Customer Reviews

Goldfinger

5 star:		(17)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(10)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

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.

First of all, let me disclose that I really like all of Ian Fleming's James Bond novels, and I particularly like and admire Fleming's lean, understated style of prose. Fleming is underrated as a writer, and James Bond is more than a comic book cutout character.

Goldfinger as a novel has some appealing attributes. The scene in which Bond plays a game of golf with Auric Goldfinger (with the stakes higher than they seem) is a masterpiece. Goldfinger the villain is an ingenious character. The reason I deprived this novel of two stars is first of all that the ending is tacked on almost as an afterthought. Sorry, it just didn't work, and it almost seemed like Fleming reached his page limit, and realized that he needed to wrap up the novel in the next twenty or so pages. Secondly, "Operation Grand Slam" involving a hodgpodge of criminals, seemed highly underdeveloped, and SMERSH would not have dared have a Soviet vessel upload the goal and hightail it to Russia. Nor would it have involved the sweepings of the US underworld in such a plan. It just did not work. Now mind, the idea of robbing Fort Knox is brilliant, and Fleming could have made it work. But here, in my opinion, it did not.

All these criticisms aside, I enjoyed "Goldfinger" the novel, and I recommend it, along with all of the other Bond novels, to anyone who enjoys good writing, a suspension of one's critical facilities for an afternoon, and, of course, James Bond.

This is one case in which the MOVIE was definitely better than the book that inspired it...not that the book isn't an entertaining read! The film's pre-credits sequence is referred to briefly in the beginning of the book, but death by electric shock in the tub is easily more inspired than death by karate-chop! In the film, Bond's manhood is threatened by a laser beam; in the book, it's a circular saw. In the film, Goldfinger puts Ft.Knox to sleep with poison gas; in the book, it's the town's tainted water supply. In the film, Goldfinger wants to blow up the fort; in the book, he actually wants to rob it. In the film, both Oddjob and Goldfinger die clever and inventive deaths; in the book, only Oddjob's demise is really unique. But read it anyway! If the description of the meal Bond eats in the Miami restaurant at the beginning doesn't make your mouth actually water, I don't know what will!

This book was far ahead of its time, ignored for the most part after its initial publication, but selling in the millions after the film's release almost a decade later. Give Fleming credit for enormous creative powers in dreaming up a story that, with its castrating laser beams, deadly Korean bodyguards, obese villains and beautiful women, resonated deeply in the darkness of a movie theater. But Fleming's role in helping create modern blockbuster entertainment is only part of the story. The James Bond books as a series are much darker than the films, and "Goldfinger" is no exception, but it's filled with descriptive prose that's among the best of the post-WWII era. Returning to this book after fifteen years confirms an earlier impression that one is dealing with more than a competent thriller-writer here. Though steeped in the Cold War era, and filled with fantastic plot contrivances, Fleming had a keen eye for irony, humor, and the truthful human observation. JFK, while President of the U.S., declared Ian Fleming his favorite author. In fact, as time goes on, Ian Fleming's gifts shine brighter than ever, remaining to be discovered by a new generation of readers.

Goldfinger was Ian Fleming's 9th James Bond novel and admitedly, it is not one of the stronger entries. Indeed, Goldfinger is one of those rare cases where the film made from the book is actually better than the book itself. The book's plot finds James Bond investigating the gold-obsessed Auric Goldfinger. The case starts largely as a lark for Bond but eventually involves Bond in a bizarre plot to rob Fort Knox. As opposed to Fleming's best works, Goldfinger's plot often feels as if Fleming made it up as he went along and the book's final set piece and conclusion comes across as rushed and just a little bit lazy. In fact, upon reflection, it becomes apparent that most of the book's twists and turns come less from any cunning on Goldfinger's part and more from James Bond simply making a series of stupid mistakes.

That said, it should also be remembered that Ian Fleming was, even at his most uninspired, a far better writer than most of his contemporaries. As such, even subpar Fleming is usually more entertaining than the best of what other writers are capable of. Especially in its opening chapters, Goldfinger has its moments of true wit and it certainly is enjoyable to follow Bond as he subtly manipulates the man's vanity. While this book doesn't feature Fleming's usual strong cast of quirky supporting characters, both Bond and Goldfinger are strong and memorable enemies. While Bond himself comes across as a bit more ruthless than usual (at times seeming to be an almost borderline sociopath), Auric Goldfinger stands as one of Fleming's strongest creations. Incredibly childish at times while still being fully (and credibly) capable of amassing the world's largest fortune, Goldfinger is indeed a worthy villian and, even if his plan disappoints, the man never does. The book is worth a read just for the chance to appreciate the skill with which Fleming creates a villian who, otherwise, could have been a harmless cartoon. As well, any book that features a character named Pussy Galore can't be all bad.

In the end, Goldfinger is lesser Bond but it is a Bond book nonetheless and those who are familiar with Fleming's work will find much to enjoy. (Those with the right sense of humor will certainly find some amusement in Fleming's theory that lesbianism is the result of women getting the right to vote.) Goldfinger is not the type of book that should serve as anyone's introduction to Ian Fleming's Bond. Certainly, both were capable of more than Goldfinger would (at first) indicate. But with its flaws come several pleasures and it is a must for fans of the literary Bond.

I have just finished the " once every two years" read of the James Bond novels and have again come to the conclusion that Goldfinger is the best.

It has the best villain, the best story and what can you say, " Pussy Galore". To come up consistently with names of this calibre for female characters is an art in itself, remembering what a censored world these novels were born into.

Fleming can be snobbish in his writing and pedantic, as in a 1/2 page description of gear changes in a car Bond is driving but in this book we have a great story with the plan to rob Fort Knox.

This plan ( plot spoiler) is of course foiled by our hero but this is a real novel, one that has not been given the credit it deserves, probably because of its genre and the novels that proceeded it.

In my opinion this book followed by " On Her Majesty's Secret Service" were Fleming at his peak. As his health deteriorated and his dislike of writing these novels set in we were served up dross like "The Man With The Golden Gun", but with Goldfinger he nailed it.

There are many authors out there in authorland who would have liked to have written something as half as good as this.

Highly recommended for the rainy day Sunday when the bills are paid and the kids aren't stabbing each other

"Goldfinger" has always been one of my favorite James Bond novels from the pen of Ian Fleming. I have read it several times through the years and I still return to it. It is just so well written with Fleming's unique style that the words linger in your mind forever. The first chapter is a standout and gives the reader great insight into the character of James Bond. Goldfinger the villain of the piece has a truly intriguing plot that enthralls the reader quite convincingly. Good book.

You won't find perhaps the most quoted lines from "Goldfinger" in the novel that were heard in the film:

Bond: "Do you expect me to talk?"
Goldfinger: "No, Mister Bond, I expect you to die."

That's because the filmmakers, in this case anyway, wisely decided to rewrite the entire story for their script.

I've been rereading all of the 007 novels and have just finished reading Andrew Lycett's insightful biography of Ian Fleming, so I've been pretty immersed in the whole James Bond experience (why not? It is, after all, 2007). I bought the new special edition DVD collections and can't wait for "Casino Royale" to hit DVD this spring as seeing it several times in the theatres.

Of the first seven novels, I'm standing by "Casino Royale" and "From Russia, With Love" as the best. I liked them 20 years ago and I like them now.

But I would probably put "Goldfinger" with "Moonraker": worth reading but not as good as the others.

The ambitious plot to rob Fort Knox just doesn't come off. Bond himself even sums up the absurdity of it in the film version ("...now you've only got a few hours before the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines show up to make you put it all back"). In the novel, Goldfinger proposes to use a small atomic device to blast the safes of Fort Knox--a explosion that would probably require some serious excavating to get the irradiated gold loaded up and out of there. In the film, he wants to blast the US gold supply with a dirty bomb to increase the value of his own stockpile.

Goldfinger's plan and Lex Luthor's San Andreas land scheme from the first Superman movie are the two great evil plots of hero movies, as far as I'm concerned.
As Bond concedes in the film, "My apologies, Goldfinger, it's an inspired plan."

Although she has the most infamous name of all the Bond girls, Pussy Galore shows up as an afterthought, an undeveloped character whose sexuality is gossiped about and then chucked aside for the obligatory final coupling with 007. Fleming devotes far more time to Bond's golf game with Goldfinger than he does Pussy's character. The movie spends more time fleshing her character out!

Some scenes were actually funny, such as when Oddjob demonstrates his karate by splintering Goldfinger's staircase and fireplace before dinner as Goldfinger admits that he doesn't really care for his house. It was also funny and somewhat racist for Goldfinger to hand over his pet cat to feed Oddjob when kitty got blamed for something. There were actually two foul swipes in this novel: the insistence that Koreans love eating cats and that American Southerners rape their sisters (Pussy Galore asks Bond at one point, "What do you call a little girl in the South who can outrun her brother? A virgin.")

The novel was more interesting this time when I pictured new 007 Daniel Craig in the scenes. The "blunt instrument" Bond makes more sense in this one.

But here's something I've almost never said about any adaption: the movie was better.

It is interesting to note how Flemings use of pacing and flow starts to improve substantially from Thunderball on. The Blofield trilogy are incredible page turners. Goldfinger is not. Maybe it is because much of the story is a let down compared to the amazing filmed version. But aside from the interesting characters, the narrative here is ponderous and slow and you are constantly waiting for some action. And waiting way to long...

Very rarely does a film improve upon the source novel. I wrote a review of one, King's Ransom, which was made into a vastly superior film by Akira Kurosawa called High and Low. Goldfinger, the film, is one of the classic Bonds -- my favorite, to be sure. The novel, in contrast, is too long, is illogical in some parts, offensive in others and makes the reader realize what a superb job screenwriter Richard Maibaum did in adapting it for the film. These weaknesses stand out in particular:

First, the behavior of villain Auric Goldfinger is completely illogical during the torture scene. You might remember the terrific laser beam scene in the film where Goldfinger, played by Gert Frobe, threatens to slice James Bond, played by the great Sean Connery, in half. In the film, Bond gets out of the mess by bluffing, making Goldfinger believe that he knows all about Operation Grand Slam, Goldfinger's plan to blow up Fort Knox. Goldfinger reasons that he can keep the CIA and the British Secret Service at bay by keeping Bond alive and making them think that Bond is his guest, not his prisoner.

The novel, in contrast, has Goldfinger threaten Bond with a saw. Bond doesn't mention Operation Grand Slam and has been a constant thorn in Goldfinger's side. Goldfinger has Bond dead to rights and, unlike in the laser beam scene in the film, has no logical reason to spare his life. However, just before Bond is about to be sawed in half, Goldfinger inexplicably spares him and forces Bond to pose as his secretary. There's a running joke that Bond villains seal their own fate by devising elaborate ways to kill him that allow Bond to escape. However, Goldfinger's action in this scene in the novel completely defy logic and cripple the story's credibility. Bond novels are an escape from reality -- an adult comic book -- but this plot development makes absolutely no sense.

In the novel, Goldfinger's plan is to rob Fort Knox of its gold supply. Fleming, unlike Richard Maibaum, apparently never realized how logistically impossible this is. Connery rightfully points out in the film that to rob Fort Knox would require a whole fleet of trucks and several days to complete. Maibaum's plan, while still fantastic, makes more sense -- detonating a nuclear weapon in Fort Knox to irradiate the U.S. gold supply and drive the value of his own supply up ten times over.

In the novel, Pussy Galore begins as a hardened lesbian who has no interest in Bond whatsoever. Of course, by the end of the novel, Bond has "heterosexualized" and overwhelmed her with his masculine charms. It's a very 1950's view of homosexualtiy -- that is, that a homosexual could be "cured" of his/her sexual desires like it was a disease. The attitude seems very backward and ignorant by today's standards.

The film strongly suggests Pussy's lesbianism, but it also shows Pussy, played by Honor Blackman, flirting suggestively with Bond. Blackman's Pussy may have lesbian tendencies, but she clearly also has a strong attraction to the opposite sex. When she falls for Bond, it makes sense, unlike in the novel. Bond still converts her, but the conversion stressed is more along the lines of Pussy joining the good guys rather than going from staunch lesbianism to being a Bond girl.

The film has a lot of Asian villains. Harold Sakata is terrific as Goldfinger's superpowered Korean henchman Oddjob, Burt Kwouk (Kato in the Pink Panther films) is Mr. Ling, a Chinese nuclear scientist who supplies Goldfinger with the bomb and most of Goldfinger's henchmen are Korean. However, the film, for the most part, avoids extreme racial stereotyping. Many of the villains are Asian, but there's no suggestion that simply being Asian is a source of evil. Asians would later play a prominent heroic role in You Only Live Twice.

The novel, in contrast, is vicously racist in nature. The nadir of this being Bond's statement that Koreans "are lower than apes." It's hard to believe that even in the pre-civil rights era of the 1950's, this statement could slip by without triggering a major protest from an Asian rights group. Today, it seems so ugly and hateful that I immediately lost a lot of respect for Ian Fleming. This is his hero who believes these vile things, so clearly what Bond believes, Fleming believes -- there's no way to separate the two. One wonders which other racial groups Fleming was bigoted against. It's a disgraceful moment in the Bond saga and a shameful comment on Fleming's view of the world.

Novels like Casino Royale, From Russia With Love, Dr. No, On Her Majesty's Secret Service and You Only Live Twice are classics and rank among my favorite novels. Goldfinger, however, falls way short of that standard. When I finished Goldfinger, I was left wishing that I had not read it and instead had left my impression of the story to the vastly superior film. The novel not only disappointed me, it made me think much less of Ian Fleming as a person.