Sunday, 6 August 2017

Three Characters

How does Ian Fleming's James Bond differ from Poul Anderson's Dominic Flandry or Manson Everard?

Bond lives and works in the author's present.
Everard, based in the present, works in the past.
Flandry lives and works in our future.

Fleming reflected and described his own period, the 1950s and early '60s, whereas Anderson realized historical and prehistorical periods and imagined a future period.

Usually, Bond:
is captured by the villain before the end of a novel;
sustains injuries requiring hospitalization.

The indefinitely prolonged lifespan of a Time Patrolman enables Everard to spend years in the past, then return apparently unaged to the day and hour of his departure from the present, while "antisenescence" keeps Flandry active at the age of seventy, whereas it is clever textual revision by his author that keeps Bond active for at least an extra decade. 

1 comment:

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

I would have also added that Dominic Flandry served a far vaster and more powerful Empire than the British Empire Bond served. The Terran Empire extended over hundreds of light years while Britain's Empire was limited to only parts of a single planet.

Yes, Dominic Flandry was sometimes captured by enemies of the Empire, but this usually turned out to be a disaster or setback for them, as the Merseians and Scothanians were to sadly find out in A CIRCUS OF HELLS and "Tiger By The Tail." They would have done far better NOT to have captured Flandry!