12 replies to this topic

[Donovan]

Today it is virtually impossible to read Ian Fleming's "Casino Royale" without occasionally getting distracting thoughts about what the world of James Bond has become over the past 50 years. James Bond is primarily known as a suave jack-of-all-trades and lover of all beautiful women. He is a hero.

"Casino Royale" is the novel that started it all, and when reading the first three chapters, it is several pages before we are told he is a secret agent. Times were simpler then, in 1951 when the novel takes place (published in 1953). The "Opposition" meant only one force: the Soviet Union. Times were complicated as well. Without satellites, computers, and other luxurious devices of modern technology, cables were sent indirectly using fronts, such as the one mentioned in Jamaica, as go-betweens for Bond and his head office.

Write About What You Know

This is a sensible rule of thumb for new writers. As you find your legs in telling stories, it is best to write about facts that you are certain of to maintain the story's integrity with readers. "Casino Royale" is filled with facts that Ian Fleming is certain of: the existance of Smersh; the odds at Baccarat; the visuals of a high-stakes casino. As a writer with solid journalism experience and solid research experience in organized intelligence, Mr. Fleming sets the stage for his story in a real world that is out of reach for most. Even in the first three chapters, there is a sense of danger, a sense of the upper-class lifestyle, both combining to create the sense of intrigue that is associated with James Bond.

Because he was a journalist, Ian Fleming knew how to describe various visuals and other senses to his readers in simple, to-the-point prose. One can see evidence of this process by looking at the official Ian Fleming site. His creativity concerned starting a first chapter in the middle of the story, then going back to fill in the introductory details.

In the course of the first three chapters, we learn that James Bond is a secret agent for Great Britain. He reports to a serious, very capable superior known as M. That a crass individual known primarily as 'Le Chiffre' is in financial trouble with Smersh and that the best way to destroy him is to beat him at Baccarat, which he is trying to win at to get out of trouble. It won't be easy, probably dangerous. And just to help in this serious assignment, M has decided he will send Bond some extra help....

[Mister Asterix]

Something that struck me in the first three chapters (chapters 2 & 3 to be precise) this reading was how Fleming brought life to the dossier by showing us the passion of the Head of Station S. to get his proposal in action. This makes us care for this dossier. And the Head of Station S.'s personality is a nice contrast to the gruff M. The Head of S. also becomes intsrumental in the re-introduction of Bond.

This is my fifth time reading Casino Royale and for some reason the first time I’ve noticed the importance of the Head of S. to tie together the elements of these early chapters.

[James Boldman]

I read the first 3 and half chapters today and realized the comparisons especially between John Gardner and Ian Fleming. The way Fleming introduced the villain Le Chiffre is quite different to how Gardner would have introduced Le Chiffre (if Gardner had, had the oppitunity to do so).
It is quite a clever plot but nowhere near Fleming's best works, IMO.
I am looking forward to reading From Ruusia With Love as I think it is a better plot than Casino Royale and yet it still envolves the Russians- I can't wait to read it.
But back on with Casino Royale-
I think you could be forgiven for thinking that Casino Royale wasn't the first novel because I don't think Fleming goes out of his way to introduce his character (James Bond) and it's almost as if Casino Royale is Fleming's 3rd or 4th James Bond novel and it's as though Fleming had already introduced the character in another novel.
My observation so far of this novel if I were to rate it now would probably be 4 stars out of 5.

[zencat]

I really love the first chapter. I can read it again and again. First chapters are all important, and Fleming nails it. One thing I noticed, and this could make a nice trivia question someday, we first meet James Bond while he's playing roulette, not baccarat. One doesn't associate James Bond with roulette. (I think only the Jove edition of Casino Royale featured a roulette table.)

[Mister Asterix]

Originally posted by James Boldman (edited)
I think you could be forgiven for thinking that Casino Royale wasn't the first novel because I don't think Fleming goes out of his way to introduce his character (James Bond) and it's almost as if Casino Royale is Fleming's 3rd or 4th James Bond novel and it's as though Fleming had already introduced the character in another novel.

Very good point. But isn’t this quite typical of Fleming, starting out in the middle. He even starts this book in the midst of the action. We meet the characters—including the main character—on the fly and just keep going.

[Mister Asterix]

Originally posted by zencat (edited)
I really love the first chapter.  I can read it again and again. First chapters are all important, and Fleming nails it.

I completely agree. I have read this book a handful of times, but I must have read this chapter dozens.

Originally posted by zencat (edited)
One thing I noticed, and this could make a nice trivia question someday, we first meet James Bond while he's playing roulette, not baccarat. One doesn't associate James Bond with roulette. (I think only the Jove edition of Casino Royale featured a roulette table.)

Yeah, I always forget that. And I am always surprised that we find Bond at the roulette tables.

[Zographos]

Originally posted by Mister Asterix
Yeah, I always forget that. And I am always surprised that we find Bond at the roulette tables.

Similarly, we often associate martinis and Aston Martins with Bond, although whiskeys and Bentleys would be somewhat more accurate.

I've always felt that the first three chapters provide an important contrast to the rest of the book. i.e. the quiet offices where people's fates are planned versus Bond's gruesome work "in the field"...where MI6's plans always go awry.

[Ry]

I must admit that the way Fleming begins the novel is genius. He takes the main character and immedaitely establishes him in the enviornment. We very quickly see the way he moves, reacts and lives in this environment. It isn't until the next two chapters that we, the readers, have the chance to understand the crux of the story, and it is told in a fascinating way by M reading a dossier.

Having not read Fleming in quite some time and having read both Gardner and Benson recently it is quite interesting to go back to the true source and re-establish where it all started. It's also interesting to note as it has already been stated by others that Fleming does little in describing Bond, as if everyone already knows the man. One wonders why this was done. All said and done the first three chapters are quite excellent.

[Dr Noah]

The last time I read this novel was in 1994 and in someways the memory cheats. For some reason I always remembered a lot of exposition in the book's opening, I seemed to remember "Dossier for M" as being the first chapter.

Re-reading it I was struck by how good the first chapter is, from the very first sentence : "The scent and smoke and sweat of a casino are nauseating at three in the morning". I was hooked.

[Dr Noah]

One thing struck me as I started reading the 2nd chapter, is that the action seems to be set in the past ie "M who was then and is today head of". If "today" means 1953 when the book was published, then the events of the book are set further back in time, perhaps in the late '40's (Le Chiffe embezzles the money in Jan 1946, by the end of April 1946 it seems clear that his investment was doomed, it seems doubful that he'd wait four or more years to get his stake back).

Does the time-line get clearer later on in the novel?

[Zographos]

Originally posted by Dr Noah
One thing struck me as I started reading the 2nd chapter, is that the action seems to be set in the past ie "M who was then and is today  head of".  If "today" means 1953 when the book was published, then the events of the book are set further back in time, perhaps in the late '40's (Le Chiffe embezzles the money in Jan 1946, by the end of April 1946 it seems clear that his investment was doomed, it seems doubful that he'd wait four or more years to get his stake back).

Does the time-line get clearer later on in the novel?

Although the first few books have sketchy timelines, it can be later determined that the events take place in early-mid 1952.

[Donovan]

I believe in the book "Goldfinger", Mr. Du Pont introduces himself to Bond with "Royale, 1951".

[clinkeroo]

Hi folks,
I've been knocking out my article, so I'm a little late joining in the fun, but I should catch up shortly.
Like Evan, this is my fifth time through the book, and I was also struck by the importance of the role of the Head of S. Something that stood out for me after having read three Fleming biographies back to back to back, is that the Head of S basically has the same job that Fleming had during the war. A creative thinker that is used to analyse and come up with unorthodox responses to enemy movements using gathered intelligence. The enthusiasm and life that Fleming breathes into what could have been a minor role may have come with the author directly identifying with the excitement S must have felt with coming up with such an innovative plan. In addition, much like Fleming, he would not get to take part in the fruits of his labour; he can only live vicariously through the agent assigned the case.