Thank you for bringing up the books - you're absolutely right that Bond's character is considerably grayer and his internal observations make it clear that however confident he may appear on the outside, there's a lot of hidden damage and even some doubt that he doesn't dare let anyone see. (For example, his self-reflection after killing a minor heavy at the start of the Goldfinger novel where he starts to think a little too much about the nature of his job and the nature of his victim ... or at least, more than a confident assassin for the Crown is supposed to.)
While this doesn't relate directly to the toxic trope above, it's also interesting to see the dividing line in Fleming's books that could almost be described as "pre-Hollywood" and "post-Hollywood." The first five Bond books are very Cold War-driven with SMERSH as the main heavy in the background and the plots are more grounded ... even the one exception to the latter, with Moonraker's secret Nazi scientist who's out to nuke London, is carried off in a manner that's more gritty than cinematic. But "Dr No" becomes a transition moment - an outright movie-style villain with the cinematic secret lair that Bond momentarily considers the cost and practicality of. "Goldfinger" takes it even farther and then we hit the Blofeld Trilogy, where world-ending plots are the norm and SPECTRE is the guiding hand. That's where Book Bond starts to morph into a closer resemblance to Movie Bond ... though still with his own individual quirks and characteristics, of course.
(Personal note: since Fleming actively tried to kill Bond off at the end of book five, "From Russia With Love," I kind of suspect that the new line was a reaction to either 1) Fleming simply having run out of realistic stuff that he could transmute into a plot, 2) Fleming being tired of Bond and having to get wilder to keep his own interest and/or 3) Fleming having to respond to the sudden success of the films and deliver a character that the audience had come to expect.)
- "Bond’s approach to doing this is to establish his dominance and superiority onto everybody—even to those above him in rank. It’s Bond’s way or the highway, even if you’re M. Bond knows best, and Bond is better than anyone: he’s right even when he’s wrong, which ironically is largely where he gets his wide appeal."
This is where most of the parodies of Bond jump off from for comic effect. Maxwell Smart of "Get Smart" fame is the ultimate example of an anti-Bond: he's WRONG even when he's RIGHT. But at least he got a plethora of good comic catchphrases in exchange.
Earlier I mentioned the brilliant Mitchell and Webb parody, which fits that pattern exactly (Bond's instinct is completely wrong for the situation but he's still completely confident): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIfSQW499Xc
Thank you for bringing up the books - you're absolutely right that Bond's character is considerably grayer and his internal observations make it clear that however confident he may appear on the outside, there's a lot of hidden damage and even some doubt that he doesn't dare let anyone see. (For example, his self-reflection after killing a minor heavy at the start of the Goldfinger novel where he starts to think a little too much about the nature of his job and the nature of his victim ... or at least, more than a confident assassin for the Crown is supposed to.)
While this doesn't relate directly to the toxic trope above, it's also interesting to see the dividing line in Fleming's books that could almost be described as "pre-Hollywood" and "post-Hollywood." The first five Bond books are very Cold War-driven with SMERSH as the main heavy in the background and the plots are more grounded ... even the one exception to the latter, with Moonraker's secret Nazi scientist who's out to nuke London, is carried off in a manner that's more gritty than cinematic. But "Dr No" becomes a transition moment - an outright movie-style villain with the cinematic secret lair that Bond momentarily considers the cost and practicality of. "Goldfinger" takes it even farther and then we hit the Blofeld Trilogy, where world-ending plots are the norm and SPECTRE is the guiding hand. That's where Book Bond starts to morph into a closer resemblance to Movie Bond ... though still with his own individual quirks and characteristics, of course.
(Personal note: since Fleming actively tried to kill Bond off at the end of book five, "From Russia With Love," I kind of suspect that the new line was a reaction to either 1) Fleming simply having run out of realistic stuff that he could transmute into a plot, 2) Fleming being tired of Bond and having to get wilder to keep his own interest and/or 3) Fleming having to respond to the sudden success of the films and deliver a character that the audience had come to expect.)
Yes--the books make Bond less likeable, but more understandable, if that makes sense.
-Who would name a girl "Dink"?
- "Bond’s approach to doing this is to establish his dominance and superiority onto everybody—even to those above him in rank. It’s Bond’s way or the highway, even if you’re M. Bond knows best, and Bond is better than anyone: he’s right even when he’s wrong, which ironically is largely where he gets his wide appeal."
This is where most of the parodies of Bond jump off from for comic effect. Maxwell Smart of "Get Smart" fame is the ultimate example of an anti-Bond: he's WRONG even when he's RIGHT. But at least he got a plethora of good comic catchphrases in exchange.
Earlier I mentioned the brilliant Mitchell and Webb parody, which fits that pattern exactly (Bond's instinct is completely wrong for the situation but he's still completely confident): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIfSQW499Xc
Oh, that's a good point re: the parodies! They take all this and turn it on its head.