007 reasons the Bond books should be shaken but not stirred

James Bond has finally yielded. Not to the KGB, Blofeld, or even a female character with agency, but to those controversial “sensitivity readers”. Yes, Moneypenny, Ian Fleming’s classic novels will be edited to remove content deemed to be problematic, and a disclaimer will be added to acknowledge that they were “written at a time when terms and attitudes which might be considered offensive by modern readers were commonplace”.

Sean Connery and author Ian Fleming discuss the character of James Bond while filming an interior scene for ‘Dr No’ at Pinewood Studios.Credit: Studios.Copyright Notice - © 1962 Danjaq, LLC and United Artists Corporation.

This follows the news that Roald Dahl’s beloved children’s books are to be rewritten, which saw everyone from the British PM to the Queen Consort weighing in – and really, who better to comment on modern society than a queen?

But the debate soon spread beyond children’s books, and 007 was in the crosshairs. As someone who has read just about all the Bond novels, the changes being proposed don’t bother me. Here are – befittingly – 007 reasons why.

1) Some of the original language is indefensible

The Bond novels originally featured the ‘n’ word – which any publisher would refuse to print now. As Whoopi Goldberg has pointed out, there is value in viewing language as a reflection of the society that produced it – but personally I’m happy to leave that to scholars.

2) Controversial passages weren’t changed

Whoopi Goldberg says some language could be seen as part of its time.Credit: Invision/AP

If anything, it’s surprising how much seems to have been left in. When “the sweet tang of rape” and a description of homosexuality as a “disability” are left intact, the red pen is hardly running amok. Surely many sensitivity editors might have said “let die” rather than “live”.

3) Fleming has approved edits like this before

The author changed his novels to appeal to readers, and for the American release of Live And Let Die, edited some of the language Bond used about African-Americans. As his estate said: “Following Ian’s approach, we looked at the instances of several racial terms across the books and removed a number of individual words or else swapped them for terms that are more accepted today but in keeping with the period in which the books were written.“

4) Problematic language interrupts the entertainment

Daniel Craig as James Bond.Credit: Nicola Dove

Arguably, updating some of the language that smacks as outdated in fact preserves what Bond, as a hero, was supposed to be about. Some of the removed language would surely have been jarring for readers.

5) Bond has been updated for decades

The movie Bonds have evolved ever since Roger Moore unveiled his lighter, one-liner-packed take on the character. Daniel Craig’s version even kept his love interests for more than one movie! His Casino Royale departed from the Cold War setting of the original, instead portraying Le Chiffre as a financier of terrorists, to make it feel more contemporary. Bond even battled a media baron in one 1997 movie. The changes to Fleming’s novels are far more minor.

6) Bond is one of the world’s most valuable entertainment products

When the novels leave copyright, anyone will be able to print any version they like – but for now, their owners want them to reach the biggest audience possible. Surely the greatest triumph for Fleming is that Bond is still one of the world’s most precious pieces of intellectual property 70 years after Casino Royale was published, and 61 years after the first movie. The estate clearly wants to maintain its market position.

7) Bond is still Bond

The Bond novels are from a time when it wasn’t yet implausible that a secret agent from a small country near the European Union could regularly save the world, and female characters could have names like Honey Ryder and Pussy Galore without being laughed at. Bond is still as Fleming intended him: a white, straight, privileged man who is the only person who can save the free world.

Of course, free speech is precious, and artists’ legacies should be preserved. But most successful artists tailor their work to appeal to customers, as Fleming did. These edits are hardly thought-control in action – they’re the careful refreshing of a commercial product. In the hugely unlikely event that any of my books are read in vast numbers in decades, I would be delighted if anybody took the trouble to refresh them to expunge or rephrase minor details that might alienate my readers, especially if it kept them selling.

James Bond saving the free world. Credit: MGM/Colombia Pictures

We should be able to distinguish between edits like removing racist epithets, and those that are unnecessary or oversensitive. A light touch is needed, but on the evidence I’ve seen, the estate seems to have gotten the balance right. Long may Bond battle SMERSH and SPECTRE in the pages of Fleming’s books, and if he can do so without being overtly racist, so much the better.

The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up here.