Introducing my 007-part passion project: Battle of the Bonds

Somberset wrote:

What are you on about?

To begin with, the “umbrage” taken by MKKBB was not, per you, because you innocently wished to share your thoughts on the franchise but rather because you knowingly hawked yourself at us via some platform-building social site sans attempt at even the pretense of engaging the community. Twelve of your thirteen posts to this point are in this marketeering thread, while the one other one is in someone else’s (also belching into the ether) product thread, revealing your actual motive as not to generate discussion but clicks, and not join BaB so much as use it to network (better to try the local Starbucks next time).

I also have to tell you that I struggle relating to someone who would write an eight part essay series on a character that they feel truly hates women. “Facta non verba.” Common where theoretical anti-"ism" stances constitute cheap exhibitions of virtue. You want to have your cake and eat it too. Granted, I might not be as morally cognizant in my service towards progress, but very simply if I genuinely believed the character hated women I would not make it very far in watching. That you continue to watch in spite of your belief in Bond’s “misogyny” indicates to me that you have on the one hand reached an intellectual conclusion of what is going on but on the other hand a more intuitive grasp that it's not so simple (else you would simply “cancel” him).

Hence why reducing Fleming to the label of “entitled sexist, racist, and homophobe” is woefully inadequate and reductive in the face of your admitting you understand the “complexities of analyzing the past through the modern lens.” It seems not, since to label him as such implies he was somehow more “-ist” than others of his own time, which he was not. As in law there must be a statute of limitations on the retroactive bigotry. No end point otherwise.

I think it is fine if maybe at one time you enjoyed these films but life has since put you at ideological odds with them (I wouldn’t know — I didn’t give you a click to find out your history). But if so, just move on. The mental dance routine needed to keep the delusion in alignment would take so much out of me that I would not be able to process the even latest Shonda Rimes tv series.

avl_bmb wrote:

of a certain unenlightened era
...
To shy away from these unfortunate truths would be a disservice to progress.

This sounds so advanced. The history of the second half of the twentieth century (most of which Fleming spent dead) would laugh at the idea of progress outside science.

To take some other topic on par with the low stakes of James Bond commentary, let me point out that one of the most “racist” films I can think of (and this is using any contemporary definition of “racism”) was released just less than 18 months ago, achieved wide critical acclaim, was nominated for and won awards, and had the second highest streaming numbers of any film released that year. But the Borat sequel gets a pass because it “only” demeans the people of Kazakhstan, demonstrating that insults directed at some peoples but not others are fine, as insidious a form of “racism” as there ever was.

“Progress.” A faith that comes not so much from belief as from fear of what it might mean for its devotees to give it up.

I am embarrassed at having gone on at such length. I’ll hose off out back.

You are confused.

I care not about your clicks.

This forum is built upon the sharing of Bond thoughts, opinions, and musings, is it not?  Of the several Bond message boards in which I've shared my works, only Bond and Beyond has responded with such tribalistic hostility.  Less censored?  Perhaps.  More adult?  Perhaps not.

I wouldn't have embarked on such an undertaking if I didn't love the franchise.  Would a few more topic replies, or the posting of my complete works by way of individual threads instead of links, really give way to more of a community acceptance?  Sarai was game to jump in and see what all the fuss is about.  They engaged, read up on my stances, disagreed, and responded in kind.  No Starbucks necessary.

Read the pieces before you feel inclined to come at me with these senseless acquisitions.  Why is it such a problem to point out the fact that Bond has historically treated women like shit?  Why is it so controversial to point out the obvious about Fleming?  Every straight (are we sure Fleming was?) white man of the era was just as deplorable, sure, but not all other straight white males went on to create such powerful pop culture iconography.  The man clearly had deep-seated issues he sought to assuage with his works.  It's important that we, through the modern lens, acknowledge this fact.

Bond doesn't hate women; Bond loves women.  Still, I bristle at the character sleeping with Miss Taro to kill time after he's gathered his intel in Dr. No, "turning" Pussy Galore through sexual manipulation in Goldinger, and threatening to report Patricia Fearing if she doesn't go along with his primal desires in Thunderball.  It's not just a Connery issue of the 60s either; every Bond actor has a moment like this we can point to, even Craig.  Acknowledging these facts does not equal hating the character, the franchise, or the original creator.  Every Bond fan should be cognizant of these unfortunate truths, no matter when they occurred or how socially "acceptable" they were deemed at the time.

You are unoriginal in your aired grievances, Somberset, and I always preferred pie to cake anyway.  I don't know what it is about Bond fandom (maybe it's just fandom in general), but on several occasions (mostly through social media, admittedly) I have bumped up against fans defending the good ol' days, decrying a so-called "wokeness" or "cancel culture," and claiming my conversation starters as attacks on a franchise I love dearly.  It is because I love this franchise so dearly that I start these conversations.  The preciousness is unneeded, unnecessary, and unbecoming.

Pass the hose, please.

What the fuck are you guys talking about man?

(I said that in "The Dudes' voice so you could hear my tone.)

avl_bmb wrote:

Somberset wrote:

What are you on about?

To begin with, the “umbrage” taken by MKKBB was not, per you, because you innocently wished to share your thoughts on the franchise but rather because you knowingly hawked yourself at us via some platform-building social site sans attempt at even the pretense of engaging the community. Twelve of your thirteen posts to this point are in this marketeering thread, while the one other one is in someone else’s (also belching into the ether) product thread, revealing your actual motive as not to generate discussion but clicks, and not join BaB so much as use it to network (better to try the local Starbucks next time).

I also have to tell you that I struggle relating to someone who would write an eight part essay series on a character that they feel truly hates women. “Facta non verba.” Common where theoretical anti-"ism" stances constitute cheap exhibitions of virtue. You want to have your cake and eat it too. Granted, I might not be as morally cognizant in my service towards progress, but very simply if I genuinely believed the character hated women I would not make it very far in watching. That you continue to watch in spite of your belief in Bond’s “misogyny” indicates to me that you have on the one hand reached an intellectual conclusion of what is going on but on the other hand a more intuitive grasp that it's not so simple (else you would simply “cancel” him).

Hence why reducing Fleming to the label of “entitled sexist, racist, and homophobe” is woefully inadequate and reductive in the face of your admitting you understand the “complexities of analyzing the past through the modern lens.” It seems not, since to label him as such implies he was somehow more “-ist” than others of his own time, which he was not. As in law there must be a statute of limitations on the retroactive bigotry. No end point otherwise.

I think it is fine if maybe at one time you enjoyed these films but life has since put you at ideological odds with them (I wouldn’t know — I didn’t give you a click to find out your history). But if so, just move on. The mental dance routine needed to keep the delusion in alignment would take so much out of me that I would not be able to process the even latest Shonda Rimes tv series.

avl_bmb wrote:

of a certain unenlightened era
...
To shy away from these unfortunate truths would be a disservice to progress.

This sounds so advanced. The history of the second half of the twentieth century (most of which Fleming spent dead) would laugh at the idea of progress outside science.

To take some other topic on par with the low stakes of James Bond commentary, let me point out that one of the most “racist” films I can think of (and this is using any contemporary definition of “racism”) was released just less than 18 months ago, achieved wide critical acclaim, was nominated for and won awards, and had the second highest streaming numbers of any film released that year. But the Borat sequel gets a pass because it “only” demeans the people of Kazakhstan, demonstrating that insults directed at some peoples but not others are fine, as insidious a form of “racism” as there ever was.

“Progress.” A faith that comes not so much from belief as from fear of what it might mean for its devotees to give it up.

I am embarrassed at having gone on at such length. I’ll hose off out back.

You are confused.

I care not about your clicks.

This forum is built upon the sharing of Bond thoughts, opinions, and musings, is it not?  Of the several Bond message boards in which I've shared my works, only Bond and Beyond has responded with such tribalistic hostility.  Less censored?  Perhaps.  More adult?  Perhaps not.

I wouldn't have embarked on such an undertaking if I didn't love the franchise.  Would a few more topic replies, or the posting of my complete works by way of individual threads instead of links, really give way to more of a community acceptance?  Sarai was game to jump in and see what all the fuss is about.  They engaged, read up on my stances, disagreed, and responded in kind.  No Starbucks necessary.

Read the pieces before you feel inclined to come at me with these senseless acquisitions.  Why is it such a problem to point out the fact that Bond has historically treated women like shit?  Why is it so controversial to point out the obvious about Fleming?  Every straight (are we sure Fleming was?) white man of the era was just as deplorable, sure, but not all other straight white males went on to create such powerful pop culture iconography.  The man clearly had deep-seated issues he sought to assuage with his works.  It's important that we, through the modern lens, acknowledge this fact.

Bond doesn't hate women; Bond loves women.  Still, I bristle at the character sleeping with Miss Taro to kill time after he's gathered his intel in Dr. No, "turning" Pussy Galore through sexual manipulation in Goldinger, and threatening to report Patricia Fearing if she doesn't go along with his primal desires in Thunderball.  It's not just a Connery issue of the 60s either; every Bond actor has a moment like this we can point to, even Craig.  Acknowledging these facts does not equal hating the character, the franchise, or the original creator.  Every Bond fan should be cognizant of these unfortunate truths, no matter when they occurred or how socially "acceptable" they were deemed at the time.

You are unoriginal in your aired grievances, Somberset, and I always preferred pie to cake anyway.  I don't know what it is about Bond fandom (maybe it's just fandom in general), but on several occasions (mostly through social media, admittedly) I have bumped up against fans defending the good ol' days, decrying a so-called "wokeness" or "cancel culture," and claiming my conversation starters as attacks on a franchise I love dearly.  It is because I love this franchise so dearly that I start these conversations.  The preciousness is unneeded, unnecessary, and unbecoming.

Pass the hose, please.

“Go blow up your pants!"

Believe it or not, I spent a fortnight in Asheville 20 years ago ... a friend was working in a school there, and I visited him for my summer holiday that year.

Not sure if avi_bmb's posts indicate that the place has become 'woke' since, but when I was there the place was almost comedically conservative ... guns in the local Wal-Mart, a 45-minute drive to the one place that sold alcohol, hellfire-and-brimstone preachers from one end of the radio dial to the other, funny looks from the locals on a day when I wore a Homer tee (friend explained that it was the sort of place that saw the Simpsons as an attack on 'family values' etc).

Avl wrote:

This forum is built upon the sharing of Bond thoughts, opinions, and musings, is it not?... Would a few more topic replies, or the posting of my complete works by way of individual threads instead of links, really give way to more of a community acceptance?

 
Posting your “complete works” into individual threads? Christ, no. When you move to a new town you don’t hold court for hours on the sidewalk divesting your entire personal history, beliefs, and opinion sets. You integrate over time. It becomes two-way (at least) and bottom-up instead of one-way and top-down. So yes “a few more” topic replies would be a start — ones composed organically to the moment and topic at hand.

Avl wrote:

Of the several Bond message boards in which I've shared my works, only Bond and Beyond has responded with such tribalistic hostility.  Less censored?  Perhaps.  More adult?  Perhaps not.

This is obviously a small forum. Many of the folks here have known one another for near decades. It is much harder to sell small scale— and I’m not even necessarily talking your opinions, I’m talking your motivations.

Surely you can see how a new member posting solely in a thread of their own creation, dedicated to their own Bond survey essay series, directing us to a site that prompts us to follow and subscribe via email could be met with a cold reception? On a forum with at best a dozen regulars who you are a stranger to, and who themselves have no real good reason to stray off-site to find some random’s Bond musings?

Avl wrote:

I wouldn't have embarked on such an undertaking if I didn't love the franchise.  

Of course. If you took what I said the other way, you missed my point. No one who hated the series would write an eight-part essay series on it. I buy that you love it: I don’t buy you thinking Bond is misogynistic.

Avl wrote:

Read the pieces before you feel inclined to come at me with these senseless acquisitions.

I’d rather read and respond to your thoughts here. If I’m mistaken in your views, I trust time to reveal it more so than a Medium longread.

I honestly do hope you stick around, though I’ve seen no evidence to the contrary, largely resulting in the course this thread has taken I think.

Avl wrote:

Why is it such a problem to point out the fact that Bond has historically treated women like shit?  Why is it so controversial to point out the obvious about Fleming?  Every straight (are we sure Fleming was?) white man of the era was just as deplorable, sure, but not all other straight white males went on to create such powerful pop culture iconography. The man clearly had deep-seated issues he sought to assuage with his works.  It's important that we, through the modern lens, acknowledge this fact.

It is a problem because you are doing ex post facto games through accusatory language. You calling every “straight white man” of the era deplorable, or referring to Fleming himself as any -ist under the sun, devalues the currency. Hence why Borat got a free pass even in 2020.

Your labels no longer merely denote "viewing as unequal/inferior" but sneak in political/ideological commentary that are anachronistic to the people/things so labeled. You said before that you understood these “complexities” but you don’t get it. You say you’re concerned that shying away from these things is a “disservice to progress” but your referring to Fleming in such a way contradictorily implies that these values do not in fact evolve!

Avl wrote:

Bond doesn't hate women; Bond loves women.  

? I’m singling this out not to nitpick so much as I’m baffled that you already changed stance? You called him a misogynist, saying he “fit the bill” of someone who hated women.

Avl wrote:

Acknowledging these facts does not equal hating the character, the franchise, or the original creator.  Every Bond fan should be cognizant of these unfortunate truths, no matter when they occurred or how socially "acceptable" they were deemed at the time.

Thinking in these labels does everything in denigrating (via the negative connotations they convey) which is fodder for hatred. It also manages to provide zero historical context, in fact the opposite. You might as well blame the Celts for not being able to perform open heart surgery.

Avl wrote:

You are unoriginal in your aired grievances, Somberset

Exposing BS rarely results in some feel-good motivational crap.

Sarai wrote:

What the fuck are you guys talking about man?

(I said that in "The Dudes' voice so you could hear my tone.)

I dunno. Avl is helping me to pass the time while dinner is cooking.

I was making fun of myself not you guys. Truth is I don't know anything about social issues and belong more in the blades section than here.

No no you should make fun of us. As if we know anything about anything.

If I stick around long enough, one day I can join you in Blades. Avl too, and maybe the “more adult” moniker will come into clarity as the nudies thread presents itself.

" Still, I bristle at the character sleeping with Miss Taro to kill time after he's gathered his intel in Dr. No, "turning" Pussy Galore through sexual manipulation in Goldinger, "


Ironpony's girlfriend sure didn't have a problem with it

Somerset wrote:

No no you should make fun of us. As if we know anything about anything.

If I stick around long enough, one day I can join you in Blades. Avl too, and maybe the “more adult” moniker will come into clarity as the nudies thread presents itself.

The problem with your posts are that they are quality over quantity so taking to long to get the 500 for Blades.

you need to do what I do
smoke joint and just start pushing buttons

Somerset wrote:

No no you should make fun of us. As if we know anything about anything.

If I stick around long enough, one day I can join you in Blades. Avl too, and maybe the “more adult” moniker will come into clarity as the nudies thread presents itself.

Not sure he'd like that thread.

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

“Go blow up your pants!"

Blunt Instrument wrote:

Believe it or not, I spent a fortnight in Asheville 20 years ago ... a friend was working in a school there, and I visited him for my summer holiday that year.

Not sure if avi_bmb's posts indicate that the place has become 'woke' since, but when I was there the place was almost comedically conservative ... guns in the local Wal-Mart, a 45-minute drive to the one place that sold alcohol, hellfire-and-brimstone preachers from one end of the radio dial to the other, funny looks from the locals on a day when I wore a Homer tee (friend explained that it was the sort of place that saw the Simpsons as an attack on 'family values' etc).

Much can change over the course of two decades, and I definitely wouldn't define Asheville's current state as "comedically conservative," but the town is in no way as progressive as it likes to advertise itself.  Like so many U.S. cities (especially those in the Southeast), the city proper is relatively progressive and then becomes increasingly red, backwoods, and ass-backward the further you get outside the city's epicenter.  All that said, our city council and local "leaders" are typical virtue-signaling, reparation-promising, centrist empty-suits more interested in catering to the money coming in from tourists than they are in taking care of the city's vulnerable groups or established locals.  Still, plenty of great places to grab a pint here though, and the natural beauty is unmatched in this part of the world.  I suppose everything comes at a cost.

Sarai wrote:

you need to do what I do
smoke joint and just start pushing buttons

Oh, you're a writer too?

Somerset wrote:

I’d rather read and respond to your thoughts here. If I’m mistaken in your views, I trust time to reveal it more so than a Medium longread.

I honestly do hope you stick around, though I’ve seen no evidence to the contrary, largely resulting in the course this thread has taken I think.

You're obviously the smartest one here, at least in this thread.  No matter the evidence, I do appreciate you taking the time to respond so thoroughly and passionately.  I unknowingly posted my pieces in the forum for the "Daniel Craig Is Not Bond" crowd and caused quite a stir when my Craig piece finally dropped (I'm quite a fan of his).  Oddly enough, despite their revulsion, they revealed themselves to be not all that bad.  The point of the story is: a little pushback on a message board won't send me away.  We're all Bond fans after all.  You're all my people.  Even you, Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.  

I had no idea the DCINB crew still existed but well done them for strapping in for the longest tenured Bond run and refusing to disband and lasting until, in fact, Daniel Craig is not Bond.

Sarai wrote:

The problem with your posts are that they are quality over quantity so taking to long to get the 500 for Blades.

you need to do what I do
smoke joint and just start pushing buttons

Fine fine. I’m sure I can come up with 350 songs to spam the “last song” thread with.

*Does as Sarai advises, is banned.*

*Sarai draws on a joint, melancholically*

That's just silly You can't feel melancholy when you are smoking.