A Contradiction in the Conception of DC's Bond

Watching QoS last night, it occurred to me that whoever was behind the conception of Craig's Bond didn't really get their story straight. On the one hand, M incessantly berates Bond for being a heartless bastard who holds human--especially female--life cheap, and on the other scores him for his "inconsolable rage" over Vesper's death, and constantly making his assignments "personal." Indeed, Bond's bleeding heart for Vesper is the very pulse of the Craig era right up through NTtD.

But can you have it both ways? Can Bond really be a callous sociopath and an avenging crusader on behalf of his beloved Vesper? Logically, I don't think so.

I find people contradict themselves all the time, both little people and the ones in the big league, so yes. Many can have it both ways. Just look at the political scene, or your co-workers.

Cregg-Bond and his films were full of contradictions because they were poorly written while trying to be too clever by half.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Watching QoS last night, it occurred to me that whoever was behind the conception of Craig's Bond didn't really get their story straight. On the one hand, M incessantly berates Bond for being a heartless bastard who holds human--especially female--life cheap, and on the other scores him for his "inconsolable rage" over Vesper's death, and constantly making his assignments "personal." Indeed, Bond's bleeding heart for Vesper is the very pulse of the Craig era right up through NTtD.

But can you have it both ways? Can Bond really be a callous sociopath and an avenging crusader on behalf of his beloved Vesper? Logically, I don't think so.

One trying to find logic in the Craig-era arc is like, in the words of a wise Shady Tree, trying to find a virgin in a maternity ward.