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
yes, the character is different from most of the films (especially Old Roger), but the stories are great. Have to say though, DAF is not the best book to start on (I am currently re-re-re-re-reading the set, and have just started DAF), but having said that when I started reading I started at TMWTGG, an equally poor Fleming, and not a great one to start on, but that didn't stop me getting right into the books. Hope you enjoy reading them, and continue to do so as you get older. I'm 50 now and still get a great thrill from Bond.
Did you spend most of your time lying on the beach in Portugal? ;)
I did :) And at the pool, also watched the Dutch football/soccer team getting their behinds kicked :(
It contains some of Fleming's most beautiful passages, such as the chapter where Bond arrives in Jamaica. Honey is much more interesting in the book than in the movie. Doctor No and his backstory are fascinating, as is his demise.
But I feel that both Fleming, and the filmmakers, botched the "human endurance obstacle course." In the book, Bond is closely watched by No's underlings...why then would they not see it through to make sure he died at the hands of the squid? And in the movie, it doesn't come across as an obstacle course at all, just as an escape tunnel, which takes away an interesting aspect of No's character (and arguably, the reason why Fleming made him a doctor in the first place). Maybe it was too much of 1962 movie audiences to accept, although it seemed to be fine by 1958 reading audiences.
Dr No was always my favourite as a teen and young adult, but having re-read the books (currently re-reading) as a slightly older (hmm) person, my favourite changed to FRWL (also my favourite film - which it always has been). Still enjoy reading all the Flemings and have three complete sets of the books.
FRWL is different in that it takes a while to get going (we don't actually see Bond untl almost half way in). I certainly wouldn't recommend it for someone who'd never read Fleming before (I'd probably go with either CR or OHMSS). I just finished Amis' "Colonel Sun." One of the best Bond novels I've read. Reading "Goldfinger" next.
But I loved how Fleming handled the Vesper mention. And it's funny how trains play a significant part in yet another novel. Fleming had a thing about train climaxes.
I agree with the popular consensus that this is the rare Bond novel where the movie was better. It is still ridiculous that GF keeps Bond and Tilly on as his assistants (GF even mentions this at several points!) The elements of the atomic bomb and the mention of a nerve gas are on the page but the script rearranged them in a (slightly) more believable fashion. Tilly is not much of a character beyond her driving, and the script wisely took her out of the action early.
I just finished re-reading the Flemings over a period of about a year and it was interesting to read them as an adult as opposed to a teen (and also to read them so close together). I now see what my girlfriend's father says about Fleming - although he has all of the books (bought in the 60s!) he found Fleming to be a "terrible writer". My hackles immediately went up but now I see what he meant. The books are eminently readable and even the bad ones are still enjoyable in their own way. But as they go on Fleming recycles ideas, descriptions, and even specific turns-of-phrase. He also has characters speak rather clumsily in exposition instead of dialogue and relies hugely on coincidence to advance the plots. Not only that but he has things happen that at first seem cool but then seem ridiculous as soon as you think about them (i.e. Oddjob destroying the shelves). And the less said about his racial, gender and sexual politics the better (he has Bond think that homosexuality was caused by giving women the right to vote!).
BUT - and this is a big but - there are still so many good things about the books too - especially the early ones. I'll still read them again in the future but not in a slavishly worshipful way as I did as a teen.
Know what you mean thelordflasheart, but like yourself I still get a great kick out of reading them, half-way through the weakest at the moment (DAF - if you take TSWLM right out of the equation), but I find a lot of books, even the classics rely on coincidence to move the story along, it is after all fiction. One thing I would not like and that is to see the books edited for the 'politically correct' brigade - they are of their time and should remain so.
You mean like how Tom Sawyer was a while back? The racial slur edited from the text and all?
Hell yes, I'd forgotten about that - probably tried to expunge that from my mind! No one should mess with someone else work - if you find it offensive don't read/watch it, don't force you views/opinions on other folk.
Yes, it is from another time, and though it may seem racist, it has to be respected as the literature it is. I am waiting for LALD the novel, to be edited. Just look at chapter 7. Yikes.
I completely agree, thelordflasheart. Reading them as an adult is a different, although still rewarding, experience. I find that what impresses me now is how Fleming weaves details of previous missions and women casually into the text (e.g. Vesper in GF). I always find the Bond/M scenes consistently engaging. And the last chapter of almost every book is just about perfect. He knew how to give you just enough of a wrap-up.
I think the LALD chapter title was originally edited in the American version. However, now it is restored.
I agree. I'm not a believer in censorship.
Those who are more knowledgeable about Fleming the man would be able to comment on this but I have a supposition. I guess that Fleming was a man like my father - deeply unhappy despite his relative privilege and therefore prone to lashing out at "the other". My father seems to believe that there is a limited amount of happiness and of rights in the world - and therefore if someone else has some happiness or if someone is given a right (i.e. inter-racial marriage being made legal in '72) then it somehow must be taking something away from him. The only thing being taken away is a slight amount of privileged power - the top of the food chain is still the top, just not as dizzyingly high above everyone else as it was. It doesn't even affect his everyday life; it's just the *idea* that someone has something that he has that upsets him so. So he has the need to demonize everyone and everything that isn't part of his "identity group" so that he feels superior to them. Therefore women, gays, non-whites, non-christians etc are "inferior"...
(This reminds me of a hilarious image my girlfriend posted on Facebook, taken from an interview that Stephen Colbert did with Neil Patrick Harris. Colbert says "You're the most dangerous kind of homosexual because you make me feel like your happiness does nothing to diminish my own!")
On this subject, can anyone recommend a good biography of Fleming? Not necessarily one that is filled with tales of his derring-do in WWII (though that would be interesting too) but one that explores the character of the man and how that influenced his writing.
There apparently isn't an app for writing a good Bond book...
I can't digest this kind of James Bond: a yuppie/hipster/metrosexual spy. It's like he chose the Secret Service business just for kicks. I even imagined him with hipster glasses and listening to indie music after a few pages. Given that kind of Bond, then, how come does have that seemingly superior intelligence? Sure, we all know that James Bond is smart for a field agent. But James Bond being Sherlock Holmes/Sheldon Cooper smart is way off. I understand that this is part of reinventing Bond, but I see it as sacrilegious. Totally unnecessary.
Moving on, I see Deaver preferred to use his own style rather than Fleming's. I can accept that, since imitating Fleming can be a risky business (right, Sebastian Faulks?) This is basic action as basic as it can get. The only thing I don't like with the story is the overuse of secondary plots. It turned to something like Spider-Man 3. There's a story at the start we'll stop after a few pages, then return to the main plot, then stop again before bringing it back to the main plot.
It's not a bad book. It's good. Very good in fact. I like it a lot more than all of the past Bond novels combined. It's just that... James Bond is not James Bond, the locations went downhill as the story progress, and the product placement keeps flying (Bentley, Audi, Maserati, Rolex, Mini Cooper, even Apple. I confirmed Bond's yuppie status when he used his iPhone) But when it comes to pure action I'll go with this. This is the only Bond novel I "liked" since Icebreaker.
I can't really help there @thelordflash, sorry. but as fa as i remember there's a short documentary on Fleming on one of the dvd's. The normal ones, not the UA's. Allthough it might be on one of them as well. Anyway, what I wanted to say, I remember in that documentary it was said that Fleming and his eventual wife (she was still married when they started their affair) had a bit of a sadistic sex life, spanking and all. So I guess that's his personality shining through when it's about the spanking that @DB5 noticed.
I'm pretty sure it is on the The Living Daylights 007 Special Edition DVD.