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, I meant to say all fiction (and many non-fiction narratives). Generally, narratives are written so that you can immerse yourself in the life of the characters and in the world of the story, no matter how close to reality. And I suppose its a hard thing to put on a spectrum. Does a more escapist novel immerse one more? Is it farther away from reality? Not to be overly semantic but escapist to me means fun in a bit of camp way when perhaps that's not the accepted definition or what's being communicated here.
I think the draw of James Bond is that it sort of encapsulates the idea that reality is stranger than fiction. None of what happens in Bond seems entirely credible but at the same time it feels very real with the odd world we live in. The novels for me, suffer when they stretch credibility.
Yes they are enjoyable and I can immerse myself into an interesting world, but that's every good novel, no?
The films, with a much more visual aspect, are cool with locations and cars and gadgets. And there are more jokes as well making the films more "escapist" and less real than any of the novels, a turn started in Goldfinger
Bond defies the odds, but in ways that never seem particularly elaborate or out of reach for a reader or viewer. No matter how hard it is to stay silent during torture, or to keep going on to an escape after being bloodied, the simplicity of these acts make the audience believe they could do them when pushed. I'd imagine loads believe they could land a plane in a pinch for instance. Those people would probably not think they could do what Sherlock does.
Bond survives torture 4 times, out-gambles Le Chiffre, out fights and then shoots Mr. Big's men, tricks Drax into leaving tools for escape, and cons Grant by playing dead. Impressive, but I bet many people would back themselves in those situations (no matter how wrongly), if they got a little bit of training and some of the luck Bond had. Bond seems to be a little bit above average, when in reality he's very much in the elite of his profession.
Logically yes, Moonraker perhaps has the largest stakes out of any of the novels, but it simply feels closer to reality than say, Goldfinger. Wouldn't the later Bond novels, with their increased stakes, liberties taken and fantasy, be the furthest escapes from reality? And where Bond becomes "escapism" in that sort of way?
Obviously the later novels are still part of Fleming's collection. I'm not trying to blame the films for making Bond "fun." But there was a change from a typical Bond story before and after both versions of Goldfinger.
My perspective is that it should be fairly difficult to find out who Bond is. As someone who lives in the secret world, and who relies on anonymity to do his job, and to have his lack of disguise make sense, this seems to check out.
It is (relatively) easy to become a small time crook. If small time crooks know who Bond is, it becomes (relatively) easy to find out who Bond is. Which jars with at least my expectation of a secret agent. It is difficult to become a head of a secret service. So I can accept the Russians or Blofeld knowing Bond.
More over, it makes sense for those who have come across him or who know those who have come across him to know of Bond. So it is hard to become head of a bank, but obviously the head of HSBC shouldn't know who Bond is. Scaramanga, however high up he has made himself, has not come across Bond, nor does he seem to know others who have come across him. This again, jars with the my idea of Bond's profession.
I'm sure that's the logic of many others who are equally frustrated by this. Obviously that idea of Bond is not universal. But despite the ubiquity of the Bond novels in YOLT for instance, nobody knows who he is (and the novels provide quite an accurate description as well!).
It just depends on the logic I suppose. As something being "real" in fiction is simply comparing the fictional events with actual events and our experiences with these events. I can logic away the heads of SMERSH, GRU and MGB all knowing Bond to the point of his address, but I can't Tiffany Case simply knowing his name.
Like I mentioned earlier, it doesn't really impact the actual novels in any way. It can easily be ignored or handwaved as one of those unexplainable things that Fleming wrote; the wrong guns with wrong holsters, Bond perpetually being in his mid-30s, the non-existent car and all the rest. In a book its easier to just ignore that type of thing; like Bond being suspicious of rugs in one of Gardner's works.
The films get scrutinized for Bond's notoriety because they imply something a bit different about Bond and his profession (which is a key part of his character). I suppose those call outs in the novels only hint at such differences rather than express them outright.
Yeah... I mean that's a whole different conversation. And as you said that definition of escapism isn't a very broadly accepted one anyway.
So your apparent claim about the appeal of Bond comes from the early novels specifically? Not necessarily Bond as a whole (even seemingly the later Fleming novels, or at least certain ones). I appreciate it's probably a subjective definition and maybe a bit niche, but even with that do you not think escapism comes into it, and that some element of fantasy is at play here?
Completely depends on the person reading it. And again that's a whole other discussion.
Ok... I feel your very specific definition of escapism is kind of bogging you down here. Obviously films and novels will be different, and that's not necessarily an incorrect thing to say about the Bond movies compared to their source material. But why does that mean Fleming's novels aren't 'escapist' while the films supposedly are? They feature this womanising, brave and intelligent character with an extraordinary job many men wouldn't mind being. He travels to exotic locations and defeats evil people. They're not pure fantasy (neither the film or the novels) but heightened reality. But they're escapist. People read or watch these adventures to get those thrills and may even have some sort of connection to the main character (in a sort of wish fulfilment way you could argue, to whatever extent).
Well, yes, Bond often uses his wits to get out of many situations. Not many people would be able to even think that way in those situations. There's very much a fantasy/narrative element to much of it in the sense Bond's skills kick in - how's he going to get out of an inescapable death maze? Steal a knife and work on pure adrenalin. How's he going to overcome an inescapable assassination on a train? Grab a cigarette case/book to block the bullet aimed at his heart (incidentally that's such a fictitious/outlandish scenario scenario Fleming brings to life). It's part of the often elaborate fiction of those novels, even if Fleming's writing makes them feel 'real'.
Again, it depends on what you mean by escapism... I just don't think it's incompatible with heightened reality. Again, you're saying a lot that's not untrue, but I just don't quite see what you're trying to get at here.
Fine, that's your specific opinion.
I'm sorry it jars with your individual idea of Bond. Obviously it's not necessarily shared by the filmmakers who made those films or even Fleming to some extent.
I don't really know what to say man. If it doesn't work for you or you're wound up about it, fair enough. I never got the idea Bond was famous in those films and those who knew of him were in very specific lines of work and knew him only by reputation and not appearance. Like a sort of faceless threat. It's tongue in cheek and self referential, but I think it generally works. And as I always say thinking too much about the logic of Bond stories, especially long after the fact, is a bit of a pointless task.
I suppose Fleming presents FRWL/the Russians knowing Bond as much more 'straight', whereas the tongue in cheek element is there with the 'you just killed James Bond' moment. But like I said sometimes thinking too much about logic pure in these stories isn't very helpful. Insofar as it might not seem right for you in the moment watching the scene, I can only say fair enough. It's an individual thing though.
I think it's something people tend to ignore a bit or brush off. I think it raises many questions about what's going on with these books we're reading and who Bond is. It's actually quite bizarre, and a potentially narrative shifting moment that comes to nothing and is ultimately this strange wink wink joke. As it is it doesn't have much impact, I agree. But it's a very noteworthy bit of Bond's obituary that maybe is best not taken too seriously (or outright ignored if you want to preserve some sort of plausibility to your reading experience of Fleming).
I mean, if a future film casually mentioned Bond was the subject of a fictional television show and left it only to a dialogue reference, these forums would be foaming at the mouth trying to work out what was going on!
Well what is escapism then? The reader wants to be the main character? The main character's life is drastically different from the reader's day to day life? The novel has a fun tone? The novel requires a heavy use of imagination from the reader?
Not exactly. "Reality is stranger than fiction" as a tagline could be probably used to explain away many oddities in the Bond series, and not only those in the early novels. The characters are a big draw as well. But yes, as someone who enjoys the early novels quite a lot, I'd certainly recommend written Bond for how real it is, especially in comparison to the films where the complaints are often on how ridiculous they are.
Sure, the fantasy of lovely women, high living, and drinking is a draw to Bond. That never changes though. If we that's escapism, the early novels and films are escapist, and the Goldfinger film and Dr. No novel added a "fun" or "breezy" or layer to it. Both works jumped the shark in that sense and neither media ever really crossed back over the line.
In terms of comparing the reality of Bond media from most real to least real:
1. Early novels
2. Late novels/early films (with the later novels maybe slightly edging it)
3. Films post-Goldfinger
My point was never to claim that the films were escapist and betrayed the sense of the novels in that sense or anything like that. My point was that Bond went from man to St. George round about Dr. No in the novels and Goldfinger in the films. Bond never really went back.
I'm not debating that Bond is impressive, but there's a sense of attainability in his skills. Holmes is impressive because none of us could dream of doing what he does. Bond is impressive because we believe we can, but probably can't.
The novels and films were changed irreversibly around their respective editions of Goldfinger. They became less real, and more "fun," "escapist," "silly," "fantastical," "mythical," or whatever adjective people describe the late Connery or Moore eras with, and haven't era crossed back.
An example of this; Casino Royale required a big finale despite the novel having a low-key one. It required multiple exotic locations despite the novel only taking place in France. It was a glamourous, glossy adventure compared to less refined novel. Some of that is natural from novel-to-film adaptations. Some however is to fit in with the cinematic Bond tropes cemented with Goldfinger. And Casino Royale is one of the efforts that gets close to crossing back over the line!
Pointless but certainly entertaining! TMWTGG and DAF sit on the lighter side of the spectrum. Golden Gun with whole subplot with Scaramanga and Bond doesn't land for me unfortunately.
FRWL (the novel) perhaps hints at a better way at it. Grant is bored, thinks he's got nowhere to go, and wonders if there is some other man he must kill to be the best in the world. He is then (presumably) briefed on Bond by SMERSH and continues onto his goal of becoming the best.
There are even other ways to get to that state of rivalry. Bond must protect someone who the assassin is trying to kill or even vice versa. In those cases a rivalry seems more realistic (and more personal).
True. Certainly exhibit A for the case that not everything should be adapted.
Not quite. When a series jumps the shark there is no course correction. Future entries continue down the same path until the franchise/series ends.
In the case of Bond those can be elements of it, I guess (insofar as those are subjective reasons for reading or watching this series). But all escapism means is a distraction from one’s daily life.
I mean, what are the common things people say about the context of Fleming’s early novels? They were first written at a time Britain was still on rations after WW2. Britain wasn’t quite the imperial power it had been in the past either. Critics would argue and have said an element of Bond’s early appeal was that fantasy of England being able to ‘punch above its weight’ with this interesting hero at the forefront of these adventures. At the very least that points to some sort of escapism at play with Bond’s appeal, even in its earliest inception.
I’d say the DN novel isn’t quite the stark turning point you’re implying for Fleming. Perhaps there’s a touch more of the fantastical and sense of scale to it, but Fleming had incorporated elements of, say, the supernatural in LALD, and much like that novel it’s presented in that ‘stranger than fiction’ way (in the sense the villains are consciously use these elements to incite fear). MR of course had a story about an ex-Nazi posing as an industrialist wanting to blow up London, which is pretty outlandish. DN’s also quite a dark novel in places and has this cat and mouse tone to it. I wouldn’t call it breezy. It’s a progression of Fleming’s writing until that point which would go further later.
I think this is a wee bit simplified too unfortunately. I do agree you get more of that St. George sense in middle books. Like DN where he selflessly pays for Honey’s surgery and defeats a villain with a metaphorical dragon. I get it in GF with Bond turning lesbians and defeating this particularly larger than life villain. But I do think by later novels Fleming was aware of this aspect of his character interestingly. Sir James Molony in YOLT even claims Bond has a St. George complex in assessing his relationship with women! The Bond of later books isn’t infallible either, physically or psychologically. He goes through a periods of less than stellar physical health, PTSD, melancholy reflectiveness etc. I think it’s interesting how Fleming developed his character and these stories. Again, there are subtleties here.
But at any rate I’m not disagreeing that the novels become more fantastical as they go on. Same can be said for the films. That’s not really an inaccurate thing to say even with the caveats I’ve mentioned. The point is what the appeal of all these adventures are.
Well there you go - to some extent that’s part of the fantasy of Bond and why many read/watch his adventures.
Ok… I think the books and films are similar in that way then in terms of how they developed. Again, there are nuances here (and certainly differences between the books and films) but that’s broadly the case. I don’t think any of it goes against what Bond is meant to be fundamentally. It’s just a progression of the character and his adventures.
I wouldn’t call picking apart Bond logic entertaining but we all have our hobbies 😂
The Grant example doesn’t seem that different to the Scaramanga one to me personally. I’d love to see a rivalry like that in a future film where the villain has these twisted similarities to Bond and has this goal of defeating him to be the best (I think TMWTGG flubs it a bit by getting bogged down with the Solex subplot and flip flopping on Scaramanga’s obsession with Bond).
Yes, agreed!