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
This. There is racism and homophobia in Fleming's books. Doesn't mean he wasn't a fantastic writer, it doesn't mean he was a bad person (just a product of the times), and it doesn't mean we shouldn't still enjoy the novels but yeah, I think Bond considering Koreans lower than apes is racist. If that makes me a "PC slave" then fine.
To say there was a racist moment in a Bond book is not necessarily to call Fleming a racist- it's possible to have racist tendencies without malice, after all, especially as you travel back further in time.
However, calling Fleming an 'unreflecting racist' goes a bit far IMO.
So Boyd's a jerk, plenty of writers & artists are.
I'll read the book, and I'll like or dislike the book on its own merits.
:)>-
But this is the point I am trying to speak for, the opinion of a writer. If I write a character that has what can be perceived as "racist" or "sexist" or "homophobic" views, does that at the same token make me those things? Heavens no. The writer can create characters separate from him or herself without holding the same feelings that they do. While it is no secret that writers give some of themselves to a character, as I do, I think it is rather unfair to judge a man's core beliefs through his characters who may not share his thoughts. I hope that makes sense...
'Unreflecting' in this context is Boyd making an excuse for Fleming. A reflecting racist would be the average member of stormfront.org. They're fully aware of normative Western attitudes to race, but choose to interpret multiculturalism as a Jewish/Cultural-Marxist conspiracy to persecute the white, heterosexual, Christian male.
True, but one has to remember that like all creators, Fleming projected himself onto his creation. From Bond's physical traits to his distaste for tea. Where does one draw the line?
Absolutely it does, Brady!
I'm getting slightly annoyed by this fuss over Fleming. I remain convinced of the fact that any argument is lost when you start applying 21st century moral on the writings of a man who spent most of his life in the first half of the 20th century. Having read the novels several times, I fail to spot discriminative statements or open attacks on certain races by Fleming. In my recollection, he wrote favourably of most foreign countries, their treasures, their history. Adversaries, like Mr Big, weren't considered inferior. Allies, like Quarrell, were treated with dignity and respect. Sure they talked in some slang, but Fleming didn't make that up, did he? He knew the tongue, the words and the manners. Is it racism when you incorporate that culture in your books? I'd consider it racist if he'd made them all purely Western, with a perfect mastery over English and the British etiquette. That would be like suggesting that their real culture is so despicable or deplorable, it has no place in any stories at all.
Let's try this. My character Bruce Murdock is a chain smoking plumber who is also a vigilante and kills murders and violently punishes non murdering criminals. Keep in mind, I don't smoke and I don't like violence (In real life) or killing. Does that make me a psychopath?
Boyd is an idiot for thinking he knows what Fleming thought.
Fleming like all human beings was flawed. He lived in a time period where those things were acceptable. If he were alive today, he might not be Homophobic or racist at all. It was the 50's. We have evolved.
I understand that, which is why I said:
How can we judge a writer's personal beliefs through their writing when we are unsure which feelings they share with the characters they create and what views they have used to inspire them on the page? Honestly, we can't. It would be a different story entirely if Fleming was spouting hatred for other races/cultures/groups in the press or through interviews, but his books do not provide satisfactory grounds for the judgement of his personal beliefs for the very reasons I have supplied.
As I said, I put some of myself into my characters too, but you can only do that to such an extent as a writer, where all your characters have to feel individual and instilled with a life all their own. Fleming probably infused Bond with a good deal of his own self, I agree, but not every little thing. You can give a character part of yourself and fill in the empty spaces. If every character you create acts/thinks exactly like you, where's the time for creative exploration? Making characters who are against all your views is not only fun, it is a brilliant chance to enter the mind of another person who is the antithesis of all you stand for and view life from their eyes for a while. I don't think it is unbelievable that Fleming did this too, and often.
And by the same thinking, is it fair to judge an artist's work on anything other than the work itself?
Maybe SOLO sucks. I'll find out. But if it DOES suck, It's not because he stated in an interview a belief concerning Fleming that's a bit OTT. IMO.
I feel that way in regards to people who can't separate an actor/actress from the characters they play in movies. If an actor is truly great, they are completely transformative and you barely see who they are in real life behind who they are portraying in the flick. There are plenty of people whose views/actions I don't agree with, yet I still enjoy their films.
...and Richard Chopping was gay and Fleming was more fond of him than the other way around!
Please elaborate.
Or are you pinning your entire argument on the Koreans are apes line but ignoring Bond's genuine warmth and friendship towards Quarrel and Tiger and his reflections (albeit occasionally with the odd racist word that that is of the era) as a curious traveller who is interested in experiencing the local culture of Harlem, the West Indies, Japan or the Seychelles?
Dear William Boyd:
WHO IN GOD'S NAME ARE YOU TRYING TO APPEAL TO WITH THESE STATEMENTS?
Racism: the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races:
theories of racism
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior
From Oxford Dictionaries
Racism
: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
From Merriam-Webster
[/quote]
No big deal, both Fleming and Bond would have subscribed to some extent to both definitions, this having been a widespread belief of the times. Remember, Hitler's nazis were not fought for their racism, they were fought for their aggressive military expansion. Their treatment of minorities was considered extreme and hostile, yet at the time the basic racist ideology behind it often was not questioned as such.
More concerning is that some people until this very day hold such beliefs without the benefit of the doubt for having lived during the early 20th century and its ignorance of the matter, as Fleming could do if he bothered.
No need to shout but valid point.
Boyd seems to be going overboard in trying to distance himself from Fleming's 'racist' views to impress his Guardianista mates and literary chums. Alas not many of these people are likely to buy a story about a guy who risks life and limb to defend queen and country. So why on earth did he take the gig?
But lets not be too hard in the bloke - remember in Britain today the absolutely fundamental most important thing you can do is to loudly proclaim how unracist you are at every opportunity. It helps if you can apologise for the Empire and the slave trade as well. If you take Monty Python's four Yorkshiremen sketch and replace working 15 hours down't pit with attending a Stephen Lawrence fundraiser you get the general idea.
Tosh. You can read the Guardian (with a vastly superior coverage of US affairs than many a domestic newspaper) and enjoy both Fleming and Boyd. Only some foaming teamobbers struggle to discern between their own cult and reality.
Well, that must be pretty hard if one is a racist and is just forced to deny one's own real nature. I wonder, can there really be so many people whose inclinations are in doubt?
We all know Fleming's Bond was a man of contradictions, but you can't deny he expressed certain racist attitudes of the time - though these softened in the later novels. If you want a real 'foaming at the mouth bigot', look to Fleming's Dikko Henderson.
My post was making the point that maybe we could consider the opinions in the novels to be Bond's rather than Fleming's. I drew comparisons with 2 other writers to make the point.
I have no intention of elaborating on that one sentance - maybe I should started the sentance 'Perhaps it could be argued that....'
In a sense, I agree with NicNac here. By today's standards, Bond was a racist. But today's standards are baldly irrational, so I'm not sure this is saying very much.
Somehow I don't think Bond, Tiger and Dikko out for a few friendly drinks would let these lightweights even empty their ashtrays, let alone buy a round. Yes, that is the crux of the matter. Although I'd say calling Fleming a racist goes a "long" far. In fact, if we are throwing darts, the shot is not even on the board. It's caught in the ceiling somewhere.
Fleming is not remotely racist in his time or any time, and to call him homophobic is laughable and not even worth addressing. But understanding what these terms might actually mean is helpful too, so some "critics" of Fleming are sadly at a clear disadvantage. The modern lame-brain pc type, sadly tosses these terms around willy nilly, like frisbees at the beach. The dog fetching the frisbee is generally more aware.
I would humbly posit, that there are just as many actual racists etc, in our present, not so superior society, as there were in Fleming's time (which really wasn't that long ago. He only died in middle age, less than 50 years ago) Hitler could probably recruit himself another Nazi Party in the present day, if he could manage events the same way he did last century.
What distinguished Fleming was that he was a provocative writer. There is no evidence that he harboured hateful attitudes towards any segment of society. Fleming comes across as a noble, decent caring, very human sort. There are plenty of Fleming-worthy provocative writers kicking around now-a-days too. Fleming wouldn't be hamstrung by noxious pc attitudes of today anymore than he was in his own day. The tut-tutting "superior"-thinking pc types are forever with us. They exist in every generation. The Flemings of the world though, rise above them to create great literature and/or honest provocative storytelling.
As for Boyd's book, yes it can and should be judged on its own merits, but I am not holding out much hope, knowing now how far removed Boyd truly is from the attitudes and sensibilities of Bond's originator. Not suitable to continue Flemings literary legacy.
However I am pleased to say my own library-order has arrived for pickup within mere days of placing the order last week, after determining the book was not worthy of purchase.
There can't be much demand for the book, if the library can deliver that quickly.
I will attempt to enjoy Boyd's scribblings on its own merits.
With the last two dreary Faulks and Deaver efforts, the bar has been set so low anyway, that a what-the-hell, once-more-into-the-breach approach can get one by.
With the Faulks, Deaver and Boyd experiment flops, I think what might be instructive here, three authors and three books deep, is that these otherwise exemplary award-winning authors are simply not suitable to write Bond.
We get way too much of them and what they are all about and not enough attention to what Fleming and Fleming's Bond was all about.
I'm not sure Amis, Pearson Gardner and the others necessarily quite captured Fleming's Bond either, but at least they didn't wander way off reservation, or engage in pithy pot-shot taking at the series originator.
Christ. If there were a medal for sycophancy you'd win it at a canter. Great, so called provocative storytellers, are masters of language. They don't make flippant racial slurs in pulp crime thrillers. Fleming is one of my favourite authors of all-time, that doesn't mean I can't see the glaringly obvious.
Provocative storytellers are masters of language?! That's it!? They're mere wordsmiths!? Very well, carry on.
Hope that doesn't offend, I'm merely 'provocative', feel free to feel morally inferior there. Racism IS morally inferior and I'm not afraid to say so, not even in the face of the frustrated tealiban Gestapo that's waxing away here in their rabid outrage.
RC7 quite beautifully put, this era is indeed a rich tapestry. But you could say the same for any number of other racist periods and I don't think they should be admired.