James Bond is unusually difficult to see with fresh eyes. Say Blofeld and a bald man with a white cat appears; say Scaramanga and Christopher Lee raises his golden pistol. These are powerful pieces of cinema. They are also only particular interpretations of characters whose literary appearances can be strikingly different.
Ian Fleming often supplied more awkward, distinctive faces than popular memory allows. His villains can be physically extravagant, his allies unexpectedly lean, his heroines more sharply individual than the phrase “Bond girl” suggests. Yet returning to the novels does not mean declaring the films mistaken. A performance can preserve a character’s danger, intelligence or emotional purpose while changing almost everything about the face.
The eighteen entries below distinguish explicit description from interpretation. Book dates are publication dates, not automatic dates for the action. Measurements are approximate where Fleming’s narrator is estimating. Comparisons concern the characters as presented on screen; judgements about an actor’s resemblance are critical assessments, not measurements. Major plot developments are discussed.
There is another reason to read carefully. Fleming frequently uses bodies to suggest morality, and some of his descriptions depend on racial, sexual and national stereotypes. Those are features of the writing to examine, not truths to reproduce uncritically. A convincing portrait should recover an individual, rather than simply amplify the narrator’s prejudices.
