Katalepsis

I suppose this one should go without saying, but you really shouldn’t judge a book by its movie adaptation. The book is, most of the time, always better. There are just certain techniques that come off well in a novel that a film cannot easily tolerate (e.g., inner monologue, flashbacks, in-depth descriptions of scenery & character, et cetera).

I recently finished Moonraker by Ian Fleming and I have to say that I don’t understand why the screenwriters didn’t stick closer to the original story. For those unfamiliar with the Roger Moore film of the same name, the movie adaptation of Moonraker is one of the worst Bond films of all time. While it starts out promising, Bond gets launched into space on one of the most ridiculous missions ever conceived, ending in an extended and boring laser fight in space. Star Wars makes this movie look like a B-movie production.

I figured that the original novel would be better than the film, but I had no idea how much better it would be. Instead of being a ridiculous story set in space, it is a level-headed story about the development of an ICBM during the height of the Cold War — codenamed the “Moonraker.” The novel contains everything that made From Russia With Love the best Bond film adaptation ever. It’s not an oversexed story involving gadgets, booze, and blondes. Instead, it’s a suspenseful espionage thriller with plenty of kick. I would love to see this story turned into a film, despite the fact that the Cold War is no longer a relevant theme in our lives.

As in the other Bond novels, we find a Bond here willing to sacrifice himself for country and others — regardless of his own skin. This is quite unlike the cool-headed Bond of the films who always has an escape plan, no matter how dire the circumstances:

“And then,” he said, and he held up the precious lighter in his right hand, “I shall walk out of here and shut the doors and go and light a last cigarette under the tail of the Moonraker….What the hell is there else to do? The explosion will be so terrific that one won’t feel anything. and it’s bound to work with all that fuel vapour hanging around. It’s me or a million people in London.” (219)

Furthermore, it’s a Bond that has genuine feelings for women and allows himself to become attached.

“I’m going to marry that man,” she said quietly…”Oh,” said Bond. he smiled stiffly. “I see.” And yet why should he have expected anything else? A kiss. The contact of two frightened bodies clinging together in the midst of danger. There had been nothing more. And there had been the engagement ring to tell him. Why had he automatically assumed that it had only been worn to keep Drax at bay? Why had he imagined that she shared his desires, his plans?

And now what? wondered Bond. He shrugged his shoulders to shift the pain of failure — the pain of failure that is so much greater than the pleasure of success. The exit line. He must get out of these two young lives and take his cold heart elsewhere. There must be no regrets. No false sentiment. He must play the role which she expected of him. The tough man of the world. The Secret Agent. The man who was only a silhouette. (246)

Reading over that quote, I am amazed by the interpretation of the character that Connery chose. While I still think that his Bond is the best, I now realize that it is because he created an entirely different character than the one that Fleming envisioned. Fleming’s Bond has only been accurately portrayed by Timothy Dalton, George Lazenby (to a lesser extent), and Daniel Craig. I have high hopes for Craig in the series. So far, he hasn’t disappointed — even if The Quantum of Solace did.

It’s articles like this that get my blood boiling. According to a global BBC poll, 79% of global citizens agree (either “strongly” or “somewhat”) that internet access should be a fundamental human right. They surveyed 27,000 people across 26 nations — so I’d say that this is pretty representative of the general opinion.

You can clearly count me in the relatively small 6% who strongly disagree about this one. As I read the article, however, I realized that it was just because the article (and the survey upon which it was based) are incredibly ambiguous about what they are talking about.

Essentially, it seems that most people feel it is wrong for countries (i.e., China) to censor internet content. On that point, I would likely agree with most people. I think that what China is doing is stupid & counterproductive. How can you hope to control propaganda and state information in the internet age? It seems like a losing battle and they should stop.

The point I thought the article & poll were making is that most people think that having access to the internet is a fundamental right. In other words, the government (and us, by implication) have a duty to provide internet access to individuals. That claim seems absolutely preposterous. No one has an enforceable right to internet access just in virtue of the fact of being human. Since I don’t think people have a basic fundamental right to food (e.g., while I think it is admirable for us to feed the hungry, I don’t think that others can demand that we feed them), they certainly don’t have a right to internet access. Are we denying prisoners or prisoners-of-war a fundamental right by not giving them Wifi? I think not.

Now that I think of it, I don’t think that people have a fundamental right in the lesser sense brought out in the article, either. I don’t think people have a right, in virtue of being human, not to have their internet access censored by the government. That right, freedom of the press and freedom of speech, are rights that are granted to us by our own governments. While I encourage the adoption of such rights by governments that currently don’t provide them, I don’t think they belong in the collection of “fundamental” human rights.

Sorry to be so grumpy. But this kind of loose “human rights” speech gets me up in arms. I read an article the other day stating that the Spanish department at my university is protesting tuition raises on the grounds that education is a basic human right, not a privilege.

Bullshit.

P.S. What is a basic fundamental right, in my opinion? Bodily integrity is a good example. I have the right not to be physically harmed or killed by another human being. That’s basic. I can call upon others to protect me in that right. And before you start to get fancy with me, I define “physically harmed & killed” in a narrow sense. Just because my country’s economy is in the tank, due to globalization, that fact does not necessarily mean that I am being harmed by my country or another country. I’m sure we could paint cases where it is a harm. But the bare fact is not a harm.