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
Sort of, but it is so much more blatant in OHMSS. I honestly forgot about those two.
I'm on Thunderball now, and you're right about it dragging. Excellent first part. I particularly like the Shrubland's Clinic passage - "M was mad!...M was a dangerous lunatic - a danger to the country. It was up to Bond to save England!"
The problem, much like the film, is the hi-jacking sequence, I find. Luckily I'm on to the chapter "Domino" where the novel picks up.
I found his suspense extremely interesting because I was never able to enjoy it, having seen the film beforehand. I envy my friend's experience.
For my own part, during my first reading of Thunderball I was slightly disappointed that the book lacked the epic scale of the film, whose images and pace influenced my literary experience. But the second time around, I was struck by how much deeper all the characters in the book were--the movie versions of Bond, Domino, and Largo are bland in comparison. And I fully enjoyed the comedy of the Shrublands scenes and the pathos of the romance: for the first time Bond tells a girl--upfront--that he's in love with her.
A very mature story, unlike the film that borrowed its name. The relationship between Bond and Tanaka (who is a former kamikaze in the book) makes for some very interesting reading. The exposition of Japanese culture is also more refined, in the film it becomes a carricature.
I plan on rereading this novel at some point and wondering why can't we have more modern bond novels.
Re-reading this has been a joy. God, I'ts been too long since I've read Fleming. Gonna be working through them all. About 2/3 through.
I enjoyed the TMWTGG, obviously not as detailed as the other novels due to Fleming's ill health but still a great read and moved at a brisk pace.
My rankings for the original novels would be as follows ( if anyone is interested):
1.Moonraker
2.Casino Royale
3.From Russia With Love
4.On Her Majesty's Secret Service
5.Live and Let Die
6.The Man With the Golden Gun
7.The Spy Who Loved Me
8.Diamonds are Forever
9.Dr No
10.Goldfinger
11.You Only Live Twice
12.Thunderball
The For Your Eyes Only short story collection was also great and certainly gave me a greater appreciation of the fine job they did taking elements from these stories to craft the film.
I'll stick my head above the parapet to say that I actually think that Scorpius is John Gardner's best Bond novel of the 1980s.
Yes, that's a great one too - a fan favourite! :)
Haven't read a full length Fleming novel for a while but when you start one again you just realize how bloody good he was.
Just love Fleming's travelogue style in this and the bit where Bond meets Shady Tree is just so well written. It's a scene full of menace and where Bond starts to realize he may have underestimated these Gangsters.
Great introduction to Tiffany Case as well in the hotel room.
I don't want to ruin it. Dr No is my favourite film in the series. When I read Goldfinger, it was so bad that my opinion of the film took a hit. I'm not sure I could handle the same happening with Dr No. Goldfinger is the next novel after Dr No, and where I think Fleming really went off the boil.
I really wanted to love it. Sadly, it wasn't to be.
Actually, my appreciation for the film has grown then. I now view it as the one time the films rose above the source material. Huge accomplishment to all involved. Still not my favourite film, but special nontheless.
You are probably right. It's one of those slightly superstitious things, you know. I feel it could never live up to my expectations. It would have to be an improvement on a already near perfect film.
You won't ruin it. The film of Dr. No is much closer to the book than Goldfinger. And whereas the film of GF improves on the flaws of Fleming's original, thus making it larger-than-life, the film of DN is an undercooked version of the book.
True, there are fewer explosions in Fleming, but he does a better job with characterization. Honey and Quarrel are more alive in the book (her narration of her life story is much better on the page and Quarrell's death comes across as a genuine loss); M's tensions with Bond are fully rendered; Doctor No is far more grotesque, with some fabulous madman dialogue; and the No's torture course is vastly more fiendish, nerve-wracking and pain-inducing than the pathetic ordeal Bond undergoes in his cinematic escape. Fleming's plotting is also more direct and to-the-point, and his prose is arguably more evocative of Jamaica. I also find the book more suspenseful. Fleming was at his most energetic in Dr. No, and you are doing yourself a disservice by not reading it. Please do so--all you need to do is keep your memories of the film at bay by freshly visualizing the book as you read it, instead of relying on images from the film.