digest this kind of James Bond: a yuppie/hipster/metrosexual spy. It's like he chose the Secret Service business just for kicks. I even imagined him with hipster glasses and listening to indie music after a few pages. Given that kind of Bond, then, how come does have that seemingly superior intelligence? Sure, we all know that James Bond is smart for a field agent. But James Bond being Sherlock Holmes/Sheldon Cooper smart is way off. I understand that this is part of reinventing Bond, but I see it as sacrilegious. Totally unnecessary.

Moving on, I see Deaver preferred to use his own style rather than Fleming's. I can accept that, since imitating Fleming can be a risky business (right, Sebastian Faulks?) This is basic action as basic as it can get. The only thing I don't like with the story is the overuse of secondary plots. It turned to something like Spider-Man 3. There's a story at the start we'll stop after a few pages, then return to the main plot, then stop again before bringing it back to the main plot.

It's not a bad book. It's good. Very good in fact. I like it a lot more than all of the past Bond novels combined. It's just that... James Bond is not James Bond, the locations went downhill as the story progress, and the product placement keeps flying (Bentley, Audi, Maserati, Rolex, Mini Cooper, even Apple. I confirmed Bond's yuppie status when he used his iPhone) But when it comes to pure action I'll go with this. This is the only Bond novel I "liked" since Icebreaker.

CommanderRoss

thelordflasheart wrote:

DB5 wrote:

I also just finished "Goldfinger." Yeah, Fleming really jumped the shark on this one. He keeps Bond and Tilly Masterton alive because he needs them for secretarial assistance? Are you friggin kidding me? Give me a break! And Fleming's open homophobia as expressed through the James Bond character. The reason Tilly Masterton gets killed? Because she's a lesbian, of course! Why is Pussy Galore a lesbian? Because her uncle molested her when she was twelve. And yes, the anti-Asian racism is just as bad or worse than the anti-black racism in LALD. And let's not forget the sexism. Fleming is writing this in 1959, and he expresses the view that female equality has made women less feminine? And how many more times is Bond going to threaten giving one of the female characters a spanking? This seems to be in almost every novel. Is this a sexual fetish of Fleming, expressed through the Bond character? "You Only Live Twice" next.

Those who are more knowledgeable about Fleming the man would be able to comment on this but I have a supposition. I guess that Fleming was a man like my father - deeply unhappy despite his relative privilege and therefore prone to lashing out at "the other". My father seems to believe that there is a limited amount of happiness and of rights in the world - and therefore if someone else has some happiness or if someone is given a right (i.e. inter-racial marriage being made legal in '72) then it somehow must be taking something away from him. The only thing being taken away is a slight amount of privileged power - the top of the food chain is still the top, just not as dizzyingly high above everyone else as it was. It doesn't even affect his everyday life; it's just the *idea* that someone has something that he has that upsets him so. So he has the need to demonize everyone and everything that isn't part of his "identity group" so that he feels superior to them. Therefore women, gays, non-whites, non-christians etc are "inferior"...

(This reminds me of a hilarious image my girlfriend posted on Facebook, taken from an interview that Stephen Colbert did with Neil Patrick Harris. Colbert says "You're the most dangerous kind of homosexual because you make me feel like your happiness does nothing to diminish my own!")

On this subject, can anyone recommend a good biography of Fleming? Not necessarily one that is filled with tales of his derring-do in WWII (though that would be interesting too) but one that explores the character of the man and how that influenced his writing.

I can't really help there @thelordflash, sorry. but as fa as i remember there's a short documentary on Fleming on one of the dvd's. The normal ones, not the UA's. Allthough it might be on one of them as well. Anyway, what I wanted to say, I remember in that documentary it was said that Fleming and his eventual wife (she was still married when they started their affair) had a bit of a sadistic sex life, spanking and all. So I guess that's his personality shining through when it's about the spanking that @DB5 noticed.

Lancaster007

emilbertillo wrote:

I just re-read Carte Blanche. Still have mixed feelings about it.

I can't digest this kind of James Bond: a yuppie/hipster/metrosexual spy. It's like he chose the Secret Service business just for kicks. I even imagined him with hipster glasses and listening to indie music after a few pages. Given that kind of Bond, then, how come does have that seemingly superior intelligence? Sure, we all know that James Bond is smart for a field agent. But James Bond being Sherlock Holmes/Sheldon Cooper smart is way off. I understand that this is part of reinventing Bond, but I see it as sacrilegious. Totally unnecessary.

Moving on, I see Deaver preferred to use his own style rather than Fleming's. I can accept that, since imitating Fleming can be a risky business (right, Sebastian Faulks?) This is basic action as basic as it can get. The only thing I don't like with the story is the overuse of secondary plots. It turned to something like Spider-Man 3. There's a story at the start we'll stop after a few pages, then return to the main plot, then stop again before bringing it back to the main plot.

It's not a bad book. It's good. Very good in fact. I like it a lot more than all of the past Bond novels combined. It's just that... James Bond is not James Bond, the locations went downhill as the story progress, and the product placement keeps flying (Bentley, Audi, Maserati, Rolex, Mini Cooper, even Apple. I confirmed Bond's yuppie status when he used his iPhone) But when it comes to pure action I'll go with this. This is the only Bond novel I "liked" since Icebreaker.

CommanderRoss wrote:

thelordflasheart wrote:

DB5 wrote:

I also just finished "Goldfinger." Yeah, Fleming really jumped the shark on this one. He keeps Bond and Tilly Masterton alive because he needs them for secretarial assistance? Are you friggin kidding me? Give me a break! And Fleming's open homophobia as expressed through the James Bond character. The reason Tilly Masterton gets killed? Because she's a lesbian, of course! Why is Pussy Galore a lesbian? Because her uncle molested her when she was twelve. And yes, the anti-Asian racism is just as bad or worse than the anti-black racism in LALD. And let's not forget the sexism. Fleming is writing this in 1959, and he expresses the view that female equality has made women less feminine? And how many more times is Bond going to threaten giving one of the female characters a spanking? This seems to be in almost every novel. Is this a sexual fetish of Fleming, expressed through the Bond character? "You Only Live Twice" next.

Those who are more knowledgeable about Fleming the man would be able to comment on this but I have a supposition. I guess that Fleming was a man like my father - deeply unhappy despite his relative privilege and therefore prone to lashing out at "the other". My father seems to believe that there is a limited amount of happiness and of rights in the world - and therefore if someone else has some happiness or if someone is given a right (i.e. inter-racial marriage being made legal in '72) then it somehow must be taking something away from him. The only thing being taken away is a slight amount of privileged power - the top of the food chain is still the top, just not as dizzyingly high above everyone else as it was. It doesn't even affect his everyday life; it's just the *idea* that someone has something that he has that upsets him so. So he has the need to demonize everyone and everything that isn't part of his "identity group" so that he feels superior to them. Therefore women, gays, non-whites, non-christians etc are "inferior"...

(This reminds me of a hilarious image my girlfriend posted on Facebook, taken from an interview that Stephen Colbert did with Neil Patrick Harris. Colbert says "You're the most dangerous kind of homosexual because you make me feel like your happiness does nothing to diminish my own!")

On this subject, can anyone recommend a good biography of Fleming? Not necessarily one that is filled with tales of his derring-do in WWII (though that would be interesting too) but one that explores the character of the man and how that influenced his writing.

I can't really help there @thelordflash, sorry. but as fa as i remember there's a short documentary on Fleming on one of the dvd's. The normal ones, not the UA's. Allthough it might be on one of them as well. Anyway, what I wanted to say, I remember in that documentary it was said that Fleming and his eventual wife (she was still married when they started their affair) had a bit of a sadistic sex life, spanking and all. So I guess that's his personality shining through when it's about the spanking that @DB5 noticed.

I'm pretty sure it is on the The Living Daylights 007 Special Edition DVD.