The story here is that James has been told to get more intelligence on Auric Goldfinger, who is suspected of smuggling gold internationally. James has already met Goldfinger by chance before he is given this mission, so happily when James's mission is explained the reader knows who all the characters are so no one gets confused. Conveniently, Goldfinger is a member of the golf club James played at when he was a teenager so James hangs out there and waits for Goldfinger to show up, then challenges him to a golf game which is 18 agonizing holes and about 30 pages long. James wins, of course. Then James and Goldfinger become chummy, and James does a bit of sneaking around, but gets caught and Goldfinger keeps him prisoner and makes him do the admin work for his next heist. How will James save the day?
The story here is nothing groundbreaking or exciting. Everything that happens is pretty standard procedure for a spy book, and there is little that would surprise anyone. Maybe it's because this such a famous Bond story, and has inspired countless other spy books and films, that Goldfinger doesn't feel fresh and original. Maybe in 1959, before there were the Bond films and all the books, this felt new and exciting, but 60 years and lots of Bond stuff later, and all if this feels a bit old fashioned.
Speaking of old fashioned, I think we need to talk about the women in the book, or maybe Bond's attitude to them, or maybe Fleming's attitude. We all probably expect this, but every female character here is drawn to James, and is little more than an amusement to him, except (ahem) Pussy Galore, who is a lesbian crime boss that James manages to seduce and turn straight. He says she just hasn't met a real man yet. And at that point my eyes rolled harder than they ever have. Maybe if I was 13 or so I would have thought Bond's gifts with women was awesome, but as a grown up it seems horrendously cliche and adolescent. James is some sort of super macho, male fantasy super hero and it's all awfully tedious.
Another part which I think needs mentioning is the page or so rant Fleming goes on about "pansies" being a result of giving women the vote and sex equality (his words not mine). I didn't know people in 1959 still thought women shouldn't be allowed to vote, and this was really clumsily thrown in there - maybe it had been building up in Fleming's head and he had to get it out some how.
All in all, this was not my cup of tea at all. I didn't think it would be going in, and I only read it because it was on sale for £1. This is one where you should stick to the film.
0 comments:
Post a Comment