Skip to main content

"Shaken not stirred"


I found the following online. I'm afraid I can't offer a named source. But I leave it here for any one of my readers who may wonder why James Bond demands that his martinis be shaken, not stirred. 

----------------------------------------------   

This specific preference wasn't a quirk of the cinematic Bond; it originated in Ian Fleming's 1953 debut novel, Casino Royale. When Bond orders his signature drink—later named the "Vesper"—he demands a highly specific recipe: "Three measures of Gordon's, one of vodka, half a measure of Kina Lillet. Shake it very well until it's ice-cold, then add a large thin slice of lemon peel."

A traditional stirred Vesper is an incredibly potent, boozy concoction. By demanding it shaken, the ice violently shatters and melts into the drink, causing significant dilution. This waters down the alcohol content, allowing the spy to maintain his wits and keep a sharp edge while appearing to match his adversaries drink for drink at the casino table.

The era of the novels offers another clue. In the mid-20th century, vodka was not the ultra-refined, multi-filtered spirit common today. Much of the vodka available in post-war Britain was made from potatoes and retained harsh, oily impurities. Vigorously shaking the drink helped disperse these residual oils, making a rough spirit considerably more palatable.


Labels:

Comments

  1. HenryOctober 21, 2026 at 5:57 AM

    I doubt that ice would shatter from being shaken, and, if it did, it wouldn't shatter violently; the shaking might be violent, not the shattering. But I claim no expertise as to this.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...
27 comments
Read more

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...
12 comments
Read more

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable a...
2 comments
Read more