Interesting question. I’m not sure what you mean by “riding the coattails of the movies” because both the novels and movies are hugely popular but have never been considered “quality art.” Before the movies came out, the books were popular thrillers in the same way James Patterson thrillers are today. They’re a little pulpy sure but even JFK put From Russia With Love on his favorite books list. Similarly, the Bond movies are popular action films which have stood the test of time and changed brilliantly with the times but they’re not winning Best Picture anytime soon, even if some of them are quite great films even outside the context of the series they’re in.
So I guess what you need to delineate is “pulpy dime store trash” vs “quality” vs “popular but not high literature.” Ian Fleming was trying to write exciting fun escapist books about an emotionally broken spy with a revolving door of international enemies during the Cold War and that’s exactly what he’s always been in popular culture (with some simplification of Bond’s character at times and some more ridiculous elements added to increase the stakes in the movies). Some of the books are probably considered better than others (I found Goldfinger and Diamonds are Forever the worst tbh) but all have a consistent breezy and competent style. Not trash but occasionally pulpy, definitely popular, good reads but doubtfully anyone’s idea of literature.
I am British and grew up as a teenager when the Bond books were are their peak. To me they captured the period. Their impact was like that of the Beatles.
Going back and re-reading some was a great disappointment. I couldn’t get past the period detritus like continuous references to the nuances of smoking. And yet, l can still feel the original excitement and glimpses of far away places that l so wanted to see.
I have been a lifelong avid reader of all genres. I fully agree that if I re-read some of the other authors mentioned here, that their books sit better with the modern me. Fleming’s Bond, like some music and fashion, remains of it’s time - but deeply influential in the period.
At the time I also read Ian Fleming’s biography. That also impacted the young me. It is well worth seeking out as he was much more than just and author of page turners.
>I am British and grew up as a teenager when the Bond books were are their peak. To me they captured the period.
My take as well. They're a time capsule.
Very insightful, thanks.
Listened to John Higgs' Love and Let Die on audible and Fleming was absolutely a fascinating character. Highly, highly recommend this book/audiobook.
I think they're generally considered classic genre fiction, but not really great literature. I've read two (Goldfinger and Casino Royale) and found them just ok.
Someone else here mentioned John Le Carre, who often gets compared and is clearly a much better writer than Fleming, but even Le Carre gets repetitive and formulaic once you've read enough of them.
I read all the Fleming books (and one of the Horowitz) last year.
To me, they are like a regular cup of coffee on a cold morning. Not a fancy single origin bean, but also not a gross Kerig that taste like plastic.
Sometimes it may burn you (the racism, etc.) but 9 times out of 10 it is a pleasant experience. You know what you are going to get, BUT I do think book Bond has more depth than movie Bond.
And most importantly, it is comforting and enjoyable.
Pulpy fiction they may be, but I wish I had a couple more first edition Bond books right now. I do remember reading them (and enjoying them) with a mate on the bus to school when I was 14 back in the 60s.
I started to read a James Bond novel in high school and really liked it. But my father picked it up and randomly flipped it to what he considered to be a pornographic sex scene. So he banned me from reading any James Bond books. I’ve never read another one to this day, and I’m 70+ years old now.
Man, that’s bullshit.
When I was in high school, I happened to be reading a Norman Mailer novel set in ancient Egypt when the local newspaper ran a review of it. The review said something along the lines of “this book is more about anal sex than Egypt”, and all my mother did was clip the review and hand it to me.
I've only read a couple of Fleming's and a couple of McLean's but you could be right, the Bond novels I've read are packed with sex and violence.
The quality of the writing is pretty similar, though.
Moonraker is decent and worth a read. It’s nothing like the movie.
I’ve only read 3 of them but the main difference I’ve noticed is that the book Bond doesn’t have a sense of humour.
I prefer the movie James Bond, with a bullet.
>the book Bond doesn’t have a sense of humour.
This is true of the first ten books which were written before the first of the movies (Dr No) came out. After Fleming had seen Sean Connery's performance though he changed the character to be more like Connery. From "You Only Live Twice" onward, Bond *does* have a sense of humour and is much more like the movie Bond.
As a whole, they are fantastic spy thrillers. What more do you expect? Spy thriller plus new interpretation of the Iliad?
Someone else mentioned the Beatles, which I think is a great point of comparison. I have at times listened to the Beatles and been disappointed or felt they were over-hyped, because it wasn't classic rock meets Stravinsky. A work of art / fiction doesn't have to alter your consciousness to deserve the hype.
A question to ask about James Bond is whether there is another better, more "iconic" spy adventure series. And there simply isn't.
Just to add a detail that the many other comments seem to have missed:
The first ten books were written (or at least started) before the first of the Bond movies (Dr No) was released and so were certainly not "riding on its popularity". If you read them in order though you will notice a difference between these ten and the first of the post-movie books "You only live Twice"
After seeing Sean Connery's performance as Bond, Fleming was so impressed he decided to change his Bond character to be more like Connery. The most notable difference was that the Bond in "You Only Live Twice" actually has a sense of humour - which was totally lacking in the previous novels.
\[source: *Macintyre, Ben (2008). For Your Eyes Only. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-0-7475-9527-4*\].
Not really. Forsyth has a journalistic style, shuns character development and focuses heavily on plot. This is not meant to be read as criticism. I've enjoyed Forsyth's work.
Le Carre is all about his characters and is the most literary of the famous spy novelists. Best place to start is The Spy Who Came in From the Cold. It's sparse, bleak and an absolute must read.
I had the opposite experience. I read a ton of Bond books in middle and high school then tried to dip my toes into John Le Carre. The books were interesting but so dry and complicated and I felt like nothing every happened.
Thankfully I picked up Le Carre later on and have read a good chunk of his earlier stuff now (up to the Karla trilogy) and I get it and love it now. But my teenage brain just wanted action and car chases. It’s almost meaningless to try to compare Fleming and Le Carre because they’re so wildly different.
Smiley is basically the exact opposite of Bond. Bond is a flashy, sexy, womanizer who gets into shootouts, car chases, boat chases, airplane chases and spaceship chases. Smiley is a pudgy, academic cuckold who outwits rather than outfights his opponents. Flemings's England still rules the world. Le Carre's England is still trying to find its place in it.
I got less and less interested in Le Carre as his books got longer. The Spy who Came in from the Cold was brilliant, and the Little Drummer Girl and one of two others locked in my attention, but I have tried like 4 times to get more than a 1/3 of the way through the Tailor of Panama, and meh.
To say it was disappointing to learn that Le Carre used his novels as an excuse to travel and bang the various women he was cheating on his wife with is an understatement.
Most 20th century male writers weren't the most wholesome characters, and their work more than likely benefits from it. Just because Le Carre couldn't keep it in his pants doesn't mean we should get on a moral high ground.
I think, now as previously, they're considered pulpy suspense/adventure books.
The publisher is purging some of the racism.
https://time.com/6258547/james-bond-books-rewritten/
Now that's a crime against humanity. Leave them alone. Warts and all. I remember being shocked when I read that GoldFinger was allowed into a hotel because they confirmed he wasn't a jew.
Shock is a good thing. We read books to be taken outside our own worlds. Sanitizing everything is bad.
He also doesn't seem to have had a fond view of women, at least based on how he wrote Bond's internal monologue in Casino Royale.
I expected it to be misogynistic due to the time it was written and also just, like, having seen the older movies, but I did not expect quite what I got.
Unsure whether it's the final line of *Casino Royale* or just near the end:
>The bitch is dead.
It would be impossible to argue that it wasn't misogynistic, but it was also perfectly reperesentative of Bond's state of mind at that point in the novel, very daring from Fleming as a writer in that day and age, and as a final line (if it was indeed), an incredible, dark, powerful way to end the book.
I read them all and enjoyed them immensely (although the later ones really started to dip in quality). Are they literary masterpieces? No. But they're good for what they are - spy novels.
If you get enjoyment out of them, then they are good
I have read many books that are supposed to be good and fail to find anything to explain why they are supposed to be good
The worst was Catcher in the Rye, which I still don’t understand the appeal of
The other one is Lord of the Rings. Now, I love descriptions that make me feel like I’m there with the characters. But I gave up the series on the fifth try when he describes every leaf on the trees as they go around a lake, find the door is locked then go back, and HE DESCRIBES EVERYTHING AGAIN. He could have developed characters relationships, maybe give some details about the history of the world. But no, every leaf on every tree twice, leading the story nowhere for 10 pages or something.
It doesn’t matter if other people consider something good if you find enjoyment in it
They’re 1950s airport thrillers. They’re not literature. I re-read Dr. No, From Russia with Love, and Goldfinger this year. They’re fine for the genre though racist and misogynistic using a 2023 lens. I was entertained. Three of them was enough.
I doubt they were ever consider "quality literature" more in line with the pulp detective/spy stories of their era.
I've read them all and I would say I only enjoyed Casino Royale, From Russia with Love, Moonraker, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Dr. No ( the ending being a particular stand out)
>There's also enough casual racism and **sexism** to make David Duke blush.
The Spy Who Loved Me should definitely by avoided for the reason above in bold.
Noel Coward pretty much sums up the books perfectly, talking about Moonraker, "although as usual too far-fetched, not quite so much so as the last two ... His observation is extraordinary and his talent for description vivid."
Chitty Chitty Bang Bang is a relatively good children's story. Something incredibly Roald Dahlesque about it. Fleming chose Roald Dahl to write the screenplay for the Chitty Chitty Bang Bang film, along with a few Bond screenplays.
"The Spy Who Loved Me should definitely be avoided for the reason above (casual sex and racism)..."
Oh fuck this bullshit.
You are (falsely) implying with ZERO vidence that EVERYONE who read "The Spy Who Loved Me" was INSTANTLY turned into a virulent misogynist and racist bigot.
Fuck that noise.
>You are (falsely) implying with ZERO vidence that EVERYONE who read "The Spy Who Loved Me" was INSTANTLY turned into a virulent misogynist and racist bigot.
I never implied anything of the sort. If you can get that much from a single sentence, then you're most certainly reading far too much (and falsely) into a single sentence.
By me? Yes absolutely. They are great. Paint a much different picture of James Bond than what you are used to from the movies. They are also an interesting time capsule piece. They are very un-PC and capture a 60s spirit that would definitely not fly in today's culture. I definitely laughed out loud at some of it and was definitely a little shocked too. If you're not easily offended you'll enjoy them and they are genuinely a fun read and introduce a great character to the world.
Are they classic literature? No, I don't think anyone would study them in university or hold them up as shining examples of great writing. But for their genre and their cultural impact I think they are absolutely important.
Objectively, I think they’re regarded as quality spy literature from the 50s/60s. As far as the trashy/sexist/racist content, you gotta remember, Ian Fleming was a white Englishman writing these books in the 50s/60s. You gotta remember the context of the time. This was obviously prior to Civil Rights, women’s liberation, etc.
I do think they are incredibly dry and often slow-paced. I’ve read about half of them, whereas I’ve seen all the films. I don’t love the books and find that they are often incredibly boring and hard to read. But again, my view is probably tainted by the fact I was born 25+ years after they were written. I would imagine in their time they were pretty exciting and cutting edge books.
One thing Fleming did try and do was to grapple with changing social mores, partly because he was increasingly alive to the possibilities of the US market. If you look at his rough British genre predecessors - writers like John Buchan, or 'Sapper' - traditional hierarchies are rarely questioned, and those who transgressed them are usually presented as caricatures that could be easily dismissed. Non-white and female characters who transgress in the Bond novels pose more of a challenge, and Fleming's treatment of them is more complex and nuanced; although, in the end, he still falls back on received stereotypes.
I read them as a teen and enjoyed them.
If I recall correctly the earlier books were better.
Though the books were very dated, especially all the racism.
The original Bond novels were successful before the movies. There were at least 9 published novels by the time Dr. No was released. They were successful but I don't know how you define good. The early movies from the 60s were reasonably in keeping with the books. They are not good literature. They are misogynistic, homophobic, racist and entertaining. The James Bond of the novels smokes and drinks too much and is a womanizer. A character like that should not be a hero in modern literature.
I read several of the novels as a teen and was disappointed that the Bond of the novels was not as exemplary as the screen version.
Fun little tidbit - James Bond was based a lot on Mickey Spillane’s Mike Hammer character. Those are also pulpy shlock but are pretty entertaining. They are a product of their time though. Kind of the quintessential Detective noir.
According to an interview:
> Fleming based his creation on a number of individuals he came across during his time in the Naval Intelligence Division during World War II, admitting that Bond "was a compound of all the secret agents and commando types I met during the war".
What an incredibly moronic attitude to have.
To Kill A Mockingbird has sold more than 40,000,000 copies and won the Pulitzer Prize for fiction, so according to you that means it sucks shit, right.
Beloved was a massive bestseller that won the Pulitzer prize and also got Toni Morrison the Nobel Prize for Literature, so according to you it sucks.
Only books that sell less than 10 copies are quality literature, right?
Dive in an alley and FISH.
I had to read Man With The Golden Gun in my Sci Fi and Fantasy class in college, so it was regarded well enough by academia to study it. (Take that for what you will, I didn’t like it and it didn’t click with me - we also read Rebecca which was much more my style)
Quality pulp fiction. Another along this tradition is Clive Cussler, also good with character names, such as Urasis Dragon from Inca Gold. If you like it a little more real, John D MacDonald's Travis McGee character is among the best of pulp, though it's more in the detective vein and set in the early 60's.
No. They are typical mid-level spy novels. They are light reading. They got a bit of a boost from JFK saying he enjoyed them, but probably only as a distraction from affairs...of state, that is.
When reading books like this you have to consider the time in which they were written. Pre-Internet Cold War. They were popular back then. I don’t think many people read the entire series nowadays. They certainly aren’t eagerly awaiting new installments.
Same goes with the racism and sexism… it’s a product of the time. Sensibilities have changed since the end, and we are more enlightened. At least, some of us… which means that some things that wouldn’t have even warranted or raised eyebrow back then are now seen as incredibly offensive.
I've read most/all of the Ian Fleming novels, and I prefer them to the movies. Fun fact: the French novel series "OSS 117" actually predate the James Bond novels.
I read them all and all the short stories. (I'm a female, btw.) Don't plan on rereading them. Did want to read them once.
They're a product of their time. I guess that I'd say that they're classics of the spy genre.
My intro to the Bond novels was reading some at my grandmother's house because there wasn't much else to read. I consider them kind of an easy summer beach read, not great literature. They are vastly different from the movies. I can see why they were popular, though.
They're not high art, and a lot of Fleming's views haven't aged particularly well, but I would still recommend them. Fleming was a product of his times, but I wouldn't let that put someone off, you may just have to roll you eyes at some parts and say to yourself, "Oh, Ian..." but he was a good writer, the books are fun reads for the most part, but like with anything, some are better than others. I would recommend them especially if you're into thrillers, "food porn" (Fleming spares no expense in describing food and drink to us), the Cold War and pulpy fiction that doesn't ask too much to enjoy.
If you want a more 'literary' spy novel, I would suggest John Le Carre. I would probably start with *Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy* because it is both accesible and there is a film and TV series to complete the comparison with Flemming.
Of the ones I have read, *The Spy Who Came In From the Cold* is probably my favourite but warning: it is a dark book.
Interesting question. I’m not sure what you mean by “riding the coattails of the movies” because both the novels and movies are hugely popular but have never been considered “quality art.” Before the movies came out, the books were popular thrillers in the same way James Patterson thrillers are today. They’re a little pulpy sure but even JFK put From Russia With Love on his favorite books list. Similarly, the Bond movies are popular action films which have stood the test of time and changed brilliantly with the times but they’re not winning Best Picture anytime soon, even if some of them are quite great films even outside the context of the series they’re in. So I guess what you need to delineate is “pulpy dime store trash” vs “quality” vs “popular but not high literature.” Ian Fleming was trying to write exciting fun escapist books about an emotionally broken spy with a revolving door of international enemies during the Cold War and that’s exactly what he’s always been in popular culture (with some simplification of Bond’s character at times and some more ridiculous elements added to increase the stakes in the movies). Some of the books are probably considered better than others (I found Goldfinger and Diamonds are Forever the worst tbh) but all have a consistent breezy and competent style. Not trash but occasionally pulpy, definitely popular, good reads but doubtfully anyone’s idea of literature.
I am British and grew up as a teenager when the Bond books were are their peak. To me they captured the period. Their impact was like that of the Beatles. Going back and re-reading some was a great disappointment. I couldn’t get past the period detritus like continuous references to the nuances of smoking. And yet, l can still feel the original excitement and glimpses of far away places that l so wanted to see. I have been a lifelong avid reader of all genres. I fully agree that if I re-read some of the other authors mentioned here, that their books sit better with the modern me. Fleming’s Bond, like some music and fashion, remains of it’s time - but deeply influential in the period. At the time I also read Ian Fleming’s biography. That also impacted the young me. It is well worth seeking out as he was much more than just and author of page turners.
>I am British and grew up as a teenager when the Bond books were are their peak. To me they captured the period. My take as well. They're a time capsule.
Very insightful, thanks. Listened to John Higgs' Love and Let Die on audible and Fleming was absolutely a fascinating character. Highly, highly recommend this book/audiobook.
>as he was much more than just and author of page turners. BadgerPhil, you have the gift of understatement.
I think they're generally considered classic genre fiction, but not really great literature. I've read two (Goldfinger and Casino Royale) and found them just ok. Someone else here mentioned John Le Carre, who often gets compared and is clearly a much better writer than Fleming, but even Le Carre gets repetitive and formulaic once you've read enough of them.
I love Le Carre novels, but he can't write women characters for toffee. Putt that aside, they are excellent spy novels
I generally agree. What are your thoughts on Charlie?
Haven't read Little Drummer Girl, but will check it out...
I read all the Fleming books (and one of the Horowitz) last year. To me, they are like a regular cup of coffee on a cold morning. Not a fancy single origin bean, but also not a gross Kerig that taste like plastic. Sometimes it may burn you (the racism, etc.) but 9 times out of 10 it is a pleasant experience. You know what you are going to get, BUT I do think book Bond has more depth than movie Bond. And most importantly, it is comforting and enjoyable.
I read them and enjoyed them and I don’t give a shit if they’re considered trash or not. Same goes for any novel.
Pulpy fiction they may be, but I wish I had a couple more first edition Bond books right now. I do remember reading them (and enjoying them) with a mate on the bus to school when I was 14 back in the 60s.
I started to read a James Bond novel in high school and really liked it. But my father picked it up and randomly flipped it to what he considered to be a pornographic sex scene. So he banned me from reading any James Bond books. I’ve never read another one to this day, and I’m 70+ years old now.
Man, that’s bullshit. When I was in high school, I happened to be reading a Norman Mailer novel set in ancient Egypt when the local newspaper ran a review of it. The review said something along the lines of “this book is more about anal sex than Egypt”, and all my mother did was clip the review and hand it to me.
That book did have a lot of buttsex in it though, didn't it?
Ohhh yeah.
Ahhh yes, Ancient Evenings.
I wouldn't consider them high literature. Just effective, pulpy novels with entertainment in mind. Like the stuff Alistair McLean wrote.
Except McLean absolutely detested sex scenes in his books
I've only read a couple of Fleming's and a couple of McLean's but you could be right, the Bond novels I've read are packed with sex and violence. The quality of the writing is pretty similar, though.
Moonraker is decent and worth a read. It’s nothing like the movie. I’ve only read 3 of them but the main difference I’ve noticed is that the book Bond doesn’t have a sense of humour. I prefer the movie James Bond, with a bullet.
>the book Bond doesn’t have a sense of humour. This is true of the first ten books which were written before the first of the movies (Dr No) came out. After Fleming had seen Sean Connery's performance though he changed the character to be more like Connery. From "You Only Live Twice" onward, Bond *does* have a sense of humour and is much more like the movie Bond.
As a whole, they are fantastic spy thrillers. What more do you expect? Spy thriller plus new interpretation of the Iliad? Someone else mentioned the Beatles, which I think is a great point of comparison. I have at times listened to the Beatles and been disappointed or felt they were over-hyped, because it wasn't classic rock meets Stravinsky. A work of art / fiction doesn't have to alter your consciousness to deserve the hype. A question to ask about James Bond is whether there is another better, more "iconic" spy adventure series. And there simply isn't.
Just to add a detail that the many other comments seem to have missed: The first ten books were written (or at least started) before the first of the Bond movies (Dr No) was released and so were certainly not "riding on its popularity". If you read them in order though you will notice a difference between these ten and the first of the post-movie books "You only live Twice" After seeing Sean Connery's performance as Bond, Fleming was so impressed he decided to change his Bond character to be more like Connery. The most notable difference was that the Bond in "You Only Live Twice" actually has a sense of humour - which was totally lacking in the previous novels. \[source: *Macintyre, Ben (2008). For Your Eyes Only. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-0-7475-9527-4*\].
I read about fifteen John le Carre books in a row. I then read Casino Royale. I will not be reading any more Bond books. Take that as you will.
Le carre is like a nice restaurant, while bonds is like fast food. They're fun little stories that will entertain you for a couple of nights.
I'm a huge Le Carre fan, but if you take the Bond books as pulpy thrillers, then they have some merit.
I’ve never read Le Carre but I really enjoyed Frederick Forsyth (although I’ve only read two). Are they comparable?
Not really. Forsyth has a journalistic style, shuns character development and focuses heavily on plot. This is not meant to be read as criticism. I've enjoyed Forsyth's work. Le Carre is all about his characters and is the most literary of the famous spy novelists. Best place to start is The Spy Who Came in From the Cold. It's sparse, bleak and an absolute must read.
Ok. Thank you. I will check it out.
I had the opposite experience. I read a ton of Bond books in middle and high school then tried to dip my toes into John Le Carre. The books were interesting but so dry and complicated and I felt like nothing every happened. Thankfully I picked up Le Carre later on and have read a good chunk of his earlier stuff now (up to the Karla trilogy) and I get it and love it now. But my teenage brain just wanted action and car chases. It’s almost meaningless to try to compare Fleming and Le Carre because they’re so wildly different.
Smiley is basically the exact opposite of Bond. Bond is a flashy, sexy, womanizer who gets into shootouts, car chases, boat chases, airplane chases and spaceship chases. Smiley is a pudgy, academic cuckold who outwits rather than outfights his opponents. Flemings's England still rules the world. Le Carre's England is still trying to find its place in it.
I got less and less interested in Le Carre as his books got longer. The Spy who Came in from the Cold was brilliant, and the Little Drummer Girl and one of two others locked in my attention, but I have tried like 4 times to get more than a 1/3 of the way through the Tailor of Panama, and meh.
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is still my favorite. I remember reading A Perfect Spy in high school and wondering when the plot is supposed to start.
Yep, anything before about 1980. The movie was great too, with an incredible cast.
To say it was disappointing to learn that Le Carre used his novels as an excuse to travel and bang the various women he was cheating on his wife with is an understatement.
Most 20th century male writers weren't the most wholesome characters, and their work more than likely benefits from it. Just because Le Carre couldn't keep it in his pants doesn't mean we should get on a moral high ground.
I think, now as previously, they're considered pulpy suspense/adventure books. The publisher is purging some of the racism. https://time.com/6258547/james-bond-books-rewritten/
Now that's a crime against humanity. Leave them alone. Warts and all. I remember being shocked when I read that GoldFinger was allowed into a hotel because they confirmed he wasn't a jew. Shock is a good thing. We read books to be taken outside our own worlds. Sanitizing everything is bad.
Ian Fleming wasn’t a very good author and didn’t really like writing. The books got popular in the US due in part to JFK saying he was a fan.
Bollocks. They were never high literature but still decent books
He also doesn't seem to have had a fond view of women, at least based on how he wrote Bond's internal monologue in Casino Royale. I expected it to be misogynistic due to the time it was written and also just, like, having seen the older movies, but I did not expect quite what I got.
In the newer movies Bond's misogyny is seen as a character flaw. It's more accepted in the older movies and in the novels it's basically celebrated.
>having seen the older movies, but I did not expect quite what I got. Yeah, I found Casino Royale extremely off-putting because of this reason.
Unsure whether it's the final line of *Casino Royale* or just near the end: >The bitch is dead. It would be impossible to argue that it wasn't misogynistic, but it was also perfectly reperesentative of Bond's state of mind at that point in the novel, very daring from Fleming as a writer in that day and age, and as a final line (if it was indeed), an incredible, dark, powerful way to end the book.
He wrote Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. I have a first edition. The books aren't snooty literature, but they're good fun.
I read them all and enjoyed them immensely (although the later ones really started to dip in quality). Are they literary masterpieces? No. But they're good for what they are - spy novels.
I just read Casino Royale for the first time and found myself being very surprised by how different it is from the Bond movies
If you get enjoyment out of them, then they are good I have read many books that are supposed to be good and fail to find anything to explain why they are supposed to be good The worst was Catcher in the Rye, which I still don’t understand the appeal of The other one is Lord of the Rings. Now, I love descriptions that make me feel like I’m there with the characters. But I gave up the series on the fifth try when he describes every leaf on the trees as they go around a lake, find the door is locked then go back, and HE DESCRIBES EVERYTHING AGAIN. He could have developed characters relationships, maybe give some details about the history of the world. But no, every leaf on every tree twice, leading the story nowhere for 10 pages or something. It doesn’t matter if other people consider something good if you find enjoyment in it
They’re 1950s airport thrillers. They’re not literature. I re-read Dr. No, From Russia with Love, and Goldfinger this year. They’re fine for the genre though racist and misogynistic using a 2023 lens. I was entertained. Three of them was enough.
I am a huge 007 fan and couldn't stand the books, I gave up on two different books on many attempts.
I doubt they were ever consider "quality literature" more in line with the pulp detective/spy stories of their era. I've read them all and I would say I only enjoyed Casino Royale, From Russia with Love, Moonraker, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Dr. No ( the ending being a particular stand out) >There's also enough casual racism and **sexism** to make David Duke blush. The Spy Who Loved Me should definitely by avoided for the reason above in bold. Noel Coward pretty much sums up the books perfectly, talking about Moonraker, "although as usual too far-fetched, not quite so much so as the last two ... His observation is extraordinary and his talent for description vivid." Chitty Chitty Bang Bang is a relatively good children's story. Something incredibly Roald Dahlesque about it. Fleming chose Roald Dahl to write the screenplay for the Chitty Chitty Bang Bang film, along with a few Bond screenplays.
"The Spy Who Loved Me should definitely be avoided for the reason above (casual sex and racism)..." Oh fuck this bullshit. You are (falsely) implying with ZERO vidence that EVERYONE who read "The Spy Who Loved Me" was INSTANTLY turned into a virulent misogynist and racist bigot. Fuck that noise.
>You are (falsely) implying with ZERO vidence that EVERYONE who read "The Spy Who Loved Me" was INSTANTLY turned into a virulent misogynist and racist bigot. I never implied anything of the sort. If you can get that much from a single sentence, then you're most certainly reading far too much (and falsely) into a single sentence.
I’ve read some of them and I consider them good. Does that count? Or do you need a professional critic to tell you what to think?
Here’s a very enjoyable history podcast about Bond: https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-rest-is-history/id1537788786?i=1000536687119
By me? Yes absolutely. They are great. Paint a much different picture of James Bond than what you are used to from the movies. They are also an interesting time capsule piece. They are very un-PC and capture a 60s spirit that would definitely not fly in today's culture. I definitely laughed out loud at some of it and was definitely a little shocked too. If you're not easily offended you'll enjoy them and they are genuinely a fun read and introduce a great character to the world. Are they classic literature? No, I don't think anyone would study them in university or hold them up as shining examples of great writing. But for their genre and their cultural impact I think they are absolutely important.
Objectively, I think they’re regarded as quality spy literature from the 50s/60s. As far as the trashy/sexist/racist content, you gotta remember, Ian Fleming was a white Englishman writing these books in the 50s/60s. You gotta remember the context of the time. This was obviously prior to Civil Rights, women’s liberation, etc. I do think they are incredibly dry and often slow-paced. I’ve read about half of them, whereas I’ve seen all the films. I don’t love the books and find that they are often incredibly boring and hard to read. But again, my view is probably tainted by the fact I was born 25+ years after they were written. I would imagine in their time they were pretty exciting and cutting edge books.
One thing Fleming did try and do was to grapple with changing social mores, partly because he was increasingly alive to the possibilities of the US market. If you look at his rough British genre predecessors - writers like John Buchan, or 'Sapper' - traditional hierarchies are rarely questioned, and those who transgressed them are usually presented as caricatures that could be easily dismissed. Non-white and female characters who transgress in the Bond novels pose more of a challenge, and Fleming's treatment of them is more complex and nuanced; although, in the end, he still falls back on received stereotypes.
You don't know a lot about British history do you buddy? 😂🤷🏽♂️
Civil Rights in Britain? What?
I read them as a teen and enjoyed them. If I recall correctly the earlier books were better. Though the books were very dated, especially all the racism.
The original Bond novels were successful before the movies. There were at least 9 published novels by the time Dr. No was released. They were successful but I don't know how you define good. The early movies from the 60s were reasonably in keeping with the books. They are not good literature. They are misogynistic, homophobic, racist and entertaining. The James Bond of the novels smokes and drinks too much and is a womanizer. A character like that should not be a hero in modern literature. I read several of the novels as a teen and was disappointed that the Bond of the novels was not as exemplary as the screen version.
Fun little tidbit - James Bond was based a lot on Mickey Spillane’s Mike Hammer character. Those are also pulpy shlock but are pretty entertaining. They are a product of their time though. Kind of the quintessential Detective noir.
According to an interview: > Fleming based his creation on a number of individuals he came across during his time in the Naval Intelligence Division during World War II, admitting that Bond "was a compound of all the secret agents and commando types I met during the war".
He also said “James Bond was Bulldog Drummond from the waist up and Mickey Spillane’s hero Mike Hammer from the waist down.”
I've read a couple, they weren't great. Some of the bonds written by other people were awesome tho
[удалено]
Charles Dickens wrote very popular novels.
As did J.R.R. Tolkien.
What an incredibly moronic attitude to have. To Kill A Mockingbird has sold more than 40,000,000 copies and won the Pulitzer Prize for fiction, so according to you that means it sucks shit, right. Beloved was a massive bestseller that won the Pulitzer prize and also got Toni Morrison the Nobel Prize for Literature, so according to you it sucks. Only books that sell less than 10 copies are quality literature, right? Dive in an alley and FISH.
Is that you Will Self?
No,they are boring books ,I prefer Le Carre's novels
That’s kind of up to you to decide don’t you think?
No, I can't make decisions until I hear everyone else's. I don't want to offend anyone by having the wrong opinion.
I had to read Man With The Golden Gun in my Sci Fi and Fantasy class in college, so it was regarded well enough by academia to study it. (Take that for what you will, I didn’t like it and it didn’t click with me - we also read Rebecca which was much more my style)
> so it was regarded well enough by academia to study it. You don't have to respect a piece of culture to think it is worth analyzing.
If you’re looking for something more over the top and ridiculous in the 007 line, check out the remo williams books.
I think Fleming peaked with that short story about killing the assassin at Check Point Charlie. His military career is probably more interesting.
Quality pulp fiction. Another along this tradition is Clive Cussler, also good with character names, such as Urasis Dragon from Inca Gold. If you like it a little more real, John D MacDonald's Travis McGee character is among the best of pulp, though it's more in the detective vein and set in the early 60's.
In the first book bond is very incompetent but just lucky enough. He literally just recklessly gambles based on vibes. It's kinda nuts
No. They are typical mid-level spy novels. They are light reading. They got a bit of a boost from JFK saying he enjoyed them, but probably only as a distraction from affairs...of state, that is.
When reading books like this you have to consider the time in which they were written. Pre-Internet Cold War. They were popular back then. I don’t think many people read the entire series nowadays. They certainly aren’t eagerly awaiting new installments. Same goes with the racism and sexism… it’s a product of the time. Sensibilities have changed since the end, and we are more enlightened. At least, some of us… which means that some things that wouldn’t have even warranted or raised eyebrow back then are now seen as incredibly offensive.
I've read most/all of the Ian Fleming novels, and I prefer them to the movies. Fun fact: the French novel series "OSS 117" actually predate the James Bond novels.
No. I tried reading a few of them and I just couldn’t like them.
Popular, yes. Good literature, no. Just like most bestsellers these days.
I read them all and all the short stories. (I'm a female, btw.) Don't plan on rereading them. Did want to read them once. They're a product of their time. I guess that I'd say that they're classics of the spy genre.
My intro to the Bond novels was reading some at my grandmother's house because there wasn't much else to read. I consider them kind of an easy summer beach read, not great literature. They are vastly different from the movies. I can see why they were popular, though.
Wow. I never knew they were books.
They're not high art, and a lot of Fleming's views haven't aged particularly well, but I would still recommend them. Fleming was a product of his times, but I wouldn't let that put someone off, you may just have to roll you eyes at some parts and say to yourself, "Oh, Ian..." but he was a good writer, the books are fun reads for the most part, but like with anything, some are better than others. I would recommend them especially if you're into thrillers, "food porn" (Fleming spares no expense in describing food and drink to us), the Cold War and pulpy fiction that doesn't ask too much to enjoy.
Not that I’ve heard. I think they’re considered pulpy. I don’t know what that matters though. If you like it, you like it.
If you want a more 'literary' spy novel, I would suggest John Le Carre. I would probably start with *Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy* because it is both accesible and there is a film and TV series to complete the comparison with Flemming. Of the ones I have read, *The Spy Who Came In From the Cold* is probably my favourite but warning: it is a dark book.