Ian Fleming (1) (1908–1964)

Surprise! Bond is a loser. His courage and suaveness are a cover for a deeply failed human who doesn't understand women, doesn't understand himself, and is buffeted around by powerful emotions and layers of self-deception. Sexist? Of course James Bond the character is sexist, in the deepest and most empathetic way. He's an idiot, he thinks highly of himself, and he trumps up his self-image by insulting women. The movies have it all wrong. The movies are literally sexist, but in Casino Royale show more the book Bond does nothing but make mistakes, stopping now and then to blame a woman for them. Every single decision he makes, everything he attempts, he fails at. Fleming is not an idiot. He shows clearly that Vesper, the female lead, is actually a far more capable agent than Bond. Fleming dissects machismo and masculine bravado and lays it bare for us to see it for what it is: a pathetic, failing strategy. This is not an action hero movie. This is a post-modern upside-down spy novel. And no one knows. show less

After an hour or so of listening, I realized that this story is one of the few that is followed pretty religiously in its movie and that movie is BATSHIT CRAZY. Plastic surgery Blofeld! Swiss (I think) mountains! Agricultural terrorism! Genealogy! And listen, I've seen all the Bond movies and read a lot of the books (and even pretty much wrote a dissertation about the first one -- check CourseHero for my breakdown of Casino Royale) but the misogyny in this one is breathtaking. Knowing what I show more know about Fleming -- he hated writing the Bond books, he was literally terrible at everything else he tried on for a career, and, unlike John Le Carre, he was never an actual spy -- I read Bond's masculinity as an avatar for a writer who is embarrassed by the way his life turned out. All that is to say that I don't let the misogyny bother me too much, especially not when the climax of the book ends in an outdoor ice skating rink.

David Tennant's narration, of course, was wonderful. Which is why I chose this book in the first place. show less

I really enjoyed this book, and probably enjoyed it more than I ever did the movie starring Dick Van Dyke. The movie was “loosely based” on the book, so it’s almost a different story.

It came as a surprise to me that Ian Fleming, the creator of 007, and himself a member of the Intelligence Service, was the author of this delightful story. As it happens, this book was in a library of books we bought at an estate sale any years ago.

The plot is about a simple, poor, British inventor that show more sells (or licenses) his candy invention/recipe to Skrumshus (sic) Limited, the candy company, buys a soon-to-be-scrapped former race car, and, after restoring it to health, goes on holiday and adventure with his family. In the Adventure holiday, they discover the car’s magical personality, bring criminals to justice, and make lifelong friends.

Fleming writes with an avuncular style, throwing in educational tidbits and humorous asides. It is almost like he wrote a clean spy novel for children. I smiled at his wit throughout the story and I am loaning the book to my elementary-school-aged grandchildren. It is a book worthy of out-loud reading, and, indeed, I read it out loud to my own children when they were younger.

Lastly, John Burningham’s illustrations are straightforward, deft, and beautiful. show less

"Well, it was not too late. Here was a target for him, right to hand. He would take on SMERSH and hunt it down. Without SMERSH, without this cold weapon of death and revenge, the MWD would be just another bunch of civil servant spies, no better and no worse than any of the western services."

And so begin the extraordinary adventures of the most famous of all spies. Had it not been for his involvement in bringing down the villain known as Le Chiffre, James Bond could just have been another one show more of such civil servant spies.

Unfortunately, this is the only aspect of the Casino Royale story that I actually liked. The idea of James Bond and his mission is what draws me to the books, but not in fact the character of James Bond himself.

James Bond, as a character, is an utterly unlikable, chauvinist, self-centered idiot, who happens to be good at playing cards but is otherwise pretty lucky to have anything go his way - whether it is his involvement with women or his actually staying alive.

I first read Casino Royale some years ago, shortly before the film was released, and really liked it for the plot and the fact that a card game could pose more danger to the world's biggest villains than any attempts of arrest or assassination. Incredible! However, I enjoyed that the book dwelt on thinking through Bond's moves at the baccarat table more than on action scenes.

However, on this particular re-read of the story, I felt more drawn to paying attention to the way Bond interacts with the world around him and was reminded why in some of the subsequent books I tend to root for the villains - I just can't stand James Bond.

Would I still recommend this book? Yes. I think it is important to demystify the legend (and the franchise - even tho I do enjoy the films!) and acknowledge that there was a time when the most popular of books was based on a character that was a snob, a chauvinist, a racist, a misogynist, an egotist, and an utter idiot.

2.5* rounded up. show less