Controversial opinions about the books

1246789

Comments

  • Posts: 15,234
    In OHMSS SPECTRE could be reborn, but still in its "new" infancy so to speak. In YOLT I wonder why it was not mentioned.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,348
    Ludovico wrote:
    I always understood it like this: Blofeld created in the past other criminal networks which he disbanded as necessity. He IS SPECTRE. At the end of TB the organization is destroyed as its leaders are captured or killed. Sure, in TSWLM it is supposed to be active, but Fleming did not consider it canon. In OHMSS it is fairly safe to assume that Blofeld is working to recreate SPECTRE in a new form, in parallel with his other nefarious activities. In YOLT, I don't think it matters at all, his motivations being completely nihilistic.

    Or already has recreated. Bond suggests that the old SPECTRE "triangular cell" system is back in play with the various "staff" who administrate the Piz Gloria "clinic."

    In YOLT, while it is true that SPECTRE is essentially irrelevant, you'd think Fleming, Bond or Blofeld himself would mention SPECTRE if for no other reason than to provide a bit of historical grounding for Blofeld. A reader new to Bond who picked up YOLT as his first read would conclude that novel clueless about Blofeld's rich past in organized crime at the most grand level.

    Yes, but you seem to be forgetting that Blofeld does indeed mention how his past masterplans in TB and OHMSS were foiled by Bond. This references his past with SPECTRE even if he does not . As always, I think that Fleming was being much more realistic than were the later Bond films where SPECTRE kept coming back with Blofeld countless times. In Fleming's world SPECTRE only came back once after TB. In YOLT it was just the mad king Blofeld lobbing off people's heads with a samurai sword, years before the serial killer fiction craze of the 1990s that Blofeld's plan to maximise Japanese suicides in his Garden of Death is akin to.
  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Benson is Underated

    Related: Never Dream of Dying is better than some of Fleming's work.
  • I do not like Kerim Bey. He was very likable in the film and in the book he had his moments, but abducting a woman and keeping her chained naked under the table? This guy is worse than Scaramanga!
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    edited December 2014 Posts: 1,731
    Sark wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Benson is Underated

    Related: Never Dream of Dying is better than some of Fleming's work.

    Benson's books are fun, yes. They lack subtlety & class though compared to Fleming's writing.
    But the one you mention probably is a better book than GF and TMWTGG (books), god those were boring.
  • Posts: 15,234
    Both GF and TMWTGG, while not his best, are great fun to read.
  • Ludovico wrote: »
    Both GF and TMWTGG, while not his best, are great fun to read.

    Yes. Fleming at his worst beats the vast majority of thriller-writers at their best.

  • Ludovico wrote: »
    Maybe not a controversial opinion, but an hypothesis: Fleming may have thought of CR as a one off, not the beginning of a series? Do we know if he intend to write more than one Bond story when he wrote it?

    Well with CR he said he wanted to write "the spy story to end all spy stories" iirc. So maybe he thought of it as a one off. But then the SMERSH stuff suggests to me that he had sequels in mind so I'm not sure.
  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    I do not like Kerim Bey. He was very likable in the film and in the book he had his moments, but abducting a woman and keeping her chained naked under the table? This guy is worse than Scaramanga!

    Yeah that was insane. I know it was a different time, and Fleming's novels had plenty of objectionable content to modern mores (racism, homophobia, sexism, etc) but that may have taken the cake.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    @Kerim, what do you have to say in your defence?
    I do not like Kerim Bey. He was very likable in the film and in the book he had his moments, but abducting a woman and keeping her chained naked under the table? This guy is worse than Scaramanga!

    I hope you will release this woman ASAP.
  • Posts: 15,234
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Maybe not a controversial opinion, but an hypothesis: Fleming may have thought of CR as a one off, not the beginning of a series? Do we know if he intend to write more than one Bond story when he wrote it?

    Well with CR he said he wanted to write "the spy story to end all spy stories" iirc. So maybe he thought of it as a one off. But then the SMERSH stuff suggests to me that he had sequels in mind so I'm not sure.

    My bet: he did like many firs-time writers do. Write one novel first, get it published, if there is a readership asking for more James Bond adventures, fine, if not, then at least he'd have written a great spy novel.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I hate this culture of reflexive offense that we are in now entrenched in. Just appreciate the movie, book, play, etc as it is. Life and humanity are not always pretty. Art shouldn't be compromised in the name of delicate sensibilities. If one finds so much about Bond's history bothersome, maybe they should take a pass. I believe MY LITTLE PONY tends to illustrate the sunnier aspects of life, so there's that. If you don't think people like Kerim existed (and still exist), who rape women and kill with brutality, you're naive. The US and UK governments have a long rich history of backing and employing murderers, despots and rogues. Fleming was the real deal, he wrote form experience and what he knew to be true. Bond was created to illustrate the darker, more purient aspects of humanity. His, and his allies', likability (worse, his "relatability") was not a consideration.

    It's even worse when people on PC tirades try and sometimes succeed in taking out "offensive content" from books over a century old, especially the classics. I mean, really? Why soil these time capsules that give us an idea of what the world used to be like at the times they were published so we could, oh, I don't know, study and learn from it?
  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I hate this culture of reflexive offense that we are in now entrenched in. Just appreciate the movie, book, play, etc as it is. Life and humanity are not always pretty. Art shouldn't be compromised in the name of delicate sensibilities. If one finds so much about Bond's history bothersome, maybe they should take a pass. I believe MY LITTLE PONY tends to illustrate the sunnier aspects of life, so there's that. If you don't think people like Kerim existed (and still exist), who rape women and kill with brutality, you're naive. The US and UK governments have a long rich history of backing and employing murderers, despots and rogues. Fleming was the real deal, he wrote form experience and what he knew to be true. Bond was created to illustrate the darker, more purient aspects of humanity. His, and his allies', likability (worse, his "relatability") was not a consideration.

    Ill appreciate the movies and books however I like. I love the books, but Im not going to pretend there isnt things that wouldn't be appropriate today. Id never encourage a black friens to read LALD for instance. No one is suggesting that the books be burned or edited; just a recognition that we've made some progress as a society that some attitudes are no longe acceptable.

    Im not sure where youre getting the impression that I or anyone else thinks that rapists and kidnappers dont exist @-) of course they do. But people who rape and kidnap women are usually considered to be *bad guys*. I found Kermin's comment that the woman wouldnt leave and that maybe thats a lesson in female psychology amusing. Yeah, its called Stockholm Syndrome.

    And Fleming was definitely trying to make Kermin a likable character. He mentions how much Bond likes him several timea and goes to great lengths to put him in a positive light.

  • edited December 2014 Posts: 7,507
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I hate this culture of reflexive offense that we are in now entrenched in. Just appreciate the movie, book, play, etc as it is. Life and humanity are not always pretty. Art shouldn't be compromised in the name of delicate sensibilities. If one finds so much about Bond's history bothersome, maybe they should take a pass. I believe MY LITTLE PONY tends to illustrate the sunnier aspects of life, so there's that. If you don't think people like Kerim existed (and still exist), who rape women and kill with brutality, you're naive. The US and UK governments have a long rich history of backing and employing murderers, despots and rogues. Fleming was the real deal, he wrote form experience and what he knew to be true. Bond was created to illustrate the darker, more purient aspects of humanity. His, and his allies', likability (worse, his "relatability") was not a consideration.

    It's even worse when people on PC tirades try and sometimes succeed in taking out "offensive content" from books over a century old, especially the classics. I mean, really? Why soil these time capsules that give us an idea of what the world used to be like at the times they were published so we could, oh, I don't know, study and learn from it?

    Like the Bible for example? :P
  • Posts: 15,234
    Here is one that has its own thread (started by myself): OHMSS is inspired by Dracula.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,835
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Fleming has even said Bond isn't meant to be likable.
    It's been said that if you want to BE Bond in a movie you've seen, then either that movie did not depict Fleming's Bond well, or you need help.
    :))
  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Fleming has even said Bond isn't meant to be likable.
    It's been said that if you want to BE Bond in a movie you've seen, then either that movie did not depict Fleming's Bond well, or you need help.
    :))

    The film Bond is definitely different than the literary one, and Cubby said of the film version that "every man wants to be him."

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,835
    Sark wrote: »
    Cubby said of the film version that "every man wants to be him."
    Which means... the Bond of DN, FRWL, TLD, LTK, CR, QOS and SF are closer to the literary Bond than all the rest, does it not? ;)
  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    I'm afraid I don't follow your logic.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,835
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I think he's saying that Bond is more of a cold bastard in those films.
    Thank you.
  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    Ok, I'm not sure what your point is then? @Birdleson said that Bond wasn't supposed to be likable (and presumably a role model), but Cubby pretty clearly thought he was a role model of sorts.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,835
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Fleming Bond is not EON Bond.
    Not all the time. Not mostly in fact. And that fluctuation is what's kept it alive for so long.
    IMO.
  • Posts: 7,653
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Sark wrote: »
    Cubby said of the film version that "every man wants to be him."
    Which means... the Bond of DN, FRWL, TLD, LTK, CR, QOS and SF are closer to the literary Bond than all the rest, does it not? ;)

    NO it means that everybody wants the luxury, the women and the excitement, and he is refering to the cinematic 007, Connery & Moore.

    Cubby most certainly never made any remarks about the Craig era. Unless some journalist has some connections that would annoy the heck out of Vatican central. ;)
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,348
    I like and defend to the hilt John Gardner's Never Send Flowers (1993).
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    edited December 2014 Posts: 1,731
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Cubby most certainly never made any remarks about the Craig era. Unless some journalist has some connections that would annoy the heck out of Vatican central. ;)

    Erm, Cubby Broccoli died in 1996... or have you 'communicated' with him about Craig's portrayal since then? :)
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,731
    Birdleson wrote: »
    That was @SaintMark 's (fairly obvious) point.

    Hmm... must be losing it. Didn't register SaintMark's last sentence at all when I was reading it. I blame it on the new-father fatigue syndrome.
  • Posts: 7,653
    AceHole wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    That was @SaintMark 's (fairly obvious) point.

    Hmm... must be losing it. Didn't register SaintMark's last sentence at all when I was reading it. I blame it on the new-father fatigue syndrome.

    And that is a absolute plausible defense, I recall those early days as well and they were magical and tiring. Good luck and enjoy it since it does not last so long. Before you know it they will give you lip.
  • Birdleson wrote: »
    I hate this culture of reflexive offense that we are in now entrenched in. Just appreciate the movie, book, play, etc as it is. Life and humanity are not always pretty. Art shouldn't be compromised in the name of delicate sensibilities. If one finds so much about Bond's history bothersome, maybe they should take a pass. I believe MY LITTLE PONY tends to illustrate the sunnier aspects of life, so there's that. If you don't think people like Kerim existed (and still exist), who rape women and kill with brutality, you're naive. The US and UK governments have a long rich history of backing and employing murderers, despots and rogues. Fleming was the real deal, he wrote form experience and what he knew to be true. Bond was created to illustrate the darker, more purient aspects of humanity. His, and his allies', likability (worse, his "relatability") was not a consideration.

    For the record, I'm not complaining at all about the quality of the book or characters. I don't have a problem with the character existing, I think he's a very realistic and interesting character. I just don't like the guy personally, just as I don't like General Medrano or Le Chiffre.
  • MrBondMrBond Station S
    Posts: 2,044
    Let's resurrect this thread.

    I find TMWTGG to be one excellent piece of writing, not really up to the level of the previous two but nevertheless extremely good. A fitting way to conclude the arc, by almost closing it where it started in terms of Bond as a character.

    The opening chapters in Colonel Sun rivals the best of Fleming. I was astounded when I read the first 60-70 pages.

    For Special Services is miles ahead of Licence Renewed.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited October 2016 Posts: 6,393
    MrBond wrote: »
    Siberia wrote:
    Lots of sloppy plotting abounds in the Fleming novels. I recently read OHMSS and had to laugh at Blofeld straight up asking "Sir Hilary" if he was 007, then letting him go back to his room to hatch an escape plan.

    Not a terribly controversial opinion in decades past - Amis catalogued all sorts of howlers like this - but these days people have forgotten that Fleming's skill wasn't in his plotting (which was Silva-level most of the time), but in his ability to paper over these deficiencies.

    Plotting was never Fleming's strong point, going back to at least MR. But he excelled at character and atmosphere, which is why the quieter elements of the novel retained in the film CR worked so well.
    Walecs wrote: »
    Funny thing, SPECTRE never gets mentioned in YOLT.

    I'm not sure this was an accident. If I remember my timeline correctly, Fleming was already in conflict with McClory and may not have wanted to bring up the "S" word.
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote:
    That's partially why I said YOLT is not spy fiction, or only very peripherically. It is a nightmarish tale about loss of identity and belonging. Maybe Fleming's best novel.

    Agreed. It's one of his most brilliantly bizarre and offbeat pieces. No world domination plot here (cf. the film version). I hope to explore that further in the paper as it's an idea I've had for a good while now and I want to explore it more in-depth. I see the Blofeld of YOLT as a veritable mad hatter, a lunatic like the ranting Hitler in the Fuhrerbunker and equally as much out of touch with reality. We are told of "that lunatic Hitlerian scream" from Blofeld in the Garden of Death at one point in the novel for instance.
    [/quote]

    This is interesting. Do you think the events of SP--foiled for the fourth time--could push Blofeld to this level of lunacy in Bond 25, or do Bond and Blofeld need more history first (something more with Swann, probably)?

    If we're lucky, we'll get one more film with Craig and Waltz, so Eon unfortunately doesn't have the luxury of stretching this arc out over several films.
Sign In or Register to comment.