Goldfinger

Rating:
Summary: Class never goes out of style
Review: Goldfinger has an effortless grace that is simply beyond most thriller writers. And this is the point; Fleming could really write. Yes, Goldfinger is just a potboiler fantasy, but it is suffused with beautiful writing; elegant simple sentences that contain real wit and character. It was Fleming's longest book and yet compared to a Clancy or a Ludlum it is little more than a short story. But in contrast to the turgid, plot ridden lumps that so many writers today (and in fairness, for the last thirty years) seem compelled to churn out, Fleming's brevity and clarity, his development of character, the pace and humour he injects, all shine out.

Reading again the account of the game of Canasta or, especially, the round of golf, is to feel a sense of joy and appreciation of his sheer skill with words. (In contrast, can any one really read Tom Clancy and not, by about page 400, emit a despairing cry of "get on with it!".)

And Goldfinger is a great story. It's far fetched and unlikely, but it roars along with a logic that lasts as long as the book does.

And yes of course it's dated, and Fleming's views would not hold up to much scrutiny in 2002. But are today's readers such sensitive little flowers that they cannot accept that the ideas and views of another time are totally valid when expressed in the context of that time?

Goldfinger was written by a man who had an instinctive lightness of touch, who was writing when people did not mistake information for knowledge, and who above all wrote for the sheer enjoyment of it all.

And that's what Goldfinger is...sheer pleasure and sheer enjoyment.

Rating:
Summary: Yet another fun book...
Review: I admit that that "Goldfinger" was the first Bond (Fleming-authored or not) that I have read. Susbsequent to reading it, though, I have plans for the reading of many more. I presume that as you are looking at this book, you have probably seen the 1964 film of the same. As with the majority of filmic adaptations, the book differs somewhat...and, again as with most things, I am convinced that the book is probably better.

I also admit to having been on a quest to find my idea of the quintessential piece of summer reading. This might well be it: it's paced well, the characterisation is non-existent, but then this book is clearly the literary doppelgänger of the popcorn movie...absence of character development should be taken in stride...and Mr. Fleming's prose is both slightly ornate and, er, quirky. If you're looking for a book to expand your mind, pass on this...if you're looking for something escapist, this certainly should serve you very nicely. Great fun. Recommended.

Rating:
Summary: One of the weaker Bond novels.
Review: Ian Fleming got into a habit early on in his career as a novelist. He would churn out one Bond novel a year, during the summer, at his Goldeneye estate in Jamaica. This kind of routine can be deadening when one writes without inspiration, and, unfortunately, that's what apparently happened when he wrote "Goldfinger."

This isn't a bad novel, but compared with the better Bond books, this is pretty weak. The plot seems hastily assembled, is far-fetched, and the ending seems rushed and improbable, even for Fleming.

That said, it does have its good points. The villain, Auric Goldfinger, is one of the most fully realized characters Fleming ever created, and Oddjob is certainly a menacing strongman. The early chapters, where Bond teaches Goldfinger a lesson and then trails him across Europe, are mostly good, but the golf game goes on WAY too long and seems indicative of Fleming's general lack of ideas here. The last several chapters are a mess; the whole idea of robbing Fort Knox wasn't that great to begin with.

All in all, "Goldfinger" is little more than a mediocre addition to the Bond series.