3 ms·
This is a rather odd and fatally incomplete essay. Its final suggestions, verging on explicit charges, of antisemitism against Fleming seem like guilt-by-associ
by leephillips 5y ago
This is a rather odd and fatally incomplete essay. Its final suggestions, verging on explicit charges, of antisemitism against Fleming seem like guilt-by-association.
The criticism of the writing in the novels is not totally unfair. Although the worst of it is barely readable, at his best Fleming could spin a scene or passage with resounding skill. But his most interesting work is in his short stories, which Richler doesn’t mention. If you think you have the measure of Fleming, read the story “The Hildebrand Rarity”, which rises to the level of literature, and takes Bond to psychological places that may surprise you. Also, in stories like “007 in New York”, Fleming shows real wit and something like self-deprecation toward his own output, or at least the ability to have fun with it.
Finally, although Richler runs on quite a bit into anecdotes about Fleming’s promotion of the Bond books and their commercial fortunes, he doesn’t mention what caused the sharp turning point in their popularity, which was a comment by JFK.
- CamperBob2 5y agoIt's a revealing bit of contemporary criticism, but it comes across as a bit naive, as if the author somehow expected something different from an author of popular spy fiction and was disappointed. He's not wrong, he just misses the point. Of course Bond is a head case whose psychological foibles are a reflection of his creator, or at least of his era. A woke Bond would be about as interesting (and about as profitable) as a woke Batman. And as for Fleming's predilection for writing about card games and golf games: if you can make those interesting -- and he could, and did -- you're certainly entitled to be listed among the ranks of Real Writers. That's when I realized it was time to take Stephen King seriously -- not when he wrote interesting stories about vampires or demons or aliens, but when he wrote interesting stories about baseball. Edit: on finishing the essay, I'm being too generous to the author here. His rambling about an anti-Semitic subtext in Fleming's books has no justification, and he knows it, which is why he starts rambling about anti-Semitic subtexts in other authors' works.
- woodruffw 5y ago> It's a revealing bit of contemporary criticism, but it comes across as a bit naive, as if the author somehow expected something different from an author of popular spy fiction and was disappointed. Well, John le Carré had already published at least 4 popular spy novels by the time (1968) this critique of Fleming was published. I, for one, think it's fair to expect something different when other contemporaneous authors were doing something different.
- B1FF_PSUVM 5y ago> John le Carré had already published at least 4 popular spy novels By the time I read my tenth or twelfth le Carré, I was ready to contest the point that they were different novels. It all seemed to boil down to "It's a mistake, we don't know what we are doing, woe is us" in different locales.
- woodruffw 5y agoThat's been my experience of them as well :-) They're certainly a different subgenre, but I think the larger point stands: it's possible to be a British author of spy novels in the 20th century without sublimating your fear of British decline through one-dimensional, reactionary characterization.
- CamperBob2 5y agoYeah, le Carré is to Fleming as David Attenborough is to J.R.R. Tolkien. They are not in the same business.
- whakim 5y agoI didn't read the author's charge of antisemitism as strictly guilt by association. I think Richler's argument is that the fixation on shadowy global plots threatening "good old England" both fits into a pattern of 20th century antisemitism (Russia, Germany) and provides a kind of "dog whistle" appeal to the old (antisemitic, xenophobic) aristocracy.
- leephillips 5y agoI agree, but that’s what I meant. Toward the end he comes right out and practically calls the books antisemitic, but his evidence is that they contain plot elements that resemble other, truly antisemitic fantasies, such as global plots to take over the world.
- whakim 5y agoBut knowingly echoing antisemitic tropes is antisemitism - that's why I used the phrase "dog whistle."
- curtainsforus 5y agoTalking about nazi dogwhistling is spreading theories about a conspiracy hidden in plain sight with the goal of destroying the western order, taking over the world, and executing the genocide of several peoples. Thus, you yourself are guilty of antisemetic dogwhistling.
- whakim 5y agoI'm not even sure I understand what you're trying to say.
- becquerel 5y agoHow would a book which knowingly and purposefully used antisemitic elements differ from one that used the same elements by accident? We can't see inside Fleming's head, so all that really matters is the books as they actually exist in the world.
- JKCalhoun 5y ago"The Spy Who Loved Me" was the shortest of Fleming's works that I read. But given that, I agree with the author of the article that many of the Bond books had serious failings. I read "Live and Let Die" and was embarrassed for Fleming for his attempt to channel Joel Chandler Harris. A case where the film bettered the book. "Goldfinger" has the villain actually trying to steal the gold from Fort Knox. Another case where it was better in the film. "Diamonds Are Forever" and "Casino Royale" are the books I can say I liked the most.
- dang 5y agoJFK also was influential in getting the excellent Manchurian Candidate movie made—which fell out of circulation for many years after he was killed. I can't remember if it had to do with that or not.