Trigger Warning for James Bond’s Trigger Finger! By James Reed
This is a world where villains plot world domination and heroes quip their way through exploding volcanoes, but where one university has decided that the real threat isn't Dr. No's mechanical claws, it's the outdated audacity of Ian Fleming's prose. Yes, the University of Portsmouth has slapped a trigger warning on Dr. No, the sixth James Bond novel, because apparently, nothing says "emotional preparedness" like a heads-up that 007 might offend your inner snowflake. "Racism, misogyny, xenophobia," the warning laments, as if Bond's mid-20th-century machismo is the literary equivalent of a landmine.
Picture the scene: It's syllabus week at Portsmouth, and a gaggle of wide-eyed Leftist undergrads huddles in a seminar room, clutching their oat milk lattes like emotional support animals. The professor, a trans guardian of the discourse, clears their throat. "Before we dive into the colonialist fever dream that is Dr. No, a quick trigger warning: This book contains problematic issues. Like, a lot. Bond smokes unfiltered cigarettes, triggering for lung health advocates. He drinks martinis, offensive to sober-curious millennials. And worst of all, he objectifies women without a single consent seminar in sight." Gasps ripple through the room. One student fans themselves with a zine on intersectional feminism. Another demands a content note for the word "exotic." Welcome to Bond Studies 101: Where espionage meets emotional labor.
But let's unpack this pearl-clutching, shall we? The university's rationale? "Content warnings recognise the diverse lived experience of students and that there can be content they will find challenging or potentially distressing." Oh, the humanity! Because nothing builds resilience like bubble-wrapping the Bard, or in this case, the Bond. Imagine Hamlet with a warning: "Spoiler: Lots of dead uncles and existential dread. Proceed with therapy on standby." Or 1984: "Big Brother is watching, may trigger surveillance anxiety. Bonus points if you're already doom-scrolling TikTok." Fleming's spy, born in the smoky aftermath of World War II, was crafted for a generation that laughed in the face of Nazis, not navel-gazed over narrative microaggressions. Bond doesn't tiptoe around "outmoded language," he bulldozes it with a Walther PPK and a one-liner. "Shaken, not stirred"? More like "Triggered, not tamed."
Enter Ian Kinane, lecturer extraordinaire and editor of the International Journal of James Bond Studies (because of course that's a thing, next up: Queer Readings of Q's Gadgets). Kinane defends the warning as "simply a matter of consideration... an acknowledgement of [students'] potential sensitivities." Bless his progressive heart. He's right that expunging passages from Live and Let Die (as some editions have done) is like airbrushing history's acne scars, ugly, but honest. But signalling "problematic themes" ahead of time? That's not education; that's emotional cosplay. It's like handing out hazmat suits before a chemistry lab: Sure, it might prevent a rash, but you'll never learn to mix the potions without spilling a drop. Kinane's got the right idea, preface with a disclaimer, then let the kids grapple. After all, if Bond can defuse a nuclear bomb in a tuxedo, surely a 19-year-old can handle a dash of dated dialogue without curling into the foetal position.
And don't get me started on the medical journals piling on. A 2018 study in the Medical Journal of Australia clocked Bond "sipping" 109 drinks across films, 4.5 per flick! Chronic alcoholism, they cry. Sipped! As if James were nursing a rosé spritzer instead of slamming vodka tonics while dodging death. What next? A trigger warning for Bond's cholesterol from all those steak-and-eggs breakfasts? Or a symposium on his toxic masculinity for flipping henchmen out of hot-air balloons? The man's a walking DSM-5 checklist: adrenaline junkie, commitment-phobe, probable caffeine overdose. Yet somehow, audiences have survived 26 films without a mass therapy session. Funny that.
So, Portsmouth, kudos for your duty of care; truly, what would we do without you shielding students from the horrors of heteronormative heroism? But here's a radical notion: Treat literature like the double-edged sword it is. Let Dr. No provoke, not pacify. Dissect the misogyny (Bond's charm was always a velvet glove over an iron fist). Debate the xenophobia over a round of non-alcoholic vespers. That's how you forge spies of the mind, resilient, witty, and unflappably untriggered. Otherwise, you're not educating; you're embalming. And no one wants a Bond who's afraid of his own shadow.
In the end, if a trigger warning for Dr. No is what it takes to get kids reading Fleming instead of fanfic forums, sign us up. Just don't be surprised when they emerge from the seminar quoting Bond: "Red wine with fish. Well, I tried to get him to stick to the pouilly-fuissé, but you know how these Yanks are." Problematic? Perhaps. Punchy? Positively. Now, excuse me while I light a cigarette, purely for historical accuracy, of course.
https://www.thecollegefix.com/university-adds-trigger-warning-to-james-bond-novel-dr-no/
Comments