CommanderBond.net

From CBn’s main page:

The Simon Winder CBn Interview

[sub]A conversation with the author of 'The Man Who Saved Britain'[/sub]

Excellent work, Bon-san. I've only skimmed the interview, and will certainly be giving it a more thorough going-over later on, but I've read enough to be able to say: good stuff.

Curious that Winder felt "Colonel Sun" "so bad that it didn't seem worthwhile to read anything further" of the continuation novels! And ironic, too, insofar as Amis was (I gather) viewed by Fleming's wife and others as an anti-British commie pinko who hated the Empire and wanted the Royal Family to be beheaded on live television by animal rights activists, or something like that.

I mean, to each his own and everything, but I'm fairly stunned that anyone could consider CS such a total dud. To the Bond fan in 2006, it has a ring of "OHMSS stands as the worst 007 film ever", or indeed "The Eon series essentially curled up and died at the end of DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER when Connery's Bond vanished for good". Mind you, reading Hank Reineke's excellent piece on CS in 007 Magazine (October 2005) recently, I was also surprised to learn that the book received some pretty damning reviews on publication.

Haven't read Winder's book yet, but am very much looking forward to getting it.

Good point, Loomis. I should have asked him about that. Perhaps Mr. Winder will join in the discussion here. What do you think, Simon?

By the way, Mr Asterix deserves all the credit for the visual display of the article. He is THE MAN.

Kudos to Bon-san for the interview and MR* for the graphics.

An interesting interview. At times I felt you were interviewing two separate people. One who is a BIG James Bond fan and another who can only stomach Ian Fleming. How can one do a proper analysis without reading the post-Fleming novels?

I have not read his book yet, but I find books like this one to be over-the-top in analyzing the Bond myth. When one decides to find hidden meaning or try and see if there is a Da Vinci code wrapped up inside From Russia With Love (read IAN FLEMING'S INCREDIBLE CREATION), I quickly run to the bookstore exit.

Ian Fleming clearly stated in an August 1962 article for SHOW magazine that he writes, unashamedly, for pleasure and money. That his books are not ‘engaged’ and have no message for a suffering humanity. They are basically written for warm-blooded heterosexuals in railway trains, airplanes, and beds.

Really excellent quality interview, Bon-san. It's nice when an interviewer actually reads the author's work. This book has certainly caused a stir. I was also surprised to hear Mr. Winder's harsh words about Colonel Sun (but I do think that book is overrated), but very pleased by his praise of the Young Bond series. Of course, he hates Moonraker, so when we meet, we must duel.

Again, really interesting and I can't wait to read the book. But now I'm definitely waiting for the US edition. Love that US cover as much as I hate the UK cover. Is this the first we've seen of that cover? Nice little scoop there.

Oh, and awesome graphics as usual, Mr. Asterix.

I'm also surprised by this. In the 1930s, in "real life", surely they would all have been Empire-building racists of the first water, the young Bond included? In Higson's universe, however, everyone's suspiciously tolerant and modern. This was the "end of Empire", and yet to go by Higson (okay, I admit that I haven't read "BloodFever" yet) you'd be forgiven for thinking "Empire? What Empire?". It's basically Blair's Britain in period guise - I exaggerate slightly, of course, but only slightly.

Also, the Higsons hardly seem anything even remotely close to the sort of Young Bond adventures Fleming might have written. Judging by the character in "Casino Royale" (and most of the others), he'd have been a right little two-bob bit as a schoolboy - as I think David Schofield once memorably pointed out here on CBn, he'd have been the ringleader of the bullies.

Anyway, talking of Empire, "Zero Minus Ten" is an absolute must for anyone interested in linking the topics of Britain's faded imperial glory and James Bond.... and also a pretty darn good continuation novel.

I do, however, agree with Winder 100% on the following:

The (Fleming) books simply do not stand up as completely realized novels—they have too many poor patches and are too hastily written. But I do seriously think that real art can come out of such surroundings—that, as with films, particular scenes are enough to float the rest.

Very, very, very true (and equally true of the films). And very well put.

Winder asks: "Does anyone on-line have any specific favourite moments (in Fleming)?" Personally, the action scenes in the novels always bore me, which is curious since I lap them up in the films (in fact, I'd say that the shootout in the warehouse, which Winder mentions, is probably the low point of "Live and Let Die"). But in the books, what I thrill to are the descriptions of Bond's exclusive world.

My all-time favourite part of the literary series is the bit in "You Only Live Twice" when Bond and Kissy are out on the boat with the cormorant. Lyrical, atmospheric and magical, and deeply moving in a strange old way, it's one of those "real art" moments, and quite unlike anything you'd ever "expect" from James Bond.

Fascinating interview Bon-san, and wonderful graphics once more Mister Asterix. I should point out that I hane not read Mr Winder's book, so anything I say is purely based on the fine interview conducted by Bon-san.

In a sense, I get the feeling that Mr Winder stated certain things as opinion for the sole purpose of eliciting a negative reaction, such as where he notes in one of his responses that he thought it might be "fun" to say "terrible things" to see how Bond fans, or specifically British Bond fans, would react. From his answers it would appear that he implicitly accepts that he deliberately overemphasises his arguments, especially those relating to Britain's relative decline and the supposed 'horrors' of empire, in order to stoke a degree of controversy. As someone who rejects much of the morally absolutist arguments that gain currency in the modern day relating to early post-war Britain and the British empire, it would appear that I may have a fundamental problem with the very premise of Mr Winder's book.

More than that, I thoroughly disagree with one of Mr Winder's points: "I think the serious point behind the book (or semi-serious) is that Britain has had much more ferocious an impact on the world than British people like to think. I wanted to use the book to emphasise, and indeed rub people’s faces in, the limits of Britain as a ‘good guy’ in the way that Bond personifies." First of all, the British Empire gets a terrible press, I would contend that most people nowadays (misguidedly) do believe that the Empire had a pretty ferocious impact on the world. It is all too easy to look back in hindsight and castigate our predecessors comparing modern standards with those of the past. While bad things *were* done, and imperialism of course had to come to an end, the British Empire had many beneficial impacts across the world, especially in comparison with our fellow imperialist nations. I do not wish to take away from the mistakes that were made (and this is a complex debate that I do not want to retread here), but the idea that our Empire was the root of all evil is ludicrous. I fear that Mr Winder is simply utilising a Bond book to make a suspect political point, a rant masquerading as a jovial analysis of a fictional character. Of course I would have to read his book to find out, but that is what Winder seems to allude to in some of his responses.

I was surprised at his negative views on COLONEL SUN, I understand many think it overrated but I have never seen it dismissed in such a manner. Nonetheless, in one of Pettis' questions it suggests that both Amis and Gardner are given rough treatment in his book, yet Winder says he could not read anymore continuation novels after COLONEL SUN. So, for those who have read his book, how is Gardner treated, and on what is that treatment based?

I also do not understand why Winder feels the need to sympathise with those of us who enjoy Lazenby's interpretation of the role, surely it is possible to disagree without having to feel 'sympathy' for those of the alternative viewpoint? Perhaps he is trying to be funny. Regardless, I entirely agree that Luciana Paluzzi is rather tasty, personally I prefer Claudine but I wouldn't exactly kick either out of bed. And Luciana, if her role in THUNDERBALL is anything to go by, would be a bit more 'adventurous'. I think her acting in the picture is actually pretty good, although perhaps having sat through too many 60s films the acting standard has been lowered somewhat.

Overall, some pertinent questioning Bon-san, again Mister Asterix brilliant graphics as ever. And it was nice of Mr Winder to take the time, even if I probably vehemently disagree with his views on British history and the related points he makes in his book. He has made me more likely to buy his book, if only to see if the premise is as I fear, so I guess that is all that matters. It all comes down to sales, of course, and I think this interview encouraged them.

I love that passage as well, Loomis.

I am quite keen to hear from anyone who has read The Man Who Saved Britain. It would be particularly interesting to hear from some of the Brits.

I personally found the book a pleasure to read. It manages a nice sense of flow, despite the discussion relentlessly zig-zagging between an analysis of the Bond books/films, a look at the makeup of Ian Fleming, and a passionate examinition of recent British history. The overall effect might be a bit wearing to, say, an ultra-conservative non-Bond fan with no sense of humour. But for everyone else, I would imagine it's a fun read.

Excellent interview, Bon-san. Liking an aspect of the Bond legacy or not, Mr. Winder makes it an interesting topic in his book.

Laz, from memory (don't have the book in front of me just now), there was a quite short commentary on the Gardner books. I don't believe it was a diss per se of Gardner, but Mr. Winder is quite clear that his love for Fleming doesn't really extend to the continuation novels.

I disagree with him re Lazenby as well. Such is life in Bond fandom. Vive la difference.

I would recommend the book, despite your apparent contrary political views. Simon seems to enjoy taking the piss, a bit, but it's all in good fun, and anyway, that's fairly de rigueur amongst the Bond cogniscenti.

Quite a fine interview, Bond-san. It's interesting to read Winder's views on the film series as he kind of represents that stereotype that most of us hardcore fans kind of wince when we hear their views -- The first four are great; OHMSS is dragged down due to Lazenby; MR is unwatchable; the recent films are only worth watching once.

I kind of agree on the first four films being watchable over and over again, with many new things to discover, but I wouldn't limit it to that, also including YOLT and OHMSS in there as far as that goes. What were his evaluations of the Dalton era?

But only watching some of the later films only once, well, that's just a little too Pauline Kael for me. I'm not a huge DAD fan, but I found myself more than once catching it when it was on cable a year or two ago.