Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Trouble getting through the books?


123 replies to this topic

#31 Iceskater101

Iceskater101

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2398 posts
  • Location:Midwest, MN

Posted 14 June 2014 - 01:22 AM

Yeah I am sorry if my post came across as that I was mad, I'm not. I respect that everyone has their own opinions, I figured I would share mine and see if anyone also felt the same way or felt differently.



#32 freemo

freemo

    Commander RNR

  • Veterans Reserve
  • PipPipPip
  • 2995 posts
  • Location:Here

Posted 14 June 2014 - 02:48 AM

Live and Let Die (1954): James Bond smashes the black communist machine.

From Russia with Love (1957): James Bond is "pimped out" for England.

SKYFALL (2012): James Bond and his mum go for a Sunday drive.



#33 Double Naught spy

Double Naught spy

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 169 posts

Posted 14 June 2014 - 03:17 AM

(2014)  Mere seconds after taking a mouthful of beer, Double Naught spy cleans off his computer screen after reading Freemo's post.   


Edited by Double Naught spy, 14 June 2014 - 03:19 AM.


#34 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 14 June 2014 - 06:50 AM

Yeah I am sorry if my post came across as that I was mad, I'm not. I respect that everyone has their own opinions, I figured I would share mine and see if anyone also felt the same way or felt differently.

 

I hope it has been just a lively discussion so far.  I welcome your opinion, the point-of-view of a young woman, which must clash with Fleming´s views, of course.  But it should be healthy for some male fans to at least consider why one enjoys Fleming´s creation.

 

But I would encourage you to seek out the other books, mainly "On Her Majesty´s Secret Service".  Maybe it will give you another impression of the book-Bond.



#35 Iceskater101

Iceskater101

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2398 posts
  • Location:Midwest, MN

Posted 14 June 2014 - 10:29 PM

Yeah it could be that I don't like Live and Let Die. I mean Casino Royale I enjoyed despite the fact that Bond talks about women and their purpose is to pleasure men. 



#36 Grard Bond

Grard Bond

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 518 posts
  • Location:The Netherlands

Posted 14 June 2014 - 11:05 PM

When I was a teenager I didn't realy like LaLD either, the first half was for me very slow and a little boring, the second half I liked a lot better.

 

Just try OHMSS, it's a very good read, it has suspense, action and romance and ofcourse the great and emotional ending. It was and still is the first and only book I cried with when I finished it.

And immidiately after it, try YOLT, which direct follows the previous one.

 

I think  and suspect you will like it.


Edited by Grard Bond, 14 June 2014 - 11:06 PM.


#37 Odd Jobbies

Odd Jobbies

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1573 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 15 June 2014 - 08:08 AM

I'll sing it again - please don't be tempted to hopscotch through the books.

 

You may get to the better one's sooner, but they will seem no less misogynistic.

 

It's the character development that occurs chronologically that's the key to seeing the real Bond-journey - that of heartbreak and renewal.

 

The small and big events of this chronological journey informs his regard for woman, one of respect for their power - the heartache they can bring if allowed too close; a far worse pain for Bond than the many tortures given him by henchmen and villains.

 

Read them out of order and forever be repulsed by apparent Bond's misogyny.



#38 Grard Bond

Grard Bond

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 518 posts
  • Location:The Netherlands

Posted 15 June 2014 - 10:42 AM

I've never read the books in chronological order, not as a teenager and not in later years. It didn't realy effect my reading or understanding of the Bond character. Let's face it: it's not exactly literature, just fun to read fiction.

I also never thought the books were offensive or racist, I always kept in mind it's time period when it was written and first published.

 

So why let Iceskater read books she will probably not like? Maybe if she first read a couple which she's not offended by, she will read  a few more in the future?!


Edited by Grard Bond, 15 June 2014 - 10:48 AM.


#39 JackUnion

JackUnion

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 47 posts

Posted 15 June 2014 - 04:34 PM

I'm just gonna throw this out there, but I'm pretty sure Fleming wasn't the first, last, or only writer to talk down about women or minorities or make a main character seem unlikeable to some readers. I think if you don't want to be offended by what you read...stick with the soft stuff like the Hunger Games...or that other thing...fault in our stars.

 

If you're going to hang on to a single point, 'women are for pleasure'; well this is a trained killler, who spends hours drinking, gambling, fucking with out feel, and living on the edge of life day in and day out. I'm gonna find it hard to believe that he feels rosy or PC (for 2014) about anything. 



#40 Professor Pi

Professor Pi

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1430 posts

Posted 15 June 2014 - 05:41 PM

Hi Iceskater,

 

Kudos to you on starting to read the books and opening up about your thoughts on them.  I wish to second Grard Bond's and SecretAgentFan's recommendations.  Read On Her Majesty's Secret Service (you already know the story from the movie) and then You Only Live Twice (completely different from the movie.)  Skip TMWTGG as it was ghost written by another author since Fleming died before completing it.  Then you can better decide if the earlier novels are worth your time.

 

The way I view literary Bond's character arc is that his falling for Vesper and her betrayal hardened him to be the sexist chauvinist he is so often renown for.  Yet each of the female characters he meets in subsequent books teaches him something good he rediscovers about the fairer gender--be it innocence (Solitaire), friendship (Gala Brand), domestic relationship (Tiffany Case), trust (Tatiana), allies (Galore, the Mastersons), self-reliance (Honey), determination (FYEO's Havelock), and yes, sex (Domino), all resourcefully intelligent within their fantastical environments--rebuilding his character to the point where he meets Tracy and then is nurtured back to health by Kissy.  Indeed, Fleming's giving Theresa di Vicenzo a serious name, over those of Honey and Miss Galore, conveys the author's attempt at strengthening the women characters in his novels.  The filmmakers have done the same with QoS' Camille Montes after the embarrasment of Christmas Jones.

 

And I never found any of Fleming's female characters as poorly conceived or written as Ernest Hemingway's (all often crying within pages of being introduced.)  If you are doing any Women's Studies in school, a paper on Fleming's literary female characters would be very interesting.  Just a thought.


Edited by Professor Pi, 15 June 2014 - 05:42 PM.


#41 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 15 June 2014 - 06:27 PM

Hi Iceskater,

...Skip TMWTGG as it was ghost written by another author since Fleming died before completing it...


Erm, no. This is an often repeated fan rumour that - as far as anyone with access to the manuscripts is able to see - lacks any kind of proof. TMWTGG, to the best of our knowledge, wasn't ghostwritten, neither in part nor as a whole. The fact a prominent author, Kingsley Amis, took a look at it after Fleming's death means nothing but just that; he offered suggestions to improve the novel which were ignored altogether as far as I recall. This served as excuse for generations of fans speculating about supposed deeper involvement by Amis. Since these speculations have been turned down repeatedly we should not spread them needlessly here.

Fact is, Fleming was already a seriously ill man, troubled, miserable at times, heavily influenced by his ailing health and other private circumstances. The book we know as TMWTGG was effectively all he was able to produce under the circumstances. It's doubtful it would have been any different - let alone better - had Fleming lived another year.

#42 Professor Pi

Professor Pi

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1430 posts

Posted 15 June 2014 - 06:46 PM

Okay.  Maybe ghost written wasn't the best term for it, but according to wikipedia:

 

The first draft and part of the editing process was completed before Fleming's death and the manuscript had passed through the hands of his copy editor, William Plomer, but it was not as polished as other Bond stories. Much of the detail contained in the previous novels was missing, as this was often added by Fleming in the second draft. Publishers Jonathan Cape passed the manuscript to Kingsley Amis for his thoughts and advice on the story, although his suggestions were not subsequently used.

 

http://en.wikipedia....den_Gun_(novel):

 

Suffice to say it was still a work in progress. 



#43 Odd Jobbies

Odd Jobbies

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1573 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 15 June 2014 - 07:24 PM

I've never read the books in chronological order, not as a teenager and not in later years. It didn't realy effect my reading or understanding of the Bond character. Let's face it: it's not exactly literature, just fun to read fiction.

I also never thought the books were offensive or racist, I always kept in mind it's time period when it was written and first published.

 

So why let Iceskater read books she will probably not like? Maybe if she first read a couple which she's not offended by, she will read  a few more in the future?!

Sure reading them in her own order might be better than not reading at all, but with respect if you haven't read them in order you can't really say that this doesn't offer anything more.

 

Perhaps other's here will chip in as to whether reading them in order gave them anything extra - would be interesting to know.

 

IMO doing them out of order will certainly make them seem pulpy, as it's the character arc over the series that really gives them depth.


 

Hi Iceskater,

...Skip TMWTGG as it was ghost written by another author since Fleming died before completing it...


Erm, no. This is an often repeated fan rumour that - as far as anyone with access to the manuscripts is able to see - lacks any kind of proof. TMWTGG, to the best of our knowledge, wasn't ghostwritten, neither in part nor as a whole..

 

I'm sure you're right, but it's not vintage Fleming as a whole. It starts with the wonderful bold, ruthless strokes of Fleming, but by the end it's standard thriller material. That doesn't mean it's not Fleming, since DAF meandered a little that way in the final third.

 

But i do love the epilogue of TMWTGG :)



#44 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 15 June 2014 - 08:45 PM

TMWTGG is what it is, Fleming's last work for better or worse. The fact it's for a large part a rehash of former adventures, minus any of their more captivating elements, makes one wonder - pointlessly - whether YOLT wouldn't have been the better end for the series. As it is there was no more steam left and no amount of moaning will ever provide us with a 'better' TMWTGG.

As for Wikipedia as a reliable source...well, suffice it to say the Wikipedia entry for YOLT makes a number of interesting points about this novel's themes and elements, all very erudite and handy for our continued entertainment. Sadly it also claims "The briefing between Bond and M is the first time in the twelve books that Fleming acknowledges the defections" [of the so-called 'Cambridge Five'] which is sadly utter tosh, as the defection of Burgess and Maclean features already prominently in FRWL, a fact that seems to have escaped the merry experts of this Wikipedia article...

Even more hilarious than this little chuckle-worthy detail is that I tried repeatedly to correct this error, only to see it resurrected at the hands of whatever higher entities guard the integrity of Wiki's articles. It may be the fact this nonsense was attributed to Henry Chancellor's book, itself a fine source within its limits. Whereas I am merely a person able to read, hardly a recommendation, isn't it? I'm as yet undecided who of us is the greater fool, that wiki-creature defending his holy BS against reality, or me, for I certainly should know better than to waste precious time - a commodity you won't ever be given back, no matter how hard you plead - on trying to reason with such a person.

Anyway, you get my point. You can find a lot of valid and important information on Wikipedia. But the amount of BS it's often buried under doesn't make the task any easier.

#45 Major Tallon

Major Tallon

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2107 posts
  • Location:Mid-USA

Posted 15 June 2014 - 08:55 PM

I read them out of order.  By sheer chance, I began with Thunderball, and I truthfully don't recall the order in which I read the others.  As a result, I didn't grasp all the references to the other books, and I think I enjoyed CR and Moonraker less than I would have done had I read the books in order.  However that may be, it seems to have worked out all right.  :)



#46 Odd Jobbies

Odd Jobbies

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1573 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 16 June 2014 - 09:51 AM

I read them out of order.  By sheer chance, I began with Thunderball, and I truthfully don't recall the order in which I read the others.  As a result, I didn't grasp all the references to the other books, and I think I enjoyed CR and Moonraker less than I would have done had I read the books in order.  However that may be, it seems to have worked out all right.  :)

Thanks for your candour, at least i know i'm not alone in thinking they're best read in order. But i'm very glad it worked out for you and there's so much to like besides the Bond's ongoing character arc.


Edited by Odd Jobbies, 16 June 2014 - 09:59 AM.


#47 Odd Jobbies

Odd Jobbies

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1573 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 16 June 2014 - 09:59 AM

TMWTGG is what it is, Fleming's last work for better or worse. The fact it's for a large part a rehash of former adventures, minus any of their more captivating elements, makes one wonder - pointlessly - whether YOLT wouldn't have been the better end for the series. As it is there was no more steam left and no amount of moaning will ever provide us with a 'better' TMWTGG.

I'm definitely not moaning. I think the opening conceit in TMWTGG is one of the best sequences Fleming wrote and i love his reintegration back into the system (borrowed mightily, at least in tone, for Skyfall).

 

And whether Fleming wrote that epilogue or not, i love it - it stays true to character - to hell with patronage, i want to see action ;)

 

I think it would've been a bold literary move to end it all with YOLT, leaving things very open to interpretation. But it was impossible not to become fond of Bond and want the best for him, so i'm happy there was a MWTGG.



#48 glidrose

glidrose

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2469 posts

Posted 16 June 2014 - 06:45 PM

And if there hadn't been TMWTGG, what would EON have filmed in 1974?



#49 Major Tallon

Major Tallon

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2107 posts
  • Location:Mid-USA

Posted 16 June 2014 - 07:09 PM

They'd have made the same movie, since, apart from the title and the villain's name, they didn't film TMWTGG anyway.



#50 superado

superado

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 105 posts

Posted 16 June 2014 - 08:03 PM

The fact a prominent author, Kingsley Amis, took a look at it after Fleming's death means nothing but just that; he offered suggestions to improve the novel which were ignored altogether as far as I recall. This served as excuse for generations of fans speculating about supposed deeper involvement by Amis. Since these speculations have been turned down repeatedly we should not spread them needlessly here.
 

 

Hi, I'm unaware of the rumored "deeper involvement" by Amis.  Are you talking about just the ghostwriting of TMWTGG or is there more?



#51 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 16 June 2014 - 08:32 PM


The fact a prominent author, Kingsley Amis, took a look at it after Fleming's death means nothing but just that; he offered suggestions to improve the novel which were ignored altogether as far as I recall. This served as excuse for generations of fans speculating about supposed deeper involvement by Amis. Since these speculations have been turned down repeatedly we should not spread them needlessly here.


Hi, I'm unaware of the rumored "deeper involvement" by Amis. Are you talking about just the ghostwriting of TMWTGG or is there more?

What more could there be? The suggestion of 'ghostwriting' is already the maximum insinuation raised in this context. And it's blatantly false. Neither did Amis write TMWTGG in whole or in part, nor were his suggestions for editing the script picked up by - then - Glidrose. With a little simple logic one could arrive at this conclusion without any much undue trouble. Had Amis put his hand on the novel it would hardly have been published as is. Consequently Amis would not have had to point out its weak points in his 007 Dossier. The mere fact he puts his finger on all the weak elements of TMWTGG, from the bland heroine to the lack of a sufficiently villainous scheme and the disappointing villain with his criminally neglected allusions of homosexuality, hardly suggests Amis had any kind of say in what he considers the weakest of all Bond novels.

#52 superado

superado

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 105 posts

Posted 16 June 2014 - 11:22 PM

 

 

The fact a prominent author, Kingsley Amis, took a look at it after Fleming's death means nothing but just that; he offered suggestions to improve the novel which were ignored altogether as far as I recall. This served as excuse for generations of fans speculating about supposed deeper involvement by Amis. Since these speculations have been turned down repeatedly we should not spread them needlessly here.


Hi, I'm unaware of the rumored "deeper involvement" by Amis. Are you talking about just the ghostwriting of TMWTGG or is there more?

What more could there be? The suggestion of 'ghostwriting' is already the maximum insinuation raised in this context. And it's blatantly false. Neither did Amis write TMWTGG in whole or in part, nor were his suggestions for editing the script picked up by - then - Glidrose. With a little simple logic one could arrive at this conclusion without any much undue trouble. Had Amis put his hand on the novel it would hardly have been published as is. Consequently Amis would not have had to point out its weak points in his 007 Dossier. The mere fact he puts his finger on all the weak elements of TMWTGG, from the bland heroine to the lack of a sufficiently villainous scheme and the disappointing villain with his criminally neglected allusions of homosexuality, hardly suggests Amis had any kind of say in what he considers the weakest of all Bond novels.

 

Thanks.  Do we know exactly the extent of Amis' involvement with TMWTGG?



#53 glidrose

glidrose

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2469 posts

Posted 17 June 2014 - 12:27 AM

They'd have made the same movie, since, apart from the title and the villain's name, they didn't film TMWTGG anyway.

 

 

But if the book hadn't been published, let alone written. One wonders what EON would have filmed in 1974.

 

 

 

 

 

The fact a prominent author, Kingsley Amis, took a look at it after Fleming's death means nothing but just that; he offered suggestions to improve the novel which were ignored altogether as far as I recall. This served as excuse for generations of fans speculating about supposed deeper involvement by Amis. Since these speculations have been turned down repeatedly we should not spread them needlessly here.


Hi, I'm unaware of the rumored "deeper involvement" by Amis. Are you talking about just the ghostwriting of TMWTGG or is there more?

What more could there be? The suggestion of 'ghostwriting' is already the maximum insinuation raised in this context. And it's blatantly false. Neither did Amis write TMWTGG in whole or in part, nor were his suggestions for editing the script picked up by - then - Glidrose. With a little simple logic one could arrive at this conclusion without any much undue trouble. Had Amis put his hand on the novel it would hardly have been published as is. Consequently Amis would not have had to point out its weak points in his 007 Dossier. The mere fact he puts his finger on all the weak elements of TMWTGG, from the bland heroine to the lack of a sufficiently villainous scheme and the disappointing villain with his criminally neglected allusions of homosexuality, hardly suggests Amis had any kind of say in what he considers the weakest of all Bond novels.

 

Thanks.  Do we know exactly the extent of Amis' involvement with TMWTGG?

 

 

Er, um, yes. Exactly what Dustin said. Amis read the manuscript. He wrote a reader's report which he later published as a review in "The New Statesman". Special thanks to Dustin for deflating the rumor that Amis wrote or re-wrote the book. More special to Dustin for saying "Since these speculations have been turned down repeatedly we should not spread them needlessly here." AMEN!!!



#54 superado

superado

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 105 posts

Posted 17 June 2014 - 01:16 AM

 

They'd have made the same movie, since, apart from the title and the villain's name, they didn't film TMWTGG anyway.

 

 

But if the book hadn't been published, let alone written. One wonders what EON would have filmed in 1974.

 

 

 

 

 

The fact a prominent author, Kingsley Amis, took a look at it after Fleming's death means nothing but just that; he offered suggestions to improve the novel which were ignored altogether as far as I recall. This served as excuse for generations of fans speculating about supposed deeper involvement by Amis. Since these speculations have been turned down repeatedly we should not spread them needlessly here.


Hi, I'm unaware of the rumored "deeper involvement" by Amis. Are you talking about just the ghostwriting of TMWTGG or is there more?

What more could there be? The suggestion of 'ghostwriting' is already the maximum insinuation raised in this context. And it's blatantly false. Neither did Amis write TMWTGG in whole or in part, nor were his suggestions for editing the script picked up by - then - Glidrose. With a little simple logic one could arrive at this conclusion without any much undue trouble. Had Amis put his hand on the novel it would hardly have been published as is. Consequently Amis would not have had to point out its weak points in his 007 Dossier. The mere fact he puts his finger on all the weak elements of TMWTGG, from the bland heroine to the lack of a sufficiently villainous scheme and the disappointing villain with his criminally neglected allusions of homosexuality, hardly suggests Amis had any kind of say in what he considers the weakest of all Bond novels.

 

Thanks.  Do we know exactly the extent of Amis' involvement with TMWTGG?

 

 

Er, um, yes. Exactly what Dustin said. Amis read the manuscript. He wrote a reader's report which he later published as a review in "The New Statesman". Special thanks to Dustin for deflating the rumor that Amis wrote or re-wrote the book. More special to Dustin for saying "Since these speculations have been turned down repeatedly we should not spread them needlessly here." AMEN!!!

 

"Er, um, yes."  I'm sorry to pain you guys with my ignorance, but really, how much did Amis contribute to the final, published version of TMWTGG?  I just peeked into Jon Gilbert's "Ian Fleming The Bibliography" and it says that Glidrose hired Amis to "Tidy Up" the manuscript.  John Griswold's "Annotations and
Chronologies" basically says the same thing.  Amis' recommendations were about significant story elements that he said were not used, but he didn't say he didn't do anything else.  Lest I threaten anyone's sacred cows, I'm not suggesting that Amis did an extensive rewrite, but what information we do have confirms that Glidrose enlisted Amis, among others, to make basic corrections to the initial manuscript and that Fleming wasn't able to make the final revisions himself and I'm concerned that Glidrose would publish an unpolished book, save for grammatical corrections.



#55 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 17 June 2014 - 05:23 AM

Superado, Amis contributed exactly what you already know about: an opinion. He was hired to take a look at the manuscript, felt it was in several ways below par and said so. And that's it. Glidrose thanked him, said they knew about it and published it anyway. They had been afraid they didn't have a book at all; that it wasn't a particularly good one didn't bother them a lot. They decided tackling Amis' points of critique was vastly beyond the call of duty as far as Glidrose was concerned. Given the frequent criticisms the Bond novels had to face one can actually see their point.

#56 superado

superado

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 105 posts

Posted 17 June 2014 - 07:18 AM

Superado, Amis contributed exactly what you already know about: an opinion. He was hired to take a look at the manuscript, felt it was in several ways below par and said so. And that's it. Glidrose thanked him, said they knew about it and published it anyway. They had been afraid they didn't have a book at all; that it wasn't a particularly good one didn't bother them a lot. They decided tackling Amis' points of critique was vastly beyond the call of duty as far as Glidrose was concerned. Given the frequent criticisms the Bond novels had to face one can actually see their point.

 

I’m not here to perpetuate this “rumor” you mention, but I’m sorry, you seem to have definitive evidence that Amis did nothing more for TMWTGG, but I just don’t see it.  Based on “what I already know,” it could have gone either way.  Have you (or know of an authoritative source who has) compared Fleming’s 1st draft with the version he was rewriting up to his death, and with the final, published version?  Can you with authority say that the “experts” I earlier mentioned who concluded about Amis’ contributions to the final draft (John Griswold, Jon Gilbert and Andrew Lycett) were wrong? Were these guys in their volumnous research of the subject matter, no better than the "fanboys" spreading these Amis rumors?

 

Anne Fleming said that it normally took her husband 6-8 weeks to write the first draft of a novel, followed by 6 months of a rewrite, again, under normal conditions, but considering his health, having finished the 1st draft in April and then dying in August, the rewrite was half-finished.  Do you actually believe that a respectable publisher would print a draft in that condition?  Regardless of TMWTGG being a poor specimen of IF’s work, it was nonetheless polished, whether or not how much of Amis is in it. 

 

In his published letters regarding TMWTGG, Amis did mention his recommendations to Glidrose, but he also practically stated that he was on the fence whether to improve or keep the manuscript as is, and if he did imply that nothing further was done beyond his recommendations, wouldn’t he been contractually obligated to keep confidential any deeper involvement he might have undertaken as a ghostwriter?  Yes, Glidrose opted against the key recommendations Amis submitted, but at that point of having him done an analysis in depth, would it be out of the question for Glidrose to commision him for a polish?  On the flipside, would it been sound for Glidrose to not opt for a polish by a qualified Fleming expert/successful novelist like Amis?

 

If Amis did extensive re-writing of TMWTGG, wouldn’t that have been the compelling rational for hiring him with the 1st Bond continuation novel?  Yes, he had already written “Dossier,” but that alone would not demonstrate his ability to write about Bond in a narrative format in a style befitting the Bond canon.

 

TMWTGG is the only Fleming novel without an existing 1st draft in the Fleming collection of the Lilly Library at Indiana U and Amis himself in his correspondence was unsure if the original draft (different from the revised version he received from Glidrose) still existed at the time of his review of the manuscript; I bring this up because of the lack of documentary evidence between the different drafts of Fleming, the proofers and the published version of TMWTGG. 

 

Then again, these are just hypothetical suggestions on my part, playing the devil’s advocate in light of seeing how dogmatic you are on your position despite the lack of compelling evidence; on your part, can you offer any definitive proof the published version is indeed Fleming’s semi-polished work?  A more insightful question I have for you and other likeminded fans-is it all that important for you to believe this?  Would it shatter something sacred in your fandom for the “Fleming Canon?”


Edited by superado, 17 June 2014 - 07:33 AM.


#57 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 17 June 2014 - 10:31 AM

Very nicely played, congratulations Superado...

So in your book obviously neither Amis' own statements nor those of Glidrose Ltd (Peter Janson-Smith's amongst others IIRC) are sufficient evidence to disprove this rumour once and for all in your eyes. Because - of course! - Amis would have had to keep mum and the Glidrose side of things would have had no interest in revealing what some apparently insist must be the truth behind the TMWTGG-conspiracy...

Hum, hum...

Would combined affidavits by Fleming and Amis, fresh from wherever their ghosts may happen to be now, then be a sufficient argument in your eyes? Of course, they'd still feel obliged to hide the truth from us... Difficult, I understand.

Well, in this case I have to ask you in turn where ever Griswold and Lycett supposedly 'conclude' about Amis' supposed 'contribution'? Because as far as I can see neither suggests anything like what you keep insinuating. Just for the record here is what Griswold writes:


Ian Fleming died on August 12, 1964 after correcting only half of the final manuscript of The Man with the Golden Gun. Kingsley Amis (b. 1922 - d. 1995) and others were enlisted by Jonathan Cape, Fleming's publisher to review the manuscript for errors and inconsistencies.
(John Griswold, Ian Fleming's James Bond - Annotations and Chronologies for Ian Fleming's Bond Stories, p 434)


Strangely Griswold omits any mention of supposed 'ghostwriting' tasks Amis may have been trusted with.


Here is what Andrew Lycett has to say on the same matter:

... Opinion at Cape had changed about the viability of the manuscript, and Kingsley Amis was given a copy to take on holiday to Majorca, with a brief to find out why it was so "feeble". Amis, who was making the final changes to his own James Bond Dossier, put the finger on two points - the thinness of Scaramanga as a character and the implausibility of his hiring Bond as a security man when he did not know him, or, it transpired, even need him. With a note of triumph Amis believed he had discovered the reason - that Scaramanga was sexually attracted to Bond (there were suggestions in the text that he was sexually "abnormal"), and that at some later stage, "Fleming's own prudence or that of a friend induced him to take out this element, or most of it." Plomer made short shrifts of this suggestion: "I can't think that Ian had any qualms about 'prudence' or that he ever had any intention of developing a homosexual pursuit of Bond by Scaramanga." (Having been paid £36 15s for his editorial work on the book, Amis later managed to review it in The New Statesman.)(Andrew Lycett, Ian Fleming, p445)


Lycett, too, doesn't support the rumour of extended involvement on Amis' side. So we have here 'review for errors and inconsistencies' and 'find out why it's so feeble'. I can't claim to know what Gilbert has to say on the matter, but on balance I'm fairly certain his exact words also won't lend any greater credibility to a 'theory' I here - for lack of a more fitting expression - have to call utter b*llshit.

So I'm dreadfully sorry but until you, Superado, show up with definite evidence of Amis' direct contributions to TMWTGG I will respectfully continue to call this a rumour. And not even a very entertaining one. Please forgive me for being so utterly 'dogmatic', I was brought up this way. In the meantime you did a very good job of perpetuating what, as you say, you are not here to perpetuate.

Simple solution: don't then.

Edited by Dustin, 17 June 2014 - 02:24 PM.


#58 Major Tallon

Major Tallon

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2107 posts
  • Location:Mid-USA

Posted 17 June 2014 - 11:52 AM

The absence of information may not prove anything, but just for the sake of completeness, I'll point out that the Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center at the University of Texas, which holds the manuscripts of much of Amis's work (including The Book of Bond, The James Bond Dossier, and Colonel Sun), does not have a draft of anything Amis might have contributed to TMWTGG.



#59 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 17 June 2014 - 12:07 PM

Evidently I helped derail this thread quite extensively. Let's get back to discussing the respective troubles with getting through the books.

#60 Hansen

Hansen

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 431 posts
  • Location:Paris

Posted 17 June 2014 - 12:08 PM

This whole operation is SMERSH disinformation ! :D