Christopher Rush

I really don’t understand the backlash against this book.  Is Bond racist in this book?  No, he isn’t.  Bond doesn’t shoot badguys because they are “Chinese negroes” (as Fleming has other characters say), he shoots them because they are trying to kill him and he wants to stay alive.  He never says “because these people are of this race, I don’t like them.”  Similarly, he is not misogynistic toward “Honey” Ryder.  Yes, he is a little patronizing to her at the beginning, but his initial impressions of her are accurate: she is a young girl (of 20) with no experience of “civilization” beyond being assaulted by a drunken guy once, who has spent most of her life on her own adapting to Nature.  His comments about her broken nose are a tad overboard at first, but they go away soon, especially once she proves her strength toward the end.  Let’s remember, too, it’s Honey who is in charge and aggressive at the end, not Bond.  He never forces himself on her.  He tries to protect her.  He tries to protect Quarrel — he cares about him.  Bond is perhaps at his most human in this book, feeling the anger at the losses he encounters more than in the other books so far.  If the antagonistic readers should be mad at anyone, they should be mad at Ian Fleming for Honey’s real name and the attitudes of the other characters toward the other races, certainly not at Bond.  Bond even admits his failings and feels like apologizing to M a couple of times.  Yes, Fleming does get a bit heavy-handed with the prose at times, but some of the dramatic scenes (okay, there are two) are rather intense and engaging.  And there’s actually a real epilogue, not just a stoppage of action.  So what’s the deal, people?  Why the antagonism?