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
Koreans are known for eating dog.
Korean question to American me: Is it true Americans eat horse?
I'll defer to @Revelator on human flesh.
Sadly I have yet to sample that delicacy, thanks to various silly laws and various problems with ethically sourcing. But I have eaten sheep's brains (in pâté) and alligator (which really does taste like chicken).
Returning to Goldfinger's cat, I now see that Fleming was not simply being anti-Korean, though the gleam in Oddjob's eyes when he accepts his dinner is meant to accentuate our disgust (I hope to God the poor thing was humanely killed--doubtful!). I suppose that nameless but helpful ginger cat could be considered yet another sacrificial lamb--err, cat--among Bond's allies.
(Knowing cats, it just turned up one day and moved in.)
And goldfish. To feed the cat with.
He should have! My guess is that that breed was less popular in the late 50s UK and probably wasn't on Fleming's radar. But if the book was written a few decades later Goldfinger would probably have had a kennel of golden retrievers.
Like human names, dog breeds are subject to fads and lengthy trends. I find it very interesting how some breeds become all the rage (like the Chihuahua) while others decline in popularity (the Scottie). But I digress...in any case, dogs and cats are featured far less in the Bond novels than birds and fish.
Goldfish. You know you put it in a bowl and you feed it.
I was astonished to learn that it was real: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Headquarters_Allied_Powers_Europe
Yes, I was going to say earlier that it was actually a real organisation so Fleming had no hand in its creation!
I would agree, except that it should be "hanged" instead of "hung". It's a common misused word in that context, of course. Meat is hung, people are hanged.
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I never got the difference.
Now if it was, say, Mussolini's body being hung from the petrol station in Milan after he was shot that we're taking about, that would be the correct use of the term.
It's a small thing and an easy mistake to make, but there it is. It's mentioned in Chancellor's book on the literary Bond. However, I don't think that a rare and honest mistake from Fleming's pen should be perpetuated in the films also, should it ever come to be used. That much of a Fleming purist I'm not.
Anyway, it's most likely a moot point as the films (sadly) rarely take dialogue verbatim from Fleming these days, compacted by the fact that hanging was of course abolished by statute in the UK in 1965, with the last hangings taking place in April 1964, not that long before Fleming's death.
I know that people in the UK may still say such and such a criminal in the news "should be hanged" for some heinous crime but it's merely an exclamation and not a factual reality any longer.
Unfortunately, yes. 'Tis the age we live in.
You could say that. Hang 'Em High is my favourite Western.
It's never too late to start! And since some of the novels have nothing to do with the films, you'll enjoy some completely "new" Bond adventures. If you wish to read all of the books, then I definitely recommend going in chronological order, because Bond and his world change over the course of the series. If not, you can pick a trio of books to start with, such as the first three (CR, LALD, MR), the middle period (FRWL, DN, GF) or the Blofeld trilogy (TB, OHMSS, YOLT).
One thing I recommend while reading each book is to try and temporarily banish your memories of the film version. If we read a book before seeing a film, we develop our own visualization and interpretation of it, which we then compare with the film's adaptation. But if we watch the film and then read the book, our visualization and interpretation tend to be heavily influenced by the film's, which means judging the original by the adaptation, rather than the other way around.
Also keep in mind that the books have far less action than the films, but this compensated for by the "interior action" inside Bond's thoughts. Lastly, I hope you will share your thoughts with us as you read them.