Realm of the Muse 1.88 Mun Response
What is your New Year's resolution as the writer for this muse? Is there something that you want to explore with them this year? Look ahead at your muse's 2008, and consider what you will do the same and differently.
I would like to start exploring the other Bonds more often. I've already begun doing that by switching to Timothy Dalton's as a default (although he has been a non-official character at mixed_muses and its assorted continuities for a few months). What I would most like to achieve in this vein, however, is trying my hand at Sean Connery's and Roger Moore's Bonds. I think I might have an easier time of it with Roger Moore, as he and I share similar views on canon: namely, that a lot of it can't be taken seriously, and it's better to laugh at it than treat it as serious business. Yes, yes, even though I've defaulted to Timothy "Srs Bsnss" Dalton.
Sean Connery, I suspect, will be more of a challenge, largely because it is a chore for me to sit through a lot of his movies (it took me three attempts to sit through the entierty Thunderball, despite it being my ex-coworkers favorite Bond movie evair [though he won't admit to it, but he can quote long portions of it by heart]), and largely because I don't believe there's much to work with for his Bond, character-wise. High blasphemy, I know, but Sean Connery's Bond doesn't exhibit any qualities that appeal to me as a writer. Roger Moore's Bond had his humor. I enjoy writing humor. Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan, and Daniel Craig all presented more emotionally complex interpretation of the character, in that their characters showed genuine human emotion as opposed to Connery and Moore's "rar, I r aktshun hero, I r only nonchalant or righteously indignant." I suppose what I'm saying is that Sean Connery's Bond comes off more as a concept to me (the ultimate 1960's playboy) rather than an actual human being, and I would have a difficult time writing that seriously without getting stumped or bored. At least with Roger Moore, I can laugh at him--although I doubt I could write him frequently unless I add a few human touches to his Bond. Which, perhaps, I should do with Sean Connery's Bond, too.
As for George Lazenby...I think I may need to watch On Her Majesty's Secret Service again.
What else would I like to do differently? Possibly either be more thoughtful of the places I'm taking him, or be less worried about how other people are going to react if I do this or that. There are moments I can point to in canon when either Ian Fleming or the EON filmmakers got too carried away with the concept of James Bond rather than the character, and wound up creating over bloated tripe (granted, if you were so inclined, you could say that about the entire James Bond series). I think that, when you are writing a character, you should be focused on the character internally rather than externally. Externally, you start to attribute your assumptions on him without understanding how he operates from the inside. You start to assume that he would do this, own that, go here, because of who you perceive him to be, rather than who he is. When you're writing a character, you've got to write that character from the inside out, otherwise that character won't ring true. That's something I strive to do with all of my characters. However, it is far too easy to get caught up in worrying whether I'm doing the character justice, and therefore far too easy to look at him on the outside and try to attribute everything people think of when they think of the concept of James Bond and thus lose sight of his character. Oh, yes, he might say all the catchphrases and drink all the vodka martinis and do everything he's expected to do, but he wouldn't ring true as a character. I'd rather write a character than a cliche. So, next year, hopefully I will be more focused less on what I think people expect of him and more focused on just writing him, taking into account any comments I may receive.
I would like to start exploring the other Bonds more often. I've already begun doing that by switching to Timothy Dalton's as a default (although he has been a non-official character at mixed_muses and its assorted continuities for a few months). What I would most like to achieve in this vein, however, is trying my hand at Sean Connery's and Roger Moore's Bonds. I think I might have an easier time of it with Roger Moore, as he and I share similar views on canon: namely, that a lot of it can't be taken seriously, and it's better to laugh at it than treat it as serious business. Yes, yes, even though I've defaulted to Timothy "Srs Bsnss" Dalton.
Sean Connery, I suspect, will be more of a challenge, largely because it is a chore for me to sit through a lot of his movies (it took me three attempts to sit through the entierty Thunderball, despite it being my ex-coworkers favorite Bond movie evair [though he won't admit to it, but he can quote long portions of it by heart]), and largely because I don't believe there's much to work with for his Bond, character-wise. High blasphemy, I know, but Sean Connery's Bond doesn't exhibit any qualities that appeal to me as a writer. Roger Moore's Bond had his humor. I enjoy writing humor. Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan, and Daniel Craig all presented more emotionally complex interpretation of the character, in that their characters showed genuine human emotion as opposed to Connery and Moore's "rar, I r aktshun hero, I r only nonchalant or righteously indignant." I suppose what I'm saying is that Sean Connery's Bond comes off more as a concept to me (the ultimate 1960's playboy) rather than an actual human being, and I would have a difficult time writing that seriously without getting stumped or bored. At least with Roger Moore, I can laugh at him--although I doubt I could write him frequently unless I add a few human touches to his Bond. Which, perhaps, I should do with Sean Connery's Bond, too.
As for George Lazenby...I think I may need to watch On Her Majesty's Secret Service again.
What else would I like to do differently? Possibly either be more thoughtful of the places I'm taking him, or be less worried about how other people are going to react if I do this or that. There are moments I can point to in canon when either Ian Fleming or the EON filmmakers got too carried away with the concept of James Bond rather than the character, and wound up creating over bloated tripe (granted, if you were so inclined, you could say that about the entire James Bond series). I think that, when you are writing a character, you should be focused on the character internally rather than externally. Externally, you start to attribute your assumptions on him without understanding how he operates from the inside. You start to assume that he would do this, own that, go here, because of who you perceive him to be, rather than who he is. When you're writing a character, you've got to write that character from the inside out, otherwise that character won't ring true. That's something I strive to do with all of my characters. However, it is far too easy to get caught up in worrying whether I'm doing the character justice, and therefore far too easy to look at him on the outside and try to attribute everything people think of when they think of the concept of James Bond and thus lose sight of his character. Oh, yes, he might say all the catchphrases and drink all the vodka martinis and do everything he's expected to do, but he wouldn't ring true as a character. I'd rather write a character than a cliche. So, next year, hopefully I will be more focused less on what I think people expect of him and more focused on just writing him, taking into account any comments I may receive.