Fleming.
Robert Cotton
intelligent threads, let's try one to see how it goes.
Fleming's writing for me develops at a gradual pace. He begins Casino
Royale with the carefully chosen phrasing of a newspaperman, then as he
becomes more comfortable with his format he begins to stretch his abilities,
however one thing remains constant, his ability to choose "small" gateways
to his plots.
By small, I mean to say that Fleming doesn't have Bond save the entire
universe as the basis of each episode. Casino Royale is about a card game
and a romance, LALD about buried treasure, Moonraker about a man who cheats
at cards.
True, these lead into larger areas, especially Moonraker, but his character
moments, his best writing in my opinion comes from these more intimate
scenes.
This thread continues through all of Fleming's work, the ability for
instance to send Bond to Shrublands and make that the coincidence that gives
him the key to the Thunderball incident.
This is something the films by their very nature do not do or at least have
not done in years.
Anyone else have any thoughts on this? Or should we just take a poll?
--
RCC
SEIRS
the beginnings of several...
In article <6qcdln$7...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, Robert Cotton
<rkrc...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>Alright, since a number of us have complained about the dearth of
>intelligent threads, let's try one to see how it goes.
>
excellent
>Fleming's writing for me develops at a gradual pace. He begins Casino
>Royale with the carefully chosen phrasing of a newspaperman, then as he
>becomes more comfortable with his format he begins to stretch his abilities,
>however one thing remains constant, his ability to choose "small" gateways
>to his plots.
>
>This thread continues through all of Fleming's work, the ability for
>instance to send Bond to Shrublands and make that the coincidence that gives
>him the key to the Thunderball incident.
>
Maybe, but then it detracts from Bond's skill as a spy if you (not YOU
specifically, but "someone") suggest that a coincidence is needed for
Bond to succeed, that's why Thunderball is so unsatisfying; it hinges on
his happening to see Lippe's tattoo/brand/felt-tip mark. It's always
better when Bond has a specific mission to complete and he
systematically goes about completing it eg: FRWL (film version)
>This is something the films by their very nature do not do or at least have
>not done in years.
>
>Anyone else have any thoughts on this? Or should we just take a poll?
>
please God no ;)
>--
>
>RCC
SEIRS
***************************
*D O N ' T P A N I C*
***************************
Jeremy Kareken
: Alright, since a number of us have complained about the dearth of
: intelligent threads, let's try one to see how it goes.
Yuh, good luck, Bob.
: Fleming's writing for me develops at a gradual pace. He begins Casino
: Royale with the carefully chosen phrasing of a newspaperman, then as he
: becomes more comfortable with his format he begins to stretch his abilities,
: however one thing remains constant, his ability to choose "small" gateways
: to his plots.
: By small, I mean to say that Fleming doesn't have Bond save the entire
: universe as the basis of each episode. Casino Royale is about a card game
: and a romance, LALD about buried treasure, Moonraker about a man who cheats
: at cards.
: True, these lead into larger areas, especially Moonraker, but his character
: moments, his best writing in my opinion comes from these more intimate
: scenes.
The gradual growth of these plots, to me, is what gives each book what I
like to call "internal believability." By forcing the reader to accept
insane plots in small increments, we buy the whole lie full force.
It's the improbably versus the impossible for me: adventure is nothing but
a chain of HIGHLY improbable events. And watch out, EON: a chain is only
as strong as its weakest link. As soon as one plot element seems out of
proportion, the whole plot can fall down around its ears.
: This is something the films by their very nature do not do or at least have
: not done in years.
: Anyone else have any thoughts on this? Or should we just take a poll?
Some good examples of these coincidences: Touch of Evil, every Raymond
Chandler novel.
It requires rigorous plotting, seamless dialogue and styling
photography... these are good reasons why they haven't been used in recent
years.
--
Yours etc,
/\
| |
_\/ /\ /_ /\ ____
/ / \_\/_/ /__\/__/ / /__/__/
\/ /
---/
Jeremy Kareken
http://idt.net/~karekenj
Rhino
a possible answer to the ultimate question of Life, the Universe and
Everything:
>:|Alright, since a number of us have complained about the dearth of
>:|intelligent threads, let's try one to see how it goes.
>:|
>:|Fleming's writing for me develops at a gradual pace. He begins Casino
>:|Royale with the carefully chosen phrasing of a newspaperman, then as he
>:|becomes more comfortable with his format he begins to stretch his abilities,
>:|however one thing remains constant, his ability to choose "small" gateways
>:|to his plots.
>:|
>:|By small, I mean to say that Fleming doesn't have Bond save the entire
>:|universe as the basis of each episode. Casino Royale is about a card game
>:|and a romance, LALD about buried treasure, Moonraker about a man who cheats
>:|at cards.
>:|
>:|True, these lead into larger areas, especially Moonraker, but his character
>:|moments, his best writing in my opinion comes from these more intimate
>:|scenes.
>:|
>:|This thread continues through all of Fleming's work, the ability for
>:|instance to send Bond to Shrublands and make that the coincidence that gives
>:|him the key to the Thunderball incident.
>:|
>:|This is something the films by their very nature do not do or at least have
>:|not done in years.
>:|
>:|Anyone else have any thoughts on this? Or should we just take a poll?
Splendid stuff and I wholeheartedly agree, (for what that's worth)
It's not that I necessarily prefer one or the other, but I always get
more into the books than I do the films. The films are often
light-hearted and the plots revolve around major powers being held to
ransom, or megalomaniacs wishing to take over the world (that's one of
the reasons I rate LTK and, dare I say it, TMWTGG so highly - it's Bond
one on one). They are flights of fancy - they are excellently presented
and are all (well, nearly all) superb examples of the genre - but they
are fantasy and you know that they are. Even the first, DN, had that
whole feeling of an unrealistic plot
And yet, with the books more often than not the whole concept is
entirely believable. There are exceptions to both, of course. The film
FRWL *is* believable, but then that's because it is so like the book.
And the novel DN features a highly unlikely threat in the form of a
giant squid
Let's take two examples, starting with GF. Fleming conceived a very
clever and entertaining plot to steal the gold reserves of Fort Knox.
The way it was written lent an air of credibility and, with a little
imagination, you really *did* believe that the money of the US was in
jeopardy. The film introduced a nuclear device and a sub-plot involving
a foreign power and straight away it becomes fantasy
MR is my favourite of the novels. You really can get into the story -
you can cheer when Bond kicks Krebbs and wince as the jets of steam are
injected into the air ducting - and you are left feeling "Wow, that was
a close thing. What if Bond hadn't been able to ...... " etc etc. The
novel ends with the best anti-climax I have ever read. But the film? Can
you, in all honesty, say that you believed anything about it? The
stealing of the shuttle? The fact that Drax uses the theme from Close
Encounters to open doors? There was one Fleminginesque scene in the
whole movie, when Corrine is hunted down by the dogs. Even the well
staged fight with Chang, while undeniably great to watch, is full of
comedy touches. And then compare the endings - Fleming would never have
stooped so low as the re-entry gag
Good thread Robert - thanks for allowing me to vent my spleen
**** /\/\/\/\+-+- Rhino -+-+/\/\/\/\ ****
**** http://village.vossnet.co.uk/r/rhino ****
**** James Bond, Carry On Films, Prisoner ****
**** Hammer Horror, Trivia, Black Adder ****
**** John Wyndham, James Herbert, etc etc ****
"The principles of lust are burnt within your mind,
Do what you feel and feel until you find .....
Love!"
Mustafa Amanatullah
> like to call "internal believability." By forcing the reader to accept
> insane plots in small increments, we buy the whole lie full force.
>
> It's the improbably versus the impossible for me: adventure is nothing but
> a chain of HIGHLY improbable events. And watch out, EON: a chain is only
> as strong as its weakest link. As soon as one plot element seems out of
> proportion, the whole plot can fall down around its ears.
I think Fleming described it best when he said the plot should be
improbable but not impossible. To be fair as well, the passage of time
has made the novels seem more probable. Some detractors of Fleming go
about breathlessly rushing around announcing "The novels are dated!" as
though it were some unforgivable shock.But the novels have dated in the
way all good genre fiction does; namely by possessing a terrific period
feel; the 50's and early 60's are evoked swimmingly.
>
> Some good examples of these coincidences: Touch of Evil, every Raymond
> Chandler novel.
Aren't they going to re-release Touch Of Evil into the theaters?
I've been foolish enough not to have actually seen it yet.
Chandler himself also relies upon coincidences, but the more he does--as
in The High Window--the more the stories suffer. Of course, Chandler's
main interest was in mood, dialogue and description rather than plot,
which in some cases approached incomprehensibilty.
>
> It requires rigorous plotting, seamless dialogue and styling
> photography... these are good reasons why they haven't been used in recent
> years.
Exactly. Movies simply can't be hurriedly written and thrown together,
quality is time consuming. It'sno surprise to learn that many of the
best films ever made went through numerous screenplay drafts, and that,
in contrast to the ten writers for Armageddon, at the most three writers
are utilised--which means that plotting and dialogue, which rarely bloom
with committee work--can be given the more personal touch they need to
take bloom.
IA
Mac
>By small, I mean to say that Fleming doesn't have Bond save the entire
>universe as the basis of each episode. Casino Royale is about a card game
>and a romance, LALD about buried treasure, Moonraker about a man who cheats
>at cards.
>True, these lead into larger areas, especially Moonraker, but his character
>moments, his best writing in my opinion comes from these more intimate
>scenes.
Absolutely! The Hugo Drax character in the Moonraker novel grabs the
attention in a way a thousand explosions cannot. Reading as Bond's
initial distaste for this cheat (I love the idea that a gentleman who
cheats, cannot possibly be a gentleman - let's investigate him!
Wonderful!) gives way to admiration and possibly affection is as
intriguing as Drax's plot itself. How I would have loved to have read
that novel as it was published, unaware of what was to come...
>This thread continues through all of Fleming's work, the ability for
>instance to send Bond to Shrublands and make that the coincidence that
>gives him the key to the Thunderball incident.
Yes, and very often that is how these things occur in reality (The
French Connection has just popped into my head as a good example of
this). Bond (and M) do seem to go on hunches quite often too. We
discover as Bond discovers. This "revelation" technique is a familiar
one in detective fiction. And a lot of what Bond does is detective work.
But what the hell do I know! Let's have a poll! (insert what Robert
calls a "grin thingie" here.)
Robert Cotton
math and realized that it would take days if not weeks for Goldfinger to get
the gold out of Fort Knox (among other things) using Fleming's method. He
realized that the atomic bomb irradiating the gold was actually a more
possibly successful plotline than the original. When he told Fleming,
Fleming literally leapt at the idea as it fixed what he considered the
biggest hole in the book.
Since we've moved up to Goldfinger, we've reached one of my favorite
sections of any Bond book and that is the golf match. An absolutely perfect
example of what this thread is about. We have, in that round of golf, the
equivalent of the game at Casino Royale and the confrontation at Blades from
Moonraker. A simple face to face meeting between Bond and his adversary
which brings out more character and gives us that momentary victory for Bond
that will lead onward.
As to Moonraker, it remains easily one of the biggest missed opportunities
in the film series. Along with YOLT the book begs to be filmed as written.
Certainly changes could be made, but the spine of Moonraker, left intact,
more than outpaces it's filmed equivalent.
And you're right, those steam jets and their effects on Bond remain one of
the more memorable impersonal torture devices from the Fleming years.
--
RCC
Rhino wrote in message <35ccd6be...@news.vossnet.net>...
>"Robert Cotton" <rkrc...@worldnet.att.net> suggested the following as
>a possible answer to the ultimate question of Life, the Universe and
>Everything:
>
>>:|Alright, since a number of us have complained about the dearth of
>>:|intelligent threads, let's try one to see how it goes.
>>:|
>>:|Fleming's writing for me develops at a gradual pace. He begins Casino
>>:|Royale with the carefully chosen phrasing of a newspaperman, then as he
>>:|becomes more comfortable with his format he begins to stretch his
abilities,
>>:|however one thing remains constant, his ability to choose "small" gatewa
ys
>>:|to his plots.
>>:|
>>:|By small, I mean to say that Fleming doesn't have Bond save the entire
>>:|universe as the basis of each episode. Casino Royale is about a card
game
>>:|and a romance, LALD about buried treasure, Moonraker about a man who
cheats
>>:|at cards.
>>:|
>>:|True, these lead into larger areas, especially Moonraker, but his
character
>>:|moments, his best writing in my opinion comes from these more intimate
>>:|scenes.
>>:|
>>:|This thread continues through all of Fleming's work, the ability for
>>:|instance to send Bond to Shrublands and make that the coincidence that
gives
>>:|him the key to the Thunderball incident.
David Mosley
> Fleming's writing for me develops at a gradual pace. He begins Casino
> Royale with the carefully chosen phrasing of a newspaperman, then as he
> becomes more comfortable with his format he begins to stretch his abilities,
> however one thing remains constant, his ability to choose "small" gateways
> to his plots.
>
> By small, I mean to say that Fleming doesn't have Bond save the entire
> universe as the basis of each episode. Casino Royale is about a card game
> and a romance, LALD about buried treasure, Moonraker about a man who cheats
> at cards.
>
> True, these lead into larger areas, especially Moonraker, but his character
> moments, his best writing in my opinion comes from these more intimate
> scenes.
>
> This thread continues through all of Fleming's work, the ability for
> instance to send Bond to Shrublands and make that the coincidence that gives
> him the key to the Thunderball incident.
>
> This is something the films by their very nature do not do or at least have
> not done in years.
>
> Anyone else have any thoughts on this? Or should we just take a poll?
>
Having just finished reading Fleming's complete Bond oeuvre I'll pass on a few of my thoughts on
this. On the whole I would agree with your statement re. "small gateways" leading to big adventures.
This marries up with another thread where someone (sorry, I forget whom) was advocating getting away
from the 'Bond saves the world' storylines of a lot (?) of the later films. Fleming's novels,
although they are often globe-trotting in their way, the actual 'threats', so to speak, are often
fairly small. For instance:
CR: 'Destruction' of enemy agent
LALD: Gold smuggling
MR: Destruction of London by missile
DAF: Diamond smiggling
FWRL: Acquisition of Lektor code maker
DN: Rocket guidance plot (against US)
GF: Destruction of Fort Knox gold reserve
FYEO -
favtak Investigation of secrets theft/shooting
fyeo Assassination
qos A cautionary tale
r Drugs smuggling
thb Fish hunting (!)
TB: Blackmail of UK & US by theft of atomic weapons
TSWLM: Insurance fraud
OHMSS: Biological warfare (against UK)
YOLT: Destruction of Dr Shatterhand's Garden of Death (in Japan)
TMWTGG Destruction of 'enemy agent'
OP -
op: War crimes investigation
poal: Auction
tld: Defection/assassination plot.
Of these stories, only a handful can be said to be of global concern (DN, GF, TB, and OHMSS (?)).
The majority only concern Bond, his department, or at best, Britain as a nation (and the UK was
losing it's 'superpower' status when Fleming wrote).
In the main, I think Fleming's main interest, despite his view of Bond as a 'cardboard booby' (does
anyone have the reference for this famous quote?), was in the development of Bond as a person.
Certainly, the Bond of CR bears only passing resemblance to the Bond of TMWTGG, imo. In talking to
office colleagues about the Bond novels, I've likened them to a cycle (or 'saga', I suppose) in
which it is only in the reading - in order - of the entire series that you get the true portrait of
James Bond. Reading a single Bond novel (or reading them out of sequence) doesn't give you the same
insight into Bond that I feel the exercise I have recently completed does. To see Bond almost
totally broken following the death of his wife is completely at odds with the younger Bond of CR,
DAF or even GF. I believe that a definition of a story is one where the protagonist or 'hero'
undergoes a change between the beginning and the end, i.e. they are not the same person at the
story's end. This is certainly something which Fleming achieves with his Bond cycle - not an
invention of Q dept, btw ;-).
The reason for this, largely, is that the Bond novels are very internal. Fleming, as it were, gives
us a front row seat in Bond's mind, so that we know exactly what he thinks and feels, and thus why
he reacts as he does to particular events. This is something that the films - by their nature - are
usually incapable of doing, and thus the literary Bond is a much more rounded character than the
cinematic one. This is perhaps where Fleming's skill as a storyteller came to the fore, in that he
was able - as in CR or YOLT - to change tack in the middle of the story and get away from the
action/adventure elements of the novels. As some might guess from my sig., one of my favourite Bond
stories is 'Quantum of Solace', which is hardly a 'Bond' story at all (all Bond does is sit in a too
soft chair listening to an island governor telling some anecdote), yet the story grips because
Fleming's characterisation and storytelling abilities are spot on. And despite Bond's mainly passive
involvement, by the end of the tale, he has undergone a change, at least as regards his perception
of the nature of his work within the larger workings of the human species.
Well, those are my thoughts. Feel free to resond, if you like.
Best regards,
DEMos
------------
"...a chance remark had opened for him the book of real violence -- of the Comédie
Humaine where human passions are raw and real, where Fate plays a more authentic
game than any Secret Service conspiracy..."
-- Quantum of Solace, For Your Eyes Only, Ian Fleming
Tim Curtin
>
> Alright, since a number of us have complained about the dearth of
> intelligent threads, let's try one to see how it goes.
>
> Royale with the carefully chosen phrasing of a newspaperman, then as he
> becomes more comfortable with his format he begins to stretch his abilities,
> however one thing remains constant, his ability to choose "small" gateways
> to his plots.
>
I think his ability to focus on the small details, small acts by
small-as-life people (who later turn out to be larger-than-life
supervillains)is why I'm so taken by some of the quirkier stories in
"FYEO," like "Quantum of Solace" or "The Hildebrandt Rarity." These are
the stories where you strip away all of the glamour of James Bond and
get to really focus on Fleming's power as a storyteller. But I also
think his confidence in letting the story move at it's own pace depends
a lot on how much he enjoyed writing it. I'm thinking mainly of "DAF"
here. It's very rushed with a lot of underdeveloped characters and not
enough of the interesting sidetracks or turns in the story that let you
appreciate Fleming's talents. I'm always really amazed at difference
between Fleming's best and worst writing.
> This is something the films by their very nature do not do or at least have
> not done in years.
>
It's been what, eleven years or so since the last Bond story where the
writers were willing to take a chance on their audience being patient
and mature enough to watch the plot develop? Considering that TND made
a pile of money and seems to have a lot of defenders (mostly among the
next generation of Bond fans I think) maybe they're right not to take a
chance, but it's very disappointing.
TC
Michael Sheehan
Robert Cotton wrote in message <6qf3e3$d...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>Since we've moved up to Goldfinger, we've reached one of my favorite
>sections of any Bond book and that is the golf match. An absolutely
perfect
>example of what this thread is about.
I totally agree, and yet I feel this is one of the most Fleming-esque
sequences in the entire film series, as well, extremely well-handled by the
Bond film folks.
Richard Ashton
> (snip) As to Moonraker, it remains easily one of the biggest missed
> opportunities in the film series. Along with YOLT the book begs to be filmed
> as written. Certainly changes could be made, but the spine of Moonraker, left
> intact, more than outpaces it's filmed equivalent.
I think that this point illustrates that the powers that be at the creative
center haven't read their Fleming - or don't rate it. I say this because right
in the middle of Fleming's Moonraker there is a car chase in which Drax, leading
Bond down the Dover Road, passes a truck carrying newspaper print rolls - cuts
the truck's wires, sending the giant rolls of paper down the road towards Bond.
Now in TND, Bond is escaping Carver's newspaper plant - and for a moment I
thought they were going to use this great chase scene - but no. It just limped
to a lame finish. Just think of what they could have done...Bond, faced with a
giant roll of newsprint crashing down on his BMW could have fired his stinger
missiles and blown them away. It would have been very cool and a terrific nod
towards Fleming.
But I don't think Bruce F has read Moonraker.
Richard
SEIRS
all, the golf scene does encapsulate the aspect of Fleming's writing
which I don't like, namely his fixation with detail. The reader gets
totally bogged down in this scene with a over-fine commentary on the
match and as a consequence important plot and character development is
lost. It is during this match that Bond really begins to hate Goldfinger
with a passion, which is ironic because he has done many worse things in
his time than cheat at golf. I do agree that the film-makers handled
this rather cumbersome section excellently by pruning away the
cumbersome detail and exposing the delicate character development.
In article <6qgmf4$go2$1...@hirame.wwa.com>, Michael Sheehan
<mrm...@spamwwa.com> writes
>
>Robert Cotton wrote in message <6qf3e3$d...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>>Since we've moved up to Goldfinger, we've reached one of my favorite
>>sections of any Bond book and that is the golf match. An absolutely
>perfect
>>example of what this thread is about.
>
>I totally agree, and yet I feel this is one of the most Fleming-esque
>sequences in the entire film series, as well, extremely well-handled by the
>Bond film folks.
>
>
Robert Cotton
the nuances within the details. The golf game is an excellent example of
this.
Returning for a moment to CR (book), Bond's torture at the end of that book
was unclear to me as a child (I started reading Bond at about 9. I knew he
was basically getting whacked really hard with a carpet beater. It took a
reading a few years later on for me to grasp the import of the situation.
Why?
Fleming wrote around what was really happening because that was his style.
He made it clear to the reader that Bond's manhood was endangered without
coming out and saying "LeChiffre repeatedly whacked Bond until his ghoulies
nearly fell off."
The same style is at work in the golf scene. His immense love for detail is
where the character work is hidden. The choice of golfball for instance
meant quite a bit to the sport's enthusiasts of the time. However, I agree
that this detail, because we're reading the book in the late 90's can seem
trivial, whereas to the readers Fleming was writing for, these details are
what makes the thing move.
Personally, some of my favorite sections of the books are Fleming's massive
descriptions of Bond's card games and dinners, while others are probably
bored to tears.
I also love Fleming's manner of placing himself in the story. He makes his
descriptions personal, slipping in his British upper crust commentaries and
personal observations not as Bond's own (although he does that as well), but
as part of the narrative. This is the style which Amis came closest of the
continuation authors to achieving. It is one of the essential elements of
Fleming's work which puts it above those who have followed in his footsteps.
RCC
SEIRS wrote in message ...
>I have read Goldfinger and I must say that alhough it's a superb book in
>all, the golf scene does encapsulate the aspect of Fleming's writing
>which I don't like, namely his fixation with detail. The reader gets
>totally bogged down in this scene with a over-fine commentary on the
>match and as a consequence important plot and character development is
>lost. It is during this match that Bond really begins to hate Goldfinger
>with a passion, which is ironic because he has done many worse things in
>his time than cheat at golf. I do agree that the film-makers handled
>this rather cumbersome section excellently by pruning away the
>cumbersome detail and exposing the delicate character development.
>
>In article <6qgmf4$go2$1...@hirame.wwa.com>, Michael Sheehan
><mrm...@spamwwa.com> writes
>>
>>Robert Cotton wrote in message <6qf3e3$d...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>>>Since we've moved up to Goldfinger, we've reached one of my favorite
>>>sections of any Bond book and that is the golf match. An absolutely
>>perfect
>>>example of what this thread is about.
>>
SEIRS
interest. It is also true that the audiences of the two periods have
different standards (if that is the correct word) and that some of the
things Fleming writes would possibly be edited nowadays, for example
staying with Goldfinger the sentence "short men are responsible for all
the evil done in the world" (or words to that effect).
In article <6qpnnv$d...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, Robert Cotton
<rkrc...@worldnet.att.net> writes
SEIRS
***************************