The myth of realism?

mrbain007

A lot of people go on about the "gritty realism" of Fleming's novels. However I am unsure whether this is precisely accurate. True, the books were more serious compared to a lot of the films, however I don't think that necessarily makes them "realistic". I wouldn't have thought surving an obsticle course of death traps and a battle with a giant squid are "realistic" as such.

I'd be interested to know other people's opinions.

R. Sterling

I'm with you there.

The books are a fantasy too.

They just tend to be more "realistic" than the movies.

The grittiness of the novels is mostly to be attributed to Bond himself: We read, feel what he thinks and feels.
That's pretty gritty in itself.

-{

Hardyboy

Interesting. In Fleming's own time critics carped about the lack of realism in the books, and to this day John le Carre excoriates the novels for their "flag-waving," fantastic depictions of secret service life. Fleming himself never tried to pass the books off as true to life--he saw them as escapist literature--and his own wife dismissively called them "horror comics." That said, Fleming did try to present Bond as a realistic character--someone who felt pain, depression, and creeping middle age--and Fleming never played the stories for laughs, which the film producers did frequently. I guess you could say Bond was meant to be realistic, but his world. . .not so much.

mrbain007

Hardyboy wrote:

Interesting. In Fleming's own time critics carped about the lack of realism in the books, and to this day John le Carre excoriates the novels for their "flag-waving," fantastic depictions of secret service life. Fleming himself never tried to pass the books off as true to life--he saw them as escapist literature--and his own wife dismissively called them "horror comics." That said, Fleming did try to present Bond as a realistic character--someone who felt pain, depression, and creeping middle age--and Fleming never played the stories for laughs, which the film producers did frequently. I guess you could say Bond was meant to be realistic, but his world. . .not so much.

I think you have summed it up very nicely there

Fleming's Bond was certainly a flawed character, a man who sometimes felt pain, fear and anger. Physically he was also able to suffer from a beating - an aspect they often overlooked in the films.

However, his experiences were often very larger-than-life.

When pondering what I remembered from the novel Bond I came to the conclusion that he was an ordinary man in an extra-ordinary world.

I like your point about the flag-waving aswell . I remember a speech Bond makes near the end of GF when he's in the plane. Very patriotic - boarderlining on cheesy nowadays (and I'm British!)

Golrush007

The books also vary in their level of realism and fantasy. DN for instance, is much more fantastical than FRWL which immediately proceeded it. Whilst I suppose none of the novels paint a realistic picture of the world of espionage some do attempt a more realistic and down to earth approach. The constant element which makes the reader go along with whatever Fleming writes is Bond, who has feet of clay in all the books, whereas in some of the films (Moore ones in particular) this is not the case.

superado

Since HB mentioned LeCarre, whoa, those novels of his are so realistic that sometimes they are just so boring when compared to the other mainstream thriller novels. Yes, I guess we lazily label the Flemings as "gritty realism" to contrast them with the movies. Afterall, we don't hear John Barry's Orchestra blaring during the novels' action sequences, etc., etc.

Along these lines, another very popular myth out there is how DC's Bond is "so much like Fleming's Bond," because his rendition is starkly different and often stripped of the traditional Bond glamor; again this is so IMO because of the lazy correlations automatically being made about their respective labels of "gritty realism."

darenhat

Part of the 'realism' of Fleming's work IMO is rooted in the fact that the medium is different. The novels give us a much more personal look at Bond, his insights, his motivations, and emotions - something that is much more naturally achieved in the format of a novel. In a sense, this makes Bond and his experiences a bit more believable in spite of the 'unbelievable' plot details. The films have a much more difficult row to hoe in matching the balance of character and action - for many reasons.

chrisno1

While I would certainly agree the novels are not [in general] realistic, in that secret agents do not usually stay in first class hotels, gamble away the funds of their service, assassinate enemy agents with increasing regularity, battle giant squids, meet exotic villians in exotic hideaways, etc etc, some of Fleming's writing is realistic:
Bond's musing's on the sack of life (in GF, OHMSS & YOLT) are wonderful, some of his plot strands have subsequently become more realistic than they were when written (OHMSS, TB) and some stories do feel very Cold War, and have a dirty, seedy, edge to them (FRWL, FAVTAK, all the stories in OP).
I agree with the point about Le Carre. His tales are so dull.

JLord

Le Carre boring? Dull? What part of The Honourable Schoolboy is dull? Except for the bit in Italy when he bangs on about Westerby and his books and his 14-year-old girlfriend? And that Australian who calls everyone "your Grace" because he is meant to have been inspired by Richard Hughes and is so unfunny? And, um, all that stuff in every book about Smiley's wayward wife and how Smiley creeps around at dead of night outside her door (ugh)? And everything Connie Sachs and di Salis have to say? And the whole sequence in Indo-China? Hang on, I'm getting confused....