NP: Bond, James Bond

[Heikki Raudaskoski]

"If Fleming is a reactionary at all, it is not because he identifies the
figure of 'evil' with a Russian or a Jew. He is reactionary because he
makes use of stock figures. The very use of such figures (the Manichean
dichotomy, seeing things in black and white) is always dogmatic and
intolerant - in short, reactionary - whereas he who avoids set figures,
who recognizes nuances and distinctions and who admits contradictions is
democratic. Fleming is conservative as, basically, the fable - any fable -
is conservative; his is the static, inherent, dogmatic conservatism of
fairy tales and myths, which transmit an elementary wisdom, constructed
and communicated by a simple play of light and shade, by indisputable
archetypes which do not permit critical distinction."
Umberto Eco: "Narrative Structures in Fleming" [1965]. In _The Role of the
Reader_, p. 162.

Stock figures like Brock Vond, Scarsdale Vibe, and Nicholas Windust.


Heikki

On Tue, 21 Jan 2014, Markekohut wrote:

>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> > From: Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
> > Date: January 21, 2014, 10:01:45 AM EST
> > To: Mark Kohut <markekohut at yahoo.com>, Jim Batte <jim.batte at ingrambook.com>
> > Subject: Tweet from LA Review of Books (@LAReviewofBooks)
> >
> > LA Review of Books (@LAReviewofBooks) tweeted at 9:55am - 21 Jan 14:
> >
> > On "SPECTRE, Laurence Rickels’s psychoanalytic reading of James Bond and his creator" bit.ly/LzzFpb @007 #longreads (https://twitter.com/LAReviewofBooks/status/425642809836978176)
> >
> > Get the official Twitter app at https://twitter.com/download
> >
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
>
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l