This book was much, much better than the movie. But then again, so was my last migraine.

I'm glad I read the book, I think, but I probably won't bother to read the rest of the series, because James Bond, much like Daniel 'Trout Pout' Craig, is an unrelenting pain in the arse...

I watch a lot of the James Bond movies but I never actually read any of the novels. So I’m rectified that by reading Casino Royale. It’s the first of the original Fleming James Bond series of novels, pretty much an origin story and where the plot haven’t reach to such grandiose heights.

The plot is simple, James Bond is sent to play baccarat in northern France against Le Chiffre, the paymaster of Russian counter intelligence organization in the titular Casino Royale. Bond here is brash, confident and smug but by the end of the novel, he is truly humbled by what transpired during this particular mission. His opponents overwhelm him effortlessly, he's rescued not by his own efforts but by the intervention of a SMERSH assassin and the woman he has finally tumbled for is revealed to have been a double agent all along.

Fleming’s writing is simple, even compared to the pulp/thriller writing but a that is not a knock toward Fleming at all. It’s not Greene or Le Carre but it is serviceable enough with description that features passionate intensity that makes it easy to follow, even if you've never heard of baccarat. There's sex and violence, both pretty lurid for 1953. Bond is tortured in a graphic sequence that is still pretty hard to take today, but there are no prolonged shoot-outs or duels. Although he does carry out his mission to take Le Chiffre's money, Bond makes a poor showing in the actual combat. He's saved only when a SMERSH hitman interrupts to execute Le Chiffre.

Overall, it was fine and I really enjoy the journey. All the way up through the shocking ending, Casino Royale delivers a great story with the naivete of a young Fleming. Perhaps my only dislike about the book is it’s pace. While some scenes flew by, others had me dozing off while I read. But as a whole, a great start.

It comes as no surprise that this is one of the best spy books I have ever read. I had me so gripped I didn’t want to put it down. At times I lost my focus a little, bit within a paragraph or two it garnered all of my attention again. I’m really excited to read more of the James Bond series.

2.5 stars.
Stars slow and doesn't really pick up much pace throughout, but it has some fun parts nonetheless. I liked the movie versions better (both Daniel Craig and Woody Allen, but obviously for different reasons).

n  ***2018 Summer of Spies***n

Two things about this book surprised me—first that Fleming was a pretty good writer, second that the book was so short! I’ve never attempted any of Fleming’s fiction before, partly because I saw some of the films of these works back about 30 years ago. You can’t live in a co-ed residence in university without at least having some of these movies on the lounge television set and I think I may have been dragged to the movie theatre as well (back when a movie only cost $5 and a person could afford to go).

Bond in the book is much less charming than Bond on the screen. He’s rougher around the edges and the racism & misogyny of earlier times are very apparent. It’s difficult for me to judge—how much of this is the fictional character, how much is just the zeitgeist of the 1950s, and how much of this is Ian Fleming himself?

I’ve requested a biography of Fleming from the library, to help me try to sort this matter. I’m also intrigued by how much he was influenced by the work of Agatha Christie. One of the very first scenes in Casino Royale involves Bond checking to see if his room has been searched, using exactly the same stratagem as a character in Christie’s They Came to Baghdad (the use of precisely placed, unobtrusive hairs). Undoubtedly Fleming read Christie, so I’m interested in that angle as well.

One can’t claim to have read spy fiction without reading Fleming, so I will pick up Live and Let Die in the near future and continue on during my Summer of Spies.

Everyone's heard of James Bond I'm guessing. I've seen a few of the movies over the years but can't say I'm a big fan; I can take them or leave them. But I thought I would add a few of the Fleming novels to my read list and I always like to read the debut novel of any author, especially if it's a series. Casino Royale is not considered one of the best of the novels by critics, and I can't say I concur because I haven't read any of the others yet, but I can understand after reading it. I gave it 4 stars, but 3.5 is closer to my thinking. About what I expected although there was more "serious" romance than I thought there would be. I think I'll read From Russia With Love next and see where to go from there.

Originally published in 1953, the first book in the James Bond series, the one made famous cinematically in the 1970s and 1980s because it did not star Sean Connery or Roger Moore! …David Niven anyone? Actually quite an interesting book, for its darkness, for an introduction to Bond's trademark dark-ish manner and also for being a caper where Jame Bond mayn not necessary emerge victorious! Another very dated, but rip roaring adventure. 6 out of 12

This is a surprise read.

Written in 1953, when pulp fiction and cold war were trending, this first James Bond book could surprise many. Not only for breaking the ultra-macho image of the secret service agent played on screen, but also for it's almost nihilistic beliefs of the favourite hero.

British secret service decides to destroy Russia's chief agent in France who has lost the entire union fund and making a desperate bid at the casino. They choose a recent double O agent, James Bond, who is good at the gambling table to win and in the process expose the villain to Russian SMERSH agents. They also send Vesper, an attractive partner to work with him (who is primarily a distraction) in addition to the French contact and the CIA agent. With such a flimsy premise the book manages to keep you hooked, till the 60% stage.

What movies didn't show was what was going through the head of an authorised killer and a seduction artist. Ian Fleming's James Bond, is more human, than machine, with self doubt, vulnerability and emotions to go with a chauvinistic mindset. In fact his only claim to fame in the entire book is that he has a stroke of luck at the table. He allows himself to become complacent, he lets his guard down and falls for the oldest trick. He even contemplates who is the villain and thinks about quitting. (What then are the movies?!)

If I were to be honest, had i read the book before watching the movies, I would have been underwhelmed. But after becoming a fan of the over the top movies, the book seems a fresh view on the psyche of the secret agent. Might read a few more!

It was a good thing that Cubby Broccoli and Harry Saltzman decided to bring Ian Fleming's books to the screen. If that hadn't happened,James Bond would be totally forgotten by now.

The movies reinvented the character,they spiced up everything. The entertainment and the escapism was taken to a whole new level.

I had watched all the movies when I finally decided to check out Ian Fleming's books. The first one I read was Live and Let Die. It disappointed but I somehow struggled through it. Fleming's Bond didn't appeal to me at all.

But I tried again and Casino Royale was even worse.Gambling is something I've never been into anyway and there was plenty of it in this book. It was dull,it was dry and it felt very dated.I didn't get even a semblance of enjoyment.

One line deserves mention.In Bond's view,"women were for recreation".

The movie with Daniel Craig is better than the book,though to me it didn't feel like a James Bond movie.Cubby Broccoli's guiding hand was missing.

Even the spoof movie Casino Royale,which was a bit of a mess and featured mutiple Bonds was more entertaining than Ian Fleming's first entry in the Bond series.

The contrast can't be greater. I love the Bond movies (excluding the ones with Daniel Criag).
I hate the Fleming books.

Man...he's cold.



Is James Bond a bit of a sexist? Yes.
I remembered being aware that he wasn't the most forward-thinking chap when it came to women after I first read this book, and the passing of 13 years hasn't made him look any better. He's definitely an ass, so this isn't a book you should hand to your son with an emulate this guy wink.



But what I had forgotten was that the first half of this (rather short) book was mostly just a card game. No cool spy stuff, no outrageous sexytimes, just a dull as shit card game.



And the second half was James getting his ass thoroughly beaten, only escaping death by sheer dumb luck.
This is NOT the suave James Bond we know and love.
This?
This is just a run-of-the-mill agent who got his balls thumped by the psycho he beat at baccarat. He eventually passes out, wakes up, gets thwacked on his nads some more, and right before the bad guy pulls the trigger, another bad guy shows up and kills the testicle-smasher.
Bad guy #2 leaves James alive presumably because he's going to need to show up in the next book and fumble fuck around again.



I had also forgotten how shockingly unintelligent he was when it came to reading the room, because Vesper is quite OBVIOUSLY hiding something from him.
But apparently, he thinks it's normal for women to make cryptic comments and cry after sex, so he never managed to put two and two together and come up with a double agent.



I might have felt a bit sorry for the poor bastard but he only wanted to marry Vesper because she was mysterious enough so that each sexual encounter would have the n  sweet tang of rapen to it.



Wait. Back up. What?



Oh, James. That's gross. Even for you.

Moving on.
This was actually interesting. Like, really interesting. I don't know how I missed it the first time around, but this version of James Bond isn't anything like the pop culture icon version of James Bond.
And that ain't a bad thing.



At the end of the day, I'm curious about the true story of this 007.
Does he get progressively less stupid with each book?
Only one way to find out.
n  Pew! Pew!n

This was my first contact with the infamous 007 and it certaintly wont be my last. Really wanted to see what the big deal was and now I know.
007 is a dignified badass who knows how to swing and swindle.
Never trust bitches and this is why hes a ladies man and wont settle down. But he thought about it. Double agent ruined her chance.

Never before have I thought of myself specifically as a fan of the James Bond movies, although I did watch 13 out of overall 24 Bond films. However, along with the recent release date of "Spectre" (which I haven't seen yet), I wanted to discover how Ian Fleming's works influenced the successful movie adaptions and whether or not those movies lived up to the novel's expectations. "Casino Royale" has been one of the first Bond movies I thorougly enjoyed watching, so my expectations as to my reading experience with this first Bond novel were pretty high. Too high, I guess.



Some amazing artwork originating from the movie can be found out there on the internet, and doesn't Casino Royale already sound pretty cool? Sexy double agents in suits with attractive girls surrounding them and villainous gangsters trying to take over the world who will probably end up being defeated after some sort of showdown - it's always the same procedure used in every film, yet all most of them become a huge success. In contrast to many other Bond movies, I can understand how this success came about since the adaption of "Casino Royale" was pretty well done, but after reading Ian Fleming's original, I am nothing but bored by even hearing the name James Bond. But who is this James Bond in the novel?

Raymond Chandler once said that "James Bond is what every man would like to be, and what every woman would like between her sheets". So, if every man would like to be sexy, but tending to brutal, rapey behaviour, and protective with women, but degrading them, thinking of himself as superior to the other gender, and murdering numerous other people as a 'hobby' ... then I definitely don't want to be such a man. Never before did I encounter a character so unlikeable and abhorrent, and neither do I understand why people like those seem to have so much success with women. I'm not opposed to unlikeable characters - some of the most interesting protagonists I've read about are anything but likeable - but the image of men and women depicted by Fleming is simply unbearable.

Ian Fleming's writing is certainly not awful. He included some interesting sections reflecting Bond's behaviour, giving his character time to think over his situation, but it did nothing to transform Bond into a character with depth. The double agent with a strong leaning towards sex with as many women as possible remains the only characteristic James Bond is allowed to have. But apart from that, the plot itself did not improve the novel's quality. Quite the contrary, the story of Casino Royale was boring. Yes, it was boring as hell. I caught myself skimming through the last chapters, being more annoyed by this book with every new sentence, and constantly struggling not to put it aside. (There's one advantage, however: I could use this as a bedtime story and thus avoid any potential problems with falling asleep.)

This was definitely the last Fleming novel I've read. In conclusion, I can recommend watching the movie and just skipping the novels in order to not waste any time with this. It isn't worth the expenditure of time.