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
Me too, but I'd also enjoy an evening in the company of say, the late Christopher Hitchens, or Stewart Lee. Thinkers can be fun too. Greer is basically as bad as Farage, it's just that they occupy opposite ends of the spectrum.
I don't quite understand the hoo-ha over this. It's William Boyd, who cares? Does it taint anyone's enjoyment of Fleming? I really don't see why it's been given much credence. All that seems to be happening is people getting on their high horses and telling the other side to get off theirs. How about we just let Boyd happily ride around in his paddock, while we sink a few shots of Macallan?
I stand corrected, but it matters not in my story.
You need the climb of your high horse messieur as William Boyd in his comments always recognised the validity of the time the books were written and the general thinking of those days. He is a great fan that recognises Flemings writing but is aware that some of his writing cannot longer be written today hence a different approuch when writing 007 these days. Which was his whole argument, that a serious update is needed which is acceptable in our times.
And Bond does some shagging in his novel SOLO, he even is a bit of a pervert/peeping tom which upsets me more as it seems rather uncharacteristic for 007 or even the reason he leaves the actress after shagging her, for some stupid reasoning that is rather selfish and uncharacteristic as well. Boyd's Bond is a bigger tit when it comes to women than Fleming ever managed in his sexistic ways. ;)
Read the Moneypenny diaries and you'll find the best Bond related novels of the recent years.
Fair points - Lee and Hitchens are two of my heroes.
Youre absolutely spot on when you say the whole thing is so tedious it's not worth discussing.
That said when you read things such as this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/sweden/10431364/Swedish-cinemas-introduce-feminism-rating-for-films.html
is it any wonder people ridicule the whole PC movement? No doubt a similar law for gay, black and disabled films will swiftly follow.
And by my reckoning the last Bond film to pass would be DAD (can't recall two birds conversing in CR and QOS and although M and Eve do talk I think it's always about Bond) where two women are trying to kill each other at the climax - which is a far better example for young girls to follow.
That's hilarious! :))
That Swedish rating system is completely laughable. What's ridiculous is, in their scramble for equality they don't seem to understand that all it will lead to is the watering down of 'authorship', to the point where every film will have to tick the same bloody boxes. Forget originality or challenging subject matter, we can look forward to a homogenous exercise in tediosity. While I don't tend to jump on the 'you go and do it then!' bandwagon, I have to agree with the line in the article, 'If they want different kinds of movies they should produce some themselves'. If they're so concerned, they should be proactive and not just expect people to bend over and service their own personal moral quandaries. A lot of women and men, whether black or white, gay or straight, have gone out and made a go of it, in a bid to make themselves heard.
Yes there are systems in place that don't benefit certain portions of society, women, ethnic minorities, homosexuals etc, but it's a two way street. There has to be movement on both sides for it to get better, not just someone standing on the other side of the fence saying 'Hey mate, I don't like the way you've cut your grass'.
My girlfriend is a documentary maker who has had critically well received shows on the biggest channels in the UK. She's a female at the top of her game and she tells the stories she wants to tell. It's achievable, but not if you sit moaning about it on the f***ing internet. You have to go out and do it.
The PC movement is given a negative label by some people simply because they do not want to be confronted by stuff that they should know is kind of iffy or wrong. There is a lot to be corrected in our society. We have done so through history. It was slavery that was abolished because some political correct people decided that kind of behaviour was actually not right. There are so many examples in history that shows growth from a previous society that it can only be seen as a natural thing. I am sure that the fighters for abolishion of slavery got similar responses from general opponents of said idea, that could be compared to PC attitudes today.
I want my daughters to live in a far better society than I grew up in, they should be able to be more than just mothers and housewives, as I am sure that future will perhaps have a more equal division of Housewives and housemen (a far tougher job than the average maneygrabbing banker has to do imho).
Sweden is just a bit further in their development, and yes that is scary for some.
1. All continuation authors and critics are parasites. But that parasitism is especially loathsome when the continuation author faithlessly transmogrifies the original creation into something the original author would be horrified at, as Boyd arguably did in Solo. And it is compounded further still when the parasite condemns the original author in terms that, by today's idiotic standards, are the most grave and damaging. A gentleman with any shred of honor would simply have kept his hashtrap clamped. But oh no! Not Boyd! He's got to demonstrate to his fellow literary pansies that he's aware of Fleming's racism/sexism/homophobia (today's unholy trinity), and that he wants nothing to do with it. To paraphrase M, Boyd is an arse-covering prig, and a holier than thou one at that.
2. By today's standards, truck with an "unreflecting racist" can damage one's career, particularly if one is a public figure. Personally, I find nothing remotely objectionable about being a fan of an "unreflecting racist." I was simply taking the piss out of the many who do.
3. In your original post you said nothing about "consistent" portrayal. On the contrary, you said that merely hinting that LeChiffre is Jewish is "fishy," and that thankfully "no villains are Jews." Hence, by your PC and distressingly typical standards, if a protected group is even once cast as a villain, the author may justly be tarred as a racist, and presumably a homophobe and a sexist. In other words, that author may be expelled from polite Western society.
Well put, mate.
I'm guessing that if they had done intensive research into the kind of "man" Boyd is, they would have discovered his base character and perhaps passed him over. IFP is almost as guilty as Boyd here. And who knows? Perhaps the folks at IFP agree with Boyd's views and don't object to their airing. Perhaps IFP too is attempting to distance itself from Fleming if not the cash cow that is his oeuvre.
I would argue that it is the politically correct who are unreflecting and it is they who most need to reexamine their views, not to mention their totalitarian practices.
Nicely done, indeed, Wiz.
The difference is that the slaves revolted, backed by those westerners who at the time were beginning to value the ideas of liberty and equality. Most film makers do not make a habit of selective casting/writing and their aims are not to deprive a minority. You can't turn around and ask that somebody work in the way you would personally wish, when their aims have nothing to do with harming sections of society. If someone feels in retrospect that a film maker has made an ill-informed decision then so be it, but you can't put quotas in place just to avoid the 'potential' for personal offence. As is stated in the article -
"There are far too many films that pass the Bechdel test that don't help at all in making society more equal or better, and there are lots of films that don't pass the test – but are fantastic at those things,"
For the record, political correctness in it's original form is something I endorse. There are many good things that can be attributed to it and society would not exist as it does without it. The problem now is that we live in a society of complainers, everything is a Twitter-storm or an outrage. It's increasingly difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff and talk about the things that matter, rather than the whimsical fads that don't.
No, the white man does not have the most "benefits" in Western society. He does reasonably well because his skills are such that he is able to overcome the flagrant disabilities imposed upon him by the waffen PC.
And you're really comparing so-called "positive" discrimination to abolition of slavery? Really? I hate to break this to you, but just because one progressive cause was correct doesn't make them all so.
And as to Sweden, no I don't find it scary at all. Pitiful and pathetic are the words that spring to mind. But oh well. After Sweden completely collapses and vanishes (it will be the first European nation to do so) perhaps its fate will serve as a wakeup call to everybody else. This being the case, I can only pray that Sweden's collapse happens sooner rather than later.
Unlike the current state where the totalitarian practices of a certain group gets questioned and they tend to see themselves as the victims. It is a strange position when the rapist sees himself as the victim when he gets questioned and judged on his actions.
As to the racist or even sexist attitudes of Fleming, I and Boyd would state that they were a product of their time and should be looked upon as such. It would not do to write a book about 007 in these days with such outdated ideas and concepts. That said I do love Fleming for more than he occasional flaws in thinking, the man knew how to write and exciting and entertaining thriller. I am also aware that the popularity of a Fleming would be far less these days were it not for a certain movie series. And that makes Fleming a target for some of his lesser momets in his books.
I am a great fan of Edgar Wallace but some of his books contain stuff that I cannot or will not defend as they are awefull (example: Sanders of the River). That said a lot of his books a perfectly enjoyable as they are straight forward thrillers.
Fleming had a far more sober, accurate and clear-eyed view of the human race and its vagaries than virtually any public figure in the West today. Then again, he wasn't hamstrung by the odious diktats of PC which not only forbid publication of certain views and thinking certain thoughts, but compels people to publicly announce their fealty to specific views, regardless of whether the speaker regards those views as odious or not.
Sure I agree some behaviour is called PC while it is nothing but a bunch of annoying sh&tes wanting to get some attention.
Which is a fairly easy thing to do these days with all the media available to most people.
We just had the "Black Peter" discussion in neck of the woods which was judged by some professor lady from Jamaica as a racist thing and we should be glad with the one Santa Clause. Which showed her ignorance of the history of a the celebration of Sinterklaas & Black Peter as Santa Claus actually is a US version of the bisshop (who loves children in a way the Catholic church does see as an example).
We had a very small group of loud voiced people that want to get rid of a childrens celebration for their own personal reasons, what ever they may be, and that does not allow a rather large majority (99% or somewhere around that number) to celebrate. And they have not looked at the evalution of both characters from the begiing of the century untill now when indeed the roles would have been considered suspect these days. However they are now equal and both have their role in the celebration that is equally important.
Fleming had indeed a very accurate 50's & '60's look at the world, and in that context I do enjoy Fleming. He was not hamstrung as you say by the ideas of a growing group of people that were opposed to his books. Well his wife was, and quite a few critics and even Fleming himself said on more than one occassion that his writing was no art but a means to pay the bills for a life he wanted to live and enjoy. And as such a person he did die of an excessive lifestyle way too early imho.
So what about the times BEFORE PC? Or has it always been about the skills of the white man overcoming flagrant disabilities imposed upon him by some group or another throughout history?
I suspect the answer would be no.
It's a disgrace how so many people dine out on the Bond brand Fleming created and are so quick to ostracize him at the same time.
This is why I love female Fleming fans!
You clearly don't work for Transport For London do you son?
Apparently in SaintMark world a film poster that reads 'warning: this film contains scenes of sex and violence and no scenes of two women talking to each other' represents 'development'.
So if I make a film about Scott of the Antarctic or Apollo 11 in Sweden do I have to keep cutting away to pointless scenes of their wives back at home discussing stuff (but specifically not the plight of their men!) to avoid falling foul of this bullshit?
So a drama about say Elizabeth Fry or Marie Curie that features a strong female character but only has scenes of her conversing with men fails this test but a film that starts with two strippers talking to each other for a minute before they are raped and murdered and the rest of film consists of similar scenes of naked women being raped and hacked to pieces passes?
Its a cliche I know but this is literally political correctness gone mad.
I'm think Perilagu_Khan has it just about bang on - Sweden you're a laughing stock.
That depends. White nations and peoples have been conquered by Turkic and Mongol peoples and by Muslims in general. In those instances the abilities of whites were not up to the task of defending their lands against invaders. Fortunately, however, they persevered and eventually threw off foreign yokes, in large part because of their ability to do so. But anti-white PC is something entirely different. Thus far, whites (particularly straight, Christian males) have not completely succumbed to the oppression the PC are attempting to impose upon them, but it's still early in the game and there are many signs that such oppression will win out, at least in the short- to mid-term.
With blacks and their culture and nationality (with let's face it, is pretty broad covering the huge continent of Africa, and then the Caribbean just for starters), you're allowed any kind of view so long as it's positive. There is a pun on the Henry Ford Model T, but I can't be @rsed to pursue it.
So Kingsley Amis was a parasite too? Enough of this nonsense. A parasite is "an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense." Fleming, already dead, lost nothing when other authors continued the Bond books. If anything, they kept his character's literary name alive.
As Boyd arguably didn't. There are plenty of Bond fans whose opinions I respect who think Boyd did a good job, among them the editors of the Book Bond and Bond Memes sites. And trying to imagine what Fleming would or wouldn't have approved of requires telepathy from beyond the grave.
Only a sycophant would have done so. Boyd didn't "condemn" Fleming--he didn't say Fleming was a bad author or that he shouldn't be read. He merely stated what most people outside this board accept as a fact--that Fleming was racist and sexist. Unlike many of Fleming's harsher critics, he added that Fleming was probably an unreflecting victim of such attitudes, not a hateful demagogue. I think that if you're a fan of Fleming, you have to look at his work objectively and admit its flaws alongside its merits. You don't try to kick those flaws under the carpet while ranting about PC.
"Pansies"? Let's not indiscriminately throw around terms easily construed as homophobic. How can you defend Fleming from bigotry by helping yourself to bigoted language? And how is Boyd's audience comprised of "pansies" in the first place?
And Fleming has been accused of racism since the 60s. Any damage that could be done has already been done many times over. When Boyd was interviewed by the Times, the reporter did his best to get Boyd to denounce Fleming as a racist, misogynistic fiend. Boyd admirably did not rise to the bait--he admitted that Fleming had some racist/sexist attitudes and then attempted to steer the conversation back to broader matters. Fleming's more disreputable attitudes are part of the general public conversation on his work.
Do I really need to explain this to you? If an author barely features Jews in his work, except as villains, then it would be damning. Consistently portraying a minority as villainous very much suggests bigotry. And Jews were not a protected group until quite recently--the spy novels of Sapper, John Buchan, and Dennis Wheately all have their share of antisemitism. Had Fleming partaken in this nasty tradition, which goes back to Dickens's Fagin and beyond, he could have been quite justly labeled as antisemitic.
But of course, those who rant about PC have trouble remembering why it was needed in the first place. Political correctness, like any concept, can be taken to excess. But at bottom it's a simple matter of simply being considerate of others. If a Korean is offended when Fleming writes that Koreans are subhuman apes, do you really think that's PC gone amok? If a woman is offended when Fleming writes that all women love semi-rape, is that PC lunacy too? So why be surprised when people discuss and admit racism or sexism in Fleming? And while there's room for historical context, saying Fleming was only reflecting the attitudes of his contemporaries only goes so far. Graham Greene and Eric Ambler and Evelyn Waugh were contemporaries of Fleming, yet their books have much less inflammatory material.
Oh, and having been to Sweden, I'm amused to hear of its imminent collapse. How many government shutdowns has Sweden had recently?
I'm sure that gives great comfort to all the non-whites in the Americas and Africa and Asia who far more recently suffered at the hands of Western European empires, though they probably wished to throw off that foreign yoke as well.
1. That is a definition of parasite. Another, more generally accepted definition is an entity that derives its meat and mead from somebody else's work or existence. But you know that. You're just being pedantic in order to avoid admitting you're wrong.
2. No, it doesn't require paranormal powers. It requires only the ordinary ability to read Fleming's work with a certain amount of awareness and sensitivity. Apparently, that is beyond you.
3. In this day and age to cite a person's racism is condemnation. We live in a society where racism (but only racism by whites) is the mortal sin. But you're right about one thing: Boyd didn't condemn Fleming as an author. Instead, he condemned him as a human being. And incidentally, what you and your ilk regard as flaws, others regard as honesty, albeit occasionally coupled to poor judgment.
4. Here's what I think. Rather than truckling to the weak-minded and the neurotically hypersensitive (the PC), and indeed putting the lunatics in charge of the asylum, society should encourage toughness and a thick skin. Alas, we've settled for encouraging the thick.
As to your ethno-racial bean-counting regarding literary villains, all I care to do is chuckle. I hope you have a nice chart and graph you can pull out to measure the quotient of an author's racism by calculating the percentage of villains who belong to a protected group, divided by the square root of the total number of villains in the author's oeuvre, detracted through an algorithm of the depth of each ethno-villain's villainy. Then we'll know who to round up and chuck in the hoosegow for "inciting racial hatred."
5. Unfortunately, there was no government shutdown in USiNO. That term is an exaggeration. But I'll not defend USiNO. It will collapse as well eventually for reasons allied with Sweden's imminent demise.
Yes, the West developed tremendous technological, scientific and military capacities over the course of the last several centuries. It's something I take great pride in. And as to imperialism and colonialism, well, it featured its atrocities and violence, but unlike similar atrocities and violence perpetrated by many other peoples, Western atrocities and violence also brought progress in their train. In other words, violence is an innately human trait; the ability to advance beyond the iron age is not. And many non Western areas are better off for having been subjects of Western empires and colonies.
wait
Where did he do that?
He's quoted as saying Fleming was sexist & racist... where does Boyd express complete disapproval of Fleming as a human being?
Is this here a strawman? ;)
Now wait, I didn't even hand you the rope there!! That was all you!
I know that none of the Bond-continuation authors needed to derive their meat and mead from somebody else's work or existence--they were all established, well-regarded authors, except perhaps for Benson. And in Amis's case, writing a Bond book might have even harmed his reputation and benefited Fleming's. If only you'd bother to think through such matters, instead of foaming at the mouth.
It's certainly beyond me to excuse racism and sexism. That requires a certain level of insensitivity to the feelings of those different from me.
He observed that Fleming had disreputable aspects. He did not condemn Fleming was an abhorrent human being. There's a difference, though apparently that is beyond you.
Bigotry is often "honest" and heartfelt--that doesn't make it less objectionable.
Then let's start with those who whine about racism against white males and how it's the only acceptable kind nowadays. Get a thicker skin. You have less to piss and moan about than those who faced century or two of persecution and prejudice at your hands. I doubt that you have ever opened a book that said you were lower than an ape, or that all of you loved semi-rape.
It's called evidence Perilagu--adults give it when they wish make a point. And the longstanding presence of antisemitism in British/American society, alongside the fact that Jews often figured as villains and disreputable characters, is an already proven point, regardless of your blinders.
The middle east is hardly better off after having been dismembered and remapped by Western powers. And I'm pretty sure the slave trade was not the best way to bring "progress" to Africans, just as millions of dying of disease, enslavement, and relocation was not the best way to bring progress to the New World. Civilization goes both ways: the Moorish conquest gave Spain the Alhambra. The Reconquista gave Spain the inquisition.