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
Thanks also to @CommanderRoss and @Thunderfinger for their continued input in this discussion. Other folks, do chime in any time - you don't need to do a mini review; all comments welcome. :>
Signing off for now - your still 4EverBonded (I feel like I'm walking in a marathon and Birdleson & Beatles are at one mile from the finish!)
:)>-
A question for you, @Birdleson: in re: The Hildebrand Rarity, do you think it fairly well certain that Mrs Krest is indeed the murderer, or could Fidele Barbey have actually been the guilty party? Is he more than just a red herring of a suspect...and would Bond have attempted to solve the crime ("stupid policeman" that some would have you believe him) if Krest had been less of a sadistic brute?
There! Distraction achieved (I hope...) ;))
I do concur on your position on the happenstance when it comes to Bond and Lippe. That is a bit too much. But, on the other hand, it's a ruthless intervention after such a phone call, which enlarges SPECTRE's threat.
Still, it seems far off they meet like that.
With Domino, however, it felt more natural. They (SPECTRE) were looking for a pilot subceptible for their scheme. Him having a sister isn't that odd, and Largo's appetite for women is huge, so it would only fit he'd take her if he'd had the chance, enlarging the success chance, for Pettachi would certainly not risk losing his sister. That she'd hear none of those reasons seems natural enough, neither Pettachi nor Largo would tell her she'd be part of the 'deal 'as well.
It's been so long since I read TB, I forgot Volpe was not in it as a separate character!
Looking forward to finishing Moonraker this week. Keep the reviews, thoughts, and comments coming, folks. Very interesting reading! :-bd
Luckily for us all, with this novel, Fleming finally hit the bull’s eye he’d been aiming for. FRWL is the perfect mixture of real world espionage and Ian Fleming’s own heady imagination. The villains are the most fascinating collection of brutes ever committed to paper, their conspiracy far fetched and yet somehow convincing. The toys and techniques employed by Bond and his enemies are enticing to the reader who is caught up in the workaday world of the Cold War era and dreaming of the marvels that are surely coming in the times ahead. Bond’s world is exotic and exciting and this novel’s heroine is, unsurprisingly, one of the most beautiful women Bond has ever met. The critical response to FRWL was overwhelmingly positive, sales were up substantially from the previous novel…and a few years later, when the new President of the U.S., John F. Kennedy, named From Russia With Love as one of his Top 10 favorite books, the Bond phenomenon finally took hold in the United States (a market that had been largely resistant to the character of 007 until that point.)
The plot of FRWL is firmly grounded in the reality of espionage, with a decoding machine and a honey trap at the center of things. The characters created to spring that trap are memorable even now, decades after the story was written. Red Grant is no mere murderer or even a garden variety psychopath … he is quite nearly a lycanthrope, with his unnatural urges coinciding with each full moon. Rosa Klebb is a hideous creature, and the rest of the Soviet bureaucracy depicted early in the novel is repelled both to the reader and to themselves. Finally, there is Darko Kerim (or Kerim Bey as he is known in the movie adaptation.) Bond’s allies have often provided the sense of humor that our lead character cannot (at least in his prose incarnation) and Kerim is one of Fleming’s best in this regard. Kerim’s zest for life infuses the entire novel with a joy that transcends even its darkest moments. The epitaph that he pronounces for himself could easily have served for that of Ian Fleming himself : ‘…I am greedy for life. I do too much of everything all the time. Suddenly one day my heart will fail. The Iron Crab will get me as it got my father. But I am not afraid of the Crab. At least I shall have died from an honorable disease. Perhaps they will put on my tombstone “This Man Died From Living Too Much”.’
Fleming leaves himself with the opportunity to walk away from the world of James Bond in this novel’s closing passages…but the world’s most famous secret agent has much, much more living to do, and Ian Fleming will live to see his creation become a cinematic triumph, due in no small part to his inspired efforts in the writing of this novel. He is about to achieve the literary and financial success he has longed for…only to find the achievement of these goals far less satisfying than he had anticipated.
Up next: No. Doctor No.
Fleming has stated that he (originally) conceived of Bond as a boring person to whom interesting things happened. That approach works when Bond is opposing a Goldfinger or a Doctor No, larger than life characters whose plans are of sufficient scope that Bond’s opposition to their schemes can fill up an entire novel. In such a framework, Bond himself can be reduced to a collection of character tics such as his tastes in clothing and food, drink and women, and the portrait drawn is sufficient for the needs of the tale. But in crafting a short story, and placing Bond in opposition to a pedestrian malefactor such as Milton Krest, then (paradoxically perhaps, but still…) Bond needs to be more thoughtfully considered. He needs to come up against the limits of his dedication to “justice” or the job at hand, when choosing not to kill the female assassin of The Living Daylights or to not solve the question of Krest’s murder in The Hildebrand Rarity. He needs to have his relationship with M tested and defined. In a short story, we need to see the internal Bond more thoroughly, he can’t be just a blunt instrument in service to Queen and Country. That’s my own theory at any rate, other thoughts on this topic would be greatly appreciated…
@Beatles. Perhaps. but you could flip that reasoning upside down as well: if Fleming would've given more time to the Krests in his stories, they'd 've ended up as bigger villains, which would make Bond a justified blunt instrument as well.
Personally, I have the feeling that Fleming used his short stories purposefully to develop Bond as a character. Now I don't have the timeline completely in order but, as i find Goldfinger uninspired for Fleming standards, and it is about this time thefirst set of short stories are published, I think Fleming was really looking for which way to go with the character.
The doubts Bond has do come back in other novels as well, but in the novels Fleming already knows which way it will go. I think. Take OHMSS. It's one of the novels with Bond as much human as blunt instrument. But that was after the short stories. After Fleming had decided in which way it would go. Somehow for me the short stories are a way for Fleming to get to know Bond himself. If that makes sense.
Just write more when you feel like it. I hate it when that happens!
I'll try and say something about the way I perceaved the novels as I read them the first time, as far as I can recall.
I did see the films first, growing up with those showing up now and then on tv. As I came off Bond-age in the Dalton-Brosnan hiatus there wasn't much to see in the theatres. To be honest, I don't think I had learned about Bond in 1989, when Dalton last showed. A nine y/o could've gone to that movie, but alas, not this one. So GE was my first, almost seven years later. Somewhere, as a University student, I decided the books would be interesting as well, and did I regret not thinking that earlier!
I can't remember in which order I read them, but I'm quite sure it started out with the first one:
Casino Royale
There are a few scenes that have stayed with me over the years. The first one, is indeed Fleming's introduction. The nauseating atmosphere of a Casino, filled with smoke and people all dressed up, at, what is it, three in the morning? sure does get you into the story. Somehow I immediately had the feeling this main character would be something different, cool, collected, aware. This was a man of the world.
The second one was the two bulgarian bombers. It seemed so childish to me, a blue and a red case. Was this serious spy stuff? But Fleming's telling is so serious, adament that this is what happened, that I still believed every word. Even more so, it's a scene that has stayed with me in my mind, including the crater, the knocked over palm trees and the damage to the hotel.
Bond almost losing his buttocks to the cane gun was interesting as well. It doesn't seem like much, but this moment where actually little happens, is so tense, so thrilling.
Then there's Bond's torture. Crickey, what hell was that. I just got to know Bond and here he's so painfully tortured I started feeling it myself. But then there's the other guy, and Le Chiffre's death.
And then, finally, Vesper's odd behaviour. Her fears, her love, and anger and sadness. Somehow Fleming just knew how to put all these emotions onto paper in a way I've seldom read afterwards. And I think those are the qualities not just of a good, but of a great writer and storyteller.
So the story had it's strange perks, but it was a proper adventure, not even spectacular, but told in such a way I kept on reading.
This isn't really a review, but others have done that, and way better then I could. I figured just giving the feeling and memory I had of reading this book would be interesting as well.
hope you enjoyed it.
I'll try and say something about the way I perceaved the novels as I read them the first time, as far as I can recall.
I did see the films first, growing up with those showing up now and then on tv. As I came off Bond-age in the Dalton-Brosnan hiatus there wasn't much to see in the theatres. To be honest, I don't think I had learned about Bond in 1989, when Dalton last showed. A nine y/o could've gone to that movie, but alas, not this one. So GE was my first, almost seven years later. Somewhere, as a University student, I decided the books would be interesting as well, and did I regret not thinking that earlier!
I can't remember in which order I read them, but I'm quite sure it started out with the first one:
Casino Royale
There are a few scenes that have stayed with me over the years. The first one, is indeed Fleming's introduction. The nauseating atmosphere of a Casino, filled with smoke and people all dressed up, at, what is it, three in the morning? sure does get you into the story. Somehow I immediately had the feeling this main character would be something different, cool, collected, aware. This was a man of the world.
The second one was the two bulgarian bombers. It seemed so childish to me, a blue and a red case. Was this serious spy stuff? But Fleming's telling is so serious, adament that this is what happened, that I still believed every word. Even more so, it's a scene that has stayed with me in my mind, including the crater, the knocked over palm trees and the damage to the hotel.
Bond almost losing his buttocks to the cane gun was interesting as well. It doesn't seem like much, but this moment where actually little happens, is so tense, so thrilling.
Then there's Bond's torture. Crickey, what hell was that. I just got to know Bond and here he's so painfully tortured I started feeling it myself. But then there's the other guy, and Le Chiffre's death.
And then, finally, Vesper's odd behaviour. Her fears, her love, and anger and sadness. Somehow Fleming just knew how to put all these emotions onto paper in a way I've seldom read afterwards. And I think those are the qualities not just of a good, but of a great writer and storyteller.
So the story had it's strange perks, but it was a proper adventure, not even spectacular, but told in such a way I kept on reading.
This isn't really a review, but others have done that, and way better then I could. I figured just giving the feeling and memory of how I percieved the books would be interesting too.
hope you enjoyed it.
We are not aiming for long, meticulously researched reviews here, not really. This is just to share our own impressions as we read Fleming's novels and short stories. Just how it makes us feel, what we liked or did not like about the story and his writing. If you want to do a mini review that critiques the story more like a review, that is totally welcome also. Room for all kinds of comments and thoughts on these stories.
We are chugging along like a steady train thanks to the brilliant and thought-provoking reviews by @BeatlesSansEarmuffs and @Birdleson ... but we welcome all members to jump in and comment, do a mini review, or simply say how we felt about the story in even simpler comments. It's all good! :)>-
Thanks to all. =D>
@Birdleson: you're into the home stretch now my friend! Enjoy it while you can! (And your description of the bookseller charging you an extra 10 cents was an amusing point. I'd call it money well spent!)
I'm very slow on the reading and writing about these, but I enjoy your contributions a lot and will be adding my own throughout the weeks ahead. B-)
Again, all comments welcome from folks, even those not reading the novels at this time. Cheers! :-bd
And yes, those wayward missiles from North Korea are in the back of my mind at times.
@4Ever, why don't you book your flight right now for Korea (not the North?). Air Asia or one of it's counterparts should have some cheap flights if you book ahead. And a short holiday in Korea can't be all bad..
I remember in 2007 I tried to see Casino Royale in 7 different countries, as while I was going around, the film also had it's different release dates. Somehow it feels great seeing a film in another country, whilst it hasn't yet been released in your own.
And I do remember you mentioned seeing CR in different countries! That is so cool. B-)
:-bd
I think Eon had a bit of a scare with Jack Lord. He wanted more money to return as Leiter and Eon couldn’t let any secondary actor put them in that sort of position (they were already having enough of a problem in that regard with their primary) so out he went. Aditionally, literary Leiter has a very important role in the story: he's there to lighten up things for the reader, literary Bond being something of a humorless chap. Movie Bond is far less so and doesn’t really need his second banana to be getting the laughs OR the girls OR much in the way of action, thank you very much. Eon’s Leiter is there to provide exposition and occasionally grease the wheels of officialdom. I think some Leiters have been okay (David Hedison for example) and the current incarnation, Geoffrey Wright, is a very good one indeed even if he’s nothing like the literary Leiter. The less said about Cec Linder and John Terry the better.
Thanks! :-bd
If one were to ask a random sampling of the general public to name a James Bond villain, I daresay two names would easily top the list: Doctor No and Goldfinger. Ernst Stavro Blofeld would be a distant third, if even that. Henchpersons like Jaws or Oddjob wouldn’t qualify in our little poll, your Draxes or Chiffres would barely be a blip on the radar screen. Most famous Bond villains? Probably because of their memorable names, or perhaps because they came so early in the film series that they embedded their names in public awareness: Dr. No and Goldfinger. These names are also the names of the sixth and seventh novels in the Bond series, and by this time, Ian Fleming himself was on a tear.
Doctor No (my copy of the novel also spells the name out fully) largely follows the outline of the movie, with a few notable exceptions. Felix Leiter is shoehorned into the movie, while being found nowhere in the novel, probably to give the American audience a character they can relate to (Britain being so weird & foreign & all…) Professor Dent is also nowhere in the novel. Quarrel is given a fairly tense introduction to Bond and the audience in the movie, while the literary Quarrel is a welcome returning character to those of us who are now (re)reading the novels in order. A few details vary from one source to the next…but much of the movie’s script seems plucked directly from the pages of the novel, with entire bits of dialogue surviving the transition from page to screen largely intact. The main difference between the film and the novel, really, is shit.
Oh all right: GUANO. Rather than Bond bring sent to Jamaica to find out why American missiles are going off course, and how the death of station head Strangways figures into the situation, he is sent on something of a holiday (as far as M is concerned) to investigate Strangways’ disappearance and to quell the complaints of the Audubon society, who are unnecessarily concerned about the well being of some guano producing birds on a little island called Crab Key. And so the movie and novel both proceed, largely in step with one another excepting only the smallest of details. Honey Rider has a broken nose here; she is an orphan and we learn a bit more about her back story in the novel. We also get a substantially greater back story for Doctor No, who has one of the first great secret villain lairs in all of literature. He also has no connection with SPECTRE (which doesn't exist just yet in Fleming's Bond continuity) but he does have a problematic history with a powerful Chinese Tong and is driving American missiles off course under the employ of Russia. The obstacle course he subjects Bond to is far longer and more well executed in the novel than is the case in the movie…and the movie REALLY REALLY should have had a giant squid (but in point of fact, they couldn‘t even afford to get a few live crabs on screen) …however, it’s at the point of Doctor No’s death that the greatest detour from the novel is taken by the movie. Now, in the early sixties, No’s death in the water cooling an atomic reactor may have seemed pretty darned impressive, but hey! Spoiler Alert: it pales substantially when examined beside the novel’s death scene for its titular villain. Buried under a mountain of guano. Eeyuck! How gross, how awesome! Fleming’s descriptive powers have been used extensively throughout the novel…but Bond’s traversing the obstacle course, followed by Doctor No’s shower of death, are the high points of this novel in terms of Fleming’s mastery of prose suspense in my own opinion.
So: another strong showing for Fleming in book number six. On to lucky number seven! Maybe somebody should make some movies out of numbers five through seven some day. Number Eight is just a compilation of short stories, probably nothing very notable there…but really, this stuff could make a very nice movie or two.
:-\"
Other then that, I completely concur.
Some minor thoughts come in to play concearning the 'good doctor'.
- I think the film-version is remembered so well because it was the first proper, grander then life villain in 'realistic' cinematic outings as far as I know, and because of his mistery. He's only seen in the last part of the film, where Bond already seems lost. This makes him a 'bigger'force then just a madman.
- another thought that struck me was that the novel version is more interesting because of what he was prepared to put himself through to start his new life. His scientific approach with seemingly no morale is a fear of so many when it comes to science. I think the fimmakers could've added some of these aspects to make the film even better. Still, I think Wiseman's portrayal hits the mark directly when it comes to atmosphere.
@Birdleson, I'd heard that Sunday tickets were down around $20 -- but I'd also heard that PARKING spaces were going for $180! Still, I trust you had a great time with all the Deadheads and wish you safe travels for the Soldiers' Field shows!