Who do you picture when reading the Bond novels?

EDOG51

When reading the bond novels and seeing the events plan out in your head who do you picture as 007? is it one of the 6 so far to play him in the movies or do you see a different bond when reading the books

Scribe74

When I read the Bond novels, I generally picture Bond as a slight burnout with that scar down the right side of his face. None of the actors who have portrayed come to mind (although I think Daniel Craig definitely embodies the spirt of Fleming's writing).

j.blades

i picture the bond drawn in my avatar picture. -{

EDIT: of course not anymore I changed my picture. )

blofeld#1

Connery

Rick Roberts

As Scribe74, none of the actors. I have own image in mind.

little nelly

Inevitably, Connery.

zig zag

It was connery,but now after reading the books over and over,I have an image in my own mind.Not sure how to describe him though,but he's not muscular like DC. -{

JimmyBond0129

It's funny, when I read Casino Royale I pictured Sean Connery when the book described Bond but I also imagined Connery with scar make-up applications on his face. But when the book described the raw emotion on Bond's face, as he explained the game of baccarat to Vesper I thought of Daniel Craig because Connery couldn't really evoke any emotion on his face, but perhaps it wasn't his fault maybe it was the director's fault for not directing. In any case it's weird that I would imagine both Sean Connery and Daniel Craig when I read Casino Royale for the first time.

I had the same experience with Live and Let Die when I read that book for the first time. Except I imagined Roger Moore and Timothy Dalton. At the beginning of the book I imagined Roger Moore arriving on the tarmac of a New York airport, going through customs and arriving at the hotel. But when it came to the action I imagined Timothy Dalton, as I read about the warehouse gunfire in the Florida Keys, I visualized Dalton dodging bullets and kicking that negro into those shark infested waters.

Rick Roberts

JimmyBond0129 wrote:

I thought of Daniel Craig because Connery couldn't really evoke any emotion on his face, but perhaps it wasn't his fault maybe it was the director's fault for not directing.

Though I love Connery he is a rather limited actor, not as versatile as Timothy Dalton or Daniel Craig.

hegottheboot

I still don't have an image of Bond when reading the books. It's more of a feeling that I get. All I picture is the scar and the lifestyle.
If I did picture anyone it would probably come closest to George, like when I read Chandler the only person who occasionally comes to mind is Robert Mitchum.

Joe King

I always see a slightly thinner version of Timothy Dalton with a scar.

Infernorhythm

It's lately been Craig-like, but inevitably I always revert to Fleming's Bond:

Fatsnbul

I still picture Connery and all those who play the key rolls in his films. Bernard Lee and etc..

mrbond

I picture your ma

Ask Dr No

For me, I always picture that actor who played in the movie version of the book I am reading.

e.g.
I pictured Sean Connery in:
>Thunderball.
>Dr No.
>Goldfinger.

I pictured Dainel Craig in:
>Quantum of Solace short story.
>Risco short story.
>Devil May Care.

I pictured Timothy Dalton in:
>Living Daylights.

I pictured George Lazenby (Lazenby might be spelt wrong) in:
>On Her Majesty's Secret Service (still reading).

I pictured Roger Moore in:
>Octopussy.

So my Bond always changes.

D'Arturo

Fleming's description of Bond is so different from any of the screen versions that I have never pictured Bond as one of the Bond actors...instead, in my head I see Bond as the lean-faced, dark-haired, grey-eyed man with the "cruel mouth" that Fleming describes pretty consistently in the novels. I think the closest to my vision of Bond is represented by this book jacket illustration from the 70s, although, I suppose the case could be made that he looks like Sean Connery, only with the classic "comma" of hair above the right eyebrow!

DavidJones

I don't picture any of the actors. It's a different universe.

0013

I always thought Michael Jayston would make a good M.

DavidJones

0013 wrote:

I always thought Michael Jayston would make a good M.

Film wise, yes, I think he could have done in the 80s (too old now, of course). Because Robert Brown was just as plump as Bernard Lee, there was some question whether or not he was playing the same character or simply a promoted Admiral Hargreeves, so to go for a taller/thinner actor would have been better.

Jayski

I've just started listening to the books on tape this past year for the first time after many many years of watching the films. So far It's always been Connery, but I also think thats due to the fact that he represents an era closer to the Fleming novels then any of the other guys. I just finished Live and Let Die last week and at the beginning I really tried to envision Moore, which worked fine for the New York scenes which were similar to the movie, but everything after that just wasn't Moore, especially the stuff in Jamaica. I think Connery is just too iconic and engraved in my brain as bond that i'll never be able to replace that image. Not that I want to, he was the best.

Colonel Shatner

James Woods from the 1980s crossed with David Niven from the 1940s.

The Domino Effect

I've never really thought about this before but as I am currently re-reading all the novels in chronological order, it's definitely an interesting question. I have found that I actually don't picture anyone in particular. I suppose that of the screen Bonds, 'my' Bond most closely resembles Connery, but as someone else suggested that's likely because the books live and breathe the 1950s/60s and Connery is the only one from that era. However, I do hear Connery's voice in my head when I read certain lines that are the same or similar to those from the films. His voice leaps up from the page...but only when it is a line later used by the screenwriter. Interestingly enough however, the villains and the Bondgirls are most definitely the screen villains and Bondgirls.

Verona

Sometimes Craig, sometimes a completely different guy.

Bentley Mark IV

As far as looks are concerned I would say that Brosnan comes closest to the literary bond. Esp in GE where he has the black hair with the "coma" frequently, blue eyes and he is leaner than other bonds. When it comes to persona however I always identify with Dalton's portrayal.

j.blades

D'Arturo wrote:

Fleming's description of Bond is so different from any of the screen versions that I have never pictured Bond as one of the Bond actors...instead, in my head I see Bond as the lean-faced, dark-haired, grey-eyed man with the "cruel mouth" that Fleming describes pretty consistently in the novels. I think the closest to my vision of Bond is represented by this book jacket illustration from the 70s, although, I suppose the case could be made that he looks like Sean Connery, only with the classic "comma" of hair above the right eyebrow!

now that i think of it, i do sort of picture a bond like in the picture, but very slightly different.

Solaris

The Bond I imagine, although not being any of the movie Bonds is probably closest to Dalton in appearance and speech, but different in ways I can't really describe.

Oracabessa

I don't imagining him as looking like any of the screen incarnations. As a matter of fact, I don't think the Bond of my mind looks like any actor (or person, for that matter) than I am aware of.

Barbel

The Domino Effect wrote:

I suppose that of the screen Bonds, 'my' Bond most closely resembles Connery, but as someone else suggested that's likely because the books live and breathe the 1950s/60s and Connery is the only one from that era. However, I do hear Connery's voice in my head when I read certain lines that are the same or similar to those from the films. His voice leaps up from the page...but only when it is a line later used by the screenwriter. Interestingly enough however, the villains and the Bondgirls are most definitely the screen villains and Bondgirls.

That just about sums it up for me. Since I first read the Fleming books in the 60s, Sean Connery's face, image and above all voice are what I generally envisage when reading the books... except when Dalton takes over for the (then) unfilmed sequences. Never Moore, certainly not Lazenby and God forbid Craig- though Brosnan does pop up from time to time!

Villain-wise, most care was taken with the early films (Joseph Wiseman, Lotte Lenya, Robert Shaw, and above all Gert Frobe) although that eroded with time (with the exception of Christopher Lee!) and Bondgirl-wise much the same.

Edit- This is without disparage to non-Fleming characters!

superado

Barbel wrote:

Villain-wise, most care was taken with the early films (Joseph Wiseman, Lotte Lenya, Robert Shaw, and above all Gert Frobe) although that eroded with time (with the exception of Christopher Lee!) and Bondgirl-wise much the same.

Since the villains were mentioned, I was reminded of the audio versions of the books. Though I can't relate any of the film Bonds when I read, I sometimes can't help but imagine the movie characterizations of the villains and recurring characters, most particularly for M. For me, however, a totally different M comes to life when listening to the narrated novels, and the same thing applies for the villains, like Dr. No, Goldfinger, Donovan Grant and Drax.

IMO, if one wants to fully discover the Bond character, reading the novels is superior to watching the movies because it allows you to pick up on Fleming's intended characterization of the characters and the portrayal of the world he lives in, including even subtle yet deliberate nuances when written well; however, engaging the written word in the silence of the mind can sometimes facilitate an open-ended interpretation when one is not paying careful attention to what's actually written.

I suppose it also boils down to a narrators' interpretation (sometimes erroneous, like how Bill Tanner was portrayed in an audio novel as an older man like in the Moore movies), but often times the writing is deliberate and clear enough that it will restrict and define the dialog, that the interpreter cannot help but retain the personality, tone, etc. in the audible reading as Fleming intended. The result is experiencing a Fleming character coming to life in a way that doesn't resemble whatever screen version thats fixed into the reader's mind. Lastly, for me an interesting paradox is that to ultimately grasp Fleming with as little personal bias as possible, it's not a case of abandoning performances (the film series) and embracing the internalized experience of reading the written source, but experiencing the faithful yet dramatic reading of the literary material, which essentially like the films...is a performance.

Dmitri Mishkin

I think of either the illustration above or George Lazenby. I'm not sure why but I have had a picture in my mind of what literary Bond looks like and he doesn't really look like many of the actors who have portrayed him.

Donald Grant

When I was young and new to Bond I found myself trying to picture Connery when reading the novels. However, the more I read the more I came to see, in my minds eye, someone very different then Connery. At first it was a bit disconcerting having a cinematic Bond and a literary Bond that did not match 100%, but then I got used to it and liked the difference. It's hard to explain, but I don't see any of the actors, nor do I see Hoagy Carmichael, or Fleming for that matter. I think everyone see's the Bond of the novels slightly different. Fleming saw him one way as evidenced by the drawing he had commisioned for the look of the illustrated Bond in the Daily Express. Of course McClusky saw him with a bit harder edge similar to a Connery type and judged Fleming's drawing of Bond too pre-war. The producers of the movies initially saw him as a Cary Grant type while Fleming saw him as David Niven before realizing that Connery was an inspired choice.

To me the Bond of the novels is tougher and more ruthless than what he has become on screen. As Superado said above, listening to the audio versions of the novels is a great treat, and you'll be captivated by Fleming's writing brought to life.

DG