How are the Bond books?

Extremely problematic from what I've heard.

dung-dung-dung-dung-dung dung-dung-dung dung-dung-dung-dung-dung dung-dung-dung dung-dung-dung-dung-dung dung-dung-dung
DUNG-DUN DUNG-DUNG-DUNG dung-dung dung-dung-dung

Bad. Real bad.

>>7320494

Male power fantasies. I've heard here on /lit/ that they're not unbearably horrible in terms of writing, and that they can actually be kind of enjoyable.

>>7320500

I find your post extremely problematic. The use of the word "heard" is triggering to those with auditory difficulties. Check your ear-privilege.

>>7320704
You're alienating attitude towards the deaf is oppressive. Cisshit.

>>7320704

he made fun of the word problematic
bet this dude's way smarter than his peers

Trash

>>7320715
Haha are you triggered (here I use trigger as an insult to imply that people who use language I don't like are all dumb which is very funny

they're great

I've read 9 of them. Fun and quick reads. Bond is a likable character and his adventures are a joy to read.

>>7320764

>God Tier
Goldfinger
Thunderball
Moonraker

>Great tier
Casino Royale
From Russia With Love
OHMSS

>Ok tier
Dr. No
Octopussy and the Living Daylights
You Only Live Twice

>Don't Know/Don't care tier
The Man With the Golden Gun
The Spy Who Loved Me
Live and Let Die
For Your Eyes Only
Diamonds Are Forever

>>7320494
Sean Connery made the movies good, but the books are beyond awful.

manchild shit. perfect for this board t b h

>>7320494
I've read Moonraker and Dr. No.
Dr. No: Ok book, underwhelming though
Moonraker: Well constructed, interesting, impressive ending and plot devices.

>>7320715
withyoukek

If you're in the market for a series of entertaining reads, full of derring-do, random fucking and aspirational masculinity, I'd steer you to the superior Flashman series—Fraser is a lot more self aware/ironic than Fleming

>>7320723
)

>>7320494
Meh. Fleming was trying to emulate Raymond Chandler but ended up emulating Mickey Spillane.