Page "Goldfinger (novel)" Paragraph 23

Goldfinger received more positive reviews than Fleming's previous novel, Dr. No, which had faced widespread criticism in the British media.

Writing in The Observer, Maurice Richardson thought that " Mr. Fleming seems to be leaving realism further and further behind and developing only in the direction of an atomic, sophisticated Sapper.

" Even when leaving reality behind, however, Richardson considers that Fleming, " even with his forked tongue sticking right through his cheek, ... remains maniacally readable ".

Richardson picked up on two areas relating to the characters of the book, saying that Goldfinger " is the most preposterous specimen yet displayed in Mr. Fleming's museum of super fiends ", whilst, referring to the novel's central character, observed that " the real trouble with Bond, from a literary point of view, is that he is becoming more and more synthetic and zombie-ish.

Perhaps it is just as well.

" Writing in The Manchester Guardian, Roy Perrott observed that " Goldfinger ... will not let close admirers down ".

Perrott thought that overall " Fleming is again at his best when most sportingly Buchan-ish as in the motoring pursuit across Europe "; he summarised the book by saying that it was " hard to put down ; but some of us wish we had the good taste just to try.