From Russia with Love

From Russia with Love

By Ian Fleming

After a jam-packed couple of weeks, I have finally finished reading Ian Fleming's From Russia with Love. Speaking as a reader that has watched the progression of both Bond as a character and Fleming's style, I was intrigued by this novel because of its uniqueness in comparison to the other novels which came before it in the series.

Fleming presents an introduction to the novel with a personal note that a number of details about the operations of the Russian Secret Service during the Cold War are accurately presented in the novel as they would happen in reality. This includes the details of what the offices looked like, a fact which I found surprising due to the potential risks that could have accompanied this novel's publication.

This courage that the writer presents in his note seems to also bleed into Bond's character, making him more courageous than in the past novels. The structure of it, in addition, was brilliant because it gave the reader a chance to peek behind enemy lines and know what was happening even before Bond entered the plot, making the climax that much more thrilling. When it comes to writing suspense—particularly the kind of story when two characters/countries are pitted against each other, it’s important for the reader to see both sides and get a picture of what’s going on.

Why is this?

For one, it explains the motivation on both sides. In this case, both sides want the same thing—the power, advancement, and betterment of their society which comes from winning a war. And in Fleming’s case, showing both sides only allows us to see the lengths to which each one will go.

But at the same time, there’s another reason seeing both sides of the hand (in this case) is important. By allowing the reader to see both what the protagonist and antagonist are up to on multiple levels, the writer is ratcheting up the tension. While both sides go to greater depths of desperation and sympathy, the reader is kept on edge. Wondering what may happen next. And in doing so, any twists and turns which develop would only feel well-deserved because they have the appropriate amount of clues to guess what lies ahead. This style is not like the previous Fleming novels which came before, and its bold approach is one that pays off.

However, if I would have to give this novel criticism, I would say that the way that it transitions away from Bond's romance in the last novel to the current "Bond girl" seems a little bit far-fetched for me, as if Fleming wished to stop the series with the last book and thought, "what the hell, one more won't kill me."

This is a problem I’ve often had with book series, and I think it’s important to note. Donald Maass wrote a fantastic craft book called Writing the Breakout Novel. I found this book immensely helpful when thinking about what a novel series should look like. He writes that, on the surface, it should appear as a unified line (with common elements such as a common protagonist, common setting, and sometimes even a common quest/goal—although he discourages against the last), but each novel should reveal something new. This applies both to the protagonist as well as the thematic workings. The point and developments working in each novel are what set them apart.

But I’d like to go a step further with that. While it’s important to set each novel apart (and Fleming does a terrific job of doing this with further development of Bond and the point he’s making), it’s also important to maintain the integrity of each piece. If a change must be made to the cast of characters from one novel to the next or some prominent alteration to the universe take effect to make the next novel different, the reader should be able to believe that the change which occurred was a logical one.

While the common reader might not pick up on it at first, Fleming’s dismissal of the previous love interest (Tiffany Case) directly undermines the characterization of her in Diamonds Are Forever. This distracted me and forced me to reread a few paragraphs over as I tried to accept the reality of the new novel. It struck me as a plastic fix for a change that needed to be made rather than a well-articulated artistic choice.

But while Fleming struggled there, I thought that the pacing was excellent in the beginning, but it starts to become infuriating as the climax unravels. It does not specify what happens to a vital piece of evidence that a decent portion of the novel focuses around. Nor does it detail what happens to some of the characters in the end of the book. The novel ends in a way that there is no real closure for the reader and no real ease down from the climax. If this was Fleming's way to create a cliffhanger, I would say that it's effective as such but does not seem to be that useful in terms of the novel's central focus.

Lastly, this novel focuses a little more with gadgets than the previous ones, which is intriguing and serves in making this novel unique. It was almost like Fleming had read Maass’s thoughts on novel series before writing the novel (despite that Fleming died some thirty years before Maass’s craft book was published). It made From Russia with Love wonderful. This remains to be an intriguing piece of literature with exceptional characterization of every key player.

I'm interested to see how the next one will pick up from here.