Is skyfall mentioned in the books ?
martinreds05
Posts: 1MI6 Agent
in which book is skyfall first mentioned?
martinreds05
Posts: 1MI6 Agent
Comments
I was going to suggest reading them to find out
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Certainly the most generic
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
I haven't read the Young Bond books, but I did read the Authorised Biography of James Bond by (I think) John Pearson which mentions, among other things, how he spent his childhood with his aunt after both his parents were killed in a climbing accident in Switzerland. If anything, his "childhood home" would be his aunt's house.
Is there an award, as I'm bound to be in the running for it.
I start on a speech right away.
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
I hate to tell you this, but after carefull scientific examination "we" have come to a conclusion that the John Pearson book is sh!t, and that "our" funds should never have been wasted in buying it.
-Mr Arlington Beech
Interesting response. I read all of the John Gardner books when they first came out and have read Amis, Faulks and Deaver and I have Pearson's Bond Biography although haven't actually read it. Although all are authorised by the Fleming estate - and Pearson and Amis both knew Fleming personally - and I have enjoyed some of them a lot, some a bit, and at least one not at all - for Bond history there is only one reliable source, and that is the original Fleming novels. Everything else should be taken with a grain of salt - like Deaver's ridiculous addition to the life of Bond's parents. If it's in a Fleming novel it's 'fact.' If it's elsewhere it should have an asterisk beside it.
To me that Pearson book reads pretty much like it was written mainly about the kind of Bond Roger Moore was. There were parts that were either too fantastic or felt just glued on to be the same Bond Fleming wrote about.
-Mr Arlington Beech
Haven't read it, but that's funny considering that the only reason Bond developed his Scottish ancestry is because Fleming wanted to tie him into Connery a bit! (Thankfully he did make him a tattooed former boxing milkman!).
I forget which of the Bond reference books I’ve read in the past couple of years (perhaps “The Making of OHMSS”) but the “Bond became Scottish because of Connery” bit of trivia is probably one of the most irritating Bond myths out there, which began from how Fleming quotes and other known facts were strung together by a writer to create a “wow” angle for their write-up. There’s documentation in Fleming’s notes and/or rough manuscripts how he already, earlier determined Bond to have a Scottish ancestry, like himself, predating DN the movie and even the meeting with/hearing about Connery when he was cast as Bond. As I’ve posted below, in Pearson’s book he nicely contrasted the real James Bond, who he “meets” in the book, with Connery and it’s pretty interesting; if you read that, it pretty much captures my assessment of James Bond of the books vs. James Bond of the films.
Can you briefly share why you think this book is "sh*t"?
I disagree and think it is a pretty good book considering when it was written. As Fleming's assistant and researcher at the Sunday Times, Pearson became a highly qualified "Bondologist" and used his in-depth knowledge of and personal/professional acquaintance with Fleming to great advantage and it shows. He was faithful in capturing the "essence" of Bond and did a reasonably good job in filling in the blanks to account for the bits and pieces of Fleming's Bond in one form or another. Yes, there were some fantastic elements, like Bond's "adult" exploits while still a teenager, though Fleming himself wasn't immune to the fantastic and at times, audacious elements of his books. If anything, it was this very premise and framework that proved limiting, because just as the book was out to prove that truth is stranger than fiction, connecting some of the Fleming elements in real life to create “aha!” points seemed forced, like Bond’s relationship with so-and-so and the new storyline created in this book for that character. It was quite a challenge and an impressive feat to mesh "the facts" and timelines (e.g., Bond's birth date, particularly the year, as interpolated by his age when he volunteered for the Navy before WWII, how he bought a 1929 Bentley "new," etc.) laid down by Fleming (sloppily at times) into a coherent and sensible narrative. I liked the way Bond was neatly contrasted with his movie counterpart and demonstrated to be the one who’s "real" and much more interesting. I also liked how Bond first discovered that it was in moments of sheer danger and high adrenaline when he experiences a curious calmness and clarity of mind. Despite some fantastic episodes, “the Authorized Biography of 007” was presented with a relatively true-to-life framework in the course of the author’s supposed investigation that was the premise of the book, with the “real” James Bond peeking out of the 4th wall, so to speak. I’ve read this book twice and was fortunate to get my hands on the audio versions on CD and I recommend it to those who haven’t given this outing a spin.
...returning to the thread, has the meaning of "Skyfall" been discussed on AJB already? Has it been mentioned on the Bond on Set book, etc.? I'm sure it will somehow be explained in the DVD, but for now...
Of course, I suppose there's the traditional element of how properties were given grandiose, epic names, like Wuthering Heights, which also had a moor setting. To me, "Skyfall" seemed symbolic that the Chicken Little reference to "The Sky is Falling" was a forboding element in the movie, with that actually happening when things were about to hit the fan almost literally in the climax, and figuratively with how a reckoning with the characters was due to happen soon, with such a heightened sense of paranoia surrounding the MI6 personalities.
Why certainly, brief is no problem; it just is. I've read that book 3-4 times, and with each passing I like that book less. At first reading I even managed to like the damn thing, eventhough it did leave a nagging feeling that something was amiss. That is why I picked it up again later. It's very much like Col. Sun, it doesn't feel right, it feels fabricated.
Oh and that bit about Pearson becoming a "highly qualified Bondologist", what other work there is by Pearson about Bond that would make one believe that? Just that he knew IF at one time is circumstantial at best, but most likely just coincidental in this matter.
-Mr Arlington Beech
He also wrote "The Life Of Ian Fleming", http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Life-Ian-Fleming-Created/dp/1854108980 , which was highly regarded at the time.
In previous years, people have argued that the literary and cinematic Bonds are distinct characters and that simply because Fleming said that Bond has Scottish ancestry doesn't mean that the film 007 does. Nice to see SF bringing the literary background into the cinematic character and underlining Fleming's intent.
I also agree with you re Pearson, supes!
Yes, he also wrote the "authorized" biography of Biggles, which isn't either about Bond. Just like "The Life Of Ian Fleming" is not about James Bond.
If you could say that you knew Gordon Ramsay, or even had worked with him as an assistant, would you say that that would make qualified to say what makes a Michelin Star restaurant? (Yes I know that is a bit far fetched, but I'm short at time, my 2yo son is like a monkey on my back as I write this waiting to get out to play and I just happen to have GR's book on my desk....)
-Mr Arlington Beech
I suppose you just don't like the book and it surprises me that it took 3-4 readings to discover that. You even said that your "funds should never have been wasted in buying it," but it seems you've wasted something more valuable, which is the time you spent for multiple readings?
Sorry, conceptually I used "Bondologist" and "Flemingologist" interchangeably, but evidently, by virtue of his professional history and by the content of his books, Pearson was unquestionably both; you asked what other books about Bond he wrote and there are none, but does that argument lessen his expertise about Bond?
Who would you consider a bonafide "Bondologist"? How many books about Bond must one write to become a Bondologist? There is only a handful of people who have done extensive research on Fleming and his work for the expressed purpose of writing a Fleming biography, which IMO is also key to effectively writing a Bond novel that is faithful to Fleming. Pearson did both and writing not only a Bond novel in the guise of a complete biography, but also a comprehensive biography on Fleming before that, which gives him a distinction that he shares with no one else, living or dead.
I'm puzzled by what you mean about Pearson's acquaintanceship with Fleming, being "circumstantial" and "coincidental"; an accomplished writer in his own right, Pearson worked for Fleming not as his dentist, lawyer or valet, but in a prolonged and professional capacity in the publishing business during the years when Fleming wrote his James Bond books, which is unique exposure to the source material. After Fleming's death, his widow, Anne collaborated with Pearson to fill in other details of Ian's biography that was commissioned by the Sunday Times. The totality of these is more than a leg up over the likes of the early "Bondogogist" Kingsley Amis, who might have known Fleming though not in the same social or writing circles, or Raymond Benson, who never met Fleming but distinguished himself as a Fleming/Bondologist before writing his Bond novels.
Sorry about that, English is not my native language, so it is possible that I wasn't completely clear with what I meant by that. My meaning was to point out, that there is no material evidence to prove that knowing Fleming (even if it was an intimate relationship (god forbid)) would make one knowledgeable about his work or what lies behind his choices about Bond back story. As far as we know it, James Bond: The Authorized Biography of 007, is pure John Pearson when ever we can't cross check it with reliable unrelated source material, or from the novels by IF.
Oh and about the wasted time: I wouldn't worry about that, I believe that reading is beneficial on the whole, and even if we don't like or even disagree with what we read, time is never wasted when it's spent reading.
-Mr Arlington Beech
But the "proof" of Pearson's high degree of knowledge about Fleming/Bond is all there for us to scruitinize in his two books. Of course the finished product was all Pearson; he's not writing inspired Holy Scripture after all and he needed to weave a fantastic framework to accommodate the Fleming data. But what is also evident is the painstaking effort to ensure that the Fleming/Bond facts and tidbits have been faithfully preserved, as I've mentioned, which include details about Bond's schooling, lineage, time spent in the Continent, his military service including the 2 kills mentioned in passing in CR, why he was in the Ardennes, the romantic relationships that were documented in the Fleming books, etc. Of course, since his objective was to fabricate a fictional biography, there would surely be some lacking Fleming material that prevents a proper accounting for a person's life. Since Fleming was already dead and at best there might have been personal notes and unpublished manuscripts at Pearson's disposal, another author would need to creatively add his own embellishments and artistic license using the Fleming data as a basis. Otherwise, nothing but Fleming penning the 007 Biography himself would be satisfactory; so should have Bond been left alone after Fleming died?
But let me ask you a more relevant question, since your strong disagreement stems from my mention of "Bondologist" and you do not think Pearson is one, according to your standards what would qualify someone to be a "Bondologist"?
There were, as confirmed in the above mentioned "The Life Of Ian Fleming" which includes a brief extract from an unfinished Bond story among others.
You know, I'm gettin a strong sensation of running in circles. I question Pearsons knowledge about Bond (not about IF mind you) as he puts it out in his book, and you offer that very book as THE proof.
We can continue this conversation ad-nauseam, or we can cease and desist, I'll desist.
Anyways, as to your question about qualifications of a Bondologist, this is easy. That term suggest that scientific ways and means have been utilized. Therefore same qualifications also apply to Pearsons work as to any scientific work; you know transparency, independent scrutiny, proof why any presented thesis would true or false and so on. With Pearsons work we have none of that. The holy scripture is an interesting comparison by you, maybe it was subconcious from you, but I think very relevant; we get that same aswer with bible all the time: "What proof do we have about holy scripture?" "Are stupid, the aswer is in the book!"
-Mr Arlington Beech
Thank you, Barbel, to 0073’s concerns that show Pearson not being just a casual enthusiast like me, but underwent a serious endeavor in preparing for his Fleming and fictional Bond biographies. He is after all a professional writer who must be well versed in the research necessary to produce work that publishers would be confident in making a sizable printing and marketing financial commitment.
Ad-nauseam, I agree. “…transparency, independent scrutiny, proof why any presented thesis would true or false… ” I’m sorry, but considering what we’re discussing here, that is quite laughable.
Actually, you mention the science of independent scrutiny but you are mistaken about the study of ancient religious manuscript for which you assume we have the “internal” evidence of what was written as the only means to analyze the literature; in fact that process entails the enormous work of linguistics, archeology, anthropology and even modern forensic science, all just to arrive at the best guess about the manuscript without coming close to any certainties. But on the other hand, with the works of John Pearson, this is all just, merely …FICTION! …written in the very recent 20th Century, by an author who is still alive! However, you do reject the validity of this man not only having the requisite research material, but also 1st person access to Fleming during which time there were privileged unique opportunities for discussion about the subject matter between two trained writers, as well as personal insights from his widow and colleagues, that were equally privileged opportunities not available to you, me or anyone else not living at that time.
Why would you require such a high degree of scrutiny for Pearson’s works on Fleming and Bond when your opening post on this thread couldn’t be any more vague with the generally dismissive conclusion of calling his work, “sh*t”? Pearson’s book isn’t a university thesis or scientific treatise to be deliberated upon in Stockholm.
Since you insist on a strict adherence to the scientific implications of this term, should a writer aspiring for a commanding expertise first pursue a PhD in Bondology, just so he can write 2 authoritative books about Fleming and Bond with a commercial intent for the mass-market? Should a person first get a doctorate in fashion and design before allowing others to call them “Fashionista”? Should one first obtain a degree in education from India to be called a “Guru”?
But more pressing, you still haven’t answered my earlier question; WHO would you consider a qualified “Bondologist” so as to disqualify an author like John Pearson from enjoying this distinction from someone like me?
ADDENDUM: By the way, have you the chance to read any of the essay compilations about the James Bond phenomenon like, “The Politics of James Bond,” “Revisioning 007” and “James Bond and Philosophy?” The contributing authors are highly qualified in their respective fields of sociology, literature, etc., holding distinctions as professors, lecturers, PhD holders or PhD candidates. Yet, if you read what they have to say about the actual topic of “James Bond,” their expertise in general seem no better than the members here on AJB, as a whole and inferior to someone like Pearson, Benson, Andrew Lycett, or any of the authors of recent works like, Henry Chancellor and John Griswold, all as far as I know are not PhD holders in "Bondology."
You're welcome, superado.
Maybe it's high time that you all took a cool beer from my chiller and paid a visit to The Bondologist Blog:
http://www.thebondologistblog.blogspot.co.uk/
Great blog.. Thx...
And this answers the original question ( mm.. What was that again?? ) as well as any other reference..
http://www.thebondologistblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/ian-fleming-on-james-bonds-all-scottish.html