Anthony Burgess Picks Goldfinger for "99 Novels: The Best in English since 1939"

Revelator

In 1984 Anthony Burgess published Ninety-Nine Novels: The Best in English since 1939. Subtitled A Personal Choice, the idiosyncratic selection (listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninety-nine_Novels) includes the following entry.

Anthony Burgess wrote:

Goldfinger
Ian Fleming [1959]

Guardians of the good name of the novel (some of them, anyway) may be shocked at this inclusion. But Fleming raised the standard of the popular story of espionage through good writing—a heightened journalistic style—and the creation of a government agent—James Bond, 007—who is sufficiently complicated to compel our interest over a whole series of adventures. A patriotic lecher with a tinge of Scottish puritanism in him, a gourmand and amateur of vodka martinis, a smoker of strong tobacco who does not lose his wind, he is pitted against impossible villains, enemies of democracy, megalomaniacs. Auric Goldfinger is the most extravagant of these. He plans to rob Fort Knox of its fifteen billion dollars worth of gold, modestly calling the enterprise Operation Grand Slam, proposing to poison the Fort Knox water supply with “the most powerful of the Trilone group of nerve poisons”, then—with the aid of the six main American criminal groups (one of which is lesbian and headed by Pussy Galore)—to smash the vault doors with a stolen Corporal tactical nuclear missile, load the gold on to a Russian cruiser waiting off the coast of Virginia, and, presumably, concoct further villainies in opulent seclusion. Meanwhile the American forces of law and order are supposed to let all this happen. James Bond foils Goldfinger, delesbianizes Pussy Galore, and regards his impossible success as a mere job of work to be laconically approved, with reservations, by M, the head of his department. All this is, in some measure, a great joke, but Fleming's passion for plausibility, his own naval intelligence background, and a kind of sincere Manicheism, allied to journalistic efficiency in the management of his récit, make his work rather impressive. The James Bond films, after From Russia With Love, stress the fantastic and are inferior entertainment to the books. It is unwise to disparage the well-made popular. There was a time when Conan Doyle was ignored by the literary annalists, even though Sherlock Holmes was evidently one of the great characters of fiction. We must beware of snobbishness.

JWESTBROOK

I could see why Goldfinger would make this list, but only in a World absent of Ian Fleming's Moonraker.

That is the story Ian was meant to tell (aside from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang), and was only held believably within the tricky balance of escapism and realism by Ian's unique writing style. By the time we get to Goldfinger, it's pure imagination and escapism. It's the one story that without-a-doubt only worked as a product of the man. It is his masterpiece if his Bond series had to have one. It's what the previous books build to, and what the following books aspire to reach, but never do.

SaintMark

JWESTBROOK wrote:

I could see why Goldfinger would make this list, but only in a World absent of Ian Fleming's Moonraker.

That is the story Ian was meant to tell (aside from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang), and was only held believably within the tricky balance of escapism and realism by Ian's unique writing style. By the time we get to Goldfinger, it's pure imagination and escapism. It's the one story that without-a-doubt only worked as a product of the man. It is his masterpiece if his Bond series had to have one. It's what the previous books build to, and what the following books aspire to reach, but never do.

Indeed but GOLDFINGER is the bigger book when it comes to spy/heist/adventure novel. MOONRAKER by comparison is much more navelstaring in style, a darker and less glamerous book.

Thunderfinger

Agree with Burgess here. GF is my favorite Bond novel as well, I see many putting it down here for some reason, but I cannot find any flaws with it.

barryt007

Hmmm it's a fine book but its not Fleming's best.

MajorDSmythe

My feelings of the Goldfinger book, mirror those of the film, it's one of my least favourite in the cannon. It's just too... slow. Moonraker is my favourite (Fleming) Bond book.

barryt007

LALD is also a good one ,and i personally like DAF as well.And MR of course.

ggl007

Great find, Revelator! Thanks!

I disagree with the choice, but not with the text...

Perilagu_Khan

Glad to see a Fleming rightly placed among the elite but baffled by the choice of Goldfinger. It is among Fleming's weakest efforts. Oh sure, Fleming's prose is fully up to scratch, the plot and character development are great, but Auric's behavior is totally--contra what Burgess says--implausible. Again and again Bond meddles perniciously in Auric's affairs and again and again Auric lets Bond hang around, even hires him to join Operation Grand Slam! Frankly, it's ridiculous.

Julius No's behavior was infinitely more plausible. Like Goldfinger, No was engaged in a plot that ultimately would bring him unimaginable wealth and power. But unlike Goldfinger, when No senses that Bond--and Strangways before him--is getting too close for comfort, he sets out to eliminate Bond forthwith. This is rational behavior. Goldfinger, who Fleming repeatedly states is not mad, behaves completely irrationally vis-à-vis Bond. This is the novel's fatal flaw.

On the whole, Casino Royale, Moonraker, From Russia with Love and On Her Majesty's Secret Service are infinitely superior. You Only Live Twice, Dr. No, Thunderball and The Spy Who Loved Me are also a cut above. And I think I might even rate Diamonds Are Forever a bit higher than Goldfinger. Rather strange Burgess' affection for one of Fleming's lesser efforts. Alas, Anthony Horowitz seems stricken by the same odd malady.

Ludovico

We have a thread on Burgess maybe we should move it there. Regarding the op, and other comments, I doub my favourite author had much interest towards the believability of the plot. I think its implausibility may even have been considered an asset.

007InVT

Horowitz on Goldfinger:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/3670793/James-Bond-the-spy-who-changed-me.html

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128515960

007InVT

This is a cool series on NPR: http://www.npr.org/series/127374393/thrilled-to-death

Revelator

When I first read Burgess's selection my reaction was the same one given by everyone here--"why Goldfinger? That's not the best."
But let's look at it this way: GF is something of self-parody on Fleming's part, and perhaps that makes it the most "Bondian" of all the books. Whereas FRWL is influenced by Ambler, DN by Rohmer, CR by the hardboiled detective school, Goldfinger is 100% Fleming--it recycles and encapsulates all the most Flemingian elements honed in the previous books. It is the biggest and splashiest of the Bond stories, the most larger-than-life, and that undoubtedly attracted Burgess.
Many of us are predisposed to knock the book because we were first exposed to the film, one of the few which unmistakably improves on its source. Reading the book makes us doubly conscious of all the implausibilities that were ironed out by the film. But Burgess undoubtedly read the book first, and it's interesting that his cut-off point for the Bond films is FRWL--right before Goldfinger.

Ludovico

Revelator wrote:

When I first read Burgess's selection my reaction was the same one given by everyone here--"why Goldfinger? That's not the best."
But let's look at it this way: GF is something of self-parody on Fleming's part, and perhaps that makes it the most "Bondian" of all the books. Whereas FRWL is influenced by Ambler, DN by Rohmer, CR by the hardboiled detective school, Goldfinger is 100% Fleming--it recycles and encapsulates all the most Flemingian elements honed in the previous books. It is the biggest and splashiest of the Bond stories, the most larger-than-life, and that undoubtedly attracted Burgess.
Many of us are predisposed to knock the book because we were first exposed to the film, one of the few which unmistakably improves on its source. Reading the book makes us doubly conscious of all the implausibilities that were ironed out by the film. But Burgess undoubtedly read the book first, and it's interesting that his cut-off point for the Bond films is FRWL--right before Goldfinger.

I think you have something there. Goldfinger as a character is not unlike many of Burgess' ones, larger than life, grotesque and sinister.

I found it interesting too that he seemed to think little of the movie. Although the novel is flawed and often gets implausible (Goldfinger trusts Bond far too much and of course one cannot steal Fort Knox's gold in a few hours without being interrupted), I do think it it has elements that are superior to the movie: Bond, for instance, is far more proactive.

4EverBonded

I really loved reading Dr. No and From Russia with Love.
I would put both ahead of Goldfinger in terms of overall quality.

Ludovico

As spy novel, FRWL is superior. As an adventure novel, DN is. But I am wondering if, as novel, period, GF might not be better. But then again, I find TSWLM far superior to many of Fleming's novels.

Villiers53

What a great thread!
I particularly enjoyed the postings from @Revelator & @JWESTBROOK and the links from @007InVT.
Regarding Burgess' choice of 'Goldfinger,' I too have problems understanding why he selects it as Fleming's best. That said, I can't help but wonder to what extent, even the most diehard literary Bond aficionado is influenced by the film providing it makes a good representation of the book.
I say this as one that started reading the books in '62 and have read most of them, on multiple occasions, since.
For many years my favourites were FRWL & OHMSS. This wasn't always the case. I read FRWL before the movie was released and remember being quite bored and frustrated, not least of all because Bond didn't appear until practically a third of the way through.
At the time I read it, all the novels up to and including 'Thunderball' had been released in paperback but the only film out was 'Dr.No' and, guess what? In '62 this was also my favourite book!
All this changed when FRWL the movie came out. I reappraised the book and it became my favourite and so it went across the years, with good movies leading to my rereading the books and often reconsidering their merits.
The notable exception remains 'Moonraker'. A book that seems to have gained in popularity of late in the eyes of Mi6 contributors. Nobody could realistically claim that the appalling movie of the same name has enhanced anything yet, the casting of Craig as Bond enhances my view of the book because of their mutual grit and my ability to imagine him in a remake that remains relatively faithful to the book (make Drax an Al-Qaeda sympathiser and you have the only necessary plot change).
My contention is therefore that it was the relative merits of both the movie and the book that made Burgess pick 'Goldfinger' — it's difficult to separate the two once you've experienced them.

Ludovico

I don't think the movie had anything to do with his pick though. He seems to think very little about the movie, for one.

Maybe we are thinking too much about the novels as spy fiction and not as "pure" fiction. That Anthony Burgess chose one Bond novel, any of them, among a list of XXth century greatest novels is a bold statement in itself and should be appreciated as such. Not only does he consider Fleming literature, he says it is worthy literature. I don't think Umberto Eco even went that far.

Dragonpol

Ludovico wrote:

I don't think the movie had anything to do with his pick though. He seems to think very little about the movie, for one.

Maybe we are thinking too much about the novels as spy fiction and not as "pure" fiction. That Anthony Burgess chose one Bond novel, any of them, among a list of XXth century greatest novels is a bold statement in itself and should be appreciated as such. Not only does he consider Fleming literature, he says it is worthy literature. I don't think Umberto Eco even went that far.

Yes, he completely dismisses the films after FRWL, he makes that clear. Burgess, like Amis (Lucky Jim and The Anti-Death League feature in Burgess's list, too) before him was very against snobbism and pretentiousness in writing about genre fiction. He saw good fiction as purely that, good fiction. So, it is clear that the film had no influence on his inclusion of Goldfinger in his list of the Best 99 Novels since 1939.This is borne about by what we already know about Burgess and his deep appreciation and respect for the original In Fleming novels and short stories and by what he actually says in the piece on Goldfinger quoted above.

Villiers53

Dragonpol wrote:

Ludovico wrote:

I don't think the movie had anything to do with his pick though. He seems to think very little about the movie, for one.

Maybe we are thinking too much about the novels as spy fiction and not as "pure" fiction. That Anthony Burgess chose one Bond novel, any of them, among a list of XXth century greatest novels is a bold statement in itself and should be appreciated as such. Not only does he consider Fleming literature, he says it is worthy literature. I don't think Umberto Eco even went that far.

Yes, he completely dismisses the films after FRWL, he makes that clear. Burgess, like Amis (Lucky Jim and The Anti-Death League feature in Burgess's list, too) before him was very against snobbism and pretentiousness in writing about genre fiction. He saw good fiction as purely that, good fiction. So, it is clear that the film had no influence on his inclusion of Goldfinger in his list of the Best 99 Novels since 1939.This is borne about by what we already know about Burgess and his deep appreciation and respect for the original In Fleming novels and short stories and by what he actually says in the piece on Goldfinger quoted above.

You can dismiss them all you like but, once you've seen them, you've seen them and you can't eradicate that. Subliminally they will always be with you and will come into the equation, wether you recognise it or not.
If you've seen the screen adaptations, who can read TSWCIFTC without imagining the Burton movie. Ditto with TTSS and Alec Guinness. Both books are frequently sited as Le Carre's finest when 'The Honourable Schoolboy' is his best book.
I'm sure that the status of FRWL and OHMSS as favoured Bond novels is much influenced by the fact that they were both good books and good movies. The same is true of Goldfinger.

Dragonpol

Villiers53 wrote:

Dragonpol wrote:

Ludovico wrote:

I don't think the movie had anything to do with his pick though. He seems to think very little about the movie, for one.

Maybe we are thinking too much about the novels as spy fiction and not as "pure" fiction. That Anthony Burgess chose one Bond novel, any of them, among a list of XXth century greatest novels is a bold statement in itself and should be appreciated as such. Not only does he consider Fleming literature, he says it is worthy literature. I don't think Umberto Eco even went that far.

Yes, he completely dismisses the films after FRWL, he makes that clear. Burgess, like Amis (Lucky Jim and The Anti-Death League feature in Burgess's list, too) before him was very against snobbism and pretentiousness in writing about genre fiction. He saw good fiction as purely that, good fiction. So, it is clear that the film had no influence on his inclusion of Goldfinger in his list of the Best 99 Novels since 1939.This is borne about by what we already know about Burgess and his deep appreciation and respect for the original In Fleming novels and short stories and by what he actually says in the piece on Goldfinger quoted above.

You can dismiss them all you like but, once you've seen them, you've seen them and you can't eradicate that. Subliminally they will always be with you and will come into the equation, wether you recognise it or not.
If you've seen the screen adaptations, who can read TSWCIFTC without imagining the Burton movie. Ditto with TTSS and Alec Guinness. Both books are frequently sited as Le Carre's finest when 'The Honourable Schoolboy' is his best book.
I'm sure that the status of FRWL and OHMSS as favoured Bond novels is much influenced by the fact that they were both good books and good movies. The same is true of Goldfinger.

Well, if that is the case, how come MR is my favourite novel by Fleming and not OHMSS, which is my favourite Bond film. Some of us can close off our minds where film versions are concerned and thereby treat the literary Bond and the film Bond as very separate entities. Burgess and Amis were of this number and so am I to an extent. As I seldom rewatch some of the films, it's no wonder this is the case - there is little to no cross-pollination if you will, between these two distinct entities. Of course, you do have a point where some people are concerned (perhaps even, who knows, most people?) but there is a sizable minority that is unaffected by the Bond films of a particular novel and these can give the relative merits of each book and film adaptation. Burgess was one of these, I would argue.

Villiers53

Dragonpol wrote:

Villiers53 wrote:

Dragonpol wrote:

Ludovico wrote:

I don't think the movie had anything to do with his pick though. He seems to think very little about the movie, for one.

Maybe we are thinking too much about the novels as spy fiction and not as "pure" fiction. That Anthony Burgess chose one Bond novel, any of them, among a list of XXth century greatest novels is a bold statement in itself and should be appreciated as such. Not only does he consider Fleming literature, he says it is worthy literature. I don't think Umberto Eco even went that far.

Yes, he completely dismisses the films after FRWL, he makes that clear. Burgess, like Amis (Lucky Jim and The Anti-Death League feature in Burgess's list, too) before him was very against snobbism and pretentiousness in writing about genre fiction. He saw good fiction as purely that, good fiction. So, it is clear that the film had no influence on his inclusion of Goldfinger in his list of the Best 99 Novels since 1939.This is borne about by what we already know about Burgess and his deep appreciation and respect for the original In Fleming novels and short stories and by what he actually says in the piece on Goldfinger quoted above.

You can dismiss them all you like but, once you've seen them, you've seen them and you can't eradicate that. Subliminally they will always be with you and will come into the equation, wether you recognise it or not.
If you've seen the screen adaptations, who can read TSWCIFTC without imagining the Burton movie. Ditto with TTSS and Alec Guinness. Both books are frequently sited as Le Carre's finest when 'The Honourable Schoolboy' is his best book.
I'm sure that the status of FRWL and OHMSS as favoured Bond novels is much influenced by the fact that they were both good books and good movies. The same is true of Goldfinger.

Well, if that is the case, how come MR is my favourite novel by Fleming and not OHMSS, which is my favourite Bond film. Some of us can close off our minds where film versions are concerned and thereby treat the literary Bond and the film Bond as very separate entities. Burgess and Amis were of this number and so am I to an extent. As I seldom rewatch some of the films, it's no wonder this is the case - there is little to no cross-pollination if you will, between these two distinct entities. Of course, you do have a point where some people are concerned (perhaps even, who knows, most people?) but there is a sizable minority that is unaffected by the Bond films of a particular novel and these can give the relative merits of each book and film adaptation. Burgess was one of these, I would argue.

I think we are in agreement without knowing it!
My point is that a good film enhances the novel and a bad one is irrelevant.
Personally I think that many readers have a new (or old) found love of 'Moonraker' because it is Fleming's grittiest, flat out thriller that in many ways conforms more with the expectations and tastes of modern day readers than many of his other works.
For me it's number three after FRWL and OHMSS. It would make a fabulous movie either as a period TV drama or, if updated as a vehicle for Craig.

Perilagu_Khan

Villiers53 wrote:

Dragonpol wrote:

Ludovico wrote:

I don't think the movie had anything to do with his pick though. He seems to think very little about the movie, for one.

Maybe we are thinking too much about the novels as spy fiction and not as "pure" fiction. That Anthony Burgess chose one Bond novel, any of them, among a list of XXth century greatest novels is a bold statement in itself and should be appreciated as such. Not only does he consider Fleming literature, he says it is worthy literature. I don't think Umberto Eco even went that far.

Yes, he completely dismisses the films after FRWL, he makes that clear. Burgess, like Amis (Lucky Jim and The Anti-Death League feature in Burgess's list, too) before him was very against snobbism and pretentiousness in writing about genre fiction. He saw good fiction as purely that, good fiction. So, it is clear that the film had no influence on his inclusion of Goldfinger in his list of the Best 99 Novels since 1939.This is borne about by what we already know about Burgess and his deep appreciation and respect for the original In Fleming novels and short stories and by what he actually says in the piece on Goldfinger quoted above.

You can dismiss them all you like but, once you've seen them, you've seen them and you can't eradicate that. Subliminally they will always be with you and will come into the equation, wether you recognise it or not.
If you've seen the screen adaptations, who can read TSWCIFTC without imagining the Burton movie. Ditto with TTSS and Alec Guinness. Both books are frequently sited as Le Carre's finest when 'The Honourable Schoolboy' is his best book.
I'm sure that the status of FRWL and OHMSS as favoured Bond novels is much influenced by the fact that they were both good books and good movies. The same is true of Goldfinger.

Not with me, they're not. I hold the film You Only Live Twice in low regard, but rate the novel among the best thrillers I've ever read. By dint of effort it is possible for some of us to dissociate the films from the novels and vice versa.

Dragonpol

Perilagu_Khan wrote:

Villiers53 wrote:

Dragonpol wrote:

Ludovico wrote:

I don't think the movie had anything to do with his pick though. He seems to think very little about the movie, for one.

Maybe we are thinking too much about the novels as spy fiction and not as "pure" fiction. That Anthony Burgess chose one Bond novel, any of them, among a list of XXth century greatest novels is a bold statement in itself and should be appreciated as such. Not only does he consider Fleming literature, he says it is worthy literature. I don't think Umberto Eco even went that far.

Yes, he completely dismisses the films after FRWL, he makes that clear. Burgess, like Amis (Lucky Jim and The Anti-Death League feature in Burgess's list, too) before him was very against snobbism and pretentiousness in writing about genre fiction. He saw good fiction as purely that, good fiction. So, it is clear that the film had no influence on his inclusion of Goldfinger in his list of the Best 99 Novels since 1939.This is borne about by what we already know about Burgess and his deep appreciation and respect for the original In Fleming novels and short stories and by what he actually says in the piece on Goldfinger quoted above.

You can dismiss them all you like but, once you've seen them, you've seen them and you can't eradicate that. Subliminally they will always be with you and will come into the equation, wether you recognise it or not.
If you've seen the screen adaptations, who can read TSWCIFTC without imagining the Burton movie. Ditto with TTSS and Alec Guinness. Both books are frequently sited as Le Carre's finest when 'The Honourable Schoolboy' is his best book.
I'm sure that the status of FRWL and OHMSS as favoured Bond novels is much influenced by the fact that they were both good books and good movies. The same is true of Goldfinger.

Not with me, they're not. I hold the film You Only Live Twice in low regard, but rate the novel among the best thrillers I've ever read. By dint of effort it is possible for some of us to dissociate the films from the novels and vice versa.

Yes, that was what I was trying to say above there, @Perilagu_Khan. See a recent paper of mine on the Anthony Burgess and the Bond films subject matter here:

http://thebondologistblog.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/anthony-burgess-on-spy-who-loved-me.html

Revelator

Burgess's language also stresses that what he values about Goldfinger is its extravagance. Goldfinger is described as "the most extravagant of" Fleming's "impossible villains, enemies of democracy, megalomaniacs." Burgess glories in the plan to rob Fort Knox in detail, complete with its nerve poison, lesbian gangsters, nuclear missiles and Soviet cruisers. So far then, Burgess seems to value the book as merely "a great joke", but he believes it is far more, due to its expression via "good writing—a heightened journalistic style", Fleming's eye for detail and espionage experience, and "a kind of sincere Manicheism." By contrast, the later Bond films--in his opinion--express only the joke. They miss the other half of the equation.

"Sincere Manicheism," by the way, is a wonderful phrase--it captures Fleming's attitude toward villainy. You might recall that in Casino Royale Bond expresses doubt and moral relativism regarding the East/West struggle. But Mathis tells him "now that you have seen a truly evil man, you will know how evil they can be and you will go after them to destroy them in order to protect yourself and the people you love...You may want to be certain that the target really is black, but there are plenty of really black targets around." Bond sees the worth of those words by the end and tells himself "The business of espionage could be left to the white-collar boys. They could spy and catch the spies. He would go after the threat behind the spies." Fleming thus addresses and sidesteps the moral ambiguities of Greene and LeCarre--white-collar boys like George Smiley can go play at espionage, Bond will go after the really black targets and engage in the Manichean struggle of Bondian good versus monstrous evil. Goldfinger is surely the most flamboyant example of the black target--a black target that glitters.

Villiers53

Of course you can differentiate a bad cinematic translation of a good book. We all do.
My rationale is that a great cinematic translation of a great book is a mutual enhancement that will drive the title to be ever front of mind and ever favoured. You simply can't beat the power of two medias when they are well done.
What is peculiar about the Bond franchise is that you have some films that are quite close and quite faithful to the source material. You have others that have nothing at all to do with the novels.
Another shorter franchise that suffered in the same way was Deighton's 'unnamed spy series' (filmed as 'Harry Palmer').
The most famous and critically acclaimed story remains 'The Ipcress File'. The reason being it was a great book made into a great film.
His actual best book in the series and the favourite of many Deighton aficionado's (myself included) is 'Horse Under Water' which was never filmed and is little known today.
Another example is the work of the late, great, Ted Lewis. Most famous book; 'Jack's Return Home' (aka 'Get Carter'). His best book was 'GBH'. A novel never adapted for the screen.
I'm sure Burgess preferred the books to the films but 'Goldfinger' was the movie that triggered Bond mania and unless he was a hermit living on planet zorb he won't have been immune to this and it's bound to have had some sort of influence.

Dragonpol

Revelator wrote:

Burgess's language also stresses that what he values about Goldfinger is its extravagance. Goldfinger is described as "the most extravagant of" Fleming's "impossible villains, enemies of democracy, megalomaniacs." Burgess glories in the plan to rob Fort Knox in detail, complete with its nerve poison, lesbian gangsters, nuclear missiles and Soviet cruisers. So far then, Burgess seems to value the book as merely "a great joke", but he believes it is far more, due to its expression via "good writing—a heightened journalistic style", Fleming's eye for detail and espionage experience, and "a kind of sincere Manicheism." By contrast, the later Bond films--in his opinion--express only the joke. They miss the other half of the equation.

"Sincere Manicheism," by the way, is a wonderful phrase--it captures Fleming's attitude toward villainy. You might recall that in Casino Royale Bond expresses doubt and moral relativism regarding the East/West struggle. But Mathis tells him "now that you have seen a truly evil man, you will know how evil they can be and you will go after them to destroy them in order to protect yourself and the people you love...You may want to be certain that the target really is black, but there are plenty of really black targets around." Bond sees the worth of those words by the end and tells himself "The business of espionage could be left to the white-collar boys. They could spy and catch the spies. He would go after the threat behind the spies." Fleming thus addresses and sidesteps the moral ambiguities of Greene and LeCarre--white-collar boys like George Smiley can go play at espionage, Bond will go after the really black targets and engage in the Manichean struggle of Bondian good versus monstrous evil. Goldfinger is surely the most flamboyant example of the black target--a black target that glitters.

Very well said - especially about the inherent differences between Fleming's novels and those of the more "serious" school - Deighton and Le Carré. That's very neatly put. You are a great asset to Bond fora, dear @Revelator and I'm sure I'm far from the first to express that sentiment. Keep up your good work delving into the literary Bond reviews and articles.

Dragonpol

Villiers53 wrote:

Of course you can differentiate a bad cinematic translation of a good book. We all do.
My rationale is that a great cinematic translation of a great book is a mutual enhancement that will drive the title to be ever front of mind and ever favoured. You simply can't beat the power of two medias when they are well done.
What is peculiar about the Bond franchise is that you have some films that are quite close and quite faithful to the source material. You have others that have nothing at all to do with the novels.
Another shorter franchise that suffered in the same way was Deighton's 'unnamed spy series' (filmed as 'Harry Palmer').
The most famous and critically acclaimed story remains 'The Ipcress File'. The reason being it was a great book made into a great film.
His actual best book in the series and the favourite of many Deighton aficionado's (myself included) is 'Horse Under Water' which was never filmed and is little known today.
Another example is the work of the late, great, Ted Lewis. Most famous book; 'Jack's Return Home' (aka 'Get Carter'). His best book was 'GBH'. A novel never adapted for the screen.
I'm sure Burgess preferred the books to the films but 'Goldfinger' was the movie that triggered Bond mania and unless he was a hermit living on planet zorb he won't have been immune to this and it's bound to have had some sort of influence.

Yes, of course I get the point you are making there, @Villiers53. On the proposed filming of Horse Under Water and its relation to the Eon James Bond series please see this paper at my blog here:

http://thebondologistblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/george-lazenby-and-film-of-horse-under.html

It might be of some interest to you(?!)

Villiers53

Revelator wrote:

Burgess's language also stresses that what he values about Goldfinger is its extravagance. Goldfinger is described as "the most extravagant of" Fleming's "impossible villains, enemies of democracy, megalomaniacs." Burgess glories in the plan to rob Fort Knox in detail, complete with its nerve poison, lesbian gangsters, nuclear missiles and Soviet cruisers. So far then, Burgess seems to value the book as merely "a great joke", but he believes it is far more, due to its expression via "good writing—a heightened journalistic style", Fleming's eye for detail and espionage experience, and "a kind of sincere Manicheism." By contrast, the later Bond films--in his opinion--express only the joke. They miss the other half of the equation.

"Sincere Manicheism," by the way, is a wonderful phrase--it captures Fleming's attitude toward villainy. You might recall that in Casino Royale Bond expresses doubt and moral relativism regarding the East/West struggle. But Mathis tells him "now that you have seen a truly evil man, you will know how evil they can be and you will go after them to destroy them in order to protect yourself and the people you love...You may want to be certain that the target really is black, but there are plenty of really black targets around." Bond sees the worth of those words by the end and tells himself "The business of espionage could be left to the white-collar boys. They could spy and catch the spies. He would go after the threat behind the spies." Fleming thus addresses and sidesteps the moral ambiguities of Greene and LeCarre--white-collar boys like George Smiley can go play at espionage, Bond will go after the really black targets and engage in the Manichean struggle of Bondian good versus monstrous evil. Goldfinger is surely the most flamboyant example of the black target--a black target that glitters.

What a great summation albeit I think the real difference between Fleming and the Le Carre /Deighton/ Greene school is that Bond is a great, well written, fantasy whilst the serious school delivers great, well written fiction grounded in reality.

Dragonpol

Villiers53 wrote:

Revelator wrote:

Burgess's language also stresses that what he values about Goldfinger is its extravagance. Goldfinger is described as "the most extravagant of" Fleming's "impossible villains, enemies of democracy, megalomaniacs." Burgess glories in the plan to rob Fort Knox in detail, complete with its nerve poison, lesbian gangsters, nuclear missiles and Soviet cruisers. So far then, Burgess seems to value the book as merely "a great joke", but he believes it is far more, due to its expression via "good writing—a heightened journalistic style", Fleming's eye for detail and espionage experience, and "a kind of sincere Manicheism." By contrast, the later Bond films--in his opinion--express only the joke. They miss the other half of the equation.

"Sincere Manicheism," by the way, is a wonderful phrase--it captures Fleming's attitude toward villainy. You might recall that in Casino Royale Bond expresses doubt and moral relativism regarding the East/West struggle. But Mathis tells him "now that you have seen a truly evil man, you will know how evil they can be and you will go after them to destroy them in order to protect yourself and the people you love...You may want to be certain that the target really is black, but there are plenty of really black targets around." Bond sees the worth of those words by the end and tells himself "The business of espionage could be left to the white-collar boys. They could spy and catch the spies. He would go after the threat behind the spies." Fleming thus addresses and sidesteps the moral ambiguities of Greene and LeCarre--white-collar boys like George Smiley can go play at espionage, Bond will go after the really black targets and engage in the Manichean struggle of Bondian good versus monstrous evil. Goldfinger is surely the most flamboyant example of the black target--a black target that glitters.

What a great summation albeit I think the real difference between Fleming and the Le Carre /Deighton/ Greene school is that Bond is a great, well written, fantasy whilst the serious school delivers great, well written fiction grounded in reality.

Or what they deem to be the "reality" of espionage anyhow, within the remit of their own Intelligence experience and mindful of the "chilling effect" of the Official Secrets Acts 1911-1989. In many ways their espionage universe is as much as construct as it is in Fleming, though perhaps less obviously so, and though they would never admit it themselves, unlike the always above board Fleming himself of course.

Villiers53

[quote="Dragonpol"

Or what they deem to be the "reality" of espionage anyhow, within the remit of their own Intelligence experience and mindful of the "chilling effect" of the Official Secrets Acts 1911-1989. In many ways their espionage universe is as much as construct as it is in Fleming, though perhaps less obviously so, and though they would never admit it themselves, unlike the always above board Fleming himself of course. [/quote]

Now this I don't agree with at all. Every DG that has ever been at the head of Mi6 has praised the authenticity of Le Carre in particular.
David Cornwell had many years as a field operative and his only construct is the names he gave to the organisation and some positions and trade crafts. His novels are so close to reality you could substitute the name Kim Philby for Bill Hayden and you would have the whole Cambridge Spies saga.