Why James Bond Books Are So Controversial 

I think we all understand the sensibilities behind those who would censor. Times change, views change, people change and many would be shocked to realise that such an iconic character was so unlike the later recreations of him. But I hope that we also understand that to censor or alter any work of art or literature from the past, however well meaning those reasons might seem, is to commit a terrible crime. It is to lie about what the original work was and, by extension, to lie about the past. I know that this video does not suggest censorship but merely reflects and understands why some want to censor but by condensing the worst (to us) moments from so many books and films into a ten minute video, it might be seen as an argument which would excuse such censorship. There was a film shown to the House of Commons in England that cut together all the most extreme violence from a number of horror films into a similar length that convinced a majority of politicians to enact a draconian censorship of horror films in the 1980s. I hope this was not the intention. It is clear that the James Bond books are not current literature but time capsules of the past and by allowing them to be censored, even to the extent that the family permitted, we are distorting our ability to see exactly how people thought and felt about things and how deeply those views have changed. There is much that is shocking in Fleming's prose but, despite being regarded as a journeyman writer of pulp fiction, there is a rhythm and a wit to that prose that another writer, with more modern views, might not be able to replicate. During Victorian times, Thomas Bowdler rewrote much of Shakespeare to remove the profanity and sexual content that were not in keeping with the views of the time. Now, it might be sacrilege to many to suggest that rewriting Fleming is akin to rewriting Shakespeare but the principle is exactly the same. It is from Thomas Bowdler that we get the adjective 'bowdlerised'. Bowdler's editions of Shakespeare were very popular in their time. Thankfully, they are not so popular now. I can't help thinking that when Bowdler and the Victorians did this, they felt they were preserving what was worth preserving while removing that which was offensive. We are, today, in danger of being seen, in the future, as we see those Victorians today. And, just as then, it is all done with the best of intentions.

When I found out that the books were being "edited" for a modern audience, I made a point of buying a full set of original unedited books.

I had read all of the books before I saw any of the movies. I thought the Bond of the books was way more interesting than any of the screen portrayals. He was a true anti-hero: racist, sexist, elitist, cruel and a functioning alcoholic. He was not a pretty boy or even a very likeable guy. You rooted for him only because he was ruthlessly dedicated to accomplishing the important missions he was assigned. I found the movies to be entertaining, but watered-down versions of Bond. They probably could never have made any movies that were true to the Bond of the books, and they definitely couldn't nowadays.

Leave Bond ALONE .....PERFECTLY fine with me

"Is it possible that one of these days we'll read a James Bond novel in which the hero is killed at the end?" "I couldn't possibly afford it."

Sounds like a smart, brave man with a provocative sense of humor and a better perspective on what's important than the legions of woke activists strangling today's entertainment industry.

"I couldn't possibly afford it." I laughed loudly at that.

Ian Fleming wrote books for men. The fact that they offend the delicate sensibilities of the easily offended only recommends them to their targeted audience.

the Movies would be SO MUCH better and More interesting if they kept all the BOOK stuff in , too bad the NEW bonds of the 2000's are even WORSE with NO Hot women , no love scenes or funny banter and lines , they are just NOT fun at all and boring action movie with no classic Bond stuff

I am not a believer in censorship. If a word or image offends someone, they shouldn't be reading or watching the story. If the nude scene in 'Titanic' offends or bothers you, then don't watch the movie (though some would prefer to edit the scene out). If the author or creator decides to alter their own work, then that is acceptable. But someone else making changes to art, literature, film, etc. is wrong. Leave the Bond novels be. They are a product of their time.

Bond is a masculine role model. That's why he's censored.

Ian Fleming was right about everything.

If you read the original book The Man With The Golden Gun, Bond is reading a report on the assassin who uses a golden bullet. The report believes the assassin is a homosexual because he lacks the ability to whistle. As this is a trait, they lack.

Yes put anything at odds with the current zeitgeist in the memory hole , Dickens and Shakespeare next .

So glad I own the un-edited versions.

I weep for this generation.

Fleming was a really inspired, interesting man.. who was still as much of his time as well as his future. His appetites and interests, which he clearly wrote in the form of Bond himself, related to the regular man/woman who was looking for something outside the norm. He took chances and had clear opinions, which makes his legacy of work really timeless since it relates to so many others

Really...People have become too sensitive. The author's writing reflects how British people historically spoke about native cultures in the countries they colonized. His primary audience was men, so the writing was tailored to appeal to them as well.

Great video. When my students read classics, I tell them that the attitudes of people from different times are inconsistent with ours (for example, The Taming of the Shrew seems obscene through a modern lens). Historical context is a difficult concept for children to understand, sometimes you need to remind them. Censorship is pretty gross though, yeah? I could be wrong, but I feel most people agree that censorship violates freedom of expression, stifles cultural growth, and promotes authoritarianism.

Ian Fleming's brother, Peter, was a well-known travel writer. Also, Fleming came close to killing Bond at the end of From Russia With Love.

It's ironic that some of the people who will boo these books/movies will praise the Saw movies or other torture porn horror movies.

サウンドエフェクトはパーソナルコンピュータのキーボード音よりも、タイプライターのキーパンチ音が前時代で雰囲気に合ってるよね。

I've never been a huge Bond fan but I found this fascinating. Thanks for another great video.

Poofs. Haven't heard that one for sometime.

i read all the fleming bond books....love them!

Based

Quality content, sir

I read all the James Bond books, a long time ago in the 1960s and 1970s and thoroughly enjoyed them. They reflect the culture of the time they were written. I’m sure people reading them now realise that.

My mother, who is from the era these were written in, read all of them and turned me onto them. On average I re-read 2 of them a year.

No wonder I loved Bond so much as a kid.

I don't think we should be in the business of going back and "cleansing" our past. The past happened - it was a part of our history. Fleming is just an individual from that era who "left tracks in the sand," so to speak, whereas most people did not. At that time he was not regarded as particularly out of line with the culture as a whole. To judge him as an individual as though he's active and producing these works today is entirely unfair to him personally. What we should judge is that era, through the lens of his words. We need these records of the past to exist, so that people can properly assess what the past WAS. We can't make the missteps of that era go away by simply purging them from our written history. Instead, we should leave them as they are, so that people can read them, understand that era, and rejoice at how far we've come. That does not mean, by the way, that I think we are "done now." Work remains to be done. But we HAVE made progress, and a lot of it.

Part of understanding history is understanding sensibilities of a particular time. This also applies to reading fiction.

For Me I still Love 007.

August 2024 marks the 60th anniversary of Ian Fleming's passing after a round of golf at Royal St George golf club and dinner in hotel Guilford. Since 1961 Fleming wore a Rolex Explorer 1016 case number 596581 on a steel 7206 bracelet, a gentleman's watch mentioned a few times in the books! #IanFleming

Censorship is always wrong, and a pathetic show of fear of the written or spoken word! And there is no defence for defending censorship!

I admire the way Fleming thought and wrote. The old Bond is the kind of man every young boy dreams of becoming. A real man… not some washcloth pussy whipped snowflake like they would like to make him today.

Oh boohoo leave classic literature alone the Bond novels were never intended for children anymore than the Harlequin novels are and its obvious.

Censorship sucks, and it sucks that our heroes have to be rewritten to not offend the delicate sensibilities of people who can simply choose not to read them. I’m sick and tired of this politically correct culture we find ourselves in. Nothing can be edgy, nothing can offend. It makes me angry.

I must have read all that were published from the age of ten up. Second hand shops were full of them....dont think my mum realised what i was reading..

Ironically, the Bond movies of the sixties were among the most racially integrated movies made at the time.

Actually, Bond was killed off at the end of both "From Russia with Love" and "You Only Live Twice". He was definitely very dead when both those books ended and it took very clever writing to bring him back in the next ones. In either case, Fleming could easily have ended the series right there.

Bond was a guy who did what's not ment to be done or eas it ment to be done its all a play on minds

Time and place you can't judge the past by today's standards nor should you if you sensor them they are ruined

I once blew it with a girl when she asked me what I was like or something. Well all I could think of was I have a lot in common with this thoroughly fictitious chap, though it's sure there were a few real ones. She said it was mysoginistic! Since when is gallantry, encyclopedic erudition, facility with languages, international travel, scoping out secret underground bases, being on two wheels and recovering nicely in a fast red sports car, being given to fabulous witticisms, and having the amusing reputation for being in the company of women mysoginistic?! Oh well.... what might have been.

Unfortunately the cruelty of Korean camp guards was proverbial among Allied POWs in the Far East so it's not an idea that Fleming (as a man of his generation) plucked out of thin air.

How shocking that women from around the world would eat that is grown locally.

Heinrich Heine's ominous "Those who burn books will in the end burn people" proved horrifying true under nazi rule. So before we attempt to alter history by rewriting it, perhaps we should consider who exactly is offended and to what end. We learn from history and it's errors, not eradicate it to make ourselves superior. Just my opinion.

Well, there are a few different ways to look at it. I mean isn't it supposed to be a sign of great writing that you have a flawed character who overcomes his flaws, at least long enough to do what he needs to do? Fleming was giving us something close to an unfiltered Bond, and perhaps not unsurprisingly, a lot of people liked it. Did they like that Bond was a sexist, racist, homophobe? Maybe they liked Bond saying things they knew they can't say in public. Or did they just like that he managed to beat the bad guy in the story, even if it wasn't without consequences? Perhaps people simply liked more realism in the characters and stories, that there were, in fact, consequences resulting from his wins against the bad guys. As I recall, in one book, Felix Leiter loses a leg to an alligator.

Why should they be censored?

Then there was the 300lb chap who put me in a lethal chokehold but got taken out on a gurney.

Fleming himself was quite a womaniser even had a dose Of clap in his early youth!

I remember reading Live and Let Die 30 years ago when I was in jr. high, and while I was bothered by some of the racial stereotypes (I’d probably be a lot more now since most of it went over my head), I also recognized that the book was 35-40 years old at that point and was a reflection of common attitudes. Censoring things from the past because they are offensive now is counterproductive and I can imagine insulting to the marginalized people who lived through it. Bond is not supposed to be a likable character or one the reader should aspire to. It’s okay to have protagonists with some ugly character traits. That’s what makes them believable.

Controversial or Too Much Sincere??

Lumping rice eating and blackmailing for sex together as “offensive” does not make do anything good for the discussion.

Controversial is a word that I am completely sick of. Everything is controversial now becuase people just cannot live their lives and let other live theirs. There are a lot of books written every year. Nobody has to read a book if they don't want to. What gives anyone the right to decide what anyone else can read? You don't want to read it? DON'T But get over yourself and stop worrying about what someone else wants to read.

Because people today are too sensitive that's why .

The old movies are funny because of how they aged

Disgusting. …I’m going straight to the book store !

"Poofs"/"poofters" pejorative for gay people at the time.

Why James Bond Books Are So Controversial Nope, they are not.

🫢

Please clarify. Is this supposed to cause angry hand wringing over sex and race stereotypes in Bond books and movies? Or can we acknowledge the stereotypes and still enjoy the material? Better question is why at all?

Fairy tales of empire, Kipling rewritten by Hefner; wish fulfillment for 11-year-old boys of all ages.

The books come from a different era to what we live in now .and you called a spade a spade not a shovel. But we now have a woke culture that you can't say something because it offends someone born in a different era the books are from a different time

Just a severe lack of intelligence and confidence to compare today’s sensibilities with the past and try and change what came from the past to match. The level of fragility involved is off the charts.

They are not controversial they are of their time. Leave them as is. Do people want to sensor the Bible. If not why not. I think all the original books are brilliant and the settings are again of their time. Leave them and just let normal people decide to read them or not. Same with TV and Movies, dont like it dont watch or change channel.

Woke Nonsense! leave Bond books alone!

Disappointing video. Good of you to dig up archive footage of Fleming, but for pity's sake, your presentation has only a sprinkling of context. I was waiting for it to get going, and it just stops. Fleming was a product of the British Empire. To us over three-quarters of a century later, that vantage looks quaint and misplaced. Once upon a time, Brits looked upon themselves as superior by virtue of their conquests, much like Americans looked down their noses at ... everyone that didn't possess their technology or trappings of civilization. Yes, these people of the 1950s used racial pejoratives liberally. Racism to them was about identifying who was their real hero. Yes, Fleming was a racist. Deal with it. The EON producers had the intelligence to see what wouldn't age well in many cases. Were they always successful? Oh, Hell, no. Quarrel in Dr. No is badly presented as a superstitious caricature, loyal like a dog and not much smarter. In the book, he's considerably better presented, but still from a white Brit's arrogant viewpoint. The Blaxploitation of Live and Let Die dates that movie. But they got enough right to give most of the films a timeless feel while the books are product of the Cold War pulp story era. Anyone who claims that Bond is a male role model has not read the books. He was alone for a reason. He's emotionally broken and inaccessible. In Moonraker, Fleming calls Bond the "man in the silhouette". When he gets the girl in OHMSS and marries her, she gets murdered and he becomes a broken basket case that M sends on an impossible mission in You Only Live Twice. He's a thoroughly unhappy man and a tragic figure. Fleming puts this anti-hero through pure Hell book after book. People reading Fleming didn't praise Bond so much as they admired his grit and resolve. The movies gave us a completely different Bond in Connery. The closest we got was Dalton and Craig to the literary Bond, and look how divisive they were compared to Connery. You scratched the surface with this video, but you didn't stick the landing. That's a pity, because in today's cancel culture atmosphere, there is room to explore this and where Fleming might still have relevance, if only through hindsight and context. smh

I had no idea this would be yet another stupid woke take on a beloved character, series, and legacy. Does RU-vid have a block option?

What an awful take

OMG, I heard the books were bad but JESUS.

A little censorship is not a bad thing. When you're trying sell a product some consideration of modern sensibilities is important.

The voice of the neo inquisition coming from Fleming, to gain views on this platform. No one is so pure and so greedy at the same time as modern "cultural analysts".