Casino Royale (Novel) – Analysis
October 22, 2011 2 Comments
Casino Royale (1953) is the first of Ian Fleming’s Bond novels, and since I’ve decided to write my master’s thesis on this classic series of espionage novels, blogging about the series would be a help to my own writing process. I’ll be dealing with the semiotic and propaganda effects of real events being fictionalized, and then the resulting impact and purpose of the fiction as it passes into mass media consumption. As Fleming himself noted, “everything I write has precedent in truth.”
This is crucial to keep in mind as one works through the novels and films, as it becomes clearer and clearer that Fleming, himself a top British intelligence agent, gradually reveals the means and methods of control and manipulation by the top of the pyramid. Bond himself is a cog in this machine, situated as the symbol of the loyal, western, capitalist hemisphere, battling what he discovers to be the evil Soviet anti-spy agency, SMERSH. SMERSH is a kind of Soviet “Secret Team” that proclaims “death to all spies.”
In the beginning, however, Bond is not after SMERSH, but a wealthy, disfigured rogue who stuck out on his own and created a “fifth column” from SMERSH, named LeChiffre. LeChiffre translates as “the cypher,” letting us know more is at work here. LeChiffre, according to Bond writer Ian MacIntyre, was based on British Satanist/occultist Aleister Crowley.
In fact, Ian Fleming, it has recently been claimed by researcher Anthony Masters, was responsible for crafting the plot to lure Rudolph Hess to Scotland based on a bogus astrological chart that tickled Hess’ fancy, created by Crowley. The plot worked, apparently, and Hess parachuted into Scotland and was captured. LeChiffre, “the cypher,” has curious features, and like many Bond villains a strange sexual appetite and fixation, in the same vein as Crowley.
Soon into the novel, Bond meets his first “Bond girl,” Vesper Lynd, who will double-cross him and be exposed as a SMERSH agent working under duress. What’s interesting is that a team of Bulgarian communists attempts to assassinate Bond with an explosive device soon after Bond arrives in the fictional Royale-Les-Eaux in Northern France. The explosion fails in its design, however, and a cover story is created, blaming in on leftist, communistic terror.
This is interesting because it’s an example of disinformation, where the actual events – the attempted fifth column assassination of Bond, are spun to be something entirely different - a communist terror attack, reminiscent of Hitler’s false flag with the Reichstag, which he blamed on the communists. It also brings to mind similar situations, like Operation Gladio, although Gladio was actually run by NATO.
Another interesting section is where Bond philosophically ruminates on theodicy after LeChiffre is assassinated by SMERSH. Bond says he respects LeChiffre for being fully evil, instead of operating behind a moral facade. Bond reasons that the devil is given a bad rap, and that good and evil are two sides of the same coin. Here we see, as Umberto Eco has noted in his analysis, a dualistic, Freemasonic, Manichaean philosophy at work that reminds one of the dualistic, Manichaean worldview at work at that time, where the capitalist west is portrayed as “good,” and the “evil empire” of the Soviets as the embodiment of all that is evil.
However, even within the pro-English imperial novel of Fleming himself, good and evil appear to be relativized, and certainly in the subject of espionage and tradecraft, issues are more gray than then they are black and white. Yet LeChiffre isn’t a part of SMERSH - he’s a rogue, a “fifth column,” that operates outside the norms of east versus west, and this Bond seems to respect. At the end of this discourse, Mathis tells Bond whatever moral conclusion he comes to, not to quit the secret service, as he is a “machine.” Bond, as is often thought, is not a fancy-free secret agent lover, as the films have classically portrayed, but is in fact a very internally conflicted individual in the novel. Certainly he has his share of free love, but the older films present only the lackadaisical Bond, not the brooding philosopher. The new Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace films do elucidate this side of Bond, which makes them more mature, in my estimation. Yet, I think his (and by extension possibly Fleming’s) Manichaean, gnostic theodicy is incoherent.