24
Popular Culture Review
undistinguished protagonist serves the narration, founded mainly upon the
opposition between a common man and a higher-class environment. However,
when applied to 007, this particular connotation, apparently the one that seduced
Ian Fleming,'' does not support the narration, as is the case in Christie’s short
story. If her James Bond is indeed a most common fellow whose existence is
governed by his lack of exceptional qualities, Fleming’s 007 is precisely the
opposite, and his exceptional qualities shine more apparently as we move from
the novels into the Eon film series. Whereas Bond sounded most “flat” to the
ears of Fleming,5 as it must have to those of Agatha Christie, is not necessary
relevant: James Bond 007 is in effect the complete opposite of a common man,
and if his name sounded plain and boring to Christie and Fleming, its
connotations have changed to the point of meaning exactly the contrary today:
the sign “James Bond 007” immediately implies a world of adventures, made of
casinos, tuxedos, fast cars, faster women, deadly threats, and the greater good.
The text of the James Bond novels is onomastically very self-conscious,
sometimes within the title itself (Goldfinger, Dr. No) and often regarding the
choice of names for the main characters, usually recycled in the films, such as
Pussy Galore, Tiffany Case, Goodnight, Solitaire, or Goodhead. These names
are usually related to the narration: Solitaire reads the future in the cards,
Goldfinger is a gold fetishist, Dr. No opposes the values of the Western world,
Pussy Galore is a very sexualized woman, and so on. Logically, the name of
James Bond itself, even though it happened to belong historically to a
distinguished ornithologist, has acquired a new meaning beyond its original
common semiotic content, that of blunt and ordinary, which supports its content
rather than undermines it. Eco remarks that it evokes “the luxuries of Bond
Street or treasury bonds” (116), but does not go any further in his onomastic
interpretation. Now that the sign “Bond” has been further structured through the
Eon film series, its fundamental connotations appear clearer than ever and work
in perfect harmony with the narrative structure. James Bond 007 is not only the
name of the hero, it is also his function within the narrative structure: he is
literally the bonding agent of a social and political order which threatens to
become un-bonded.
When considered at its primary structural level, any James Bond adventure,
either literary or cinematographical, could be summed up within the basic
opposition between order and disorder. The beginning of the conflict establishes
the existence of a threat to the social and political order, usually involving an
organization the hierarchy of which appears to be of a totalitarian nature. This
organization can be quite involved, as are those of Dr. No, Goldfinger, Drax,
and of course Blofeld, or apparently less complex, as is that of Scaramanga from
The Man With the Golden Gun. In both cases, however, the villain has the right
of life and death over his accomplices and intends to impose this new order—the
basic opposition to the notion of the allegedly “free world” James Bond
represents—upon society. It must be underlined that this substitution of orders
always implies the destabilization of the accepted order, and therefore, manifests