I have been reading Fleming's Bond novels for the last two years, we own the complete set. In reading Casino Royale I did not find the point to be creating Bond as "a man whose sexuality is an emotional void." The novel established the character and introduced him, as it is the first of the series. In the novels I have so far read, he doesn't really have sex with the villains. He has sex with the female characters, some of whom work for the villains but each invariably ends up falling for Bond and thus aren't really bad guys/villains. But then again, I haven't read the novel that has Pussy Galore as a major character, yet. She's a minor character in "Goldfinger" with whom Bond does not have sex. You wrote "Bond doesn't have to have sex because of an emotional connection or attraction." I agree with that, and the Fleming novels support this idea. He often has sex with a woman because he finds her attractive and has decided that he will have her, no emotional connection or attraction even considered.
The reason he would not have sex with another man is because Fleming's Bond is a racist, sexist, judgemental man. He's not homophobic, it is more that he is disdainful of and has no respect for homosexuals. Its like he considers homosexuality a weakness of character and spirit, a flaw in that person's psyche. He doesn't hate homosexuals, he has contempt for them. He has contempt and disdain for anyone who has any kind of weakness, and he doesn't tolerate any weakness in himself (often explored in the narration of his inner thoughts throughout the series). As he views homosexuality to be a flaw and a weakness, he wouldn't engage in a homosexual act. Not even to infilitrate the villain's organization/plan.
I love me some James Bond. As I've been reading the novels I (not surprisingly) find I enjoy them more than the movies, partly because he's more than the super-spy. The movies have to take out his prejudices and other less politically correct (in today's society) aspects to be accepted, but the character Fleming wrote wouldn't engage in a homosexual encounter. Bond isn't emotionally void, he often becomes angry or sentimental. In For Your Eyes Only he goes on a vengeance mission to kill someone who killed friends of M, because the bad guys hurt his boss who Bond genuinely cares for. In Goldfinger he vows vengeance on Auric Goldfinger because he killed a woman Bond had slept with and been genuinely fond of out of spite. Bond is passionate, devoted, and most certainly is not an emotional void. He's just not an open emotional book.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-12-07 02:07 pm (UTC)I have been reading Fleming's Bond novels for the last two years, we own the complete set. In reading Casino Royale I did not find the point to be creating Bond as "a man whose sexuality is an emotional void." The novel established the character and introduced him, as it is the first of the series. In the novels I have so far read, he doesn't really have sex with the villains. He has sex with the female characters, some of whom work for the villains but each invariably ends up falling for Bond and thus aren't really bad guys/villains. But then again, I haven't read the novel that has Pussy Galore as a major character, yet. She's a minor character in "Goldfinger" with whom Bond does not have sex. You wrote "Bond doesn't have to have sex because of an emotional connection or attraction." I agree with that, and the Fleming novels support this idea. He often has sex with a woman because he finds her attractive and has decided that he will have her, no emotional connection or attraction even considered.
The reason he would not have sex with another man is because Fleming's Bond is a racist, sexist, judgemental man. He's not homophobic, it is more that he is disdainful of and has no respect for homosexuals. Its like he considers homosexuality a weakness of character and spirit, a flaw in that person's psyche. He doesn't hate homosexuals, he has contempt for them. He has contempt and disdain for anyone who has any kind of weakness, and he doesn't tolerate any weakness in himself (often explored in the narration of his inner thoughts throughout the series). As he views homosexuality to be a flaw and a weakness, he wouldn't engage in a homosexual act. Not even to infilitrate the villain's organization/plan.
I love me some James Bond. As I've been reading the novels I (not surprisingly) find I enjoy them more than the movies, partly because he's more than the super-spy. The movies have to take out his prejudices and other less politically correct (in today's society) aspects to be accepted, but the character Fleming wrote wouldn't engage in a homosexual encounter. Bond isn't emotionally void, he often becomes angry or sentimental. In For Your Eyes Only he goes on a vengeance mission to kill someone who killed friends of M, because the bad guys hurt his boss who Bond genuinely cares for. In Goldfinger he vows vengeance on Auric Goldfinger because he killed a woman Bond had slept with and been genuinely fond of out of spite. Bond is passionate, devoted, and most certainly is not an emotional void. He's just not an open emotional book.