I vastly prefer George Smiley to James Bond when it comes to spy-vs-spy fiction (though perhaps Mad Magazine's take on that genre is the best of all). Bond stories consist mostly of one-dimensional heroes and villains and their empty-headed sidekicks, predictably shoehorned into some Disney-style morality play, all designed to improve the public image of the CIA and the MI5/6 (both of whom were very upset about Le Carre's take on the Cold War, and basically seem to have promoted Fleming as an antidote).<p>Usually, when people these days want an unambigous good-guys-vs-bad-guys storyline, they have to go back to WWII and the almost-universally despised Nazi regime. This is because there's a lot of uncertainly about who the 'good guys' were in the Cold War, or even if there were any. The Berlin airlift looks good for the West, but the effort to perpetuate French colonialism in Vietnam, not so much. There are at least a dozen similar examples on both sides, from eastern Europe (USSR not looking so good) to Africa and South/Central America (lots of bad behavior by the 'pro-democracy West').<p>John Le Carre famously portrayed the conflict as two giant gear wheels grinding against each other and destroying the lives of people unfortunate enough to get caught in the middle, and his doubtful self-questioning protagonist, George Smiley, though obviously devoted to the West, carries that theme well. Le Carre's "A Perfect Spy" and "The Russia House" are also some of his best works, with similar themes and central characters.
I'd consider James Bond to lie more toward the genre of "action" rather than "thriller."<p>An action story has three obligatory elements:<p>- a hero (James Bond)<p>- a victim (humanity, or maybe a damsel)<p>- a villain (rotating)<p>This sounds childishly simple, and it is. But it's also very easy for authors of thrillers to forget the triangle because it's not something you even notice in a well-crafted action story. But all three need to be fleshed out to the extent that the audience cares about them.<p>The difference between an action story and a thriller is that in a thriller, the victim and hero are the same character. For example, Stephen King's <i>Misery</i> is a thriller because the hero is the victim. Action stories often involve the hero's facing death, but it's done to save the victim.<p>Something else that's easy to forget is the human value at stake in an action story: life and death. James Bond is always on the edge of being killed, even when in extracurricular persuits. If Bond doesn't succeed, the victim is toast, and the stranger that death is, the better. At the end of the story, there's no doubt which way it went.<p>This is why good action stories are page-turners, or as Fleming writes:<p>> "You have to get the reader to turn over the page."<p>Humans are hardwired to pay attention when death is a possible outcome. That's why rubbernecking is a thing even though people complain about it. It's also one reason cited for the popularity of NASCAR. Death can come at any time even though the action is quite repetitive.<p>More than that, the scenes in an action story tend to turn on life and death. That's one place where action story authors can get into trouble: writing too many scenes that turn on a value other than life-death, or don't turn on anything. It's shockingly easy to write scenes that offer nothing more than information. One or two of them is all it takes for the reader to yawn and quit.
I was disappointed when I read the Bond books - they seemed to have no charm at all. I think it was the Italian producer (Albert Broccoli) who must have made the initial films worth bothering with.<p>My spy hero is Bernard Sampson from the Len Deighton Trilogies - starting with Berlin Game, Mexico Set, London Match. He talks about how experienced spies are like frightened old women and avoid risks and it's only the noobs who charge into things bravely. Sampson is the believable opposite of Bond who would obviously not have a long life in reality. Sampson is still extremely brave - just not idiotic - and he's very clever but human so it takes time for him to work out what's going on.
"I am excited by the poetry of things and places, and the pace of my stories sometimes suffers while I take the reader by the throat and stuff him with great gobbets of what I consider should interest him, at the same time shaking him and shouting “Like this, damn you!” about something that has caught my particular fancy. But this is a sad lapse, and I must confess that in one of my books, Goldfinger, three whole chapters were devoted to a single game of golf."
Hm.<p><i>"My plots are fantastic, while being often based upon truth. They go wildly beyond the probable but not, I think, beyond the possible. . . . Even so, they would stick in the gullet of the reader and make him throw the book angrily aside—for a reader particularly hates feeling he is being hoaxed—but for two further technical devices, if you like to call them that. First of all, the aforesaid speed of the narrative, which hustles the reader quickly beyond each danger point of mockery and, secondly, the constant use of familiar household names and objects which reassure him that he and the writer have still got their feet on the ground."</i><p>That's what makes action-adventure movies work. It keeps people from realizing that all someone needed to do was some simple thing, instead of the adventurous thing. That Fleming did this in his writing made the move to the screen easier.<p><i>"Above all there must never be those maddening recaps where the hero maunders about his unhappy fate, goes over in his mind a list of suspects, or reflects what he might have done or what he proposes to do next."</i><p>Much "great literature", and wannabe great literature, is full of such introspection. Ayn Rand takes it to an extreme. The other big vice for writers is the info-dump, where there's a long description of the setting. Read anything self-published, and you'll probably find both of these problems. "Show, don't tell".<p>There are major action movies with voice-overs or explicit scene-setting at the very beginning, from Star Wars to Kick-Ass. But if it's in the middle, you're doing it wrong.
What an amazing read. It feels like it could have been written yesterday.<p>Throughout I am impressed with the value of professionalism. The most consistent artists seem to see themselves with no more sanctimony than an experienced plumber would.
Related:<p><i>Ian Fleming Explains How to Write a Thriller (2018)</i> - <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25181256" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25181256</a> - Nov 2020 (18 comments)<p>and for that matter, here's Raymond Chandler explaining how to write a murder - from yesterday:<p><i>The Simple Art of Murder (1944)</i> - <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33888453" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33888453</a> - Dec 2022 (3 comments)
The mechanic who worked on Ian Fleming's yacht once worked on my boat in a small coastal town after I got caught up in a nasty storm -- bear hugging a mast in pouring rain and lightning is generally when you realize how fragile your life can be.<p>We had a few beers after he was finished and he told me some crazy stories... I still need to blog about that adventure; that was a highlight of my early 20's.
"I never correct anything and I never go back to what I have written, except to the foot of the last page to see where I have got to."<p>I think this is tough to do, but a good idea.<p>And everyone says how important is the routine.
Good read, and as engaging as any novel, but I have to remind myself that by "heroes who are white, villains who are black" he means as in black-and-white contrast...
Interesting contrasting Fleming's work to that of Le Carré.<p>A lot of Le Carré's work contains the kinds of details Fleming talks about, but the plots are more complex and the pace is slower.<p>I also personally find that there's an emotional impact from Le Carré that's lacking in Fleming, but perhaps that's just me.
Interesting perspective to think that the point of each page is to get the reader to turn to the following page.<p>It's like a pitch deck: the point is to keep it simple but show enough ankle that the reader asks for a meeting. But really I should look at each page to see: how do I keep the reader from stopping here?
> Above all there must never be those maddening recaps where the hero maunders about his unhappy fate, goes over in his mind a list of suspects, or reflects what he might have done or what he proposes to do next.<p>If I may be forgiven for bringing up chatGPT, that thing <i>LOVES</i> to go on about the state of mind of the protagonist. Its favorite thing ever is to write some variation of the following sentence: "<main character> knew things would be difficult, but he is determined to prevail." I suspect it may have been trained on a corpus containing entirely too much fan-fiction.
Anyone good at sleuthing and not behind restrictive proxies?<p>The author here mentions that all her sources are online and links to one of them (which is alas a blog post with minimal references)<p>Would be amazing to confirm whether this source is legitimate, I feel like anything online with hand-wavy citations can just start getting treated as real so long as it's at least 10 years old
I read every James Bond book as a school kid
(eight of them, ten?).. they were fun! the Cold War themes and international mobster stereotypes were not a big deal for me at that time of life.
Ian Fleming described James Bond’s breakfast with egg and bacon in the hotel, in a way that it makes you feel you are there. I am proud to have Flemming as my last name.
Read this again with fresh eyes, then when bookmarking it saw that I had already bookmarked it back in 2019 and forgot I had. It's still great writing advice.
"But the point I wish to make is that if you decide to become a professional writer, you must, broadly speaking, decide whether you wish to write for fame, for pleasure or for money."<p>Is that the same for devs?
Hmm.<p>> My opuscula do not aim at changing people or making them go out and do something. They are written for warm-blooded heterosexuals in railway trains, airplanes and beds.<p>This is a bit of a turn-off. Sounds like a modern day conservative whining about not being able to say Merry Christmas and people convincing children to destroy themselves with surgery.<p>And I say this as someone who loved reading <i>Moonraker</i>...