It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Indeed. Unfortunately, the bulk of the article is devoted to saying that Fleming's Bond is barely human and has no inner life. The writer plainly dislikes Fleming and seems to have barely read the books in order to prove his crude, wrong thesis. I left a lengthy comment to rebut such stupidity and have been delighted to see it receive so many up-votes.
In other news, some kind soul has reprinted the long Times interview with Boyd: http://jimidisu.com/?p=3842
Boyd actually comes off well, whereas the interviewer is a smug dunce who repeatedly tries to get Boyd to condemn Fleming for various -isms.
As for the Jensen, I leave you with this: [url="
While Parker no doubt has an admirable vocabulary and syntax, big words alone don't make a good argument. I think he makes the mistake (as many do) of frequently and perhaps unconsciously mixing Fleming's Bond with the 007 of the films, a fatalistic error on his part. His constant musings about Bond being a static character, of being a snob and irresistible to women, and having a so called concrete commitment to duty couldn't be farther from the truth in my eyes, though I have only read up to Moonraker. Bond is constantly changing, always reflecting and at times doubting his own purposes and whether he is indeed on the right side, or if he is any different than the villains he is fighting. He can be hedonistic, yes, but he is not a snob about it, and instead takes in the pleasures of the different locations he visits, never resisting trying something new because they aren't up to his standards or because they don't offer a British familiarity.
If Parker read Moonraker, he would know quite well that Bond isn't exactly the picture of sexual magnetism he appears to be in the films. For all his heroic exploits and best efforts, Gala Brand leaves him in the dust like last year's news, presenting us with a Bond quite unlike the film's version who usually has a beautiful woman in his arms before credits roll. Hell, Fleming's Bond will even set the sex aside until the mission is over, as we hear him proclaim in Live and Let Die as he fantasizes about Solitaire, another far cry from the Bond of the films who would roll in the sheets with gals umerous times mid-mission.
In addition, Parker holds up Bond as some sort of character whose existence is predicated upon his duty to the realm, but again I think he is far from the mark. While Bond is in fact a dutiful man who would never betray his government and become a turncoat of his own free will, he is not without criticizing his own employers and Britain itself. Pages of Fleming's books are filled with Bond threatening resignation, delivering back-handed comments at superiors and the entirety of the realm he serves. If Bond was some kind of obedient robot as Parker seems to indicate, why would he constantly doubt his own purpose and the advances of his own government in the world of espionage? Bond himself is unblinded by complete nationalism, and is cognizant of the fact that to men like Le Chiffre, he and his government are the "bad guys" to his organization SMERSH, who are the "good guys" in his mind. By examining how the other side thinks, Bond shows that he is more than aware of the flaws his own government possesses and who declare that they are the defenders of the innocent, when in all actuality every country/government does questionable and at times evil acts.
And finally, for Parker to claim that Bond is a one-dimensional, depthless character is absolute blasphemy. To me, Fleming's Bond is an endlessly compelling character, for he is that dynamic force who is always changing, always examining the world and its people around him, and who never fails to pop naturalistically off the page as if he were real man and not one of fiction's greatest accomplishments.
For your beautiful argument which has now inspired me, I thank you, @Revelator. Fleming would be proud. :)
But I recall Mr. Timothy Dalton having similar critique on 007 as mr. Parker, how it was difficult to play 007 as IF filled in the blanks so sparingly.
That is some impressive idea so no low level entrance for Solo.
It's promising how Boyd has delved into Bond's character and background history with what sounds like an admirable level of depth. A pity one can't say the same for Faulks's and Deaver's one dimensional takes on the character.
"Indeed. Unfortunately, the bulk of the article is devoted to saying that Fleming's Bond is barely human and has no inner life. The writer plainly dislikes Fleming and seems to have barely read the books in order to prove his crude, wrong thesis. I left a lengthy comment to rebut such stupidity and have been delighted to see it receive so many up-votes."
@Revelator Yes, he seems to have little knowledge of the literary Bond. I just chose to ignore his other comments. He's just too one sided and ignorant. Some journalists really need to do more research before making such sweepingly ignorant statements.
Fantastic publicity plan!
Thanks also SaintMark. True, Bond is not a very deep or completely filled-in character. But he still has an inner life, and Parker tries to deny that by ignoring the evidence. Luckily, Boyd's own pronouncements suggest that he is far more in our camp than Parker's.
Great to see SOLO launched with such style and I can't wait to get my sweaty little paws on my signed edition tonight!
I am more confident than ever that friend Boyd has pulled it off. I think we are going to be proud of this one.
The reviews according to this website seem fairly positive thus far:
http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2013-09-26/william-boyds-new-james-bond-novel-solo---reviews
This review seems positive but I've only read part of it as I don't want to read spoilers:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2432833/Solo-William-Boyd-review-Hurrah-James-Bonds-ruthless-bed-hopping-best.html
I don't think I'll bother skimming through the rest of them out there at the moment until I've read the book. It's difficult to avoid spoilers.
Who will be the first Bond fan website to post their review..? :)
Boyd sees Day-Lewis, Daniel Day-Lewis as Bond.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/james-bond-solo-author-william-boyd-daniel-daylewis-would-make-ideal-007-8839104.html
http://www.express.co.uk/news/showbiz/432125/James-Bond-author-admits-that-he-would-prefer-Daniel-Day-Lewis-than-Daniel-Craig-as-007
Me posing with my skyfall aqua terra; here's hoping the book delivers!
/\ was thinking exactly the same thing! :)) There is no doubt he is one of the fiest actors of all time. But he is not James Bond. Although i would love to see play the part of a villain?! He would be simply awesome!
Now there is a novel I have never read, do you advise (based upon what you've read so far) for obtaining it or simply getting it as a complementist?
I would suggest giving it a try, even if it turns out to be the only time reading it. So far, it's been fairly close to the film. I guess being the novelisation, it all comes down to how much you like the film.
It's worth getting for Benson fleshing out the backstory on Elliot Carver and how he comes to be the media baron at the head of the CMGN, all of which Benson made up himself - see all the parts about Lord Roverman.
Which thread?
http://www.mi6-hq.com/news/index.php?itemid=11102&t=mi6&s=news
'Solo' enters at #17 in the Uk top 50 books in one of the busiest publication weeks in the year. More than 300 hardback titles debuted last week, more than four times the average.
Indeed, so they only have themselves to blame really. They had plenty of prior warning if they read over this thread, though. Literary Bond fans often know best and this is a case in point.