Bond and Sensitivity

Posted 3:00 PM by Gerald So

YouTube brought up last week's episode of military thriller author Jack Carr's Danger Close podcast, "What's next for James Bond?", with guest David Zaritsky, curator of The Bond Experience:




In the clip below, Carr and Zaritsky discuss the new editions of Ian Fleming's Bond books, which have been edited for sensitivity:




Carr and Zaritsky pan the editing and yearn for the books as originally published in the 1950s and '60s. While this stance is valid, it's very narrow-minded. It denies that the Bond character, films, and books have far outgrown Fleming in the sixty-odd years since his death.

It's valid to revere Sean Connery as the first actor to play Bond in major motion pictures, two even while Fleming lived. I wonder, though, how many of those so-called purists have refused to watch or accept George Lazenby's, Roger Moore's, Timothy Dalton's, Pierce Brosnan's, or Daniel Craig's take on Bond. Have they also refused to read the post-Fleming Bond books?

Bond has persisted in the public consciousness from the 1950s to the 2020s because he's been allowed to change with us. If not, the audience at large would've left him behind. A handful of superfans would be trying to make a movie, struggling with funding for lack of interest. I doubt that's really what Carr and Zaritsky would prefer.

The new editions show Bond's value is independent of Fleming's sexism and racism. Surely true fans agree.