Commercial Fiction and Bond

Like Sherlock Holmes and other famous genre characters, James Bond lives in a literary ghetto. Critics and fans, casual or otherwise,
celebrate the creation's iconic status, but smirk through the festivities. We see Bond novels as fun, escapist entertainment. So they are. The idea that they could do more, i.e. overturn established conventions of the series and tell exciting stories also serving as serious vehicles for exploring important themes, causes many to laugh. They are functional literature; not the literature of ideas or self-discovery, but the literature of airports, lunch breaks, and curling up in bed. It's popcorn, not steak.

Raymond Chandler knew about working in a literary ghetto. However, the classically educated Chandler didn't embrace the idea that genre fiction, by definition, must always be much more narrow in scope, trivial, and poorly written in comparison to its more ambitious counterparts. However, one book at a time beginning with The Big Sleep, Chandler drug the detective novel out of that self-imposed cultural ghetto and forced the leading critical voices of his generation to, grudgingly at least, acknowledge that a talented writer could transcend the genre. His crowning achievement, The Long Goodbye, was practically Jamesian. The story of loneliness, greed, despair, friendship, and failure in a fallen world still stands today as a glittering achievement unequaled, to that point, in the history of "popular" genre fiction.

I think that Raymond Chandler recognized something in Fleming when they met. I'd like to think that he noticed the same qualities in Fleming's work that I do. The enormous capacity for observation that consumed every detail. The fierce intelligence presiding over his unique point of view. The sly, winking sense of humor that emerged from the books and the dark voice that could cut like a blade through the action, the humor, and cataloging of details to chill the reader's mind. Fleming's prose was full of problems, but glimmers of deeper, richer talents were bubbling beneath the text. Chandler encouraged Fleming to widen his scope, to explore new territory with Bond, and Fleming obliged with From Russia, With Love, an iconic Bond novel, but unlike anything he had written before. The scope was much wider and the characters are drawn with greater care than ever before. Writing novels like The Spy Who Loved Me and You Only Live Twice further illuminate Fleming's desire to stretch and break new ground.

I think the Bond novels should aspire to more than the Jeffery Deavers of the world. Fleming's original conception of the character, not EON or IFP's conception, has untapped depths that Fleming's successors have only paid lip service to. Bond is Everyman with a dash of the exceptional, not some granite superhero preserving the world for the forces of good. Without that Everyman quality present in the Fleming novels, Bond is another Nick Carter or Mack Bolan, teenage boy wish fulfillment, a fictional fantasy without depth or resonance. Bond's shattering moments of humanity are what separates him from his imitators. It's time to take Bond out of the hands of talented hacks like Jeffery Deaver. It's time to return the character to its first principles and then rebuild from there. Put him in the hands of ambitious writers who can deliver high octane tales of suspense and adventure, draw fully-formed, flesh and blood characters rather than ciphers serving as plot devices, and explore interesting themes in an intelligent, complex way.

If you've stuck with this post this far, thanks for reading and I hope it hasn't bored you too much. These are thoughts I have had about the series for many years and I wanted to share them with the forum, for better or worse.

Interesting essay, Secret Treaties, with some debatable aspects.

I can't agree that ‘Bond is Everyman with a dash of the exceptional’. The old adage is that Bond is how everyman would like to be, and I think that's closer to the mark - most us run from danger not towards it. There is an everyman aspect to Bond, however, in that he is largely a blank canvas. That was key to Fleming’s commercial success: anyone can imagine himself as Bond. Some might say that somewhat undermines your view that the continuation novelists should ‘draw fully formed, flesh and blood characters rather than ciphers’ as Bond is little more than a cipher himself. We don't actually know much about him.

As for your statement that Bond’s ‘shattering moments of humanity are what separates him from his imitators’, I’d like you to expand on that , as can’t say I know what you mean. Perhaps you could also explain how Fleming's prose was full of problems. You might also enlarge your essay to take in the political aspects of Fleming’s work. Bond could be an unquestioning Empire loyalist, but in the later novels he was also a mouthpiece for Fleming’s less establishmentarian views on the Welfare state, MacMillan’s never-had-it-so-good Britain, and legalisation of drugs and prostitution. Fleming expressed these views outside the Bond books, but not to such a wide readership.

A more titillating approach might take in how Fleming’s mildly sadistic sexual practices influenced Bond’s behaviour. One of the observations Chandler made (prior to the publication of Goldfinger, IIRC) was that Fleming liked to have a torture scene in all his work.

I think it is his reaction to events like the death of Tracy, the subsequent quest for revenge in You Only Live Twice, and the death of Vesper that are perfect examples of "shattering moments of humanity".

Thanks for your thoughtful response and I'll answer each one of your points when I have more time.

Very good post, ST. We need more like this. Thoughtful, pregnant with a few ideas, but not so longwinded that nobody has the time to read it.

Amblerious,

You really think Bond is a cypher whom we know little about? I'm not so sure. Yes, Fleming doesn't supply a great deal of Bond's biographical information, but he more than makes up for that lack by plumbing Bond's psyche and elaborating his thought processes very extensively. Consequently, I feel like I have a pretty good grasp of who Bond is.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Amblerious,

You really think Bond is a cypher whom we know little about? I'm not so sure.

Other than his tastes in food, drink, breasts, cigarettes, toiletries, watches and cars, what do we really know about literary Bond? Not very much, I'd argue. A convincing character needs to be more than just a collection of brand names, but, IIRC, there isn't a great deal about his background or formative influences, at least in the early novels.

Also I don't recall Bond having any interest in the arts, and, as for books and music, I only recall him reading an Ambler paperback and a mention of the Inkspots. GIven that Fleming was something of a bibliophile, this apparent ignorance can only have been intentional.

I concede it's been a while since I read all the novels (seem to find myself returning to Casino Royale and Moonraker the most), so I am open to correction. Particularly if Rave is wielding the cane.

Fair points, Amblericus Maximus. And all correct, as far as they go. But I think we gain keen insight into Bond's psyche by understanding his attitude toward M, Leiter and his other friends, women, his work, England, the US, various ethnicities and racial groups, danger, violence, firearms, food and drink, driving, heath and fitness, etc. Fleming provides his readers with a wealth of information about Bond's attitude to those subjects and others besides.

I definitely agree that you can learn a great deal about a character from their attitudes alone. How they treat those closest to them, how they treat themselves.

Thanks for your comments, Erica. When I refer to the problems I see with Fleming's writing, I'm talking about jarring or amateurish elements in his prose. The same problems afflicting all creative writers, to a greater or lesser extent.

Any examples?

I'd also like to see examples. I don't claim Fleming's prose is faultless, but it's pretty damned good. Can't say I recall anything truly amateurish.

I'll dig up some examples later today when I have time to dip into the books, but among the sort of problems
I am talking about are occasions when the adverbs are either distracting, ugly, or needless. When I have the chance to comb through the books for a few choices to illustrate my point, however, I don't want my assertion that Fleming's prose has problems to suggest I think he is a poor writer. Far from it. As I said earlier, whatever problems his writing has are the same as those suffered by every other novelist who has lived, to a greater or lesser extent.

Or we could discuss the attitude of a professional writer who peppers his manuscript with exclamation points as a lark because someone pointed out he didn't use them much, but yet didn't attempt to stop them when they failed to catch his joke and published the book.

Secret Treaties wrote:

whatever problems his writing has are the same as those suffered by every other novelist who has lived.

I'm intrigued. What are the problems suffered by novelists who haven't lived?

They sleep with their smartphones. It´s a terrible affliction.

Santa wrote:

They sleep with their smartphones. It´s a terrible affliction.

Siri is my personal assistant and she speaks beautifully. Plus she has a wipe-clean cover.

I feel a bit sick.

Mission accomplished.

Erica Ambler wrote:

Secret Treaties wrote:

whatever problems his writing has are the same as those suffered by every other novelist who has lived.

I'm intrigued. What are the problems suffered by novelists who haven't lived?

Hah. Duly noted.

One example of "problematic" prose -

"As the lights went green he gave a blast on his triple horns, pulled out to the right at the intersection, accelerated brutally and got by, shaking his head angrily at the driver of the saloon as he passed it."

-Moonraker, Chapter 18

How about...

"When the lights turned green, he blasted his triple horns, turned right at the intersection, stomped the gas pedal and surged ahead, shaking his fist at the other driver as he passed."

or maybe...

"When the lights turned green, he blasted his triple horns, turned right at the intersection, and stomped the gas pedal. He surged ahead, shaking his fist at the other driver as he passed."

Either one are improvements over the original. You, of course, are inclined to disagree and see the original as full of charm and description. Let me say though that, no matter its faults, I like Moonraker. I'm just using the above quoted passage as an example and have no wish to knock the book as a whole.

The alternatives you post are of course much more efficient, pragmatic and to-the-point, but lack the colour of the original. A lot of the charm of Fleming's prose is how idiosyncratic and flawed it actually is. Another habit of his (which you've probably noticed) is how often fills a sentence with too many 'and's. I think the classic opening of Casino Royale is a good example of this. But despite breaking several basic rules of grammar, Fleming's prose gains an almost stream-of-conscious life and vigor because of it. I think if if the novels were subjected to closer editing, they might make more immediate sense, but they'd also be much duller reads.

Secret Treaties wrote:

One example of "problematic" prose -

"As the lights went green he gave a blast on his triple horns, pulled out to the right at the intersection, accelerated brutally and got by, shaking his head angrily at the driver of the saloon as he passed it."

-Moonraker, Chapter 18

What do you think is wrong with that sentence?

(Incidentally, I should add I Googled it and was taken to a site called omorashi.org. Well, I learnt something today.)

I honestly don't have a problem with the sentence in question, but I do applaud ST for taking a stab at besting Fleming.

I thought that my "revisions" would make it clear what I see being wrong with this paragraph, but I will break it down.

"As the lights went green he gave a blast on his triple horns, pulled out to the right at the intersection, accelerated brutally and got by, shaking his head angrily at the driver of the saloon as he passed it."

First, lights went green? Went is a weak verb compared to the obvious and much more sensible "turned". The colors went from red to green. What does went look like? To say "turned" gives the image a hint of physicality that the weak "went" lacks. It's like saying "He went out of the room" as opposed to "He walked out of the room". A difference in one verb sharpens the image.

"...he gave a blast on his triple horns"...

Again, clarity sharpens images. By writing "he blasted his triple horns" instead, you create a dual effect. The reader immediately knows that "he" didn't just use his triple horns, he slammed his hand into them and held it there. Fleming's original is cluttered and lacks the immediacy of a car horn blast. If he had even substituted "blast to" for "blast on", it would have been better.

"... pulled out to the right at the intersection..."

I disagree with pulled out. Again, indirect and lax. "turned right at the intersection" tells the reader what they need to know without the extra clutter. Immediacy is the goal.

"... accelerated brutally and got by"

Accelerated is ok, but I think "stomped the gas pedal" accomplishes everything Fleming is trying to convey here and without the ugly adverb. Give action physicality and don't take shortcuts like "brutally". It's too subjective. And got by? It's a matter of taste, but I think surging ahead is an improvement over "got by".

"...shaking his head angrily at the driver of the saloon as he passed it."

How do you shake your head angrily? Probably more than a few ways, but Fleming clouds the picture with the adverb and I'm not sure what constitutes an angry head shake in his world. Side to side? Head bobbing up and down? Instead of asking that, let's clean it up. Drax shakes his fist at the driver. Omitting saloon is a practical choice - it means different things in different parts of the world.

Quote :

A difference in one verb sharpens the image.

What if Fleming doesn't want a sharp image, but more of a blur? Fleming's skill in building tension partly lies in that lack of precision.

Quote :

Immediacy is the goal.

Not with Fleming. It's about how it's written, and the subconscious associations of certain words, not simply getting from A to B as quickly as possible.

Quote :

"... pulled out to the right at the intersection..."

I disagree with pulled out.

"Pulled out" implies a sense of dislocation that "turned around" lacks.

Secret Treaties wrote:

I thought that my "revisions" would make it clear what I see being wrong with this paragraph, but I will break it down.

"As the lights went green he gave a blast on his triple horns, pulled out to the right at the intersection, accelerated brutally and got by, shaking his head angrily at the driver of the saloon as he passed it."

First, lights went green? Went is a weak verb compared to the obvious and much more sensible "turned". The colors went from red to green. What does went look like? To say "turned" gives the image a hint of physicality that the weak "went" lacks. It's like saying "He went out of the room" as opposed to "He walked out of the room". A difference in one verb sharpens the image.

"...he gave a blast on his triple horns"...

Again, clarity sharpens images. By writing "he blasted his triple horns" instead, you create a dual effect. The reader immediately knows that "he" didn't just use his triple horns, he slammed his hand into them and held it there. Fleming's original is cluttered and lacks the immediacy of a car horn blast. If he had even substituted "blast to" for "blast on", it would have been better.

"... pulled out to the right at the intersection..."

I disagree with pulled out. Again, indirect and lax. "turned right at the intersection" tells the reader what they need to know without the extra clutter. Immediacy is the goal.

"... accelerated brutally and got by"

Accelerated is ok, but I think "stomped the gas pedal" accomplishes everything Fleming is trying to convey here and without the ugly adverb. Give action physicality and don't take shortcuts like "brutally". It's too subjective. And got by? It's a matter of taste, but I think surging ahead is an improvement over "got by".

"...shaking his head angrily at the driver of the saloon as he passed it."

How do you shake your head angrily? Probably more than a few ways, but Fleming clouds the picture with the adverb and I'm not sure what constitutes an angry head shake in his world. Side to side? Head bobbing up and down? Instead of asking that, let's clean it up. Drax shakes his fist at the driver. Omitting saloon is a practical choice - it means different things in different parts of the world.

This is a good effort. And I actually agree with a few of your points. I'll note my disagreements below.

"pulled out to the right at the intersection": I think you misunderstand Fleming here. What he is saying is that Bond is changing lanes, not that he is turning at the intersection, which is what your alternative suggests. Clearly, Bond passes the driver, which one does by changing lanes, not turning right at an intersection.

"accellerated brutally and got by": I agree and disagree with you here. I have no problem with "accellarated brutally." That is a classically colorful Fleming phrase and is much superior to the prosaic and vulgar "stomped on the gas pedal." I'll grant you that "surged ahead" is a clear improvement over "got by."

"shaking his head angrily at the driver of the saloon as he passed it": I shake my head angrily, or better yet, in disgust, frequently at idiotic drivers. I know just where Fleming's coming from, but I do think "in disgust" is more accurate than "angrily."

At any rate, this has been an interesting exercise.

Secret Treaties wrote:

"stomped the gas pedal"

Fleming was British.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

"pulled out to the right at the intersection": I think you misunderstand Fleming here. What he is saying is that Bond is changing lanes, not that he is turning at the intersection, which is what your alternative suggests. Clearly, Bond passes the driver, which one does by changing lanes, not turning right at an intersection.

Indeed, you're quite right.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

"accellerated brutally and got by": I agree and disagree with you here. I have no problem with "accellarated brutally." That is a classically colorful Fleming phrase and is much superior to the prosaic and vulgar "stomped on the gas pedal." I'll grant you that "surged ahead" is a clear improvement over "got by."

We'll agree to disagree about the first part of this. I think a prosaic and vulgar description for hitting the gas pedal is quite appropriate. Describing it otherwise as "accelerated brutally" is an affectation.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

At any rate, this has been an interesting exercise.

Couldn't agree more. It's no sign of disrespect that I would point out "flaws" I find in Fleming's prose and I enjoy Moonraker a great deal. Fleming has a fascinating style and it is an interesting exercise to break down his writing and study how he achieves his effects.