It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
This time i was interested in Drax's car of choice, the Mercedes 300 S.
And what a beauty it is!
This is why there ought to be annotated editions of the Bond novels. I don't understand why IFP has neglected the opportunity. And some of the deluxe annotated editions out there, such as the Sherlock Holmes ones, include illustrations. In the mean time, I recommend Ian Fleming's James Bond: Annotations and Chronologies for Ian Fleming's Bond Stories by John Griswold. I don't have much use for the Chronologies, but the Annotations are very helpful.
Thanks for that recommendation @Revelator
But despite being a massive champion of the spin-off books it is also a fear I share. To the vast majority of people James Bond is a film franchise before it is book series, EON’s influence vastly dwarfs IFP and I think that allows them the free reign to experiment with these spinoffs in a way the film series can’t and probably shouldn’t.
There’s also the corporate angle, coming from Amazon one can’t help by feel they will be soulless pieces of content to prop up Prime Video. And while they are chasing trends with them I never feel like the IFP books are soulless and the experimentation is borne of the authors’ deep love for the characters.
So speaking for the book itself, I tore through it one sitting as it relegates the titular diaries in favour of answering the mystery of the present-day storyline following Moneypenny’s niece. It dovetails the two nicely into a neat conclusion. While I’m not opposed to Moneypenny secretly being more than a secretary I think this book is strengthen by having her be far more grounded and yet still having massive swings like all but confirming that
I think in the days where most spinoffs are made to please algorithms I respect and admire ones where a singular author has a vision and swings for the fences. Because if there is going to be a Moneypenny TV series in the works it won’t be like this and that’ll be to its detriment.
There is also The Moneypenny Diaries: Secret Chapters with two stories available free on Kindle through Amazon. Of all places.
I would be happier with Bond spinoffs being set more in the literary world than the cinematic one. It's nice to see someone else be a fan of possible Bond literary spinoffs! However, as you said @CharmianBond it has to be done carefully with quantity. IFP shouldn't start another series until a series or one-off is done. Double-00 book 3 and The Q Mysteries 1 should be the exception. Due to Kim Sherwood's real life troubles. So that may be a positive about Amazon buying James Bond, they could have a regular schedule for Bond books, as well as movies.
Dr. No shares similarity with Live and Let Die with the slow building approach to the shadowy villain. But while Live and Let Die is open with Mr Big as the villain, Dr. No tries to keep him in shadows and adds a mystery element to it. Bond even says that the mystery element makes it one of his favourite jobs (along with a ruthless villain and physical exertion).
The problem is there is no mystery. Sure M and the Governor both thought Strangways ran away, but Bond never buys this story for a minute. And on top of that, Strangways' work on only one case points a pretty firm finger at Dr. No, which Bond is pretty confident in. All he needs to do is put his ducks in a row, get fit, and he's already at Dr. No's hideaway, at which point the story stalls until he gets captured.
The story isn't helped by Dr. No's poor attempts to kill Bond. LALD gives us an exploding alarm clock, a sinking table, machine guns firing at Bond's train car and both Felix and Solitaire being dealt with. It feels like Bond is in perpetual danger. In comparison, Dr. No gives us a shoddy car follower, an obvious camerawoman, poisoned fruit, and a centipede that while scary, just walked along the length of Bond without biting.
Diamonds has the same problem. Bond's job, interestingly, seems to have been to find out about the pipeline, and nothing about stopping the traffic (even though M mentions the idea). However it seems like MI6 had it all figured out. They were onto the House of Diamonds, and had an idea that the Spangled Mob were on the other end as well. In fact, from the point Bond lands in New York to the the point he gets captured, he doesn't do anything to advance the story himself. He hops onto Felix's plan to rerig the race sure, but all he does is draw suspicion as to why he was in the baths at the same time as the bent jockey.
This doesn't mean I dislike either novel, by the way, not in the slightest. The whole Queen Elizabeth bit in Diamonds is incredible because it summarises Bond entirely: charming and witty; caring and loyal; professional and efficient. And of course the obstacle course in Dr. No is one of a kind and the blueprint for Bond on the big screen. But both novels try for, and miss out on detective elements that could have really made their plots better.
Good points! I see what you mean about the lack of mystery in Dr. No. I think perhaps the greater mystery for a first-time reader is less what happened to Strangways than the mystery of Dr. No himself, and sort of monster he might be. I remember being disappointed that Dr. No had only one scene where he was finally "onstage." Afterward No only reappears to get hit with guano. A similar problem occurs in DAF, where Seraffimo Spang gets only one scene "onstage," (aside from the bit with the manicurist) and then reappears only to get killed.
Yes, I think you've exactly put your finger on the book's structural weaknesses. The story does indeed seem to jog in place for most of the book, and Bond does little of consequence. It's an example of Fleming's usual weakness with plotting, and his tendency to let the travelogue take over (though he's such an engaging reporter that one usually enjoys reading it). He usually compensated throgh pacing, but in DAF the lack of momentum is unusually strong.
The first two thirds are interesting because Bond feels quite a bit like a spy in these parts and sometimes a very competent one, if balanced off by some silly mistakes: he out does Goldfinger twice, in cards and in golf. But then he makes the serious of error of skulking around at Reculver and pretty much blowing his cover. He tries to hard to get employed and gets spurned. Then Bond does a good job following Goldfinger and busting the dead-drop. Finds out what's up with Goldfinger's smuggling*. But with everything figured out, he still feels the need to go to Entreprises Auric and without a gun.
*The reveal is a bit confusing in the sense of how clear it seems. Smithers mentions Goldfinger's factory in Geneva, so it was clearly known about. They make metal seating for another Goldfinger owned company that flies to India. Maybe no one looked too deeply into the connection before (the Swiss head wasn't sure that Goldfinger owned Air Mecca), but it does feel a little underwhelming.
As oft said, the two stories are poorly conjoined by Goldfinger's odd decision to employ two unfriendly secretaries. He tries to buy them off I think with gold. Perhaps that's part of his fatal flaw: he thinks everyone likes gold and money like he does. But ultimately before and after the decision Goldfinger recognises how silly it was to leave the pair alive. It also partly undoes the Bond vs Smuggling part of the novel: he tries so hard to get employed but Goldfinger says no, yet upon doing nothing, Goldfinger changes his mind!
Bond vs Operation Grand Slam is where the novel sort of loses its place. Bond is lighter and quippier in this novel; but until this point he's simply up to levels in DAF. Post capture I must say Roger Moore comes to mind with the way he not only makes a joke at any opportunity, but keeps up a jovial facade. I suppose this was to throw off Goldfinger and Oddjob.
Bond's secretarial duties are also quite glossed over: we don't really know what he's doing and that also harms the credibility of Goldfinger hiring him: ultimately it comes down to the odd gang convention of forgettable characters (except for the creepy Billy Ring!).
And then the first climax is a little disappointing. Bond's message feels like a cheap get-out of jail and he seemingly had no other plan once they arrived at Fort Knox. He's quite lucky! And then even more so as Pussy Galore swaps over in the final chapters of the novel.
A note on Pussy Galore: much is made of Fleming's homophobia is the novel so I find it ironic that Pussy Galore is described in such a masculine way: her suit is cut masculinely, she's described as looking like a male poet, and the urchin cut as well! Also interestingly, Bond's rant on "pansies" refers to them being "not homosexual"! Was it a targeted attack at bisexual people? Closeted people? Tilly seems to be neither!
Interesting views.
Although, personally, I'm a bit fond of this book, I don't particularly care about the plot, but some parts of it are better than the film, Bond at least tried to be competent in this book, he's not always captured and being completely useless like he was in the film.
Regarding of Bond working as Goldfinger's Secretary, I think I do get your point in that it's a good concept, I liked how he's observing those Mafias and writing a letter to Felix Leiter and the CIA and gathering information, but it could've added more beef into it.
Goldfinger, I think the way I read it on why he employed Bond and Tilly, is, he's making a revenge on those two by having them work on him, and by holding them on their necks, to control their actions, Bond offered him a bribe, he accepted it, regarding of losing his credibility as Goldfinger's Secretary, I think Goldfinger knew it himself, but for him, it's no longer his priority, his focus was on his plan of raiding Fort Knox, he didn't care if Tilly and Bond are both incompetent at their jobs, for Goldfinger, at least, he could keep an eyes on them, keeping his enemies close to him.
Regarding Pussy Galore, to be fair, since in that Gangster's meeting, Pussy Galore called Bond 'handsome' many times, she found him challenging, so she showed interest on him, both are playing their moves, the ending, I see it as a way of Pussy getting close to Bond to know him more as he's interesting and challenging to Pussy herself, so from how I'm seeing it, there's a consent from Pussy, unlike in the film where Bond had literally forced himself upon her.
I do agree with you on the climax, quite rushed, the Fort Knox scenes should've been more thrilling, but it's glossed over, yes, Bond literally had no plans, although, it's him who had alerted and informed the CIA and Felix Leiter, so, at least, it's his contribution.
Goldfinger is the book that could be great because there are aspects of it that could be really great, but Fleming messed those up, yes, like what you've said, it's a disjointed book, kinda patchy, but still compared to the film, I (would) still prefer this book.
I agree. I saw a list that called Sebastian Faulks the best Bond continuation novel author. That couldn't be so false. I enjoyed it, but it didn't take risks like the six Adult Bond novels released after it.
https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20140808-the-best-007-novels-after-fleming
I do love the Scarlet/Poppy thing even if its quite silly, and I enjoy the bit of them enduring in Russia. The villain's plot is overly complex, but the discovery over all the factories is fun. It remains probably the blueprint of public's vision of Bond and it is a bit of a fun one.
IIRC the book was assembled out of a couple of short stories (maybe even scenarios devised for the unmade Bond TV series?). And plotting was never Fleming's strong suit, as your fine story analysis confirms. I always found it odd that Fleming reused one of the weakest elements of the book--Bond being hired by the villain in a fit of stupidity--for TMWTGG. (He also reused the villains' conference trope.)
I'm glad you've noticed this, since I get annoyed when people claim the Bond novels are humorless--from DAF onward that isn't the case, though the humor is different from the endless puns found in the films. GF has quite of lot of humorous aphorism trading between Bond and the villain.
It's one of the most interesting--and infamous--passages in GF:
What Bond seems to be saying is that the breakdown of gender roles has created gender fluidity and sexual ambiguity. The resulting "misfits" are differentiated from "complete" homosexuals (such as Fleming's friends Noel Coward and William Plomer), since the latter know what they are and what they want, unlike the "misfits." Fleming is taking a negative attitude to the changes in gender and sexual roles supposedly caused by female emancipation.
As for Pussy Galore, her masculine lesbianism stems from a much different cause than Tilly's "mixed-up" "misfit" sexuality. Pussy is only a lesbian (according to Fleming) because she was raped by her white trash uncle at the age of 12. Thanks to this trauma she now avoids men and projects the attitude "All men are bastards and cheats." The book presents her masculinity as a compensation for the absence of men in her life. However, all it takes to undo her trauma-induced lesbianism is meeting Bond, the superior alpha male ("I never met a man before" she tells him). So in his own patently offensive way Fleming is making an argument for the sort of sexual fluidity he can get behind. That said, GF is also Fleming's most blatantly self-parodic novel, and the rapidity of Pussy's "conversion" suggests the author's tongue was firmly in cheek.
I didn't know that! I find interesting that this book also has its fair share of reuse as well, from Moonraker: a rich card-cheating billionaire working with the Russians. There are also a lot of short story-able element when one thinks about it: the Mexico affair, the Du Pont interlude, the golf game, and the following through Geneva. (I'm also glad you enjoy the analyses!).
I think the films rely on double entendres and puns because they are kind of entry level humour. Bond's humour in the novels comes from aptly and clevely summarising situations: for example in Diamonds when Tiffany asks why he shakes her tree if he doesn't like her fruit, and he says he hasn't got his arms round the trunk yet. That and sarcasm, which I expect to see more in YOLT, which I'm reading now.
Is Tilly wishy-washy though? She seems to not care for Bond from the start and Goldfinger even cottoned on (though I don't know if he found out from Jill or from some other way). Is she wishy-washy in chasing the more masculine Pussy than some other girl? I noticed that bit trying to make a line between "good gays" and bad ones and while I do get it a bit more I don't get it with Tilly. If anything, she would have more of the stereotypical problem of women being too emotional that Bond hates so much in Casino Royale.
Tilly actually does quite well in the story and she's quite resourceful and all. I don't really get what Fleming was trying to achieve with her.
I suppose the idea of Pussy is Solitaire pushed to the max: not only the aide-criminal but the criminal herself. Not refraining from sex but having it with women instead. Both have the spontaneous realisation that Bond is a hero figure, and switch sides. In the context of Solitaire (and other girls like Tiffany or even Vivienne Michel) Bond comes off as a hero and kind and lovely while I suppose Pussy pushes it a bit too far.
Fleming could be called all kind of -ists; but never in the way you'd expect from a man from his time.
With the Mafia bit, I sleepwalked through it, because Bond reading was just lengthy descriptions with a short mention about their hands or whatnot. Bond had to deal with maps and logistics and all that: it would be interesting to have him try to piece it together from the orders he has to put and all that.
Well Goldfinger's ego was certainly quite out of check, that's all I can say. He didn't report James Bond's "enemy action" to SMERSH which would have certainly put an end to it. And is it really a punishment for Bond and Tilly to see it through? It's an explanation but not a particularly strong one.
Pussy Galore does call him Handsome in the gangster meeting, but it seems she turns when she gives him a pensive stare in the plane and seems to notice that he's being held against his will. It is just Bond being there and being handsome and struggling that perhaps gets her thinking. She was the smallest outfit, and the poorest (turning to crime when the circus doesn't work), and I suppose that triggered her humanity? Fleming doesn't make anything obvious. And yes, the consent is a plus.
One other thing: despite Pussy Galore being a ridiculous name, nobody questions her much? Bond questions "who the hell is Pussy Galore" but that's partly also because she's the only woman. And there's the Abrocats joke which make the only two of many.
Goldfinger is a necessary transition novel I think.
Here's the bit I remembered, from Henry Chancellor's James Bond: The Man and His World:
You're right about the amount of reuse in GF--in some ways it's like a greatest hits version of a Bond novel. Fleming had reread his previous books prior to writing GF, which explains a good deal.
A very good point.
That's true, Tilly doesn't seem confused about her attractions. Perhaps Fleming was being inconsistent or sloppy. Bond's dismissal of Tilly as "a girl whose hormones had got mixed up" suggests that he doesn't consider her a "real" lesbian, but paradoxically the book's most prominent "real" lesbian is Pussy Galore, who's only a lesbian because of past trauma and her inability to meet a "real" man.
It could also be that Bond resents Tilly as a rival for the affections of Pussy, since he criticizes Tilly after catching her "gazing at Miss Galore with worshipping eyes and lips." Her worshipful attitude is perhaps what prompts Bond to consider Tilly not "completely homosexual"--he considers Tilly's infatuation to be a schoolgirl crush, a sort of abject, juvenile fancy. Tilly certainly continues in this vein during the rest of the book:
Tilly's refusal to abandon that schoolgirl crush is what causes her death: she refuses to run away with Bond, saying "Stop! I want to stay close to Pussy. I'll be safe with her." The novel punishes her for being so childishly besotted with Pussy that she puts herself in mortal danger.
Now I have no knowledge of bridge, can someone who does please explain to me how Bond managed to trick Drax and, crucially, how he was able to make Drax realise that he knew he was cheating and how?
I must say though, even without knowing how bridge works, I was still at the edge of my seat. A testament to how well it is written.
My absolute favourite Fleming scene of all his books. A riveting read. Fleming really puts the reader at that table in the club!
Also my favourite Fleming novel. His best villain, with a fleshed out history and absolutely fiendish plot!
Yes, it's my favourite Bond novel too. It was the first one I read back in the summer 1997. The first proper novel I ever read independently. It still remains my favourite of Fleming's Bond novels. That will never change. To my mind it's the best classic spy thriller ever written. Sir Hugo Drax is an excellent villain with a great "enemy within" background and his scheme to nuke London is truly infernal. There are some great supporting henchmen in Willy Krebs and Dr Walter and Gala Brand is a more nuanced Bond girl. The ending is bittersweet for Bond and is surely one of the few times that he didn't get the girl.
As in, Fleming's Bond.
I wonder if it could be something like canasta or even mahjong. Backgammon was such a good choice in OP, so active and visual.
There's always baccarat. Heck, you could even bring back Mathis to explain it. LOL.
It was ranked currently at #3 (Thunderball and Casino Royale edges it a bit, because I find those two a lot more easier to read).