1

Topic: Flemings main weakness as a writer

Just reading Dr. No at the moment and it struck me that Fleming is'nt very good at writing his villains.

Now usually the bond books follow a pretty tight structure.....London, briefing, travel to exotic location, meet girl, get trapped by evil madman, hear evil madmans spiel, endure some form of torture, save the day.

Now thats fine. I have no problem with the novels (or the movies) being formulaic but I find the bond novels really drag when they get to the "hear evil madmans story" bit. I love everything else but I always find my interest waning at this point.

The way the bad guys speak just never seems believable to me and it seems like Fleming just goes on and on.


Now dont get me wrong. I love the books and think Fleming is a great thriller writer, I just noticed that he seems to be really weak at writing the villains.

I know its a minor point but anybody else feel the same about this?

2

Re: Flemings main weakness as a writer

Can't say I have, sorry.

I love when Fleming gets to describe his ugly foreign-villain - Through Bond's first impression of them we are treated. Those are some of my favorite parts. (DN especiallly!)

But that's what makes us all different. ajb007/bond

3

Re: Flemings main weakness as a writer

Maherj1 wrote:

Now dont get me wrong. I love the books and think Fleming is a great thriller writer, I just noticed that he seems to be really weak at writing the villains.

They aren't meant to be, It's pure escapisim. Fantasy.

Have to agree with Alex. The villians are painted as loathsome creatures from Bond's perspective.

4

Re: Flemings main weakness as a writer

Maherj1 wrote:

Just reading Dr. No at the moment and it struck me that Fleming is'nt very good at writing his villains.

Now usually the bond books follow a pretty tight structure.....London, briefing, travel to exotic location, meet girl, get trapped by evil madman, hear evil madmans spiel, endure some form of torture, save the day.

Now thats fine. I have no problem with the novels (or the movies) being formulaic but I find the bond novels really drag when they get to the "hear evil madmans story" bit. I love everything else but I always find my interest waning at this point.

The way the bad guys speak just never seems believable to me and it seems like Fleming just goes on and on.


Now dont get me wrong. I love the books and think Fleming is a great thriller writer, I just noticed that he seems to be really weak at writing the villains.

I know its a minor point but anybody else feel the same about this?


I disagree with all of that. No offence to your opinion though. I find it is interesting about what happens with the villians. And to Dr No it is great because it is the first time we meet Dr No.

"Oh look! Parachutes for the both of us! Whoops, not anymore!"
"You see Mr Bond. You can't kill my dreams. But my dreams can kill you!"
"Time to face destiny."
                                         -Gaustav Graves in Die Another Day-

5

Re: Flemings main weakness as a writer

I disagree that the villains are a failing; in fact, I would say they're one of the most successful elements of the Bond novels.  While some (the Spang brothers, Scaramanga) are disappointing, the likes of Hugo Drax, Le Chiffre and Goldfinger are magnificent monsters.  They are egotistical, self-obsessed madmen, in love with their own villainy and persona, and so, yes, they start making elaborate and lengthy speeches.  I understand what you mean about "people don't talk like that", but given that Dr No is a man with claws for hands who lives in an underground base where he disrupts American missile shots and kills ornithologists, the fact that he feels the need to lecture 007 about his childhood is hardly the most unrealistic element.

If we're going to talk about Fleming's failings, I would look at the characterisation of some of his female characters rather than the villains.  While the films are (often inaccurately) pilloried for having weak women as the lead, the novels routinely present paper thin Bond Girls, who exist as tits and teeth and little else.  For all her importance to the novel, Vesper is an infuriatingly drab character, and it's hard to see what 007 sees in this neurotic shrew; Gala Brand is one of the bravest girls, but she has little personality beyond "policewoman"; and all three girls in Goldfinger are unbelievably weak, being respectively, damsel in distress (Jill), frigid lesbo (Tilly), and mixed up dyke in need of a good seeing to to sort her out (Pussy).  The most successful female character in the series in Vivienne Michel, because we actually see inside her head, and even then she's another damsel in distress who loves being "semi-raped".  There are good, interesting female characters - Honey, Solitaire, Tiffany - but I'd say the best written, best characterised, and most memorable woman in the whole series is Rosa Klebb - who's barely a woman at all.

6

Re: Flemings main weakness as a writer

Maherj1,
While I understand your point, I don't agree it is Fleming's main weakness. There are plenty of others. jetsetwilly has pointed out the lack of really credible females and there are usually at least two big plot holes in every book. But since you mention the villains, and I did read all the novels recently back to back, I think it is worth remembering that the explanation of the villain's plan is not just a device to explain what is happening (a lot of the time we know already) it is Fleming's device to explain WHY the villain is how he is, what makes his mind tick and motivates his lusts.
In that respect, he is almost trying to perform a minor psychoanalyisis.
Most of the bad guys are not even on the pages for very long.
The ones who are are often the least interesting.

In my summary, I suggested only 3 villains were great examples, GF, DN and the 4 baddies in FRWL.
To explain:

FRWL features General G, Kronsteen, Klebb and Grant. All these are introduced individually and given a credible back story and a believable persona. They feel like real characters, and are cold and calculating, unlike the genial Kerim, the seductive Tatiana and the conservative M & 007. The contrats are what makes them such a success.

DN meanwhile is only in the novel for 3 chapters and during this time Fleming explains how a clearly deranged mind has come to abandon the world. Like Stromberg in the films, he despises real life and has chosen to examin it. He's a little like a Nazi scientist experimenting on Jews and Romas. The toppling of missiles is a mere afterthought. He is also spectacularly memorable with his movements like a giant venomous worm and his eyes like revolver barrels.

GF is the most genial of the lot; he owes much to Fleming's earlier creation Drax, and its his vanity and greed that ultimately (3 times in fact) is his undoing with Bond. GF, even more so than Drax, is Fleming's attack on New Money, on the Nouveau Riche who were beginning to take over the establishments he held so dear. That GF has Bond's measure early on does not prevent him from keeping him alive. He recognises that it is better to have your enemies closer. Bond's foiling of the Fort Knox robbery is highly fortuitous. 

Of the other bad guys, I agree not all are a success, Drax, the Spangs, Largo and Scaramanga are all under developed. They come across as spoilt children or bullies and they don't cut the mustard.

In CR, Le Chiffre, as his name suggests, says very little and does less. His torture of Bond is the novel's highlight, but Fleming isn't so interested in Le Chiffre's story as he is in Bond's pain.

Equally, while Mr Big appears early in LALD, and his shadow hangs over the novel, he poses a demonic threat rather than an overtly physical one. Unlike the other bad guys, Mr Big doesn't ever really explain himself, perhaps because he doesn't feel he has to. Interestingly, these two villains (and the later Scaramanga) are all revealed to us via M's dossiers. A rather obtuse way of developing your adversary.

Blofeld is also an slightly underwritten character, but not without his strengths. Fleming is regurgetating ideas here. In TB Blofeld is the General G of SPECTRE, while in OHMSS and YOLT he is a pseudo-DrNo, choosing to hide himself away. By YOLT he has become obsessed with watching people die. That in itself is macarbe and horrific; very Edgar Allen Poe I thought.

Well, I don't know if that clears anything up, or muddies the water more. I juat wanted to add my several tuppences to the table of debate.

7

Re: Flemings main weakness as a writer

I do think some of the final reel showdowns of the movies go on and on to be fair, on repeat viewing.