Casino Royale by Ian Fleming
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Holy shit... I've always wanted to read the original James Bond novels, and after reading this first one, I think I'll definitely continue with the series. At least read all of the original ones that Fleming wrote (there are twelve of them, if I'm not mistaken). Although this is quite an old book being originally published in 1953, I know there are plenty of people out there like me who have only seen the movies and haven't read the novels (or are just getting into reading the novels which is why you might be reading this review). Like always, there are some major differences between the book and films, in order to point out those differences though, I'll have to reveal some critical plot points, and I will be spoiling the ending.

While the movies can be fairly predictable and formulaic, there were some twists here in the novel that I didn't quite expect, and do not remember there being sufficient enough analogs for from the films.

Spoilers Ahead

As much as I would like to evaluate the book on it's own merits, it's impossible not to make comparisons with the films. Near as I can tell, some of the plot points and characterizations in the Casino Royale novel were taken and used for 1962's Dr. No. But I haven't read the Doctor No novel, so I'm not sure if maybe there are just repeating elements and characters. Connery's Bond is definitely much closer to the original novel character than Daniel Craig's version, but the major plot points are there, with the exception of the ending and the background plot scaffolding. Obviously, the only explanation needed for the novel is “communism bad.”

First, I suppose I should say that all of the hallmark character traits for Bond are here, as are with the villains. Vesper, the female protagonist, however is much different than the way she is portrayed in the novel versus the Bond women of the films. Yes, I agree, Denise Richards made for one sexy scientist, but the majority of the Bond women in films (and maybe for the other books, I'll have to find out for myself) come in two flavors; damsel-in-distress or deadly-vixen, typical male power fantasy proxies, and objects used to increase the agency of the male protagonist rather than independent and intelligent characters with their own agency.

My wife has often teased me that Bond is just a womanizer and an idyllic vestige of a dying patriarchy. To a certain extent that's true. The character as well as the novel itself are a product of the early 1950s. Bond has been revised over the years, but also doesn't fundamentally change much. What amazed me the most was that this novel gives Bond a canonical reason for being a womanizer, and is not entirely related to the charade of being a spy, instead it's because Bond and Vesper fall deeply in love with each other. The relationship between Bond and Vesper in the film adaptation is a bit combative and not nearly as playfully flirty or romantic as it is shown to be in the book. There's practically an entire chapter where Bond lies in his hospital bed analyzing their relationship, and whether or not he wants to retire and get married, because he's just faced death and now has a reason to live.

For the most part, the 2006 movie adaptation follows the same three-act structure that the book does; casino section, torture section, and the healing and recovery portions with a final twist. Technically Bond does fall for Vesper, but the movie doesn't really sell you on it.

All of the espionage and action is finished up by the end of the second act, and roughly two-thirds of the way the through the book. Shockingly the torture scene in the second act of the book is just a brutal and horrific in print as it was watching Daniel Craig's balls get smashed, it's no wonder why Casino Royale wasn't chosen for any of the early movies, it would have been too graphic to translate in a 1:1 fashion.

The final third though is very mushy and romantic without much action, and then book abruptly ends on a massive downer. Vesper commits suicide as it's revealed that she was a double-agent. And that's it, that's the end of the book! We're led to believe in a false sense of “happily ever after” just to have it ripped away at the last second. The final line of the novel is:

“The bitch is dead now.”

It works well too, because there is an uneasiness to the pages, you're anticipating that SOMETHING is going to go wrong, her being a double-agent and working a long con would have been cliche, but could have worked... That's what they opted for in the movie. Having her take her own life just pushes the twist over the edge though, especially since the couple aren't in any immediate danger at the time. The deadliest threat to her life isn't a bullet, but rather her conscience and guilt.

Bond's cold womanizing nature is just reinforced because the one time that he lets his guard down his heart is absolutely ripped from his chest in more ways than just one. By the end of the book he is broken physically, mentally, and emotionally.

Other things that stood out to me were the gun and the car, the two accessories that define double-O seven. Beginning with Sean Connery we've been accustomed to seeing Aston Martin and Walther as the trademark brand names. He drives a DB5 beginning in Goldfinger (a car that makes re-appearances in Tomorrow Never Dies and the Casino Royale) and he carries a PPK chambered in .32 acp (described as 7.65mm x 17mm in the original theatrical trailer for Dr. No)... I could rant about how annoyed I am that Daniel Craig's Bond carries a Walther PDP chambered in 9x19mm, I would contend that a Glock 42 chambered in .380 acp is more likely and practical (threaded barrells are readily available and suitable for a small silencer), but that's probably an opine for another time.

Here, in the novel, Bond carries a Beretta 418 chambered in .25 acp and drives a 1930 Bentley 4 ½ Litre with a supercharger (the “Blower Bentley” engine). I find this incredibly fascinating; both the questionable lethality of the 418 and associated cartridge, as well as the maneuverability and top speed of the Bentley, leave a lot to be desired even for the early 1950s. It would seem to me that both are style over substance, whereas the Aston and the Walther from the Connery days are far more effective tools for an operative.

There is one scene in the novel where Bond grabs a Colt Single Action Army(sensibly chambered in God's cartridge, .45 acp) from the glove compartment of his car, and there's a line that reference the reason why the Colt was chosen, and it's because Bond knows he'll be accurate up to a hundred yards with it.

Perhaps the weak pistol and relatively lethargic motor carriage are meant to extenuate Bond's skills, it's less about the tools and more about the man who wields them.

View all my reviews

Capitalist Punishment: How Wall Street Is Using Your Money to Create a Country You Didn't Vote for by Vivek Ramaswamy My rating: 4 of 5 stars

So, this book has its ups and downs. It started off strong. About half-way through I wasn't feeling it, but pushed through. By the end I was satisfied with the book, but I'm not overly enthusiastic about getting other people to read it. If you like what he has to say in interviews, then I would recommend the book though. He goes into some depth regarding his philosophy on how markets should be governed.

Let's get the worst things about this book out of the way first. It's almost exactly like Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Which is interesting if you're looking at the two books side-by-side, considering Klein definitely approaches the situation from a very left-leaning perspective. Ramaswamy is, conversely, a Friedman-type (closer to David than his father Milton though). Regardless, they are very much the same type of book. Both look at the woes of the market from an “othering” perspective and proceed to demonize the faceless “Wall Street.” And neither book has any real good solutions with how to deal with this dilemma. Or, in the least, I didn’t feel like there was much of any solution present. That being said, it did get me to think about my own personal finances, which is why I went with four stars. These are difficult questions to navigate, especially when blown up to macro-economic scales. I would like to think that I have some good answers for how shit should be done, but the reality is that I, as one man, do not have all the information necessary to formulate a grand strategy.

I do like this book a little bit more than Klein's offering, if only for the fact that Ramaswamy is seemingly willing to take action and put his money where his mouth is. This book is practically a giant advertisement for Ramaswamy's investment company, Strive, a competitor to Vanguard, BlackRock, and State Street... Or at least that's the idea. Whether or not his business works is another thing entirely. I'm not mad about that. He got me to read the whole fucking book, and I came away thinking about this stuff in a new way. I personally have my retirement with Vanguard, but realistically, my accounts are less than a rounding error for them. Nevertheless, I will take a closer look at how the mutual funds that I've bought into are being invested.

So what is this book about? Well, in short it's about how terrible ESG is; as an investment strategy, as a rating system, and how it is being applied to the greater economic system. I don't disagree with Ramaswamy, Klaus Schwab is clearly a fucking Bond Villian, full-stop (no, I will not eat the bugs). But, here's the thing, it's extremely easy to demonize what's already going on, and it's easy to criticize efforts of some to try and shift the paradigm in a direction they think will save the planet, save the species, etc. There are really only three different perspectives to the matter; either you think “it's all a sham,” “it's all intentionally opaque,” or “the kool-aid tastes great.”

If it's all a sham, and financial titans are playing us for fools with a shell game, or three-card monty, then maybe we deserve it for not waking up to the con sooner, or coming up with a better solution. On the other hand, it could be intentionally opaque and therefore is actually a really smart way to deal with money, because most of us are pretty stupid and the average person doesn't have the mental space to think about how the economy works. Lastly, maybe you are a smart individual and you can see the benefits of trying to build a system around different principals other than the ones we currently use. I honestly don't think it's entirely just a re-branding of business as usual. However, what I don't particularly care for is the idea that ESG scores can be weaponized against businesses, rather than being a guide for the public at large to make a determination for themselves which businesses they want to support.

One of the big issues that Vivek points out is that the ratings boards aren't really independent organizations, but self-policing happens in a lot of industries. It should still be done in a more transparent manner and open to critique. I think the main concern is that the system is being perverted through an echo chamber. If the goals of ESG are noble ones, and it's not just a way to placate and control the masses, there will be room for people to invest in companies with poor ESG scores, and if ESG is really what the market wants, those will be the companies that survive into the next generation, ESG will therefore be a good indicator of a business’ worth. But we have to be involved, otherwise there’s no reason for anyone to listen to a different perspective. We’re all in this together as a species. Regardless of whether or not you think Climate Change and EDI are boogeymen invented by the elites, there’s nothing wrong with being concerned about the effect that we each have on the planet. Ted Turner had already thought of that, that’s why he started indoctrinating us as children with Captain Planet. I used to love that cartoon, and I do feel bad about littering.

Not everybody is going to be vegan, that’s a pipedream, maybe it’s about learning how to convert cow farts into something that isn’t warming up our planet, eh? There has to be some fucking middle ground. But I’m pushing for the capacity for every household to have two steaks per person at least two nights a week. Is the 3D printed meat going to win the awards? What about the company that is growing the meat from cultured cells? There’s definitely room in the market for people who want to eat 3D printed meat.

Ultimately, that was my takeaway. Even though Rawmaswamy complains about Vanguard, BlackRock, and State Street, and tries to call them on their bluff about the ESG stuff, he also is honestly advocating for a market system that lets ESG compete against whatever else might emerge as a ratings system. But this is what we do as humans, and that’s why game theory exists. We’re still a bunch of talking apes trying to out-compete each other in different and measurable ways. As the years go by and successive generations come and go, we’re refining the experience both as individuals and collectively.

Thanks for making it to the end! I do try to do progress updates as I read or listen to books. If you liked this, view all my reviews