Dr. No Paperback – Big Book

Utterly disappointed.The introduction by Jonathan Freedland provided much-needed context, reminding the reader that the novel was written in 1958...with the racial and gender prejudices and stereotypes of the day. Unfortunately whilst it asked the reader to apply historical mindfulness and take the novel as a social and psychological reflection of the time, I couldn’t free my mind to be impassive and found myself actively flinching to Fleming’s words throughout.I couldn’t find myself engaged by the characterisation of Bond, depicted as the nonchalant, confident and baggage-free Bond familiar to me from having watched the films. No real detail was provided on his physical characteristics which I can only assume is because this isn’t the first of the novels in the Bond series.Fleming does however provide wonderfully detailed scenes. His first paragraph beautifully set the scene for a hot Jamaican afternoon turning to evening. And equally competently, he transports the reader to a rainy day scene in London.I wish he had provided less detail in the action scenes, which were technical and wordy and took a lot of concentration to follow. And a page and a half describing the gun selection did have me glazing over! However,I am a quick reader and do wonder if I had a different style of reading if this would’ve bothered me less....The same is probably true for the Carribean accents, which Fleming attempted to write phonetically but I had to read slowly to ensure I understood.Being a fan of the films, I did feel let down by the book...and find myself reflecting on the ‘Never Judge a Book by its Movie’ quote.

Reading again after many years I am very happy to be brought back to the roots of the modern phenomenon but I recommend reading this and all the Bond novels for their own sake and not as film comparisons. The writing in the 1950s and 1960s is very different to the expectations of the film makers and cinema audiences of later years and whilst some films bear a resemblance to the books (some don't), at best they all contain additional embellishments (and some wild ones at that) and some are all but completely different story lines resembling the book in little but title only. It's important to realise the era in which these books were written, three books before the first satellite (sputnik 1957) and nine before the the first communication satellite (Telstar 1962) so non of the space age technology of the films existed at the time.

Loved the book, like the detail of era and the story is believable for the most part, don't worry there is no need for spoiler alerts; I do not want to ruin anyones enjoyment of reading it for the first time. Also like that Bond is shown as a human being unlike the films, by that I mean he is hurt a lot and it is written in detail and it takes him time to heal so realistic.Not the best in the series, which in my humble opinion is from Russia with love so far.

The immediate appeal of the Bond books is t5he possibility to contrast them with the films and to see just how much they differ. If I am honest, the films seem to add somet5hing to the books which enhances t5he story. By contrast, Fleming's originals are frequently more low key.With the exception of "Moonraker" which is pretty poor as a film and not one of Fleming's finest either, the films seem to be quite faithful to the book but on the page Bond seems more like someone who has stepped out from a black and white film. The sexiness and the exotic of largely missing from the page and the writing is fast and slick yet by no means the great literature that some will have you believe. Fleming's writing is lean but he can also be quite clunky and give the impression of losing interest in the plot. "Dr No" is very similar to the story in the film up until the final denouement which ends in a twisted version of Orwell's "Room 101" as Bond is encouraged to escape through a tunnel and encounter a variety of challenges. The ultimate "challenge" is, admittedly, a bit silly. However, it is good to see some of the traits from the films manifest themselves at last in this adventure. For all it's faults, "Dr No" is a good read if not as good as "OHMSS" or the more sophisticated "FRLW." I was glad that the character of Quarrel had far more dignity than in the film where he became an "Uncle Tom" stereotype that makes uncomfortable viewing these days. That said, Honeychile Rider, by contrast, seemed a bit ridiculous and appeared to have been added to the story at titilation. I felt the book was enjoyable and seemed to set the scene quite well. Unfortunately, the film's conclusion certainly has the edge on the novel and Dr No's motives are more easily resolved. In the book, Fleming doesn't seem to be that interested and seems satisfied to leave Dr No as a criminal mastermind as opposed to being committed to grander schemes. In conclusion, this is one of the better Bond books and if it is easy to be sniffy about Fleming's ability as a novelist or to feel disappointed that the Bond on the page can't compete with Broccoli's cinematic creation, they are still fun to read as a bit of light entertainment.

As the first Bond novel to be adapted for the silver screen (and with only fairly limited changes in terms of plot) Dr No will be forever known as the story that started a phenomenon. As such an iconic work it is both immortal and entirely critic proof.Which is quite fortunate really, because as far as the adventures of the literary Bond go (his cinematic counterpart being a quite different individual) Dr No is a rather unremarkable effort. Its not a bad effort but nor does it reach the heights of the novel that preceded it, From Russia With Love; its just rather ordinary.Reading it for the first time (I'm tackling the whole series in sequence with breaks between individual books) I couldn't shake the feeling that Fleming's heart wasn't really in the writing of Dr No. The plot feels rather perfunctory, with Fleming seemingly more interested in describing Jamaica of the late 50's, somewhere he spent a great deal of time and knew very well, than providing a truly compelling tale.Bond sort of stumbles over Dr No's plans and only succeeds in discovering & thwarting them because his opponent shows a rather implausible desire to entertain Bond in fine style before finding a ridiculously complicated way to dispose of him. There are definite shades of Dr Evil from the Austin Powers movies about this version of Dr. No (right down to the bald head) which doesn't help the book maintain a sense of tension that in any case never really develops. Yes, Bond is put through the physical wringer by No, but it all seems rather silly and artificial and you never really fear for the hero's life. After the palpable threat posed by SMERSH, Red Grant and Rosa Klebb in From Russia With Love, Dr No. lacks real teeth.The book is really only saved by both the presence of Bond himself, a far more complex and appealingly human character than his cinematic alter-ego, and equally importantly that of the supporting cast of Quarrel (returning from Live & Let Die), the honourable and brave Cayman Islander, and the delectable Honey Rider. The latter's first appearance on the page knocks the socks off Ursula Andress emerging from the sea on screen, and as a character she is far more well rounded than the attractive but slightly bland movie version. Admitedly well rounded in this case does include being something of a male fantasy made flesh, but she's no slouch when it comes to being brave and resourceful, successfully rescuing herself on one ocassion without help from Mr Bond.Dr No. is undoubtedly a classic becuase of its cultural status and significance and no review is going to change that. Without the presence of some wonderfully realised characters to support Bond however, and the superbly described exotic tropical setting, I wonder whether the book would have made such an appealing prospect for adaptation for the screen?(Oh, and belated kudos must go to Penguin Viking for the superb cover artwork for this series of reprints. Delightfully retro, they capture the feel of the books perfectly)