Spoilers

This will be a review of not just Casino Royale, but of the James Bond books in general. I think that there is a good argument to be made, that the Bond books are the most misunderstood books of all prominent books, because the very subtext that accounts for their enduring appeal is buried so deeply that it just passes most people by.

The best way to understand the James Bond books is to understand the heroines of the books. These heroines are often characterized as being glamorous women who it is Bond's role to save. This is completely and totally wrong. The whole key is that these women ALWAYS have short unpainted nails. They are actors and present an existential challenge to James Bond. In fact the best way to understand Bond is as a kind of existential literature.

Fleming was a writer who had a message that he seemed not to be fully and consciously aware of. He says the same message in every book, and he says it in the same way (with the exceptions of The Spy Who Loved Me and the short story Quantum of Solace, where the same themes are approached from alternative directions).

Fleming is often compared to Le Carre, almost always negatively. This is an unfair comparison in two ways. First of all, Fleming is a great writer and is, along with Lovecraft, one of the two greatest writers of Pulp in history, whereas Le Carre is merely a very good writer. Second, Fleming is not really writing spy literature, he is really writing fantasy in which the hero happens to have the occupation of a spy. As such, criticisms of a lack of realism are about as out of place as they would be for The Lord of the Rings or Alice in Wonderland. I would have thought, that the Bond books wear their status as fantasy more clearly than, say, the Latin American Magical Realists, but this point appears to pass people by.

The next thing to notice about James Bond is that he is pretty clearly a broken person. The thing that I most love about Daniel Craig's interpretation of Bond is that he conveys this point clearly and repetitively in a way that has not been done before. Bond is a kind of broken Nietzchean superhero who has in a way arbitrarily and for what appear to be purely aesthetic reasons, taken on a specific set of values that we are meant to recognize intuitively as a priori superior to competing values. In this he is exactly the same as both the James Bond heroines and villains.

If you read the Bond books critically, one of the things that is most striking about them is how similar in personality Bond is to both the heroines (with a few exceptions) and the villains (also with a few exceptions). Fleming will distinguish Bond from the villains not so much by their actions, which are often quite similar, but instead by things such as the cut of their suit or their taste in luxury watches. These aesthetic choices are meant to be inherently preferable, just as Bond's belief system and set of values is never defended as superior to communism or, ironically, to the vast accumulation of wealth and power that other figures such as Goldfinger are bent on accumulating, e.g. the values of capitalism.

Bond, the villains, and the heroines of the books all have in common that they do not in any way feel bound by conventional morays, rules of decorum or value judgments. All of the major characters have in fact chosen a belief system and a set of values through force of their personal will alone. The other characters have not and this is why those characters are kinds of ghosts within the books and are in some sort of way not worthy of interacting with Bond.

The villains have in fact chosen the wrong values. They are every bit as ruthlessly dedicated to them as Bond, and they will not in any way compromise them just as Bond will not. The women have either chosen the same set of values as Bond or at least a set of values that are not diametrically opposed. They are then worthy romantic interests (this goes only for the main female character in every book). However, Fleming is clear that the heroines Nietzchean superman status means that they are too independent to make the kind of long term bonds necessary for stable relationships. They are not in the next book and presumably, they, like Bond, have moved on unchanged. This is clearest in Casino Royale where the doomed nature of the genuine love that Bond has for Vesper Lynd is clearly spelled out in the events leading up to and following her death.

Also, in this book, Bond fails in his mission in a way that he will not do so spectacularly again, but in staying true to the values that characterize him even at the expense of rejecting a genuine love, he maintains his status as a Nietzschean superhero. A status that Fleming clearly means to be a kind of idealization of how to live one's life and not an actually fully achievable ideal. It is by setting Bond in a fantastic world and not in a world where mundane limits can intrude on this ideal that Fleming can over and over again put forth this ideal in its pure form.

Again, it is a world where the choice of a man's luggage is meant to say as much about him as the choice of his political ideals. It is a morality justified by its aesthete and not vice versa.

But even though it is a fantasy world, it is still a world in which it is not possible to simply always force one's will onto that world. Bond may fail to save the woman, he may fail to stop the villain from getting away, his wife might die, his friend's legs might be eaten by a shark, he may be captured, he may be emotionally devastated by events. But it is still a world in which his maintenance of his own values and beliefs can be specifically maintained through every hardship and peril. In pretty much all the Fleming books, Bond is distracted by doubts, or by emotional weaknesses, and in every book Bond overcomes these by simply pushing them away.

In other words the Bond books represent a kind of practical existential ideal. It is not an implausible solution to the practical problems of our world that Fleming is unconsciously advocating and it appears to be what he attempted to practice in real life. But it is a difficult solution that he advocates none-the-less.

This was a very interesting read. If you know the James Bond movies you might be a bit disappointed since the James Bond character shown here isn't the unbeatable superhero as on film. We have a casino setting with a compelling game going on between Bond and a villain named Le Chiffre. Then there is a secret agency named Smersh. What about Vesper, his female colleague on this case? It's a nice story with a romantic twist at the end and a woman (Vesper) torn between two men. Don't get me wrong, an interesting read (bit of a pulp) but I preferred the movie to the book. Maybe I couldn't read the novel in an objective manner since I know all the Bond movies. The bond character in this book is different to the screen hero. Nevertheless worth a reading, since it is a spy classic!

3★
“CHAPTER 1
THE SECRET AGENT
The scent and smoke and sweat of a casino are nauseating at three in the morning. Then the soul-erosion produced by high gambling—a compost of greed and fear and nervous tension—becomes unbearable and the senses awake and revolt from it.”

It's 1953, and what a start to a brand new series and probably new genre of spy fiction! I read and enjoyed many of the Bond books in my youth, as did a lot of people. I suspect Ian Fleming brought a lot of people to reading in much the same way that J. K. Rowling has with Harry Potter.

And if Fleming did nothing else, at least most Americans learned how to pronounce Ian and Sean correctly!

Back in the day, my dad was flying somewhere, reading the latest Bond, and he looked at his neighbour and across the aisle, and every one of them was reading a Bond mystery! That’s how popular they were. I was considering re-reading the Bonds for fun, but after this exercise, I’ll leave my memories undisturbed.

I remembered Bond as a smart, daring, sophisticated man of action, but with dangerously rough edges. I’m pretty sure that’s how he would have seemed at the time in this now-dated novel, but it’s the films that have kept ‘him’ up-to-date, not Fleming’s writing.

He is described as looking like Hoagy Carmichael, a well-known singer (also ‘back in the day’), whose photo I looked up, since I knew the name but not the face.

Photo of singer Hoagy Carmichael

While I’ve enjoyed several Bonds in films, the real one is Sean Connery.

Photo of Bond, James Bond, as played by Sean Connery

The first half of the book – yes half – is devoted mostly to gambling, the rules, the odds, the chips, the millions of francs, the nerves, the rules, the odds, repeat. Perhaps in 1953 this was such a novel idea for a spy thriller that people were engrossed learning how to play.

There is a fair bit of French tossed around, fancy foods and vintage wine, but no trademark “shaken, not stirred” martini yet, just this unique concoction, which he later names.

“‘A dry martini,’ he said. ‘One. In a deep champagne goblet.’
‘Oui, monsieur.’
‘Just a moment. Three measures of Gordon’s, one of vodka, half a measure of Kina Lillet. Shake it very well until it’s ice-cold, then add a large thin slice of lemon-peel. Got it?’ ”

We are introduced to the obligatory beautiful woman, but she is mostly a background figure until much later in the book.

“And then there was this pest of a girl. He sighed. Women were for recreation. On a job, they got in the way and fogged things up with sex and hurt feelings and all the emotional baggage they carried around. One had to look out for them and take care of them.”

Later, we have this.

“He gazed for a moment into the mirror and wondered about Vesper’s morals. He wanted her cold and arrogant body. He wanted to see tears and desire in her remote blue eyes and to take the ropes of her black hair in his hands and bend her long body back under his. Bond’s eyes narrowed and his face in the mirror looked back at him with hunger.”

Might have been hot stuff in 1953, but not so much in the era of #MeToo. In fact, the whole book seems pretty juvenile. The very last part, the interaction with the bad guys and the physical danger, is the kind of thing today’s heroes are still suffering, but it’s also the part I least enjoy.

All in all, outdated and outwritten by today’s talented authors. I’ll leave you with a line from the opening of the book.

“Bond undressed and took a cold shower. Then he lit his seventieth cigarette of the day.”

Blech.

(third read) so casino royale is the one bond book that even non-bond fans admire. it’s no wonder that raymond chandler loved it as well. far and above my favorite bond book of the bunch, it almost feels like fleming later went in a different more mainstream and hollywood-minded direction with the sequels. none of the other books feel this grounded again, nor have the cigarette-soaked atmosphere of the casino and the mysterious spies in this story.

while not as witty, nor as gritty as chandler’s marlowe books, the storytelling here is smoother and the powerful ending packs one helluva punch. tbh, the ending takes this book to another level, and for my mind, gives you an insight into james that you carry into every other bond adventure to come after casino royale.

by the end of this intense story you come to understand bonds coldness, and boy, is there a good reason for it that is as hardboiled as any noir novel that preceded 007.

it’s clear fleming stands on the shoulders of chandler, hammett, conan doyle, and the whole detective fiction / pulp genre — but here he elevates the stakes to an international scope, while still telling a very intimate noir story set in this atmospheric casino.

let’s just say casino royale is a crime classic that happened to spawn some pretty fun books as sequels, but it stands completely on its own as a towering one-off crime story.

as good as the big sleep, red harvest, kiss me deadly, and miles above most of the spy paperback cottage industry that it spawned.

i know i haven’t mentioned the movies, but after consuming casino royale you’ll see hollywood went off on a very different tangent than the original novels and almost created familair archetypal superhero, ala mike hammer or batman even.

while the movies are a wholly different and fun beast, the bond of the novels is much more of a blunt operative and that’s what makes casino royale special.

007 as he was first conceived.

low key, blunt, noir — here bond is a shrewd operator in the form of a government spy that pays a serious price for his lifestyle and vocation.

one of the great noir books imho.

It was interesting to read James Bond's debut in Ian Fleming's Casino Royale. Representing all the tension of the Cold War, the entire first half of this book focuses on a sort of duel at the Baccarat tables. Fleming suggests that the Cold War will not be fought out on battlefields, but through the cool collective wit of spies like James Bond. Not sure I was impressed by the story, but it was amusing to see Bond fashioned as a superhero at the Baccarat tables before his other 'spy' skills are emphasized. So it was entertaining.

James Bond, known by his code number 007, is one of the most famous characters in literature. In Ian Fleming’s first novel, "Casino Royale," Bond takes on a dangerous mission that leads him into the glamorous yet risky world of spies and international intrigue. He’s called upon by MI6, Britain’s secret intelligence agency, to stop a clever financier named Le Chiffre, who is connected to a feared Russian organization known as SMERSH, known for its ruthless tactics.



This thrilling mission requires Bond to participate in an intense game of baccarat at the luxurious Casino Royale, located in the beautiful French countryside. The stakes are incredibly high: millions of British pounds are on the line, and a loss could mean not just personal failure for Bond but serious consequences for British intelligence and the nation’s safety. The pressure is intense as Bond must deal not only with the challenging game but also with the seductive charm and hidden dangers around him, where everyone he meets might not be what they seem.

In the novel, Fleming paints a vivid picture of Bond as someone cold and tough, driven by a strong sense of duty mixed with the thrill of gambling. This version of Bond is quite different from the modern interpretations of the character; it highlights his rough edges, complicated morals, and complex relationships with women. Fleming skillfully tells a rich story filled with danger, deception, and brief moments of romance, creating a compelling tale that not only defines Bond’s character but also sets the stage for his many future adventures.

I enjoyed these books greatly when I found them...in Jr. High School, I believe that's called "middle-school" now. In other words when I was around 13 years old. they hold up fairly well...better than the newer movies. Bond just doesn't ring true in some of the more PC adaptions of him lately, do you think?

This is the first Bond book...he meets SMRESH, gets tortured, almost loses certain body parts that are very important to him (and most men), gambles for high stakes, takes a lover...you know, just another day at the office for 007.

These are still pretty good reads, back then I would have rated them higher I suppose, but then at 13 I also read all the Man From UNCLE books.

The first Bond novel, dated but enjoyable, better than the movies in some ways. And don't be too shocked that James isn't exactly the super agent in the books he is in the movies. He succeeds, but tends to get kicked around a lot.

To: M

From : Jane Moneypenny

Subject: An assessment of Agent 007's conduct during operation “Casino Royale”

Dear Sir,

I am aware of concerns raised by certain members of the Service regarding Agent 007’s performance during the abovementioned operation. Therefore, I would like to offer my personal assessment, based on the debriefing reports and my own long familiarity with the subject.

It is true that Agent 007 had somewhat compromised the operation by letting himself getting caught by the Target, otherwise known as “Le Chiffre”. It is also undoubtedly true that he might have compromised the integrity of the valuable intelligence that we gathered by becoming an intimate of No. 3030, a.k.a. Vesper Lynd. However, despite all of that, he had managed to accomplish all of our objectives in the operation, as well as unmasking a potentially dangerous double agent.

I can personally vouch that the ‘errors’ that Agent 007 had allegedly committed stemmed not from gross negligence or willful disobedience, but strictly from certain aspects of his character, which are regrettable but perfectly understandable in a man of his persuasion. The most obvious of these is his antipathy toward female operatives, best illustrated by these quotes from the debriefing report:

“And there was this pest of a girl. Women were for recreation. On a job, they got in the way and fogged things up with sex and hurt feelings and all the emotional baggage they carried around. One had to look out for them and take care of them.”

And also:

“These blithering women who thought that they could do a man’s work. Why the hell couldn’t they stay at home and mind their pots and pans and stick to their frocks and gossip and leave men’s work to the men.”

Isn’t it patently obvious, sir, that such preconceived notions caused him to fall for the Target’s devious trap? However, he had subsequently paid dearly for such deplorable misogyny by suffering the worst kind of torture known to the male of the species --- a ghastly affair that involved a cane chair with cut out seat, a 3 foot long carpet beater and Agent 007’s naked nether regions --- the details of which is available in the medical report attached to Head of S’s memorandum.

Further on, his psychological condition during the long convalescence led him to develop certain feelings for Miss Lynd, to the extent that he was prepared to propose marriage to her. I can assure you that such feelings were genuine (even though he later rather callously repudiated them) and that he truly had honorable intentions toward her. It is obvious from Miss Lynd’s unfortunate reaction that the feeling was mutual.

Based on the aforementioned reasons, I propose that we keep Agent 007 in active duty as he had proved that he was able to overcome his personal weaknesses for the good of the Service. Besides, we now have incontrovertible proof that Agent 007 is irresistible to enemy females, a quality that might come handy in future missions that might require such ability.


Signed: Second Officer Jane Moneypenny, WRNS.


P.S. : Please disregard any insinuation from certain members of the Service (you know who they are, sir) that I have a ‘crush’ on James Agent 007.

I've been a huge fan of James Bond ever since Casino Royale(2006) was shown in theatres. I remember watching it with my family and my dream then was to become just like James Bond. I watched all the Bond movies that Daniel Craig starred in ever since that Royale movie. I haven't seen the older ones though, and I heard that this novel is similar to the older movies, and thankfully I haven't seen those.

There's this scene in this novel wherein the villain tortured Bond by repeatedly striking his manhood, and I'm 100% sure that that scene is present in either Casino Royale or Quantum of Solace (more or less Royale). While reading the novel, I imagined Bond as Craig, and I don't think I can ever imagine him as someone else.

The novel itself is very short, but substance filled. Is that a thing? Substance filled. I really enjoyed it, and it brought back a lot of memories. Not that much action I guess, but this is Bond, and I'm pretty biased about him. Deep inside, I'm sure I'd still want to be a spy if given the chance. I almost forgot, this novel explained why Bond got the 007 status, been wondering my whole life. Not sure if they told it in the movies, but I was 8 years old when I watched it, so I can't really remember much.

Before I conclude, let me just say that the movies were not particular about Bond's vices/habits(?). He likes to smoke 70 cigarettes a day, take cold baths, and collect cool cars. I'm a huge car enthusiast, I hate cold baths, and I don't smoke, but one day, I still believe that I'll be just like James Bond.

I'm a huge crime-mystery-thriller fan, and I'm a huge Bond fan, so this novel was quite enjoyable for me. I've been deciding between 4 or 5 stars, but I believe I didn't find any flaws that bothered me that much. Like I said though, I'm really biased when it comes to Bond. 5/5 stars, and I can't seem to not add this to my favorites list. Read this if you want a short but satisfying crime novel.

“I never have more than one drink before dinner. But I do like that one to be large and very strong and very cold and very well-made. I hate small portions of anything, particularly when they taste bad.”

Casino Royale is a 1953 novel that is the first book in the series about British secret agent, James Bond. I decided to read it because it is on Boxall’s 1001 Books to Read List. This was my first James Bond book and (2006) film, of which, I feel, both had pros but, the film won me over with a spectacular opening chase scene that wasn’t part of the book.


James Bond is assigned to play in a high-stakes card game at a casino in France to bankrupt a Russian operative called Le Chiffre. Le Chiffre is a money manager for SMERSH (Russian bad guys) and uses their cash to bankroll his way into this game. Le Chiffre is that arrogant that he thinks no one could beat him at this game so he isn’t risking anything by playing with this money. The British and allies hope that SMERSH will assassinate Le Chiffre when he loses their money to Bond. Bond’s cover for the mission is to be a rich playboy at the casino with his companion, Vesper Lynd, who is really a personal assistant to a department head in the British secret service.

Casino Royale is all about the flash. Fancy cars, fancy weapons, fancy clothes, fancy drinks, fancy hotel, and fancy dressed women. I was expecting flash skills from Bond; however, more than once he is duped by the bad guys and is nearly killed over obvious situations he should have dodged. His mistakes do allow for a fast-paced car chase and a mildly graphic torture scene.

I listened to the audio book narrated by Simon Vance. Great audio and at just over four hours, it was a quick read. If you’re like me and can’t make sense of any French words, the audio is a pleasant way to experience the book instead of stumbling over the frequent terms/names.

As I mentioned the opening scene in the 2006 film adaption of the book, I will add that it was one of the most exciting and best choreographed chases through a high-rise construction site that I’ve seen. It was what made the film better than the book in my opinion. The film changed the ending from that of the book. I liked the film’s interpretation best; and that they gave Vesper a more worthwhile function, though she isn't allowed to demonstrate any skill except for wearing lush evening wear.

The misogyny is abundant in this novel, but typical of the time. And I can see how it is part of James Bond’s aloof demeanor. With him, it is all about the uncurrent of tension – sexual tension, impossible danger, exaggerated odds - that produces a glorified story that (male) readers will want to devour.

Maybe I missed the plot here but not much happens aside from card playing. I mean James Bond is a pop icon! But it seems all he does is show up in his suave suits with women, drink fancy cocktails, and look arrogant. He gets himself into a tough situation and is only saved by chance. Perhaps, I speak to soon, and he hadn’t hit his stride in this first book. Nevertheless, the plot is rather simple; in fact, I’ve already outlined most of it for you above. Again, the film added more intrigue to the ending that made up for the short comings of the book.

I know no other reason this book would be on Boxall’s 1001 Books to Read List than it must have transformed the typical (dark, drab) spy novel into a flashy, fantasy spy novel. “Because when you are imaging, you might as well imagine something worth while.”

My first James Bond novel which cements my opinion that Daniel Craig is the epitome of this steely MI man.
When one reads these pages one is struck by the description of the character and his actions; he's cold, aloof, calculating, isolated. He's not a swaggering, macho, seducing machine. Don't get me wrong! Bond likes the ladies, but they have their uses. They are props and they are there for an affair once the case is solved. He's probably the most attractive man in the room.
In Casino Royale Bond is after Le Chiffre, a money man for a communist organization who has embezzled. High stakes gambling ensues to recoup his losses. Bond challenges him at baccarat. This is a game I've never seen played. Bond's eventual capture and torture is spot-on the movie. There is also a Vesper, but her story follows a different trail.
I'm looking forward to reading all 13 of this series.