Did I excuse Live and Let Die? I don’t think so. Could we realistically expect a different book - in that time, by this author - when the work largely mirrors attitudes and preconceptions Fleming’s contemporaries shared and agreed with? When the warm-blooded heterosexuals in trains, planes and beds he was writing for probably nodded in agreement with his descriptions of a culture they had little or no idea of? What would you expect Fleming to deliver instead? What do we think his contemporaries - who had only just defeated a racist superpower and prevented the world from falling prey to nazism - wanted to read while they often found no wrong with racial segregation?
3 Likes
I never said you did. My comment was explaining to those specifically who try to defend the book as having been written in another time.
1 Like
Live and Let Die displays attitudes that are a relic of a specific person at a particular moment in history. It was an abhorrent attitude at the time of the original publication, and is an abhorrent attitude now.
Put that on the first page.
4 Likes
I am going to dissent a bit from this view. LALD does not teach racism, but neither does it interrogate it. As I have before in my posts, I am going to risk foolishness by bringing in another author–William Faulkner. Admittedly, I am comparing two writers of much different rank, but one thing they share is having been raised in societies of white privilege from which they did not disentangle themselves.
For all the intensity of his gaze at the South and its history, Faulkner was also a Southern man born in 1897,who possessed all the attributes and qualities of a man born at that time. Michael Gorra’s “The Saddest Words” was released last month and deals with the contradictions and triumphs of Faulkner’s life and art:
Fleming, like Faulkner, looked closely at his world, and his critique of American society/culture and its ascendency was accurate, but he never presented a critique of racial ideology. So while it is true that Fleming’s writing does not teach racism, it does normalize it through its uncritical portrayal.
Certainly not by this author. Fleming was able to mount critiques in his work, but not on the subject of race. In this area, he accepted and replicated the status quo.
One of the strengths of Fleming’s writing is that he provides a documentary-like snapshot of the moment of writing. Sometimes he includes criticism of what he records; other times he passes it on as normative/acceptable behavior.
Another interesting aspect of Fleming’s work is how physical deformity and/or aberration is used to indicate villainy (such a trope was popular at the time, and still is in some quarters). In this and other ways, Fleming’s writing has value additional to being well-told stories, and rewards repeat engagement. At the same, the breadth of his critical engagement was limited, and his work often normalizes what other writers subjected to examination.
2 Likes
What’s strange about Fleming’s writing too, is that he can be very hypocritical with his societal examinations. While he presents racist, homophobic, and xenophobic views, there are times when Bond (or Fleming through Bond) understands this to be wrong. In Casino Royale, Bond muses to Mathis about things not being so black and white, with the villains and heroes getting mixed up to the point where he even sort of pities Le Chiffre. However, we also see that Fleming very much looks down on anything that isn’t British. All of the villains, are German, Russian, Chinese, and/or Black. They seem to all include bios that suggest homosexuality. Many have physical deformities and this was all in a post-Nazi world. Interestingly, in the last few books, the views espoused begin to change. Fleming definitely matured as a writer as he went on and we see less of this type of thinking towards the end of Fleming series (with a glaring exception being the homosexuality as Scaramanga is rather infamously assumed to be gay basically because he’s the villain).
As escapist fun, the Fleming books are some of the easiest, most fun to read. I always enjoy my read-throughs of all of the books. However, Live and Let Die continues to exist as the least enjoyable and hardest to read. One that, may be a product of its time and its author of that time as well, expresses abhorrent views and does not critique them, but rather expects you as the reader to indugle in it. It completely misses the mark and almost makes Bond out to be more of the villain than Mr. Big. It’s a work that, as written, the author should be ashamed of, not proud of.
2 Likes
Agreed. I often wonder if seeing that he was being taken seriously as a writer, Fleming determined to increase the seriousness with which he wrote his books. Something similar happened with/to Hitchcock.
And the critiques and ambiguities that fleck the novels are an attraction/addition that can be enjoyed or ignored depending on the reader–the escapist fun works either way.
The problem is–as you point out–the elements not subject to critique fall–by default–into the category of indulgence/escapist fun.
3 Likes
If your only exposure to the world were the Fast and Furious movies, you’d have a different idea of what proper driving should look like.
Likewise, if the only book you’d ever read was LALD, your view of the world would be limited (like those episodes of Star Trek where a world is modeled on Mien Kampf, Hotel Royale or the Untouchables).
Because we have other sources of social commentary, we can (choose to) recognize the flaws in a classic work and accept it as a product of its time. Or, we can stick to the NAL version of LALD where the more objectionable lines have been excised (admittedly, it makes for a much shorter read).
1 Like
Where does it actually stop?
Because if we get rid of LALD, then Moonraker has to go because it depects Germans in not so positive a light too. Can’t forget about YOLT and definitely have to remove Dr. No.
We’ll also have to remove The Saint, The Shadow, Doc Savage, The Spider, Conan, Solomon Kane, Kull of Atlantis, Batman, Superman, The Spectre, Wonder Woman, West Side Story, Rambo, Rocky, Thundercats, even G.I. Joe.
So there you have it. Because you can never stop at just one. Someone will have a problem with the next one just to be an a@$hole.
“Product of its Time” (I am using AMC_Hornet"s use of the phrase, but only as a jumping off point since many posters have used it in this and other threads)
This expression invariably turns up in discussions such as this. But what does it mean? Every work of art (and non-art) is a product of its time. I think this expression is sometimes invoked as a verbal talisman to neutralize the offending/offensive content interfering with aesthetic experience.
But from another angle, the phrase is inadequate. Another product of LALD’s (1954) time is “Invisible Man” (1952) by Ralph Ellison. Is one of these novels more a product of its time than another? Couldn’t LALD be written today and be a product of our time?
Lastly, the question is how much does racist/homophobic/sexist/etc. content compromise aesthetic appreciation. I think the answer has several potential parts: 1) the depth of critique in the work; 2) whether the offensive material is presented as normative or problematized; 3) the ability of the experiencer to compartmentalize various elements of a work of art.
We should not be getting rid of artworks, but understanding their cultural content and outlook is a vital component of appreciation and critique.
5 Likes
I think that is the main point to keep in mind here.
If a novel like LALD would be written today I could not enjoy it. Simply because an author indulging in this racism would be aware of the ongoing travesty and bank on it.
That does not mean that the parts in question were less racist back then. And Fleming definitely was a product of his upbringing, unable and or unwilling to question the current mainstream mindset. In contrast to any writer today, however, he was not purposely helping racism to spread. He just thought this is the way the world works. Involuntary racism is not less harmful per se, of course. But it is less harmful than voluntary racism, in that it can be countered with arguments. And I believe that Fleming, today, would be capable of seeing his mistakes, eager to correct them.
In general, I can read and disagree or even hate opinions given by an author. This is what a critical discourse is all about. Of course, some will always look for something to reinforce their prejudices, and LALD might help there. However, an idiotic neighbor can do that trick, too - and banning him would not stop anything either.
In a better world, people would be able to read LALD and make up their own mind in a sane way. In the current climate (which unfortunately un-shamed the racists) it might be helpful and even necessary to have books like LALD re-printed with an introduction to point out what is inappropriate in it. Not to convert the racists - they will not adjust their worldview this way. But to help those who need and want guidance.
2 Likes
If we accept that Bond is of itself absurd in what he does - being nibbled by barracuda, being towed behind a yacht, being threatened with a desk, cavorting with an underwritten, surprisingly boring voodoo witch, hunting for pirate! treasure! - then what he thinks and observes is surely of equal preposterousness, and to be taken just as seriously.
Live and Let Die, however it is articulated, demonstrates a fascination on the part of the author in depicting the sound and sense and sweat and smoke of a world alien to his suburban British readership. As a “man of colour” (which I find far more objectionable; everyone has a colour) I’ve always read it as curious, intrigued, rather than expressing hatred or negativity. Its choice of language - it’s the N word, in various derivations - that may indeed be of its time but remove that word and replace it with Jennifer or Flapdangle and the rest of it comes across as immersed and wanting-to-involve, wanting to show, not distancing and push-away. Flapdangle Lives Matter.
He’s far, far ruder about the aged population of St Petersburg; them, he treats with utter, sneering contempt. He probably didn’t like white people. Racist.
Goldfinger, on the other hand, is just indolent flat-out bored prejudice, throughout. There’s no curiosity; it’s spent.
7 Likes
Have you met us? We’re awful!!
I seem to remember reading that Goldfinger was based on an actual person he knew. Annoy an author, get killed in prose.
2 Likes
What I find objectionable in the extreme in Fleming‘s œuvre are not so much the examples of Live and Let Die, Goldfinger or the depiction of my and my fellow countrymen‘s forebears as Mercedes driving, moustachioed atom bomb Nazis with - by British standards - bad teeth and plum jackets.
What I find truly repulsing and defaming is Dr No‘s tractor-in-dragon-drag which apparently tricks everybody in the Jamaica region to avoid Crab Key. How stupid can you depict a group of people? It’s as if you anonymously state an elite was drinking children’s blood and people would fall for it…
2 Likes
On reflection, I’m not sure anyone escapes unscathed from Fleming. He seems to have a particular aversion to the high colonial office types (Dr No, Quantum of Solace, Thunderball as e.gs), invariably white and not just for their position but for their personalities.
Women with bottoms like boys, and blonde-haired Texan lads seem to be favoured; everyone else gets a hammering (Sigmund Freud: analyse this). I don’t think he was a very pleasant person.
3 Likes
Quite - I was thinking of the whole book (particularly the stuff about pansified Italians and everyone Korean) but Goldfinger himself isn’t that far off “a Jew wants all the gold”. Although in the book it’s suggested he was not Jewish, I accept, the real chap was.
1 Like
Agatha Christie was just as racist as Fleming, but let’s give her a pass because…
Exactly. What has changed is that the present is less forgiving of art that normalizes racism and other biases.
He definitely believed in racial essentialism.
Here is the difficulty: how does one argue with essentialist dogma? I encounter it from people who say that God made man and woman to be sexually complementary, and, therefore, same-sex attraction is disordered. How can I contest that argument when it is grounded in supernatural belief?
There are similar essentialist beliefs regarding race and sex. Fleming believed in racial hierarchies, and this conviction, rather than some animosity toward Black people, is the source of the racism in his work.
But the boy’s adventure elements and the social commentary are not presented in the same way in the novels and stories. Fleming incorporated social critique in his genre works as so many authors have done and do. In fact, genre writing is highly amenable to such uses. When his characters expound on racial issues, Fleming is not being preposterous or satirizing their views.
True, but Fleming does so in an exoticizing manner. The other is never presented as equal, but rather as object for the delectation of the observer.
I do not give Agatha Christie a pass. Her novels have examples of racism and anti-Semitism. Heck, I do not give William Faulkner a pass as you can see from my earlier posts.
The problem is that some people will argue that biased content taints the entire work, rendering it verboten. On the other hand are arguments that such content was a product of its time and can/should be passed over without comment or notice. For me, both arguments are wrong. I prefer a more nuanced, middle path between these two extremes where meaning and interpretation are firm without being calcified.
1 Like
He wouldn’t have agreed. He would say he was absolutely fair and reasonable, because he’s “always been so nice to darkies”
Fleming, and Christie for that matter, are authors believing they’re being kind, but starting from a point of sheer ignorance. It comes from a polar opposite source than MAGA hat wearing folk, but has the same consequence.
Fleming and Christie, as they demonstrated through their work, would be glad to learn more, even if it doesn’t fix their past mistakes.
I disagree (though I think we are in agreement overall). For example, look at Dikko Henderson’s comments on “the Japanese” in YOLT. Fleming believed as a matter of fact that different racial groups possessed inherent qualities.
I agree. Fleming would never have regarded himself as racist since he believed that race was an essential category–he was merely chronicling the truth. This is what makes the issue of race and its presentation in art so tricky. If a person believes in racial essentialism (or essentialism of any sort), how does one argue with it? For them, essentialist ideology is a reasonable, provable truth, and certainly not an example of bias. For example, women are weaker than men, so men must be their protectors, while women serve the role of civilizing men (all part of God’s design as revealed/transmitted in Christian anthropology).
Since Western culture is founded on essentialist thinking, combatting it is difficult. One way to understand postmodern thought is as a challenge to essentialism. This challenge has been all over the place–effective in some cases and wrong-headed in others–but it has raised the possibility of a post-essentialist understanding of the world (yes, I know my Buddhism is showing).
3 Likes
I’m Irish - no arguments here! It’s like having a seriously shitty neighbour.
I do agree with you, his attitudes are racist, but I think it comes from actual ignorance rather than any malice so, given time, his attitudes may have changed. His work is that of someone who wants to know more! It’s why I think Live and Let Die, rather than being edited or cut from from publishing, should start with a note explaining cultural context of the author as an “upper class” middle aged white man in 1954.
If the reader wants to take some history lectures before reading to understand the full context, even better.
It’s like “Yes, the writer of work you’re about to read was very wrong, but here is why he was wrong.”
2 Likes