William Boyd calls Fleming an "unreflecting racist".....Groannnn.

13567

Comments

  • Revelator wrote:
    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.

    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.
    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.

    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.
    But you're right about one thing: Boyd didn't condemn Fleming as an author. Instead, he condemned him as a human being.

    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.
    And incidentally, what you and your ilk regard as flaws, others regard as honesty, albeit occasionally coupled to poor judgment.

    Bigotry is often "honest" and heartfelt--that doesn't make it less objectionable.
    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.

    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.
    As to your ethno-racial bean-counting regarding literary villains

    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.
    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...And many non Western areas are better off for having been subjects of Western empires and colonies.

    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.

    1. "I know that none of the Bond-continuation authors needed to derive their meat and mead from somebody else's work or existence" And yet they did. That's all that matters. Regarding Amis, there is no doubt that he was a talented writer, but he still engaged in parasitism when he wrote Colonel Sun. To engage in parasitism, by the way, is not necessarily an evil, particularly if one does it well. But a parasitic work can never be regarded on the same plane as the original for the simple reason that it is almost entirely derivative.

    2. In your denial of Boyd's condemnation of Fleming as a human being, you are admitting that you are tone deaf to the very ideology you profess. Not surprising, really. Your kind are, almost without exception, un-self reflective because you live in an echo chamber where everybody who counts shares your views. That makes you all the more poisonous and dangerous.

    3. I'm uninterested in bigotry. I'm fascinated with truth. Certain people intentionally conflate the two.

    4. I don't whine about anti-white racism. In fact, I don't even mind it. What vexes me is the hypocrisy, the double standards and the mendacity that defines the elite worldview about race. I also resent the criminalization of truthful discussion of race. But I can't really blame the elite censors. They fear facts and evidence because they know it will annihilate their carefully poised house of sand. As an aside, by the way, black nationalists routinely refer to whites as devils and ice people. White anti-white racists just refer to us as the "cancer of the human race." Am I offended? Hardly. I'm entertained.

    5. For most of its modern existence, the Middle East has been rather a basket case. But they can thank western reliance on crude oil, western technology that requires crude oil, and western technology that makes extracting crude oil possible, for the vast majority of their wealth. As to Africa, well black Africans themselves had been enslaving and selling one another long before whitey showed up. What's more, the Islamic world engaged in an African slave trade that was more voluminous and probably more brutal than the western trade. But this fact conflicts with the fallacious PC narrative, so it must be suppressed. And I would add that it was Westerners, not Africans, who created a philosophy and notion of human rights that condemned slavery. What's more, whites shed a tremendous amount of white blood precisely to abolish it.

  • Posts: 15,106
    H.P. Lovecraft was racist and antisemitic, no doubt about it, however great he was as a horror writer. Louis-Ferdinand Céline, as great a writer as he was, was a horrible antisemite. One can acknowledge this and still recognizes they were great in their own fields. That said, Fleming, I think, was no more no less racist than a man of his time, and I would dare to say less so. Let's not forget that however evil, Mr. Big is a highly intelligent man, and Fleming has obvious affection for Quarrel and the people of Jamaica. In QOS, he even has a character, Llewellyn, only be truly happy among Black men. In YOLT Japanese culture is seen as exotic and fascinating. James Bond's mother is not even British. Hardly the stuff of a racist writer. And let's not forget that he had contempt for Nazism, which he fought.

    I cannot remember who wrote this (and I cannot find the exact quote) but someone said of Anthony Burgess's Malayan Trilogy that he loved his characters as much as he mocked them. I think it fits Fleming's writing too: he felt comfortable enough towards some people to smile ironically at them.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Actually, Boyd insulted Fleming both as a man and a writer.

    He said this of Ian's handling of love scenes, which I fail to agree with no matter how objective I try to be:

    "The sex can veer from terrible Barbara Cartland romanticism to almost sadism."
    And here's another Boyd quote, again commenting about writing the sex scenes in "Solo":

    "I deliberately wrote those scenes well, not in the way Fleming would write them."

    If that isn't Boyd slamming Ian's writing ability, I've no idea what it is. I know I am not the only one on here who holds Fleming's syntax in high esteem, so I fail to agree with Boyd's comments that paint Fleming as a bargain bin raconteur.
  • edited November 2013 Posts: 3,494
    @PerilaguKhan- actually, it's "blue eyed devils" ;)

    Let's see how far the media carries the story of the 15 year old white girl (if she were black raped by whites it would have been mentioned in the headline, count on it), who was gang raped by blacks in Florida. Probably no further than the gang banging "polar bear hunters" who shot the Aussie college student here. Treyvon Martin, it goes on for weeks about how awful white people are. Of course, they were careful not to mention that Zimmerman is also Hispanic.

    Racism is racism, plain and simple. It must be dealt with evenhandedly. And quite apparently, the media and PC crowd haven't gotten that message because it's clear that they are much more tolerant towards the anti-white variety. They've got it to the point that if you are white and speak up, you're a racist and closet member of the KKK.

    I don't find any of it remotely amusing.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789

    In your denial of Boyd's condemnation of Fleming as a human being, you are admitting that you are tone deaf to the very ideology you profess.
    You seem to be saying that you're interpretation of Boyd's words as being a total condemnation of the man is the only correct one. :-?
    As to Africa, well black Africans themselves had been enslaving and selling one another long before whitey showed up. What's more, the Islamic world engaged in an African slave trade that was more voluminous and probably more brutal than the western trade. But this fact conflicts with the fallacious PC narrative, so it must be suppressed.
    Your condescending tone is not appreciated; that people in Africa and elsewhere also engaged in what westerners did is no secret and is not dismissed by any but the most fringe elements. Save the history lesson for the uneducated.

    You're angry, I get that. This world if chock full of injustice, but if it gets to you to the point where you need to label a dude on a forum poisonous and dangerous for disagreeing with your OPINION, I humbly suggest some time away from political discussion. I've faced discrimination all my life, and it makes me angry too, but I try not to let cloud my perception of the bigger picture. And I try to see that it's not a Left or Right thing, it's a STUPID HUMAN thing.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    And quite apparently, the media and PC crowd haven't gotten that message because it's clear that they are much more tolerant towards the anti-white variety.
    I personally hate Affirmative Inaction. But on the other side of the coin, if the media can get some play from a story, they will.
    Take the profit motive out of broadcast news and see just how fast balanced reporting returns.
    If you want news, hunt it up- don't let extreme spectrum whores serve it up to you. That's the message we need to send to the mindless idiots that sit there & go "Gee, that white guy Zimmerman hates blacks" when he's only half white himself.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited November 2013 Posts: 9,117
    Revelator wrote:
    You have less to piss and moan about than those who faced century or two of persecution and prejudice at your hands.

    All look the same to you do we?

    I cant quite recall being a plantation owner or captain of a slave ship but good of you to blame it all on me anyway. Why not go even further back in time and throw the Spanish Inquistion and Viking rape and pillaging into the mix while youre at it?

    As someone who is allegedly so keen to be fair and equal I take it you would agree that to call Germans who are in their 20's and 30's Nazis and blame them for the holocaust is unacceptable yet you seem to have no problem throwing such insulting comments around when talking about the hated white oppressors of the downtrodden black man.

    As Perilagu_Khan said and you have just proven - whitey is an easy target.
  • edited November 2013 Posts: 2,915
    I cant quite recall being a plantation owner or captain of a slave ship but good of you to blame it all on me anyway

    I have no interest in blaming you for anything but self-pity. You and I enjoy the privileges of being white, and those were partly and indirectly purchased by those plantations and slave ships. Your supposed sufferings are miniscule.
    you seem to have no problem throwing such insulting comments around when talking about the hated white oppressors of the downtrodden black man

    Why so sarcastic? It would take several hundred years of slavery, segregation, and exploitation before whites were even close to being as downtrodden.
    As Perilagu_Khan said and you have just proven - whitey is an easy target

    Yes, because he's so damn prone to frivolous self-pity. Other people's sufferings don't count, not when the PC Nazis are at work! As for the actual Germans, if they carried on in the way you and Khan do, then I would be just as harsh with them. But the Germans have done as good a job as they can atoning for the past. They don't get absurdly defensive and self-involved--they acknowledge the misdeeds of their ancestors and work for a better world. They don't piss and moan about PC. In short, they behave much better than some members of this board.

    Having frequented several other Bond boards, I'm amazed at the atmosphere here, in particular at the irrational hate displayed at Boyd for daring to say that Fleming wasn't perfect and the absurd defensiveness and denial displayed whenever Fleming's shortcomings are brought up. I find that pathetic and desperate. It's the most closed-minded, sycophantic form of fandom. And it's useless for dealing with Fleming's actual detractors. I'll probably stick around this board a bit longer, but I have no further interest in wading through the reactionary swamp of threads like these. If you want to live on the dark side of the moon, you can stay there.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    It isn't so much that I and others are angry at Boyd for criticizing Fleming, but more in the way he did it: pompously as if he were king of the hill, and then has the audacity to say what Ian's core beliefs were when he never met the man. Nobody, and I mean nobody has the right to speak for the beliefs of another, even King Boyd, and his rude comments matched with what seems to be a superiority complex are beginning to annoy, considering he has yet to create a character as influential as Bond, and is merely reaping the profits of 007 at this current time. If he would have commented about Ian respectfully this would be an entirely different issue, but that hasn't taken place.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 I agree, his comments were from a place of seeming self-agrandizement. Humility at having taken on a master's work would have been the way to go, whether he truly felt it or not.
  • Revelator wrote:
    You have less to piss and moan about than those who faced century or two of persecution and prejudice at your hands.

    All look the same to you do we?

    I cant quite recall being a plantation owner or captain of a slave ship but good of you to blame it all on me anyway. Why not go even further back in time and throw the Spanish Inquistion and Viking rape and pillaging into the mix while youre at it?

    As someone who is allegedly so keen to be fair and equal I take it you would agree that to call Germans who are in their 20's and 30's Nazis and blame them for the holocaust is unacceptable yet you seem to have no problem throwing such insulting comments around when talking about the hated white oppressors of the downtrodden black man.

    As Perilagu_Khan said and you have just proven - whitey is an easy target.

    I'd have to agree with that at this point. This reverse racism directed at white people is a far more important real world issue, certainly much more so than Boyd's opinion of Fleming, who lived in a different time where his behavior and views were socially acceptable, just like smoking at your office, in a restaurant, etc. I'm not defending how Fleming thought or saying it is right to consider yourself superior due to your gender, race, and social standing, but I don't see where Boyd gets off pissing on the man who created something he is going to profit by. If I were Fleming's estate, I'd be seriously contemplating a lawsuit regarding slander.

    My maternal ancestors who have been in America since 1732, were hard working Germans who, something I am quite glad about, were not slave owners. My paternal ancestors did not come here until the 1890's-1900. So all things considered, why the hell should I be penalized for what other white people did 150 years ago? How is my family responsible for segregation? I never supported nor contributed to any of that, my first cousin is half black, and I'm guilty by association due to being white? Being held liable is bullshit and racist bullshit at that. How it that fair or just? How does that solve the problem?
    Revelator wrote:
    Yes, because he's so damn prone to frivolous self-pity. Other people's sufferings don't count, not when the PC Nazis are at work! As for the actual Germans, if they carried on in the way you and Khan do, then I would be just as harsh with them. But the Germans have done as good a job as they can atoning for the past. They don't get absurdly defensive and self-involved--they acknowledge the misdeeds of their ancestors and work for a better world. They don't piss and moan about PC. In short, they behave much better than some members of this board.

    Having frequented several other Bond boards, I'm amazed at the atmosphere here, in particular at the irrational hate displayed at Boyd for daring to say that Fleming wasn't perfect and the absurd defensiveness and denial displayed whenever Fleming's shortcomings are brought up. I find that pathetic and desperate. It's the most closed-minded, sycophantic form of fandom. And it's useless for dealing with Fleming's actual detractors. I'll probably stick around this board a bit longer, but I have no further interest in wading through the reactionary swamp of threads like these. If you want to live on the dark side of the moon, you can stay there.

    Sure looks like you are upsetting some long time members here, who are as entitled to their opinions as much as you are and don't deserve some of the things you've said and inferred just because you happen to disagree. If you're not happy here, no one is forcing you to stay. Try not to let the door hit your ass on the way out.



  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    So all things considered, why the hell should I be penalized for what other white people did 150 years ago? How is my family responsible for segregation?
    It's called 'original sin'... or payback... or like going to prison for what your father owed when he died...
  • edited November 2013 Posts: 572
    chrisisall wrote:
    So all things considered, why the hell should I be penalized for what other white people did 150 years ago? How is my family responsible for segregation?
    It's called 'original sin'... or payback... or like going to prison for what your father owed when he died...

    Prove to me that SirHenryLeeChaChing's relatives partook in enslaving others. You can't. Neither of us could "prove" it either way. In fact SirHenryLeeChaChing gave you some ancestral details that strongly suggest otherwise. You state that it's payback. Payback for what? You're trying to penalize him for something others did based on his skin color? Where's the equality in that?

    You may generalize and blame today's "whites" for something that a different body of "whites" did in the past, but all that is doing is failing to acknowledge the change of mindset, habits, and beliefs between generations. Please tell me, how is carrying forward one stereotype onto a completely different set of individuals who's only commonality is the same color of skin not discrimination?

    That's not saying that discrimination doesn't happen today, nor that "minorities" are not more likely to be a victim of discrimination. But to me, it just seems that using that as a grounds to victimize a group of people, are playing with the double-edge sword. "Two wrongs don't make a right." Context means a lot to me, and while it's important to learn from history, I think it's just as crucial to leave it in the past. My two cents.
  • Posts: 7,653
    It isn't so much that I and others are angry at Boyd for criticizing Fleming, but more in the way he did it: pompously as if he were king of the hill, and then has the audacity to say what Ian's core beliefs were when he never met the man. Nobody, and I mean nobody has the right to speak for the beliefs of another, even King Boyd, and his rude comments matched with what seems to be a superiority complex are beginning to annoy, considering he has yet to create a character as influential as Bond, and is merely reaping the profits of 007 at this current time. If he would have commented about Ian respectfully this would be an entirely different issue, but that hasn't taken place.

    Boyd was asked about his views on Fleming and did answer them truthfully, I have no problem with that. He also said a lot of nice things but of course that don't matter, one is only respectfull if he says what you want to hear.

    As for Fleming leaving a legacy........ I think that were it not for a certain movie franchise he like many other thriller writers from his time would have been forgotten and not have had all the attention he has nowadays. The influentialness from Fleming character has more to do with the cinematic version as Flemings version. So Boyd should be respectfull of EON if anything.

    As for Boyd he is a fairly good writer, I like his books outside the Bondverse far better.

  • Posts: 7,653
    White people are not guilty of anything in my humble view, but they seem to be opposed to other folks getting more equal with them apperently. It seems that every right that is accepted by other than white men seems to be a double edged sword, some PC crap and such. It is like a kid that plays in a sandbox and does not want to share because he was there first............ There is too much entitlement going on by those who have the most and they consider people getting equel rights as some kind of wrongfull entitlement of those people.

    If you have it all you cannot be discriminated against, you are most probably the one that does the discriminanting.
    Fleming belonged to a certain class of people that held certain views which would considered today fairly racist & sexist. And as such the writing of a new 007 adventure even if it plays in the '60's should be written differently than Fleming would have done then.
    I do not want to see my Fleming books sanitized for whatever reason, because they are part of Flemings style and way of expressing. But honestly I would not agree with a current writer doing the same thing in 2013.
    Fleming probably did not reflect on his views as they were fairly common in his day and age. Heck a large part of the US had to be dragged screaming and kicking into the twentieth century by the likes of Kennedy in 1962.
    I would have loved seeing Fleming writing a 007 book played out in the South of the US after the the human rights affair then. He probably would have reflected on the changing era, but he never got there, which is our loss.

  • edited November 2013 Posts: 4,622
    Revelator wrote:
    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.
    Please. Fleming was not a racist in his time and context, nor in any time and context. Why because there is no evidence to support this view. None, zip, zilch. Fleming rather was a provocative writer. A non-conformist and decidedly not politically correct. Hence his eminently readable books.
    Fleming made less than flattering observations about Koreans in GF. Big deal. Fleming was basing his scribblings on behaviours that he had observed. The Koreans in his book made for good villains. He plays up their negative traits as he observed them. He also had great fun comparing Oddjob to an ape. Oddjob was constructed to be a hideous vile creature. Bond spends much of the book hurling insults and various barbs at both Oddjob and Goldfinger. None of these characterizations makes Fleming a racist. Not even close.
    What would make him a racist is if he genuinely hated Koreans or Asian persons based only on their race. ie he couldn't be friends with a Korean, he couldn't respect individual Koreans, he couldn't treat a Korean person with civility or genuine human kindness. He would shun them etc.
    Meanwhile there is no evidence of such behaviour from Fleming.
    As for being a product of his time. His attitudes, not to be confused with racist attitudes, but rather simply his attitudes, might very well be a product of his time. There was a Korean War in the ‘50s.
    Fleming is also very unflattering towards Germans in most of his early books. Many of the villains have German heritage. This attitude I would suggest is reflective of his time, what with the Western Worlds experience with WWII. However of interest, we do see this attitude mellow somewhat by OHMSS, where we find Bond drinking it up with a former Lutfwaffe pilot- the two agreeing to put past hostilities behind them.
    As for Fleming being a homophobe or a sexist, that’s not even worth discussing. PC types like to cover the whole gamut. It’s the pc hat-trick. Maybe they are obsessive hockey fans.
    The problem with pc types tossing around accusations of racism, homophobia, sexism etc, ad nauseum is that they generally have no actual understanding or experience of what they are talking about. Their pc nature precludes any such understanding. Political correctness is first and foremost about conformity.
  • edited November 2013 Posts: 4,622
    As for Boyd and his pretentious blatherings, I think the Good Wizard has him pegged.
    Seems to me that Boyd is symptomatic of the current white middle class obsession of proclaiming how not racist you are. Its no longer sufficient to take people as you find them and treat everyone fairly you have to condemn your white forefathers for a multitude of perceived atrocities that have absolutely nothing to with you to show how PC you are.
    And this
    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.
    And for those wetting themselves over the use of the term "pansies." If I may, in this context, I believe the learned Dr. Khan is simply being provocative, much like our favourite writer. Khan is skilled with a turn of phrase. Pansies, I think in this context might substitute for weak thinkers, or literary conformists. But pansies does the job well. It captures nicely the lameness and pithyness of it all. Well done Khanners!

    btw pc attitudes are what promote injustices such as slavery, not end it. ie owning slaves back in the day was quite politically correct.
    I can just hear the trendy cocktail party chatter of the day. "Personally I don't condone slavery, but I respect those who might want to own slaves as long as they treat them well."
    Such pithy blather I'm sure would have invited approving nods and allowed one to fit in just fine, almost anywhere. So tolerant and open minded.
    Slavery rather was defeated by the bold brave and non-conformist actions of those fighting to uphold the constitutionally enshrined rights of all men, not by the pc chatterers of the day.


  • Posts: 7,653
    timmer wrote:
    btw pc attitudes are what promote injustices such as slavery, not end it. ie owning slaves back in the day was quite politically correct.
    I can just hear the trendy cocktail party chatter of the day. "Personally I don't condone slavery, but I respect those who might want to own slaves as long as they treat them well."
    Such pithy blather I'm sure would have invited approving nods and allowed one to fit in just fine, almost anywhere. So tolerant and open minded.
    Slavery rather was defeated by the bold brave and non-conformist actions of those fighting to uphold the constitutionally enshrined rights of all men, not by the pc chatterers of the day.

    PC as a term is largely used by people that are being corrected on matters they are wrongly in believe in.

    Slavery was political correct for a long time, sadly is still in parts of the world, so in that sense you are right @timmer.
    However opponents of certain wrong are called PC when they oppose what is concidered wrong, for whatever reasons. If believing that Gay people should have equal rights was PC why did it take so long and so much convincing of Politicians before you actually move in such a direction?? Political correct is an odd word mostly used to disqualify people that think differently about matters that should be better.

    Mr Khan while a believer of the Muslim danger and a believer that education is evil as it opens the mind of young people to new and different ideas like socialism, individualism, equality and such defends Fleming very well and beautifull. But he never said anything to oppose the premise that Flemings ideas were of the éarly '60's when the world was a very different place and ideas were very different from now. Even if some people seem to still live in that era.
    The original James Bond has been updated to our times even if some of his tales are situatued in the Fleming times. Gardner did put 007 in the '80 & '90's which did make hm a different creature again, and Deaver did put him in the current times where most of us felt he was ill at ease and perhaps not very like our 007 we know and love.
    Some of the paragraphs in Flemings prose is fairly outdated and somewhat sexist and racist by modern standards, which I admit does not have to be your standards if you consider them allright, glory to you.
    That does not make Fleming a racist or sexist writer but just a relic from another time where his opinions were more valid.
    If Boyd would not have altered Flemings creation and approuch he would have been crucified as a racist and sexist. So in that sense Boyd is right, times change and so does Bond the literary character.

    While I enjoy the continuation, perhaps a bit addicted I admit, I enjoy the originals best and then I am still aware that some of Flemings ideas do not confirm with my ideas. He still is a fun writer to read.

  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    Just so you all know, we are keeping a close eye on this thread, and we don't want to have to close it.

    Great to see a lively and intelligent debate, but if possible refrain from throwing personal insults at each other.

    As you were.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    SaintMark wrote:

    PC as a term is largely used by people that are being corrected on matters they are wrongly in believe in.

    Ignoring your questionable grasp of English, this statement seems rather more suited to fascist philosophy than one of equality and tolerance which is what I understood PC was supposed to be about?
    SaintMark wrote:
    That does not make Fleming a racist or sexist writer but just a relic from another time where his opinions were more valid.
    If Boyd would not have altered Flemings creation and approuch he would have been crucified as a racist and sexist.

    These are far more valid points. Some of Fleming's terms are of course unacceptable today and could be construed as being a relic of a bygone age but despite this use of questionable words when viewing his work with our modern day sanctimony I consider Fleming to be rather ahead of his time in terms of race.
    His love of Jamaica and the Jamaican people comes through very clearly as does his natural interest of other countries and cultures. He was also one of the first writers to bring exotic locales from all over the world to the masses with his colourful and exciting writing. This is not the work of a racist, xenophobe or Little Englander.

    Quarrel is a fine character and although not Bond's equal (due to no education and being merely a poor fisherman before someone jumps down my throat) but when it comes to things like marine life, navigation and Bond's training the guy knows his onions and is superior to Bond and he's one of my favourite allies in both book and film (just stressing how un-racist I am there, you note, by listing Quarrel as a favourite! I am reminded of David Brent coming into the office and saying to the office black guy that Sidney Poitier and Denzel are his favourite actors. But thats the world we are living in these days).

    Mr Big, Tiger and Dr No are also intellectually superior to Bond but people are keen to never mention this as leaping on Oddjob as being portrayed as stupid and an 'ape' is far better fuel for the 'Fleming was a racist' bonfire.

    Of course Boyd couldnt ape (no pun intended) Fleming's language without being castigated but I dont see why he couldn't have just come out and said Fleming's vocabulary is a product of his time and would be unacceptable today. There's no reason to go further and label Fleming a racist which is what he did. Can Boyd be so sure that if he was writing in the 50's he wouldn't have used such commonplace and acceptable terms? But of course is so easy to preach from the moral high ground of 50 years of hindsight isnt it?

    In other news look who's back by popular demand for another easy pay day folks:

    http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/nov/06/jeeves-wedding-bells-sebastian-faulks-review

    Why is it I keep hearing that Faulks is some sort of great writer? Why then cant he create his own characters rather than just keep ripping off other authors?
  • edited November 2013 Posts: 11,189
    Fleming comes from a similar generation as my now 92 year old grandad. A time when it would have been unusaual to see a person of a different skin colour walking down the street in the UK.

    Would Fleming be described as racist by todays standards? Probably a bit, even though he does create some strong characters of other ethnic backgrounds. I know that I felt a bit uncomfortable when reading certain passages. However Boyd should remember the above.
  • Posts: 15,106
    Great analysis Wizard. Although I would say that exoticism does not prevent one from being racist. That said, Fleming talking of Jamaica was no tourist.
  • edited November 2013 Posts: 7,653
    SaintMark wrote:

    PC as a term is largely used by people that are being corrected on matters they are wrongly in believe in.

    Ignoring your questionable grasp of English, this statement seems rather more suited to fascist philosophy than one of equality and tolerance which is what I understood PC was supposed to be about?

    Ignoring your rudeness when it comes to communicating in another language,

    "Political correctness" is a label normally used for left-wing terms and actions, but not for equivalent attempts to mould language and behaviour on the right. However most often, the case is entirely ignored or censorship of the Left is justified as a positive virtue. ... A balanced perspective was lost, and everyone missed the fact that people on all sides were sometimes censored.

    or

    Political correctness is one of the brilliant tools that the American Right developed in the mid–1980s, as part of its demolition of American liberalism.... What the sharpest thinkers on the American Right saw quickly was that by declaring war on the cultural manifestations of liberalism – by levelling the charge of “political correctness” against its exponents – they could discredit the whole political project.

    I state that PC thinking is done mostly by those opposed to positive change in society, as for fascist philosofy isn't that supposed to be the a rightwing thing??

    @TheWizardOfIce on your description of Flemings love and choices nothing less than compliments.
  • Revelator wrote:
    I cant quite recall being a plantation owner or captain of a slave ship but good of you to blame it all on me anyway

    I have no interest in blaming you for anything but self-pity. You and I enjoy the privileges of being white, and those were partly and indirectly purchased by those plantations and slave ships. Your supposed sufferings are miniscule.
    you seem to have no problem throwing such insulting comments around when talking about the hated white oppressors of the downtrodden black man

    Why so sarcastic? It would take several hundred years of slavery, segregation, and exploitation before whites were even close to being as downtrodden.
    As Perilagu_Khan said and you have just proven - whitey is an easy target

    Yes, because he's so damn prone to frivolous self-pity. Other people's sufferings don't count, not when the PC Nazis are at work! As for the actual Germans, if they carried on in the way you and Khan do, then I would be just as harsh with them. But the Germans have done as good a job as they can atoning for the past. They don't get absurdly defensive and self-involved--they acknowledge the misdeeds of their ancestors and work for a better world. They don't piss and moan about PC. In short, they behave much better than some members of this board.

    Having frequented several other Bond boards, I'm amazed at the atmosphere here, in particular at the irrational hate displayed at Boyd for daring to say that Fleming wasn't perfect and the absurd defensiveness and denial displayed whenever Fleming's shortcomings are brought up. I find that pathetic and desperate. It's the most closed-minded, sycophantic form of fandom. And it's useless for dealing with Fleming's actual detractors. I'll probably stick around this board a bit longer, but I have no further interest in wading through the reactionary swamp of threads like these. If you want to live on the dark side of the moon, you can stay there.

    1. Decades ago white privilege gave way to the benefits of blackness. Your inability to see this is yet another indicator of your ignorance. The other explanation, as I mentioned before, is the fact that you are cloistered away in the PC echo chamber where your views are actually considered normative. Well, I've got news for you pal; there are tens, perhaps hundreds of millions of people in the Western world who regard your tripe as just that.

    2. Whites suffered centuries of slavery and serfdom, not to mention dhimmitude, yet we somehow seem to have overcome it. The same could be said for Jews. But this is largely irrelevant. Individuals in the Western world today are not oppressed, and what happened before has no bearing on their fortunes today. You see, group suffering is not cumulative and perpetually determinative.

    3. Mind the knob on your way out.

  • SaintMark wrote:
    It isn't so much that I and others are angry at Boyd for criticizing Fleming, but more in the way he did it: pompously as if he were king of the hill, and then has the audacity to say what Ian's core beliefs were when he never met the man. Nobody, and I mean nobody has the right to speak for the beliefs of another, even King Boyd, and his rude comments matched with what seems to be a superiority complex are beginning to annoy, considering he has yet to create a character as influential as Bond, and is merely reaping the profits of 007 at this current time. If he would have commented about Ian respectfully this would be an entirely different issue, but that hasn't taken place.

    Boyd was asked about his views on Fleming and did answer them truthfully, I have no problem with that. He also said a lot of nice things but of course that don't matter, one is only respectfull if he says what you want to hear.

    As for Fleming leaving a legacy........ I think that were it not for a certain movie franchise he like many other thriller writers from his time would have been forgotten and not have had all the attention he has nowadays. The influentialness from Fleming character has more to do with the cinematic version as Flemings version. So Boyd should be respectfull of EON if anything.

    As for Boyd he is a fairly good writer, I like his books outside the Bondverse far better.

    If Fleming's creation of the Bond world hadn't been so compelling and insightful, Eon never would have made the films, or if they had, the films wouldn't have been so successful. Everything Bond owes to the kernel of Fleming's genius.

  • Posts: 7,653
    SaintMark wrote:
    It isn't so much that I and others are angry at Boyd for criticizing Fleming, but more in the way he did it: pompously as if he were king of the hill, and then has the audacity to say what Ian's core beliefs were when he never met the man. Nobody, and I mean nobody has the right to speak for the beliefs of another, even King Boyd, and his rude comments matched with what seems to be a superiority complex are beginning to annoy, considering he has yet to create a character as influential as Bond, and is merely reaping the profits of 007 at this current time. If he would have commented about Ian respectfully this would be an entirely different issue, but that hasn't taken place.

    Boyd was asked about his views on Fleming and did answer them truthfully, I have no problem with that. He also said a lot of nice things but of course that don't matter, one is only respectfull if he says what you want to hear.

    As for Fleming leaving a legacy........ I think that were it not for a certain movie franchise he like many other thriller writers from his time would have been forgotten and not have had all the attention he has nowadays. The influentialness from Fleming character has more to do with the cinematic version as Flemings version. So Boyd should be respectfull of EON if anything.

    As for Boyd he is a fairly good writer, I like his books outside the Bondverse far better.

    If Fleming's creation of the Bond world hadn't been so compelling and insightful, Eon never would have made the films, or if they had, the films wouldn't have been so successful. Everything Bond owes to the kernel of Fleming's genius.

    Fleming started it but the genius of Broccoli and Salzman to begin with has made the series such a lasting thing, and now Young Barbara & Wilson are doing the right thing.

    People discover the writer through the movies and have done so for a long time, be gratefull for that.

  • @JamesStock- thank you for agreeing with me, but I have to point out that @chrisisall wasn't disagreeing and was just pointing out what some people would like to see happen. One such "payback" that has been ventured several times is in the form of governments making monetary restitution to the descendants of slaves, a "slave reparation act". Opponents have ventured that enacting such a measure would most certainly turn apologetic feelings into racist ones, and I have to agree.

    I am very glad that my cousin and some of my long time black friends don't think I should have to shoulder the burden of "white man's guilt". If other white people feel that they have to, that's their opinion, but I'm not going to take the load because I'm not guilty nor do I need to atone for anything other whites past and present have done. There are many good people of all races in America who like myself fervently believe in the equality taught by Dr. King, which is to treat a person for who they are and not by the color of their skin or by a stereotypical opinion taught to them.

    Here's another thing that PC has done that bothers me. We are supposed to have "freedom of speech". And yet, we see people fired from their jobs for speaking their mind and using racial slurs. Now I'm not condoning racism and thus not condoning idiots who say such things, but freedom of speech means that these idiots still have the right to speak and act like idiots if they want. Shouldn't we as a society, before firing such an idiot, first try to educate people like this through classes in sensitivity training? That's what Dr. King, a man who believed in education, would have advocated.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    JamesStock wrote:
    You state that it's payback. Payback for what?
    Yes, like Sir Henry said, I was just underscoring the ridiculousness of the idea that we are responsible for what people in the past did.

    When I was 8 I had two friends who were Jewish, and once a school bus past us while walking home from school, and a couple of kids leaned out the windows to shout "You killed Jesus!!" I asked what that was supposed to mean, and the brother & sister told me they were Jews (I didn't know), and that Jews are blamed for the crucifixion by some. I was one pissed off third grader just then. In that moment I saw just how stupid human beings could be.
  • edited November 2013 Posts: 4,622
    UPDATE: executive decision. I will not be purchasing Boyd's book at all.
    I know, both IFP and Boyd are crushed. C'est la vie.
    Not even buying from the bargain bin, where the book is inevitably headed. I do not want to encourage even bargain bin sales. Rather I will patiently wait for my library order, but wait - might that just encourage the library to buy extra copies. Hmmm,maybe I will just read it in the bookstore, half hour a day. Why read it in the first place? Because its a Bond book. Out of obligation to the iconic character and his literary creator, I need stay current on what travesties might be being visited upon the legacy. It's a duty.
    I do not look forward to the read. If Boyd is so determined to establish his pc bonafides with the precious types, I fear his prejudices will pollute his entire narrative.
    IFP really should just give up on this Fleming continuation experiment IMO. They are not up to the task of doing justice to the spirit of Fleming. With hindsight Garnder looks like a truly inspired choice, not only because he wrote engrossing Bond adventures, but also because he didn't bring along bag-loads of pretentious superior attitude. Same for Charlie Higson. Raymond Benson ditto. Samantha Weinberg too and going back, Pearson and Amis- Christopher Wood too.

    I would rank the three recent continuation-author duds this way. Actually I've simply disqualifited Boyd from consideration. But having read the other two, I'll go with this.

    1. Faulks. 2. Deaver 3. Boyd, dq'd from consideration

    Faulks is guilty of being somewhat cavalier about the project, but at least he wasn't so dense as to promote his own superiority by attempting to brand Fleming as a racist. His effort was rather half-hearted it seems and it shows in his book.

    And speaking of, Deaver's Dudley-Do-Right Bond was even limper, but again Deaver at least avoided the conceit of attempting to establish a moral superiority over the originator. Deaver was just a bad pick. He's a good author, but a Fleming inspired Bond author he is not.

    Boyd gets credit for creating the weasal term , "unreflecting racist." By prefacing with unreflecting, one creates the impression of a more qualified form of racist accusation I guess, with the added bonus of causing the commentator himself to then be viewed as a reasonable reflective sort. Genius.
    Damn, if only the good Fleming would have had the sense to be more "reflective." :))

    Again, Fleming was not a racist, neither unreflective nor otherwise.
    Boyd and his superior-thinking ilk might benefit from some experience with actual racists.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited November 2013 Posts: 8,180
    So is it impossible admire Fleming and point out his own short comings at the same time? Example: I call Fleming homophobic, that doesn't mean I'm condemning him entirely either as a person or as a writer. People are flawed, and Fleming is no different.
This discussion has been closed.