I suggest you read up about Fleming ? !
In my humble opinion, Ian Fleming did more damage to several generations of men (&women) than any other modern writer.
The Child Catcher ?
James Bond ?
He loved cold, twisted, Underground, lonely, single, emotionless, Action Men.
His influence on Dorothy Dunnett, a close friend, screams out to me every single time I read The Lymond Chronicles and The House of Niccolo.
Both Lymond and Nicholas were James Bond set in another century. Hard, cruel, Action Men with multiple women hanging off them.
But DD’s saving grace was the fact that she was a woman. HER men ALWAYS found love, despite their multitudinous faults :o)
Hidden History Research 
Excellent observation!! I had never thought of Fleming’s wider influence, other than his inflaming Cold War paranoia. But your observations fit all of that and more perfectly. I have been listening lately to Fleming’s first novel on audible (read by Matthew Goode, whose vocal performance is mesmerizing), and I am amazed at how easily he created a sexy, psychopathic hero. I can see the comparison to Dunnett’s characters (and others, especially in mid century mystery and crime drama). Fleming really did catch a Zeitgeist of that time, and it haunts us still. To the point that we expect our “hero” to be exactly that, stripped of nuance. I am reading (not listening) to one of Fleming’s contemporaries, actually re-reading, “The Magus” by Jonathan Fowles. I read that the BBC is in current production of a serialized TV version of the novel, and wanted to refresh my memory of it. Fowles was writing this, and “French Lieutenant’s Woman” exactly at the same time as Fleming, yet his hero characters are men who look back into time, and find they can only truly experience feelings of love and real male passion for women of an earlier time. Nicholas Urfe is no James Bond, but the idea of being drawn to a mystery, the heart of which is a woman, is there, but in the hands of Fowles, far more nuanced, genuine and artistic. Critics would blast Fowles as a “romantic”, not in tune with the modern world, reality. But…which is a clearer literary mirror to hold before us…Fleming’s or Fowles’ if we want to see who we really are? Or is the question really more frightening in that Hollywood has created monsters where none existed before?
LikeLike
OMG, Deb. How many years ago did you recommend The Magus/John Fowles to me ?
I’m feeling the need to re-read :o)
Thank you. Always!
You know the link btw Dunnett and Fleming. Isn’t Lymond just about the same character as Bond?
Mercenary. Travels the world. Multiple lovers. etc
At least he had Philippa Somerville. Whom he eventually acknowledged.
Still love the Silly Scottish Anti-Hero. Lol
LikeLike
lol…the Magus is wonderful, but it is a really long novel. Fowles took well over ten years to write it. So maybe wait for the BBC to come through and put the novel on the To Read list:-) And the parallels you draw are absolutely correct between Lymond, and Nicolas, and in the hands of Dunnett they are fully realized men. The concept of the swashbuckling hero has been around a long time (Odysseus? D’Artagnon?) but those heroes were never drawn as amoral, mercenaries. Fleming really did create a new creature that was perfect for that era. Agreed…a Silly Scottish Anti-Hero is the best:-)
LikeLike
MacColla!
That’s my one word answer, Deb.
A more wordy answer is – that 6ft 7″ Highland/Irish man beheaded by …..?
Now HE is the epitome of a Silly Scottish Anti- Hero (?)
Twins?
x
P.S. Magus is on top of the TBR list :o)
LikeLike
P.S. D.F……..One of us is Pure Scandi. One of us is Pure Highland/Irish with a touch of Scandi.
We’ve met before at Dál Riata.
One day we WILL meet again at OUR home :o) x
LikeLike