Ian Fleming

Nitcentral's Bulletin Brash Reflections: Non-SciFi Novels: Mystery/Suspense: Ian Fleming
By Keith Alan Morgan (Kmorgan) on Tuesday, July 05, 2016 - 7:15 pm:

Moonraker

Started reading this. In Chapter 2 Bond is telling M what he knows of Sir Hugo Drax and there are two points in his telling that should have triggered a red flag for Bond & M.

The first was Bond talking about the Werewolves (German soldiers who let the enemy pass them by then attack from within or behind) and then revealing that Drax was an amnesiac soldier found in the aftermath of an attack.

The second was mentioning that Drax had disappeared for three years before making his fortune in columbite.

Those moments jumped out at me and I'm not a secret service agent (honestly, I'm not, don't believe those rumors). People who actually work in Intelligence really should have been suspicious.

Also where does this book fit in relation to You Only Live Twice where Bond disguised himself as a Chinese man to move around in China? If Moonraker came first fine, but afterwards...

Love the ending line of chapter 2 though.


By AWhite (Inblackestnight) on Monday, July 11, 2016 - 2:53 pm:

Growing up I actually really liked the movie of the same name; now not nearly as much when comparing/rating the Bond movies.

Having recently read this book for the first time I was shocked at not only how different the story was, but also how much more I enjoyed it. The title and names of the main characters are pretty much the only things in common between the two.

Oh and yes, it was strange nobody was suspicous of Drax :-)


By Benn (Benn) on Tuesday, July 12, 2016 - 5:01 pm:

That kind of reminds me of how in From Russia, With Love, Bond, Q, no one really has any suspicions about Tatiana Romanova. They kinda do, but they quickly brush them aside, ignoring any potential red flags about her and the situation. That's in contrast with the movie, where Bond and company clearly suspects something is up and keeps an eye out for some sign of a trap. Another difference, aside from the film's ending, is in the novel, James Bond is relatively passive throughout the book. He's not very involved in the actions of the novel. It's Keyim Bey and his people who are at the forefront of the action, taking care of things. The movie Bond is much more pro-active. (I can't believe I just used that word. Pretty much for the first time in my life, too.)

"Shaken, not stirred."


By Keith Alan Morgan (Kmorgan) on Sunday, July 17, 2016 - 6:47 am:

Having looked it up I see Moonraker was the third Bond story. So it came before You Only Live Twice.

I do wonder why Drax's escape route passed through Moonraker's original target zone. Just a coincidence? Did Drax find it ironic?

Also while I like the idea of the villain being hoist by his own petard, a big disappointment is that Drax & his men probably didn't even know what hit them.
It's always more satisfying when the villain realizes what's about to happen.

Awhite - Oh and yes, it was strange nobody was suspicous of Drax

The only thing I can figure is that they believed that someone who had risen up like Drax did couldn't be a bad person (he IS English, after all). The way they talk about his cheating at cards, it's like they are assuming it's a bad habit he picked up somewhere and not evidence of criminality.

It's like how the upper classes used to think/claim that someone of a high class was above such petty things, unlike the riff-raff lower classes. I have no idea if this was a genuine attitude/belief of England of the mid-50s.

Benn - The movie Bond is much more pro-active.

Yeah, but then it's kinda tough to play thoughtfulness onscreen, action works much better.


By Keith Alan Morgan (Kmorgan) on Wednesday, September 07, 2016 - 4:37 am:

The only thing I can figure is that they believed that someone who had risen up like Drax did couldn't be a bad person (he IS English, after all). The way they talk about his cheating at cards, it's like they are assuming it's a bad habit he picked up somewhere and not evidence of criminality.

It's like how the upper classes used to think/claim that someone of a high class was above such petty things, unlike the riff-raff lower classes. I have no idea if this was a genuine attitude/belief of England of the mid-50s.


Apparently it really was a thing.

I was watching a PBS documentary on her majesty's secret service and apparently if someone vouched for someone else they would trust them and not do any kind of background checks, which really came to bite them hard when Russia recruited British people to be double agents.

Un-freaking-believable.


Add a Message


This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Username:  
Password: