Publication history
Dr. No was released on 31 March 1958 in the UK as a hardcover edition by the publishers Jonathan Cape.[62] A paperback edition was issued by Pan Books in February 1960; over 115,000 copies were sold that year.[63] The first American edition was published in June 1958 by Macmillan under the name Doctor No.[64] The largest boost in sales of the novel came in 1962 with the release of the film adaptation. In the seven months after the picture's release, 1.5 million copies of the book were sold.[65] In 1964 the novel was serialised in France-Soir for the French market, which led to increased sales of Bond works in that country; 480,000 French-language copies of the six Bond novels were sold that year.[66] Since its initial publication the book has been issued in numerous hardback and paperback editions, translated into several languages and has never been out of print.[67]
In 2023 Ian Fleming Publications—the company that administers all Fleming's literary works—had the Bond series edited as part of a sensitivity review to remove or reword some racial or ethnic descriptors. The rerelease of the series was for the 70th anniversary of Casino Royale, the first Bond novel.[68]
Reviews
For the first time in the Bond series, Fleming encountered harsh criticism.[69] The most virulent came from Paul Johnson of the New Statesman, who opened his review, "Sex, Snobbery and Sadism", with: "I have just finished what is, without doubt, the nastiest book I have ever read". He went on to say that "by the time I was a third of the way through, I had to suppress a strong impulse to throw the thing away".[1] Although he recognised that Bond represented "a social phenomenon of some importance", he saw this as a negative element, as the phenomenon concerned "three basic ingredients in Dr. No, all unhealthy, all thoroughly English: the sadism of a schoolboy bully, the mechanical, two-dimensional sex-longings of a frustrated adolescent, and the crude, snob-cravings of a suburban adult". Johnson saw no positives in Dr. No, saying that "Mr Fleming has no literary skill, the construction of the book is chaotic, and entire incidents and situations are inserted, and then forgotten, in a haphazard manner."[1]
Perhaps these are superficial excuses. Perhaps Bond's blatant heterosexuality is a subconscious protest against the current fashion for sexual confusion. Perhaps the violence springs from a psychosomatic rejection of Welfare wigs, teeth and spectacles and Bond's luxury meals are simply saying "no" to toad-in-the-hole and tele-bickies. Who can say? Who can say whether or not Dr Fu Manchu was a traumatic image of Sax Rohmer's father? Who, for the matter of that, cares?
Ian Fleming, letter to The Manchester Guardian[70]
Maurice Richardson, of The Observer, considered the novel "the usual sado-masochistic free-for-all, plus octopuses".[71] The unnamed critic in The Manchester Guardian referred to Johnson's "sex, snobbery and sadism" complaint. They highlighted the "sinister ... cult of luxury for its own sake", with Bond's enjoyment of branded and bespoke products, but disagreed with part of Johnson's summary that the novel was a sign of moral decay; rather, "we should be grateful to Mr. Fleming for providing a conveniently accessible safety-valve for the boiling sensibility of modern man."[72] This reviewer also conceded that while "the casualties take place on a somewhat narrower front than usual, they are heavy".[72] In April 1958, Fleming wrote to The Manchester Guardian in defence of his work, referring to both that paper's review of Dr. No and the article in The Twentieth Century. Fleming partly accepted the criticism concerning the exclusivity of Bond's objects, such as cigarettes and food, but defended it on the basis that "I had to fit Bond out with some theatrical props".[70] These included his cocktail, ("The Vesper") and Bond's diet. Fleming called these devices "vulgar foibles" which he was saddled with, although maybe, he suggested, "Bond's luxury meals are simply saying 'no' to toad-in-the-hole and tele-bickies."[70]
Writing in The Times Literary Supplement, Philip Stead was more generous to Dr. No. Despite thinking that Fleming was offering "too opulent a feast"[73] with the book, Stead argued that Fleming managed to pull this off, where "a less accomplished writer ... would never have got away with this story."[73] Raymond Chandler reviewed the novel for The Sunday Times and praised as "masterly" Fleming's depiction of colonial Kingston in the first chapter. Chandler admired Fleming's writing, which had "an acute sense of pace. ... You don't have to work at Ian Fleming. He does the work for you."[57]
The reviewer for Time acknowledged the critical storm around Fleming and Dr. No, but was broadly welcoming of the book, writing that while "not all readers will agree that Dr. No ... is magnificent writing, ... pages of it, at least, qualify for Ezra Pound's classic comment on Tropic of Cancer: 'At last, an unprintable book that is readable'."[42] In The New York Times, Anthony Boucher—described by Fleming's biographer John Pearson as "throughout an avid anti-Bond and an anti-Fleming man"[74]—was again damning of Fleming's work, saying "it's harder than ever to see why an ardent coterie so admires Ian Fleming's tales".[75] Benson described Boucher's critique as "true to form" and "a tirade"[76] as Boucher concluded his review by saying: "it is 80,000 words long, with enough plot for 8,000 and enough originality for 800."[75]
Glendy Culligan of The Washington Post described the novel as a "thin little whodunit which rocked the British Empire and shook the English Establishment", adding "Bully for it!"[77] Culligan admitted that "Confidentially though, we enjoyed Dr. No, and if this be sick, sick, sick, gentlemen, make the most of it." James Sandoe in his book review for The New York Herald Tribune was very positive about Dr. No and thought that it was "the most artfully bold, dizzyingly poised thriller of the decade. You'd much better read it than read about it."[76]
The writer Simon Winder believes that because Fleming was writing about Jamaica, the result was "perhaps the most attractive of all the Bond books—the most relaxed, the most fiendish, the most confident".[19] According to the literary analyst LeRoy L. Panek, in his examination of 20th century British spy novels, Fleming knew his outdated view of Jamaica would soon be overtaken by events—as evidenced by the novel's description of how the Queen's Club would be lost during independence struggles.[78][h] According to the cultural historian Michael Denning, this acknowledgement of the end-of-empire leads to a "sense of doom" that is the result of "a shadow of real history hanging over the stories".[80]
