I just don’t read it that way at all, but your reading of it is certainly as valid as mine.
In the very next paragraph Bond shows excitement in seeing his old friend Quarrel and even says how good he looks “affectionately.” The same immigration officer then let’s Bond’s bag through without opening it (indifference) but it was because he also knew Quarrel and figured if Bond was a friend of his that he didn’t need to be checked out further.
The scene as a whole just doesn’t feel like Fleming, and by extension Bond, having any malice toward Black people.
1 Like
I think it’s possible the offending word isn’t “indifference” but “Negro.” In my youth, I interpreted this as a neutral term, a purely scientific qualifier used in data gathering, likely to show up in census records or on government forms. In my first real job in the late 80s, I worked for a black woman in a government agency that, among other things, reviewed enrollment and retention figures at public universities, and when one school used the term “Negro” in an official report, she was pretty upset, which was my first indication things had changed (or I’d gotten them wrong). As I recall, she didn’t take its use so much as an intentional slur as just a sign that the writers and the school they represented were stuck in the attitudes and worldview of a less enlightened era. But upset is upset.
I just looked it up on Wikipedia (that great oracle) and apparently the term can be interpreted as pejorative depending on where you are in the world (like my old office, for instance!) so I imagine the estate is abandoning the label entirely as a result.
There’s also the legitimate question of why it matters at all. I frequently hear from older family members who relate stories of things they’ve seen or experienced at stores, restaurants, etc with phrases like, “so this Black gentleman…” or “some Black lady…” and I always wait for the part of the story where race is relevant. It never really is. A lot of times those lead-ins are followed by something like “…started making a scene” or “…cut me off in traffic” so I can only assume the detail about race was thrown in to put me on their side for the rest of the story, as if saying the person is Black should tip me off from the start that something negative is bound to happen next. You know, sort of like when a wealthy foreigner with a physical deformity shows up in a Fleming novel.
1 Like
Yes, to be clear, “negro” is the word we’re talking about being removed, not “indifference.” Can’t think of anything wrong with “indifference.”
One point I’ve been thinking about since this started… if Fleming approved of the changes to the US version with the vigor IFP seems to be telling us he did, why were the changes never used in the UK editions, and why did they then revert back to the original texts in the US?
What’s interesting is that this matter is getting a lot of press and, as for the press and opinions in it that I’ve read, the feedback is that this is some kind of unnecessary censorship and cultural cancelling of sorts.
And even so, these entities don’t back down and seem to be decided in going through with something nobody seems to agree with or called for!
Looks like you can be the best author/filmmaker/singer and worth millions. But you’ll be one anonymous angry tiktok criticism away from being cut out/boycotted/cancelled by your publisher/studio/record label.
It’s certainly interesting that the Fleming estate has grown a social conscience at this late stage and is choosing to make these changes with such fanfare in the wake of the recent dust-ups over Dr Seuss and Roald Dahl. It’s almost as if they’re so desperate for attention that they’ll gladly settle for the negative kind. (“Hey, if you thought Dahl was offensive, check out our guy!”)
But to be fair, I’m not sure how I would be able to greenlight a 21st century printing of a book that included the n-word if I owned the rights. There’s a sense in which Bond will always be “current” despite the age of the books. Some past works are stuck in their era, so it’s easier to view them as archeological artifacts. Bond is still an active franchise, and the movies and books are more or less “evergreen.” We’re seeing that sometimes longevity is a double-edged sword.
1 Like
I’m going to start a rumor on social media that if you watch “You Only Live Twice,” which is connected to Ian Fleming AND Roald Dahl, you will spontaneously combust.
1 Like
I do not think the question is whether or not Fleming had any malice toward Black people. Even if the truth of such a statement could be established, Fleming’s texts are rife with problematic depictions/understandings of Black people. Same with Faulkner–I do not think he had malice toward Black people, but his texts are conflicted and contradictory on the subject.
In general, I think that the defense that someone is not racist/sexist/homophobic on a personal level does not preclude the possibility of them participating in and benefiting from biased systems or producing biased texts. Faulkner thought he was ahead of his time on race relations in some ways–and he was. He was also a person of his time. Maybe Fleming personally liked Black people, but that does not preclude him from perceiving the Negro race as not quite up to snuff, and him being disturbed at their coming into power.
Exactly.
The bad press is not emanating from the audience whose favor they are trying to win and maintain.
In the cases of Dahl, Seuss, and Fleming, it is their estates that are making the changes, i.e., the ones entrusted to maintain the deceased authors’ legacies.
4 Likes