the day by playing to the best in the earlyrnfilms (perhaps the best scene in Goldeneyernis Bond’s hilarious visit with thernvenerable “Q,” once again played by veteranrnDesmond Lleweylan), creating engagingrnvillains, and by giving this Bondrnfilm a theme, something entirely newrnto the series. Xenia Onatopp, plavedrnwith over-the-top gusto by FamkernJanssen, is one part Pussy Galore and onernpart Oddjob, a femme fatale who has it inrnfor Bond, and who has an interestingrnstvle of dispatching the male flies caughtrnin her web—Sharon Stone or GlennrnClose never did in a lover like this! AlexrnTrevelyan, played by Sean Bean, is an ex-rn00 colleague of Bond’s who doublecrossesrnhis former friend, with a mind tornrevenge against England herself, therncountry Treveh’an blames for his parents’rndeaths. In the Fleming novels. Bond wasrnsometimes troubled by the ruthlessnessrnof his profession, and the loneliness it required.rnLoyalty, for loyalty was everythingrnto Fleming’s Bond, and a taste forrndanger kept 007 on the job. Not only isrnthis the first Bond film to make use ofrnthat ambiguity, it is the first to develop arnthematic underbelly. The theme is betraval.rnBond’s former colleague is actuallyrnthe son of anti-Soviet Russians who,rnhaving found themselves in the hands ofrnthe British at the end of Wodd War II,rnwere promptly and forcibly returned tornStalin’s Russia to face a firing squad.rnThis is the first instance I know of thatrnmention of forcible repatriations by thernAllies has been made in the context ofrnpopular culture, which is reason enoughrnto congratulate the screenwriters.rnOn the other hand, I don’t know whatrnthe Russians will make of this film whenrna bootlegged video version turns up inrnthe Land of the Firebird. For years thernSoviets harped on the image of 007 asrnanti-Soviet, pro-capitalist propaganda.rnThey seemed barely to notice thatrnthe films never pitted Bond againstrnSMERSH, the Soviets’ professional hitmenrnwho were among Fleming’s favoriternBond antagonists. During the Cold War,rnWestern filmmakers just couldn’t bringrnthemselves to use the Soviets as badrnguys, but now that the Cold War is over,rnthe hlm’s openmg sequence, a flashbackrnin this case, has Bond battling the minionsrnof an undoubtedly Evil Empire.rnMoreover, all of this post-Cold WarrnBond’s bad guys are Russians, eitherrngangsters, computer geeks, or anti-Westernrnmilitary officers, and Bond dispatchesrnnoneommunist Russian soldiers as if itrnwere the mid-50’s. That, along with thernfilm’s admission of postwar chicanery byrnthe Allies, and the creeping suspicionrnamong all Russians that the West really isrninfected with “Russopliobia,” may makernGoldeneye a favorite of the “red-browns,”rnwho, communist or not, have alwaysrntold Russians that the West cannot berntrusted.rnWayne Allensworth writes fromrnPurcellville, Virginia.rnU B L I S H I N GrnThe WonderfulrnWorld of PornrnbyEgon Richard TauschrnSo you thought writing hard-corernpornography was an easy way to earnrna living? You remembered your adolescencernand those turgid paperbacks inrnwhich the vocabulary was strictly fourletter,rnthe plot rambling and forgottenrnhalfway through the book, and the characters’rnnames changed periodically asrnthough some of the chapters were liftedrnbodily from other books? You always suspectedrnthat these novels were the first literaturernproduced entirely by computer?rnWell, you were wrong.rnYes, Virginia, there are real humansrnturning out such classics as ‘Teacher GetsrnTaught, High School for Nymphos, andrnDating Daddy. Names, of course, arernchanged to protect the guilty. The bigrnporn publishers in New York and Californiarnlike to hint that their stable (aptrnterm, that) of writers includes a few seriousrnauthors who choose to relax withrnoccasional well-written fantasies, whichrnare ascribed to such fictional creatorsrnas “Rod Strong,” “Fanny Fawn,” andrn”I.M. Willing.”rnAlthough amateurs are encouraged torncontribute their manuscripts—the publishersrnenjoy deflowering new writers asrnmuch as their fictional characters enjoyrndeflowering each other—there are rules.rnHard-core pornography is a discipline.rnYou can’t just let it all hang out. One ofrnthe biggest porn publishers in New Yorkrnadvises new authors that thev shouldrnwrite about “interesting characters inrnhighly erotic situations.” The main characterrnmust be female, since the books arerngeared toward the male market. As thisrnpublisher helpfully advises new writers inrnhis pamphlet, “Perhaps the theme couldrnbe a sexual problem of some sort whichrnis being experienced by the main characterrnand other characters; and the denouementrna solution to that problem.”rnThe “problem” or “solution” need notrnbe sociologically examined; pornographyrnis no longer scrutinized by judges for “redeemingrnsocial value.” The day is pastrnwhen the first chapter of every such bookrndiscussed science, the development ofrnsocial mores, and the dangers inherent inrnthe Puritan ethic, only to lasciviate overrnimprobable sexual encounters for thernnext 20 chapters. Nowadays they getrndown and dirty right away.rnThe above-mentioned New York publisherrnalso kindly outlines acceptablern”problems”: “Incest—this sexual fantasyrncan involve any combination of familyrnmembers… Nymphos… Age Differentiationsrn. . . Career Gids—stories involvingrnthe heroine in a career setting (e.g.rnteacher, nurse, secretary, model . . . thernpossibilities are endless) . . . ” Not quiternendless. Female career stereotypes livernon in pornography; the publisher is notrninterested in the sexual exploits of oversexedrnlady truck drivers or executives. Ifrnthese books are a good indication of whatrnmen consider sexy, then feminism isrndoomed. If, on the other hand, womenrnconstruction workers are as alluring tornmen as feminists say they should be, thernword hasn’t gotten to porn publishers.rn”Virgins—the sexual initiation of arnteenage giri leading to the emergence ofrna nympho .. . Straying Spouse . . . Swappingrn. . . Orgies . . . Domination—rnthis should mainly be of psychologicalrnnature; although mild bondage and disciplinernare acceptable.”rnIf you’re thinking that these categoriesrnexhaust the possibilities, you’re wrong.rnMorality lives (at least with this publisher)rn. “We cannot consider the followingrnthemes: male homosexuality, excretion,rnchild molestation, bestialitv, violent sado-rnmasochism, murder as part of a sexrnact.” Finally, “All characters involvedrnsexually must be at least fifteen years ofrnage.” The largest publisher in Californiarnis less prudish. Manuscripts featuringrnmale homosexuality are happily accepted.rn(But science fiction, mystery, andrnsatire of any sort are barred.)rnMARCH 1996/4.’)rnrnrn