I admit it: I like James Bond. But why? Isn't he a ruthless, bloodthirsty killer; a love-em and leave-em serial seducer; a gambling addict, and, to boot, a social snob with unreasonably fastidious tastes in almost everything: hardly the sort of guy you would want to pal up with. Or is he? Well, I have been reading the latest "official" Bond outing in print, penned by the prolific Anthony Horowitz, and in this book, "Forever and a Day", billed as a prequel to the first Bond novel, "Casino Royale" by Ian Fleming, Bond clearly loves killing. The novel starts with what can only be described as a gruesome murder and Bond clearly relishes it. Later on in the story, Bond gratuitously kills a CIA man, admittedly a double-dealing one, bue even so.
What about those other negative attributes? Well, there is only one seduction, and that with a strong woman character who seems mostly to take the initiative; maybe this is Bond for the #MeToo era, no sign of male harassment there. The affair ends with an unfortunate drowning so the issue of loving and leaving conveniently doesn't enter the picture. Gambling is most definitely in, with the almost obligatory casino scene, where , of course, he meets the girl, and, as to being picky about things, he is as finicky as ever from breakfast onwards.
However, is this really the Bond that Ian Fleming created in his 14 novels about the super-agent? I have read all 14, and, in addition, some of the 'official' follow-ups by Amis, Gardner, Faulks, Deaver, Boyd and Horowitz, and my sense was that there had been some significant deviation from the original, so I decided to test my instinct by re-reading one of the Fleming novels, to make a quick comparison. "The Man with the Golden Gun" was the first book that came to hand. Reading it, there is an immediate difference in Bond's attitude to killing: he is a killer alright, but Fleming clearly contrasts Bond with the merciless Scaramanga, who will kill anything in sight, including some innocent birds, just to show off, while Bond is concerned about what he shoots. When he blasts the headdress off a Jamaican dancer, he is quick to comfort her and hand over a $100 tip. Indeed, Bond passes up his first opportunity to assassinate Scaramanga, while riding behind him in a car, partly because, Fleming tells us, of "an inbuilt dislike of cold murder". On the other attributes, Fleming's Bond behaves impeccably towards the women in the story, even the manageress of a brothel. He works his charm on his former secretary and end up with her, though is at no stage forcing his attentions on her. We are, however, reminded in the closing sentences of the novel that no relationship with 007 is going to last. In short, this Bond comes over as a killer but not a cold-hearted killer and somewhat less of a lone wolf. He seems somehow more of a human being.
It is a long gap between 1965, when 'Man with the Golden Gun' was published and 2018 when 'Forever and a Day' was launched. We know that Anthony Horowitz is a very professional and commercially successful author, who will be sensitive to what the market wants today. There have also been 26 official Bond films which have presented another very public image of Bond, as interpreted by a number of leading actors and their directors. Over his period, the action movie has become faster and more violent and arguably Bond has moved closer to other action heroes, the likes of Jason Bourne, Jack Reacher and Ethan Hunt (Mission Impossible). Horowitz's novel is also full of facts about businesses, weapons, etc., as if the author wishes to leave you in no doubt about the authenticity of his story, something that is not noticeable in Fleming's book. But Bond is, of course, fantasy, as unreal as Harry Potter. If you want more authentic spy stuff turn to Len Deighton and John le Carre, with Bond you have something different, almost quirky. I think that is what I like about the Ian Fleming novels; the unexpected happens, like the visit to the brothel in 'Man with the Golden Gun', things that aren't always in line with the high-rolling image of 007 we have become used to in the films. I am not sure the authors who followed Fleming captured this unpredictable aspect of the Fleming books, except perhaps Kingsley Amis in his contribution: 'Colonel Sun'. Yes, I will continue to read, and watch, Bond but, having compared these books, maybe not quite so avidly as in the 1960s.
Comments