James Bond seems to be a series that follows a pretty darn easy format, there's a plot that endangers either the whole world, or at least a part of it. That plot is being put into motion by a villain that fills the part of an evil mastermind, and then there's always a girl. Under normal circumstances that simple layout can often make a book series drab or less exciting because the readers feels as though they are reading the same book that they've read several times before. But Ian Fleming is skilled enough at his craft that he breaks the mold and is able to make every book feel new, fresh, and exciting; rather than the same recycled formula from so many editions before.I think that what separates Mr. Fleming from other espionage novelists is simply his experience, for those of you who do not know Mr. Fleming himself had some experiences in the military during post WWII London. I think that it's this reason that makes him seem so seamless as he describes the in depth operations of what Bond is doing on his missions, and I also think it's this reason why no other predecessor to Mr. Fleming has come near being able to write as good of a Bond novel. For those of you who do not know, the plot of Thunderball revolves around a terrorist group called Spectre. This group has just come into the possession of two nuclear warheads and is threatening to use them on two major cities if they are not paid a very large sum of money in gold bullion. M then sends Bond to a location where he feels the leader of this plot may be set up and the plot takes off there, there's a plot, there's a villain, and there's a girl; all the makings of a great Bond adventure. I certainly love Bond and love the way that Mr. Fleming writes the character but in my reading so far none of the novels have come close to Casino Royale. Royale just had something to it that none of the others have seemed to capture in my eyes, but I do hope that I find one of the originals that does come close or even surpasses the book for while it is my favorite, I wouldn't mind company in the category.I think that my biggest issue with the novel was simply the pacing, now I do understand that Bond cant just shoot up every single area that he thinks may be evil but there was a distinct lack of action in this particular novel. I did love the investigation and the ways in which Bond and Leiter attempted to figure out if they had the right man, but nothing really happens until the last twenty or thirty pages in the book and that was what left wanting more when I was finished. The novel wasn't boring at any point, the entire thing was enjoyable and fun to read as always but this final battle had been hyped for over a hundred pages and when it finally happens it fails to fill just over ten pages; I was just disappointed.The original Bond novels are wonderful and I love to read them but this is one that I didn't so much enjoy as some of the others I have read. It was a good time seeing more of an investigative side of Bond but I was ultimately let down when I finally approached the climax of the story. If your a fan of 007 then check it out, but for casual readers of the series this one is skippable.
I'm a bit mystified by the Fleming legend. First of all, I find his writing lacking. I can fill most of it in with my knowledge of the Bond movies, so I see it all very well, but his style is not so much minimalist as dull. There are very brief flashes of good action--stress on the brief--but these do not keep my interest. Also, the Fleming's Bond, as opposed to Broccoli's Bond, is more bumbling, unsure of himself, and most certainly a whiner. There is little about him that makes me very interested in him. On one hand, this means he is more human, more believable, and a more sympathetic character. On the other hand, he is less of a Titan, lacks that edge that makes us watch him in awe, and even his vaunted cruelty is replaced with pettiness, which is difficult to take in a hero.There is an odd scene in this one, after he has first met Domino, and spent the afternoon with her. As she drives away, he watches her go, and for little apparent reason, says out loud-- "Bitch." While this is humorous, it makes him look like an ass, and does not fit with his later scenes where he spends time worrying about the fact he has put her in danger and wishing he had left her out of it, to the point it is distracting him from completing the job. One of Bond's more remarkable traits in the movies is his ability to use women as a means to an end without much care as to their well-being. Is this admirable? Not as a personal trait, but as a professional one it is as impressive as it is shocking. But here, in the book, he just sounds like any guy who's too caught up in puppy love.I suppose I'm being hard on Fleming/Bond, but since he is the poster-child of the tough-guy super-spy, I suppose he can take it.As for the plot, it is much closer to the movie than I expected it to be. It moves well, and is more plausible than the movie. His characterizations of the principals are well done. Felix Leiter gets quite a complete fleshing out here, including the detail of his metal hook for one hand. That's something we never see in the movies.Fleming shines best when he is dealing with the slower, more atmospheric scenes; the detail work of spying. I will certainly read more of them (I've read two others already, Casino Royale and The Man with the Golden Gun) if only to get a better perspective on Fleming's Bond. I am not criticizing Fleming's Bond in the above review, only making observations on the differences between the book and the movie. Fleming is not to be blamed for the persona that Bond became on film. But the film Bond is so pervasive in our culture that he cannot be ignored when approaching the books. Perhaps, as I read more, I'll come to prefer this more human James Bond.
What do You think about Thunderball (2003)?
This was a first edition, book club version of the book, published in 1961.Seamy pulp fiction. I would image it would have been considered quite lurid for its time.Curiously, the first James Bond film did not appear until 1962, when the 10th Bond novel was published.I found a few things interesting about this book. One, it introduces SPECTRE.Two, the book starts with M lecturing 007 about his health, specifically his diet. Bond has been waking up with hangovers from his heavy drinking, so he has been taking aspirin.M: All drugs are are harmful to the system. They are contrary to nature. The same applies to most of the food we eat -- white bread with all the roughage removed, refined sugar with all the goodness machined out of it, pasteurized milk which has had most of the vitamins boiled away, everything overcooked and denaturized. Why?How much stone ground whole wheat do you eat? How much yoghurt? Uncooked vegetables, nuts, fresh fruit?Bond: Practically none at all, sir.Amazing to me that Fleming was writing about these recommended eating habits in 1961, when this seems to be just now becoming popular over the past few years.The other thing that struck me was how Bond was so full of self-doubt, worrying whether he was making the right decision, fearful of bring the bureaucracy down on him, etc. Not the self-assured individual depicted in the movies.Three stars because it is Bond, 2 1/2 starts because of the pulp fiction.
—Brad Lucht
"This is a silly plan. This is the sort of melodramatic nonsense people write about in thrillers." and that criticism straight out of the mouth of the "bond girl" in this installment is probably one of my favourite lines in the series so far. Whoever said they were all shallow?!I must have watched Thunderball about a gazillion times since I was a kid and I still couldn't say what the film was about. Reading it, the story is still a bit tepid - bad guys steal nuclear war heads and threaten the world - however, the descriptions in the book of everything that surrounds the plot - i.e. the development of characters, the depiction of fight scenes, the dialogues, the sea life are just great. Of course, Bond is still Bond, and the sexist, chauvinist comments are there (in abundance) throughout the book, but one wouldn't set out to read a Bond novel without a bucket of salt at hand.
—BrokenTune
The best part about any of the original James Bond novels is the fact that there is no “Q” (other than being mentioned peripherally, “Q Branch” and all that). That’s to say, the novels aren’t as gimmicky as the films. This is important, since it elevates the story above the zany pop culture status of the films. There is at least some gravitas here, which is as it should be in a spy thriller.And yet, the novels are every bit as entertaining as the films. Thunderball was recommended to me by my wife. In fact, it was part of our annual “must read” agreement. I believe it is her favourite, just edging out Live and Let Die, which I also read on her recommendation previously.Thunderball does contain all the ingredients we have come to expect: exotic location – check, undersea adventuring – check, beautiful Italian girl with catchy name – check, memorable bad guy – check, atomic bombs – check… I could go on, but I think you get the idea. This novel also has the distinction of being the one to introduce Blofeld and Spectre, so its importance in the Bond canon is cemented.If you’re a Bond fan, you certainly have read this by now. If not – for shame!
—Dirk Grobbelaar
