Now this is a journal I can enthusiastically support: The International Journal of James Bond Studies. Because, after all, Blofeld is the inverse archtype of every college administrator.
Now, you might well think that even academics couldn’t screw up something as straightforward as James Bond, and thankfully the first issue seems to be a feminist theory-free zone, but I’m not entirely reassured by this part of the editor’s statement in the first issue:
The International Journal of James Bond Studies is the first journal of its kind dedicated to critical readings of all aspects of the Bond franchise. Bringing together a variety of new voices and leading scholars in the field, the journal seeks to expand on existing criticism – beyond what has already been said of and about James Bond – and to develop new critical and theoretical paradigms by which to view the Bond universe – and through which to view wider cultural, social, and political issues. The journal will draw together engaging critical material on James Bond’s position in popular culture as well as considered scholarly material on the franchise as a whole, so that a continuous and sustained assessment may be developed of one of the most culturally and ideologically entrenched figures in modern British literary, filmic, and cultural history.
Well okay, but I’ll be reassured when they feature an analysis and scientific ranking of Bond girls. And with all due respect to the recently departed Roger Moore, not even an academic journal can confound the self-evident truth that Connery was the best Bond.