Dr, No

Smoke_13

I've been working my way through the Bond books in order and I have just finished reading Dr. No.

I have to say that it didn't really appeal to me. Don't get me wrong, I didn't detest it. I just found it to be weak compared to the first five. Yes, even Diamonds are Forever was a better read.

I just wonder what it was about this book that made the film makers say, "Yes, this is the story that we will model our very first Bond film after."

Spoiler alert: The whole gauntlet of Dr. No at the end just seemed so contrived. It was like Fleming felt he had to force some action into the story. It was an all right read up until that point. So Dr. No was "studying" the effect of desire to live vs. fear. Okay, why was that? Don't get me started on the giant squid and the big dozer bucket of guano that ended Dr. No's life -both were very contrived and could have been so much better. Perhaps that's why the film makers omitted those scenes.

It almost felt as if Fleming had a good book and just didn't quite know where to go with it after Bond and Honey landed on the isle. I tip my hat to the whole Quarrel thing though, that was done well.

Now that I've expressed my slight dislike of the book I guess my question to the masses is a two parter...
1) Do you at all agree that the book felt forced somehow? If you don't agree with me don't worry -there's no shame in being wrong.

2) What would make the film makers use this book for the first movie, when From Russia with Love, Live and Let Die and Moonraker were all out there to begin with? All of which are much better reads in my opinion.

darenhat

I enjoyed DN...but admittedly it's been some time since I last read it. I never felt it was contrived, because to be quite honest, most of Fleming's work is a bit that way (The western town in DAF, the office/missile silo setting in MR, etc.) Element of something 'not quite realistic' in a Bond novel is de rigueur...you don't really try to explain it, just enjoy it.

To be honest though, I don't remember too much from the book other than the description of Honey Ryder, the tunnels, the squid, and the big bucket of guano. That could mean either the rest was not memorable, or I'm getting old (my guess is #2).

Hardyboy

Dr. No is one of my favorite Bond novels, and my reasons probably answer Question #1. It's a fun and exciting book. It moves quickly, there's a lot of action, and it's playfully over-the-top. The book is actually Fleming's tribute to the Fu Manchu novels by Sax Rohmer, which he'd read as a young man, and it works as an old-fashioned thriller set in the age of the Cold War, nuclear fears, and a budding sexual revolution (think about it--coming across a naked woman who covers her crotch and nose, leaving her breasts exposed). Is the novel contrived? Yes, but I don't think Fleming meant it to be taken seriously, so its contrivances don't bother me.

As to Question #2, Thunderball was supposed to be the first film, but when Fleming lost the rights to the novel Broccoli and Saltzman turned to Dr. No. Why? The novel was extrememly controversial when it was released--critics and moralists were outraged (giving rise to the famous charge that the Bond books are all about "sex, snobbery, and sadism")--and, as a result, it became a big best-seller in 1958. That's a scant four years before the film went into production, so the producers had a hot property on their hands. Also, with its emphasis on outdoor locations, Dr. No would be a reasonably inexpensive film to make.

Sorry you didn't like the novel, Smoke_13, but to each his own. And if you think Dr. No is contrived and unbelievable. . .well, wait until you get to Goldfinger!

7289

If you are looking for reality, then go with Tom Clancy.... Fleming is always a little OTT, and may seem dated and "contrived" in 2007, just was not the case in the 1950's.

I like Dr. No and feel it's fantasy elements were an attempt to "lighten" the series after the grim adventures in From Russia with Love - a far more "real" spy story.

Like Hardyboy said, wait till you get to "Goldfinger"!!! Best advice is to sit back and enjoy! These books were never intended to be more than a "fun ride".

Smoke_13

Hardyboy wrote:

As to Question #2, Thunderball was supposed to be the first film, but when Fleming lost the rights to the novel Broccoli and Saltzman turned to Dr. No. Why? The novel was extrememly controversial when it was released--critics and moralists were outraged (giving rise to the famous charge that the Bond books are all about "sex, snobbery, and sadism")--and, as a result, it became a big best-seller in 1958. That's a scant four years before the film went into production, so the producers had a hot property on their hands. Also, with its emphasis on outdoor locations, Dr. No would be a reasonably inexpensive film to make.

Sorry you didn't like the novel, Smoke_13, but to each his own. And if you think Dr. No is contrived and unbelievable. . .well, wait until you get to Goldfinger!

Hey Hardyboy a special thanks to your response.

See, this is what I love about this site. I always seem to learn something about the Bond world when I read the responses of the posters here. I had no idea that Thunderball was to be the first Bond movie. It's certainly going to change how I feel when I get to that novel. Each time I watch Thunderball it seems to move up a little on my ratings list.

Alex

Count me as an admirer for the reasons described by Hardyboy.

Dr. No's pulpish fantasy adventure vibes are like manna from heaven to this fanboy. It's a personal favorite, due to those weird horror and other worldly tones that seem to come straight from the influences of Burroughs or Rohmer. I love it!!!

Napoleon Plural

The exotism would be another reason, it's good to start a series with sun, sand (and sex) just as they did with LALD and CR (though the latter dents the consistency somewhat with Montenegro).