Tag Archives: humor

James Bond

Part of my summer bucket list was to read one of the old Ian Fleming James Bond books. In the end, I read them all. They are not long and not hard to read. Here are 10 things that surprised me about the literary James Bond.

Warning: This post contains minor spoilers, in case you were thinking of wading into Ian Fleming yourself. Parents, be warned it also contains the P word. PUSSY! There, I said it and it’s out of my system. Actually, I just heard an NPR announcer say it today (talking about the Russian band Pussy Riot) and it made me laugh out loud.

  1. He does order at least one vodka martini shaken not stirred, but his favorite drink by far is bourbon. He drinks enormous quantities of the stuff. He never orders less than a double and sometimes he orders it by the tumbler or just downs it straight from the bottle. In at least one case he mixes it with coffee and takes it with him on a mission that involves climbing trees, firearms and hand-to-hand combat. He definitely drinks in part to unwind after, and sometimes during, a hard day of spying. He occasionally drinks beer or wine, but you get the idea that is just to stay hydrated between bourbons. He also drinks enormous quantities of coffee and states emphatically many times in multiple books how much he despises tea.
  2. He also smokes enormous amounts of cigarettes all day every day.
  3. Somehow, despite this lifestyle he stays in excellent physical condition. Once, it catches up to him a bit and he is ordered to detox in a health clinic for a couple weeks, which is all it takes to restore him to perfect health. This is all somewhat amusing until you learn that Ian Fleming drank and smoked heavily, leading to several heart attacks that ultimately killed him in his 50s. So viewed through that lense, it reads a little like a fantasy of someone who is not in good health but imagines an alter-ego who is. Imagine if Clark Kent downed a bottle of scotch every day, knowing that it couldn’t hurt him. Well, Ian Fleming was no Superman but James Bond sort of was.
  4. He seems most relaxed and engaged in life when he is in dangerous, risky situations that would be extremely stressful for a normal person. When he has a period of relative safety and office work, he gets depressed. This reminds me of possibly the only more famous fictional British character, Sherlock Holmes. He was similar in that he would get bored and depressed when he had a lull in between cases. Like Bond, he turned to substance abuse (cocaine in his case) to get through these periods, and like Bond, he seemed to suffer no lasting ill effects. Both also fake their deaths after defeating an arch-enemy and later resurface. Ian Fleming and Conan Doyle’s character Watson were war veterans (World War II and Afghanistan, respectively), and would have seen some serious shit in their time, which I imagine might have taken more of a toll than it took on their fictional supermen. I’m sure Fleming would have read and been influenced by Conan Doyle.
  5. Pussy Galore was a woman who preferred the company of other women, until she met James Bond… James Bond seems to have a complicated, yet simple, view of lesbians. If they are young and attractive (to men), they are okay and if they are not, they tend to be evil, especially if they prey on young women who are attractive to men.
  6. Speaking of the P word, Octopussy is an actual octopus, showing up briefly in a short story found in Fleming’s notes after his death. James Bond is mostly fearless but he has a weird phobia about octopuses, seeming to believe that they are among the most deadly sea creatures. I’ve done a little research and other than the poisonous ones in Australia, there is almost no evidence of octopuses posing any serious threat to humans, and certainly not killing them.
  7. James Bond is not a particular fan of gay men, short people, Japanese people and people with disabilities. He seems to like black people, gypsies, and Americans overall although he occasionally spouts various slurs and generalizations about them. He is not bothered when one close friend recalls raping someone. In one instance he himself is guilty of something bordering on date rape, although the woman involved does not seem concerned about it afterward. He generally treats women and people in general with respect when he encounters them one on one, however.
  8. One Bond story is a first person account of a young woman’s coming of age, including some sexual exploits, some of which involve James Bond. Perhaps Ian Fleming was bored and wanted to experiment a bit with that one.
  9. He doesn’t always get the girl. Well, usually he gets the girl, but typically only one per novel, and occasionally zero, or there is just a sense of mounting sexual tension which might lead to something offscreen.
  10. The novels are not as violent as the movies. James Bond states several times that he does not kill in cold blood. He generally kills in self defense or occasionally in revenge, and feels some regret about it. The women he sleeps with are not killed constantly like they are in the movies. The villain pretty much always dies, but not always in a violent one-on-one showdown like in the movies. Sometimes it is in a more anti-climactic way. One thing is exactly like the movies – the villains do tend to leave James Bond in “an easily escapable situation involving an overly elaborate and exotic death,” as Dr. Evil put it in Austin Powers. They do sometimes explain why they do this – basically some mixture of sadism, ego, and over-confidence. It’s not quite convincing, but hey, these stories are fantasies in the end.

It was fun reading these books and I’m not sure why I didn’t do it sooner. Rest in peace, Ian Fleming, and long live your indestructible fictional alter ego.

sarcasm, knowledge and creativity

I’ve always preferred to keep my news and entertainment separate, which has always made me mildly uncomfortable with comedy news purveyors like Stewart, Colbert, and Oliver. But there is some evidence that better informed and more creative people are drawn to sarcasm. From Smithsonian:

Sarcasm seems to exercise the brain more than sincere statements do. Scientists who have monitored the electrical activity of the brains of test subjects exposed to sarcastic statements have found that brains have to work harder to understand sarcasm.

That extra work may make our brains sharper, according to another study. College students in Israel listened to complaints to a cellphone company’s customer service line. The students were better able to solve problems creatively when the complaints were sarcastic as opposed to just plain angry. Sarcasm “appears to stimulate complex thinking and to attenuate the otherwise negative effects of anger,” according to the study authors.

The mental gymnastics needed to perceive sarcasm includes developing a “theory of mind” to see beyond the literal meaning of the words and understand that the speaker may be thinking of something entirely different. A theory of mind allows you to realize that when your brother says “nice job” when you spill the milk, he means just the opposite, the jerk.

Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-science-of-sarcasm-yeah-right-25038/#QlY3dyz2ZcXfK45p.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

I remember that after living abroad and returning to the United States, the all-pervasive sarcasm and irony in our media and culture is one thing that really struck me. And while living abroad, I found I had to tone down my ironic tone because people from other cultures often didn’t pick up on it, at least at first.

The Sokal Affair

From Wikipedia:

The Sokal affair, also called the Sokal hoax,[1] was a publishing hoax perpetrated by Alan Sokal, a physics professor at New York University and University College London. In 1996, Sokal submitted an article to Social Text, an academic journal of postmoderncultural studies. The submission was an experiment to test the journal’s intellectual rigor and, specifically, to investigate whether “a leading North American journal of cultural studies – whose editorial collective includes such luminaries as Fredric Jameson and Andrew Ross – [would] publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors’ ideological preconceptions”.[2]

The article, “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity”,[3] was published in the Social Text spring/summer 1996 “Science Wars” issue. It proposed that quantum gravity is a social and linguistic construct. At that time, the journal did not practice academic peer review and it did not submit the article for outside expert review by a physicist.[4][5] On the day of its publication in May 1996, Sokal revealed in Lingua Franca that the article was a hoax.[2]

The hoax sparked a debate about the scholarly merit of humanistic commentary about the physical sciences; the influence of postmodern philosophy on social disciplines in general; academic ethics, including whether Sokal was wrong to deceive the editors and readers of Social Text; and whether Social Text had exercised appropriate intellectual rigor.

I get that he was trying to expose poor practices in the publishing industry. I still find it unethical that someone would use their own reputation and credentials to publish information they personally know is fake or deceptive.

Sokal also created a Postmodernism Generator, which generates a random article using postmodern buzzwords each time you refresh it. I don’t find this unethical, because it is not pretending to be something it is not. Just for fun, I’ll refresh it just now and give you the first paragraph. But you really should try it for yourself.

Neotextual structuralism in the works of Rushdie

The main theme of Werther’s[1] essay on dialectic
postsemanticist theory is the common ground between class and society. If
Sontagist camp holds, we have to choose between dialectic postsemanticist
theory and neodialectic construction. It could be said that the subject is
interpolated into a neotextual structuralism that includes consciousness as a
paradox.

The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct

Two academics wrote a joke paper called “The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct“, submitted it to a peer reviewed social science journal, and got it published. While are a couple excerpts. And I want to say that while I am amused by this, I don’t find it remotely ethical.

We conclude that penises are not best understood as the male sexual organ, or as a male reproductive organ, but instead as an enacted social construct that is both damaging and problematic for society and future generations. The conceptual penis presents significant problems for gender identity and reproductive identity within social and family dynamics, is exclusionary to disenfranchised communities based upon gender or reproductive identity, is an enduring source of abuse for women and other gender-marginalized groups and individuals, is the universal performative source of rape, and is the conceptual driver behind much of climate change…

Destructive, unsustainable hegemonically male approaches to pressing environmental policy and action are the predictable results of a raping of nature by a male-dominated mindset. This mindset is best captured by recognizing the role of [sic] the conceptual penis holds over masculine psychology. When it is applied to our natural environment, especially virgin environments that can be cheaply despoiled for their material resources and left dilapidated and diminished when our patriarchal approaches to economic gain have stolen their inherent worth, the extrapolation of the rape culture inherent in the conceptual penis becomes clear.

 

the chicken and the egg

This video purports to answer the question of the chicken and the egg once and for all. But really, it’s silly. Of course there were eggs of some sort long before chickens existed. The real question is what came first, the chicken or the chicken egg. And even that might seem obvious – at some point something that was not quite a chicken laid an egg, and the thing that came out was a chicken. But was that egg a chicken egg? You could say that if a chicken came out, it was a chicken egg. But imagine this – if you took an egg laid by a duck, I think we could all agree that would be a duck egg. But now imagine you use some genetic technology to change the duck embryo inside the egg from a duck to a chicken. Now is it a chicken egg or a duck egg. See, it is still ambiguous.

Time Chicken from Nick Black on Vimeo.