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
Plus Q gets his(?) only mention too.
Quite interesting as well that Q's first appearance is not even close to gadgets or arms or even equipment but booking travel and rooming organization, work that I would have though have gone to a secretary or something like that.
Ah I missed that one, thank you! I guess if it’s phrased like that technically it could still be a department (you could say ‘google’s craftsmen are busy working on’ something), but I agree it sounds more like a person, especially as we’re being shown there’s a guy called ‘M’.
Arf! :))
And allegedly both GF and MR began as short stories.
Fleming was forever repurposing short stories, teleplays, and screenplays. He desperately wanted to make the leap from page to screen. And boy, did he.
I don't think it's an outlandish thing to say. Subjective, sure, but it makes sense in theory. Fleming's short stories might not quite be as popular or enduring as his novels, but an understandable criticism to make about his books is his plotting. It's how we get weird moments like Goldfinger randomly agreeing to make Bond his personal secretary. Even something like the Russian agent in CR not having specific orders to kill Bond is a bit of contrived leap. I'm sure there are more examples, but there's definitely sense he 'wrote himself into a corner' more than once, and like most writers had to figure out how to get out (incidentally he often more than makes up for with his prose, which keeps most readers engaged).
It might just be the limitations of the short story format and having to be concise, but you can argue structurally a lot of Fleming's short stories have better plotting (TLD, Risico, OP, and FYEO especially have very good set ups and pay offs). So yeah, I can understand that.
Yes, it's certainly a fascinating book. But them Fleming always fills his stories with interesting facts. And i agree, Fleming does a good job writing as a female as such.
But the reference to 'La Americains' was what caught my attention, it being used for the name of the Tangiers hotel in Spectre.
And wouldn't you know it? They came roaring back this week with Colonel Sun.
The GF moment is a definite lapse, but the CR one can be defended. In a heavily bureaucratic, totalitarian society like Stalinist Russia, orders were to be strictly followed, and going beyond their remit could get you into trouble. Taking the initative is dangerous in a top-down organization (even in today's Russia), whereas strictly following orders allows you to avoid blame and transfer it to your higher-ups for not giving better orders. Additionally, a state assassin might attract negative attention from his superiors for killing people he wasn't ordered to.
The passage in question: "Q Branch had put together this smart-looking little bag, ripping out the careful handiwork of Swaine and Adeney to pack fifty rounds of .25 ammunition [...] Despite Bond's efforts to laugh them out of it, Q's craftsmen had insisted on building a hidden compartment into the handle of the case..."
I don't think this implies the existence of Q as a person, though I realize the issue is debatable. We are told that "Q Branch" put together the bag, and then that "Q's craftsmen" had added a compartment to it. I think "Q's craftsmen" is simply a shorter, more elegant way of referring to "Q branch's craftsmen." It would be a clumsy way of introducing an actual "Q," especially since there are no other references to such a character. Moreover, a 1950s audience would be familiar with Q-ships, and would naturally grasp the application of "Q" to a hidden-weapons/gadgetry department, without any need to imagine an individual of that name. I'd also note that when Major Boothroyd is introduced in the next book, he is only referred to as the "Armourer" and "the greatest small-arms expert in the world."
Perhaps, although to modern readers at least I think it can be a bit odd/contrived, especially with the way it's presented through dialogue. It always felt a wee bit contrived to me anyway. A sort of deus ex machina Fleming wrote his way out of justifying. From a good old fashioned story structure sense it's certainly not his best.
The film for all its contrivances is much better in the sense it makes clear Vesper has made a deal, and Le Chiffe is assassinated by a character already established to be in connection with him.
But yeah. Fleming's plotting can be a bit odd.
Yeah that's a good point: if Q Branch have already been mentioned then that's likely just a shortened way of referring to the same thing.
In CR on the other hand, Q Branch is never mentioned in the whole book and M tells Bond to “Have a talk to Q. about rooms and trains, and any equipment you want.” - which could be a person or a department. It comes right at the end of a section where a character who is referred to by both the text and Tanner as 'Head of S.' (the section dealing with the Soviet Union) plays a part, which I guess makes the reader more likely to think Q. is a section perhaps? Otherwise if it were a person they might have been referred to as 'Head of Q' in a similar fashion, but it's hard to say either way really. I think it's up to personal preference.
I'm just glad everyone dropped the full stop after 'M.' and 'Q.' that Fleming always used- it's hard to read! :D
One quite funny thing is that it's been agreed that Q is short for Quartermaster in the books, but I don't think that's established at any point. It gets said in the films (maybe as late as DAD for the first time), but I don't think it's in the books. As you say, Boothroyd is the Armourer, not the Quartermaster.
Honestly, I think it's fair to say Q as a character is something the films came up with (conflated with Major Boothroyd to some extent, but certainly not a Fleming invention, albeit very much a stable of Bond).
I do now recognise the other interpretation of that sentence but when I read From Russia With Love round-about the third time (after watching the films) I noted it as a direct mention.
I also wasn't trying to argue that Major Boothroyd was Q, not at all. I agree that he doesn't exactly fit the part; M does sort of introduce him to Bond which wouldn't track with what would be a long history of working together (Q-Branch having helped Bond in CR, LALD, DAF and FRWL). While Bond does remember seeing Boothroyd from time to time, he clearly hadn't seen him enough for Boothroyd to remember his gun and judge it, nor for Bond to remember said judgements.
There is further contradiction when one notices that Q on 2 occasions arms Bond with 0.25 ammunition (which lacks the stopping power Boothroyd spoke about) and a silencer (which Boothroyd says is no good).
If one were to overthink it, Boothroyd would have probably been some sort of military/commando consultant that M used from time to time.
However, Q almost certainly would have existed as a person. Casino Royale has that line saying head to Q for all the arrangements, and Q-Branch's longevity in the novels makes it stronger than the idea of "Clements" as Bond's direct superior. Furthermore, Q-Branch would have had to have a head, and it simply makes sense for him to be known as Q, rather than than his name. Perhaps instead of the initial he'd be "Head of Q-Branch" or "Head of Q" (like Kerim being "Head of T"), or by his number (as how Head of Hong Kong "Dickson" in Goldfinger is referred to as 279).
Yeah, he's absolutely not a character in the books- that's 100% true to say. There may or may not be a person by that name alluded to, but I also tend to agree with Reflsin that he'd likely be called 'Head of Q' if he had appeared.
1. Booking rooms, trains, and random equipment (CR)
2. A frogman suit (LALD)
3. American Visa and vaccination certificates (DAF)
4. An attache case with a silencer and 30 rounds for Bond's Beretta (DAF)
5. An attache case with 50 rounds, 2 flat throwing knives, a cyanide pill, a silencer for the Beretta and gold sovereigns (FRWL)
6. Wiring Kerim's spy op on the Russian embassy for sound (in progress, FRWL)
7. Smuggle explosives out to Hong Kong (GF)
8. A replacement Rolex (OHMSS)
9. Uniform for agents abroad, including a cyanide pill in a necklace (although a half-joke, TMWTGG)
Gadgets not explicity stated from Q branch (from memory and from a ctrl-f of "gadget" and "tool")
1. The knife in Bond's shoe (GF)
2. The Bible as Bond's hiding place for a pistol (GF)
3. Bond's Leica camera, used to spy on Goldfinger and Drax (GF/MR)
4. The Aston Martin DB3 (just stated as the "company pool," but probably done by Q Branch, GF)
5. M's plate glass poison protector (from the Ministry of Works, TMWTGG)
6. The plastic receiver to communicate with M (YOLT)
7. The "ruler" to dodge locks (OHMSS)
8. Direct transmitter to London and Washington without need for telegram (from the Americans, TB)
9. Geiger counter (from the Americans, TB)
10. Child's aeroplane wing to slip locks (TB)
11. Jeweller's glass from a tool case (DN)
12. Fingerpring powder and magnifying glass (MR)
13. Facial disguise as "Sergeant James" (DAF)
14. The radio gadget to stump the Muntzes (CR)
15. A screwdriver to help hide the money (CR)
It is also interesting that Q gets no mention at all in Thunderball, which of course makes McClory's use of him in the film quite interesting.