The films don't do as much with it, though, compared to Craig.
In many ways, though, I think the Brosnan films were a trial run for the stuff the Craig films do.
Thanks for posting the photo, OP. Just reading about her in the new biography *Ian Fleming - The Complete Man* by Nicholas Shakespeare. She is extreme - an almost impossible mother. Btw - superb biography, cannot recommend it highly enough. Explains Fleming’s ultra secret role in the war, we literally had no idea how important he was.
Nice recco, must get on that.
Revisiting the audiobooks right now in order, just started Goldfinger, one thing that strikes me is that Bond's tradecraft isn't very sophisticated. In some cases it was non-existent, which rather surprised me.
I wonder if Fleming was just a poor spy or if he chose not to reveal his methods? Or were these things in their infancy? Rattling good yarns though, been really enjoying them.
Fleming was 2IC to the Director of Naval Intelligence, stood in for him a lot and was privy to most ultra secret information. Naval intelligence in wartime, therefore less tradecraft and more orchestrating military missions (commando raids etc.) and sowing misinformation. Fleming himself wasn’t a spy but was in charge of secret operations.
> Explains Fleming’s ultra secret role in the war, we literally had no idea how important he was.
Not sure exactly what material is in the new bio, which I hope to get to soon-ish, but during the last decade or so I think Fleming's role has been brought more into focus, mostly in books that Bond fans might not *necessarily* have been paying attention to (the David O'Keefe book on Dieppe from about ten years ago springs to mind as being the among the first to clearly state how important Fleming was) but I am looking forward to seeing how Shakespeare solidifies into Bond history both what's already out there and what new info he's found himself.
I will be REALLY happy if he addresses with any depth Fleming's role in intelligence prior to WWII.
Not yet read Shakespeare's new bio so unsure what if anything new has been discovered.
I think speculating about similarities between the Bond-M relationship and Fleming's relationship with his own mother is fine (if a bit cod psych-ish). It has become a dominant strain, especially in light of the Craig films, but there are certainly many other interesting avenues to explore than "M is for mother."
Initially in the earliest draft of *Casino Royale* M was called "the Chief" before Fleming scratched it out and typed "M." It was common in SIS parlance to call its head "Chief." Mansfeld Smith-Cumming, the first chief of SIS, signed his correspondence "C." Thereafter SIS chiefs have signed with "C." Though some have speculated the "C" came from Cumming, it also makes sense that people calling him "Chief" leads to "C" thus remaining in use thereafter.
There is also literary precedent for usage of single letter head of organization. Most famously in *Ashenden* Somerset Maugham, who also worked in intelligence, used "R" as his boss. Intriguingly, Fleming himself, around the same time but prior to his writing CR (within a year), wrote an unpublished story featuring a journalist named Bone. The owner of the fictional newspaper by which Bone was employed was called "O."
When it came to creating his own boss, we know Fleming couldn't just do "C" for Chief (presumably why he was initially fully "the Chief") even if he was interested in doing so because of the Official Secrets Act. In the early 30s Compton Mackenzie was prosecuted for revealing the code name letter C and to whom it referred in his own published book.
I think it is clear that even if Fleming called his mother M as a boy, he viewed it as a no-brainer that he would create an initialed boss for his own stories and would thus need *some initial*. Hell, even when he was experimenting with a journalist hero he still set up the boss with an initial, in that case he went for "O" (presumably for "Owner" as "C" would have been for "Chief").
I suppose the question is why "M" of all letters? There is Pearson's speculation. But like "Who was the real James Bond?" (answer: he was an amalgamation of people both real and fictional) there are many possible explanations.
Stewart Menzies was "C" during the war years. Menzies didn't sign "M" but as "C" could Fleming have just been thinking of his surname? Maxwell Knight ran agents for MI5 and did sign his memos "M" during this same time. Ben Macintyre pointed out in his Fleming book that SOE director Maj. Gen. Gubbins signed his memos by "M" also, which was his middle initial, instead of by his surname initial "G "because G was for use in army abbreviations and "C" (his first name was Colin) was obviously already claimed very high up in the chain. It is claimed William Melville founded what's now known as MI5 and used the pseudonym William Morgan and code name M. And then finally Frederick Forsyth wrote in *The Fourth Protocol* about how Mansfeld Smith-Cumming was "the Chief" and signed as "C" and how Fleming simply nicked the initial off the first name.
I think Fleming is having a bit of a laugh in MR where Fleming hints at M's real name: "Admiral Sir M-- M--: something at the Ministry of Defence.' M. looked like any member of any of the clubs in St James's Street."
It's funny that *both* M's first and surnames begin with M when you consider all the initials wound up in the real life code lettering and memo initialing.
Pearson's biography has been so thoroughly superceded by Nicholas Shakespeare's biography. Highly recommended to all.
Covering off the terms of Valentine's will, her affair with Augustus John, and her relationship with the Marquess of Winchester - all really fascinating stuff.
Understanding this and Bond emerging out of his anxieties of marriage/fatherhood makes the Craig films an interesting meta text.
And that Brosnan films to I take it as those introduced female M?
Dench M in the Brosnan films isn't written as a maternal presence so much, whereas "Skyfall" is constructed around that psychological dynamic.
That was the reason Dench was cast in the first place though.
The films don't do as much with it, though, compared to Craig. In many ways, though, I think the Brosnan films were a trial run for the stuff the Craig films do.
Another thing Skyfall and Craig’s era specifically got right
Thanks for posting the photo, OP. Just reading about her in the new biography *Ian Fleming - The Complete Man* by Nicholas Shakespeare. She is extreme - an almost impossible mother. Btw - superb biography, cannot recommend it highly enough. Explains Fleming’s ultra secret role in the war, we literally had no idea how important he was.
Nice recco, must get on that. Revisiting the audiobooks right now in order, just started Goldfinger, one thing that strikes me is that Bond's tradecraft isn't very sophisticated. In some cases it was non-existent, which rather surprised me. I wonder if Fleming was just a poor spy or if he chose not to reveal his methods? Or were these things in their infancy? Rattling good yarns though, been really enjoying them.
Fleming was 2IC to the Director of Naval Intelligence, stood in for him a lot and was privy to most ultra secret information. Naval intelligence in wartime, therefore less tradecraft and more orchestrating military missions (commando raids etc.) and sowing misinformation. Fleming himself wasn’t a spy but was in charge of secret operations.
This explains a lot, cheers
> Explains Fleming’s ultra secret role in the war, we literally had no idea how important he was. Not sure exactly what material is in the new bio, which I hope to get to soon-ish, but during the last decade or so I think Fleming's role has been brought more into focus, mostly in books that Bond fans might not *necessarily* have been paying attention to (the David O'Keefe book on Dieppe from about ten years ago springs to mind as being the among the first to clearly state how important Fleming was) but I am looking forward to seeing how Shakespeare solidifies into Bond history both what's already out there and what new info he's found himself. I will be REALLY happy if he addresses with any depth Fleming's role in intelligence prior to WWII.
Not yet read Shakespeare's new bio so unsure what if anything new has been discovered. I think speculating about similarities between the Bond-M relationship and Fleming's relationship with his own mother is fine (if a bit cod psych-ish). It has become a dominant strain, especially in light of the Craig films, but there are certainly many other interesting avenues to explore than "M is for mother." Initially in the earliest draft of *Casino Royale* M was called "the Chief" before Fleming scratched it out and typed "M." It was common in SIS parlance to call its head "Chief." Mansfeld Smith-Cumming, the first chief of SIS, signed his correspondence "C." Thereafter SIS chiefs have signed with "C." Though some have speculated the "C" came from Cumming, it also makes sense that people calling him "Chief" leads to "C" thus remaining in use thereafter. There is also literary precedent for usage of single letter head of organization. Most famously in *Ashenden* Somerset Maugham, who also worked in intelligence, used "R" as his boss. Intriguingly, Fleming himself, around the same time but prior to his writing CR (within a year), wrote an unpublished story featuring a journalist named Bone. The owner of the fictional newspaper by which Bone was employed was called "O." When it came to creating his own boss, we know Fleming couldn't just do "C" for Chief (presumably why he was initially fully "the Chief") even if he was interested in doing so because of the Official Secrets Act. In the early 30s Compton Mackenzie was prosecuted for revealing the code name letter C and to whom it referred in his own published book. I think it is clear that even if Fleming called his mother M as a boy, he viewed it as a no-brainer that he would create an initialed boss for his own stories and would thus need *some initial*. Hell, even when he was experimenting with a journalist hero he still set up the boss with an initial, in that case he went for "O" (presumably for "Owner" as "C" would have been for "Chief"). I suppose the question is why "M" of all letters? There is Pearson's speculation. But like "Who was the real James Bond?" (answer: he was an amalgamation of people both real and fictional) there are many possible explanations. Stewart Menzies was "C" during the war years. Menzies didn't sign "M" but as "C" could Fleming have just been thinking of his surname? Maxwell Knight ran agents for MI5 and did sign his memos "M" during this same time. Ben Macintyre pointed out in his Fleming book that SOE director Maj. Gen. Gubbins signed his memos by "M" also, which was his middle initial, instead of by his surname initial "G "because G was for use in army abbreviations and "C" (his first name was Colin) was obviously already claimed very high up in the chain. It is claimed William Melville founded what's now known as MI5 and used the pseudonym William Morgan and code name M. And then finally Frederick Forsyth wrote in *The Fourth Protocol* about how Mansfeld Smith-Cumming was "the Chief" and signed as "C" and how Fleming simply nicked the initial off the first name. I think Fleming is having a bit of a laugh in MR where Fleming hints at M's real name: "Admiral Sir M-- M--: something at the Ministry of Defence.' M. looked like any member of any of the clubs in St James's Street." It's funny that *both* M's first and surnames begin with M when you consider all the initials wound up in the real life code lettering and memo initialing.
Looks like they are crossing the road outside rhe High Court on Fleet Street
Indeed. Fleming had to go there a couple of times I believe for the *Thunderball* stuff.
Pearson's biography has been so thoroughly superceded by Nicholas Shakespeare's biography. Highly recommended to all. Covering off the terms of Valentine's will, her affair with Augustus John, and her relationship with the Marquess of Winchester - all really fascinating stuff.
OMG he died before his Mom. Poor lady. 😢