Funny Thing Happened Today

Son Of Barbel

At school we were learning about cardboard characters and predictable plots and do you know what they used as an example Goldfinger, GOLDFINGER. X-(

4 extracts including his description on how much he loves gold. I defended it the whole time.

Hardyboy

Good for you, SOB (which doesn't stand for what it usually does!). Granted, Fleming's villains and most of his supporting characters don't have tremendous psychological depth, but I think calling Goldfinger "cardboard" is a bit much. Bond villains are archetypes--classic symbols of evil--and if your teacher can't recognize that, well, tell him/her that Hardyboy is a PROFESSOR and that I'm pulling rank!

(Not in the sense Bond used it in GoldenEye.)

Son Of Barbel

Thanks Professor!

I am definetly not my teachers biggest fan and she made it even worse.

It was the textbook that said it but she was in agreement.

They used a meeting between Bond and M, Bond meeting Smithers, Bond being tortured and Goldfinger descring his love of gold.

I will get round to reading Golfinger I started reading them recently starting with CR and now I'm on FRWL.

Thanks Again. {[]

emtiem

Hardyboy wrote:

Good for you, SOB (which doesn't stand for what it usually does!). Granted, Fleming's villains and most of his supporting characters don't have tremendous psychological depth, but I think calling Goldfinger "cardboard" is a bit much. Bond villains are archetypes--classic symbols of evil--and if your teacher can't recognize that, well, tell him/her that Hardyboy is a PROFESSOR and that I'm pulling rank!

Yeah, definitely. As you say; they don't have too much depth and do react to a pretty strict set of rules, never veering out of the expected (Goldfinger's got a load of rues which many Bond films adhered to; from the 'sacrificial lamb' character right up to the romantic end of the film, which for some reason always takes place next or on a large body of water! ), but I'm not sure that 'cardboard' is a very useful term for critical analysis...

DAWUSS

Son Of Barbel wrote:

At school we were learning about cardboard characters and predictable plots and do you know what they used as an example Goldfinger, GOLDFINGER. X-(

4 extracts including his description on how much he loves gold. I defended it the whole time.

Well I guess we DO know how a Bond film, novel, fan fiction, and video game ends...

darenhat

In my opinion, the James Bond canon is far from 'cardboard' particularly in the character of Bond himself. Sure, some of the novel elements are cliche, while the villians are archetypes as HB mentions, but the character of Bond himself is one that does emote and evolve over the course of several books. Fleming's books were far from formula-riddled trash. See the endings of CR, FRWL, OHMSS, and YOLT as examples.

Johmss

DAWUSS wrote:

Well I guess we DO know how a Bond film, novel, fan fiction, and video game ends...

Well, not precisely. If you read Moonraker.. ok the plot an the characters are just as "cardboards" if you want (but that would be (too much to denigrate them) but I love Gala Brand, and the endig is one of the best Bond endings ever.... i just imagine that scene in the park and... well, it seems perfect.

Anyhow, i've seen worst characters, and Fleming didn't invented a Spy, he invented a genre (that everyone copies to succeed or to denigrate)

Barbel

If Bond literature is cardboard then I've wasted a lot of my life! No-one's ever claimed that Fleming's work is classic literature, least of all the man himself, but it doesn't deserve to be picked on when there are an awful lot of worse writers out there- Agatha Christie and Alistair MacLean, two contemporary writers who can be directly compared to Fleming in terms of sales, both produced legions of cardboard and unmemorable characters. As Hardyboy says, Fleming worked with archetypes- his evil characters are all variations on a theme but they stick in the memory, as do some of his phrases.

Son Of is quite capable of dealing with his teacher, and I'm proud of that. He's ploughing his way through the Bond novels which gives me great pleasure (although I'm letting him read my paperbacks and not my first editions- no way is he taking them to school with him!) and more importantly it's his decision to read them. Well, after the Harry Potters anyway...

Alex

I personally believe Dan Brown is overrated, never could catch the reason for plaudits and international acclaim.

When Goldfinger debuted, now there was a piece of gripping fiction, IMO. It's easy to call it predictable, now. It ushered in a new trend and became a well known cliche. But someone had to come up with that cliche, which makes it original.

The ones emulating Bond half a century later fall into the cookie-cutter mentality closer then GF ever will. (Just my two bits)

emtiem

Alex wrote:

I personally believe Dan Brown is overrated, never could catch the reason for plaudits and international acclaim.

i thought everyone sort of agreed he turns out a load of old tosh, which is, nonetheless, quite fun. I'm not aware of his receiving international acclaim; people just like to read them on the beaches.

Alex wrote:

When Goldfinger debuted, now there was a piece of gripping fiction, IMO. It's easy to call it predictable, now. It ushered in a new trend and became a well known cliche. But someone had to come up with that cliche, which makes it original.

Do you mean the book? Because it was far from the first adventure novel, or even spy novel. If the film, well, even that has roots in many other movies- it certainly didn't invent the square jawed hero or evil foreign mastermind.

Loeffelholz

The GF film did finally distill the Precious Classic Bond Formula, to which all Bonds that followed---save a handful---rigidly adhered; in fact, the 'departure' films did so at their peril...

Which makes CR's success all the more sweet, IMRO.

As for the novel...I think Goldfinger remains one of Fleming's better-drawn villains, but I found Hugo Drax to be the best (prototypically classic) Bond villain in print.

Alex

emtiem wrote:

i thought everyone sort of agreed he turns out a load of old tosh, which is, nonetheless, quite fun. I'm not aware of his receiving international acclaim; people just like to read them on the beaches.

Not here, everybody thought he was the second coming of Stephen King, but "deeper".

Hey, word of mouth is a wonderful thing, I wish Dan would spread some of that wealth to other, more deserving authors.

emtiem wrote:

Do you mean the book? Because it was far from the first adventure novel, or even spy novel. If the film, well, even that has roots in many other movies- it certainly didn't invent the square jawed hero or evil foreign mastermind.

I'm certainly aware of cinema's history of fictional adventure prior to 1964. (Or earlier with the novel) But I'd like to see Son of Barbel's instructor write something just as page turning, before dismissing it as cardboard.

superado

Loeffelholz wrote:

The GF film did finally distill the Precious Classic Bond Formula, to which all Bonds that followed---save a handful---rigidly adhered; in fact, the 'departure' films did so at their peril...

Which makes CR's success all the more sweet, IMRO.

As for the novel...I think Goldfinger remains one of Fleming's better-drawn villains, but I found Hugo Drax to be the best (prototypically classic) Bond villain in print.

Loeffs, I stand amazed at your mastery over "the six degrees of CR praises," in the Lit forum...about GF...the novel! ...keep em coming! {[]

Now, now, the Site Help forum might prove to be quite a challenge, but I have every confidence in your creative abilities )

darenhat

superado wrote:

Loeffs, I stand amazed at your mastery over "the six degrees of CR praises," in the Lit forum...about GF...the novel! ...keep em coming! {[]

) )

Loeffelholz

superado wrote:

Loeffs, I stand amazed at your mastery over "the six degrees of CR praises," in the Lit forum...about GF...the novel! ...keep em coming! {[]

Now, now, the Site Help forum might prove to be quite a challenge, but I have every confidence in your creative abilities )

The Site Help forum is next, my long-suffering, Craig-Hating friend {[]

I only brought up the GF film in response to other posts contrasting it with the novel. Given that CR was the final Fleming adaptation---and the fact that it largely defied the formula established by GF, I thought it was worth mentioning. Sorry about that

Your confidence in my creative abilities is an endless fount of inspiration |)

highhopes

Loeffelholz wrote:

superado wrote:

Loeffs, I stand amazed at your mastery over "the six degrees of CR praises," in the Lit forum...about GF...the novel! ...keep em coming! {[]

Now, now, the Site Help forum might prove to be quite a challenge, but I have every confidence in your creative abilities )

The Site Help forum is next, my long-suffering, Craig-Hating friend {[]

I only brought up the GF film in response to other posts contrasting it with the novel. Given that CR was the final Fleming adaptation---and the fact that it largely defied the formula established by GF, I thought it was worth mentioning. Sorry about that

Your confidence in my creative abilities is an endless fount of inspiration |)

Please Loeff -- teach me. I want to learn.

Tee Hee

Loeffs is a madman! He must be stopped!

Unleash the virus-laden emails! )

Loeffelholz

:v

superado

highhopes wrote:

Loeffelholz wrote:

superado wrote:

Loeffs, I stand amazed at your mastery over "the six degrees of CR praises," in the Lit forum...about GF...the novel! ...keep em coming! {[]

Now, now, the Site Help forum might prove to be quite a challenge, but I have every confidence in your creative abilities )

The Site Help forum is next, my long-suffering, Craig-Hating friend {[]

I only brought up the GF film in response to other posts contrasting it with the novel. Given that CR was the final Fleming adaptation---and the fact that it largely defied the formula established by GF, I thought it was worth mentioning. Sorry about that

Your confidence in my creative abilities is an endless fount of inspiration |)

Please Loeff -- teach me. I want to learn.

This is the honest truth...I was just about to cheer Loeff on more...to serve as inspiration for Highhopes ) ) )