219 replies to this topic

[Mr. Blofeld]

Dear stamper, that's actually pretty reasonable; props to you.

[Blofeld's Cat]

You know, I was seriously thinking to buy a few copies of this book for such this eventuality, but finally decided to settle for one.

[Mr. Blofeld]

You know, I was seriously thinking to buy a few copies of this book for such this eventuality, but finally decided to settle for one.

Well, I've got one coming, but since Amazon doesn't have any in stock right now, it'll probably be from the forthcoming second edition.

[Qwerty]

I see that several sellers have started blasting the prices up: http://product.half....361487QQtgZinfo

[Blofeld's Cat]

I see that several sellers have started blasting the prices up: http://product.half....361487QQtgZinfo

All of them called Robert?

[Qwerty]

Unlikely!

[blackjack60]

The new edition of 'Battle for Bond' will not be missing the interesting material the Fleming Trust objected to, only the reproduction, in full, of Fleming letters will not be used this time. Quotes from those letters, though, will remain in the text.

The book could use some revision anyway--having photos of the letters and then quoting from them struck me as utterly redundant--and maybe this time they could actually hire an editor to take out all those amateurish and embarrassing spelling errors in the text. Still, the Fleming Trust is acting rather heavy-handed. I didn't like the book any more than they presumably did (it's a monograph on the McClory case, told from Whittingham's camp, padded with material on the making of Thunderball and NSNA, since neither section on its own would have made a full book) but I wouldn't have resorted to such measures. I bet the Trust wanted to eliminate any embarrassing material in time for the 100 anniversary celebrations. What it should have done was to have commissioned someone to write a rebuttal of Sellers instead (and it can be done).

Edited by blackjack60, 08 March 2008 - 12:12 AM.

[Mark_Hazard]

You can have mine. But it'll cost... As I wrote elsewhere, the good thing about this is its price will rocket on ebay. It's an ill-wind...

That said, I have a first edition copy of John Pearson's biog of Fleming in immaculate condition. And it has the correction slip in it demanded by McClory ahead of publication. I wouldn't part with it for the world.

Pray tell, what's on this rejection slip. I too have a first edition, bought it at time of publication, but don't remember any extra slips of paper in mine.

[MarkA]

Painting Fleming as a saint and McClory as the bogeyman that killed him is pretty ridiculous. Fleming had multiple heart attacks, drank like a fish, smoked like a chimney, and had a vicious love/hate relationship with his wife. McClory can't be blamed for all of those factors.

So whose side am I on? Neither. I'm on the side of the truth. That's more important to me.

Hear, hear, a sensible reply. I agree Fleming was a talented individual but he also came across as incredibly naive or arrogant (I suspect the later) in trying to release a book that was clearly based on screenplays and ideas submitted by other people and taking sole credit.
I also agree Sellers book was quite terribly written and read like a first draft, but I still think the Fleming Trust were more upset at painting Fleming in a bad light in his centenary year than any copyright issues.

[Byron]

I object to the way they did... they should have just waited until the current printing is gone, and then ask politely for the second printing to be as it's going to be, without looking like stupid prima donnas on a day of fit out to smash the small bug who dares having interest in their subject matter and wanting to share it.

If it was my company, I would have heads rolling by now. I would not have that happened this way. It's bad for the public image. I can understand protection of copyright, some people for example use on a DVD music that I own : I don't call my lawyer, I just call them / write them asking for a contract to be done with retroactive effect, get ok on the terms, and get on with it. It may take a year, but all parties are civilised and it's a small thing, so why take out a tank when all you have to do is take a cup of coffee from the counter of the bar ?

I agree. I respect their right to protect their intellectual property but instead of seizing all copies, why couldn't they come to some civilised agreement ie getting a portion of the proceeds from sales of the book?

Unless they are planning on publishing a book containing Fleming's letters et al......

And secondly if the case went to court, wouldn't the law have sided with Tomahawk anyway as the letters are part of the public record?

It seems like calculated blackmail, in that the IFT were almost certain that Tomahawk wouldn't have the finance or actual will to go to court.

And btw what does Ian Fleming Trust actually do? Have they published anything? Are they the mob organising the centenary events such as the one at the Imperial War Museum?

[zencat]

I feel really bad for Robert who seems like a good guy and a great Bond fan who just really wanted to tell this story. I also enjoyed the book a great deal.

But, good lord, how could the publisher not run a copy past the Fleming Trust first? That was reckless. Considering the subject matter, this was not a book that was going to fly under the radar. The fact that they can do a second edition tells us there is a way to do this book that's agreeable to the Flemings so, in theory, with some due diligence (the type I would expect any publisher to do), they could have avoided this mess. (I'd also like to see the second edition include source notes -- there's a fair amount of material here that appeared in articles by John Cork in Goldeneye magazine and Benson's Beside Companion).

And I don't blame the Flemings for enforcing copyright. That's what literary estates do. On the other hand, I don't care for how the publisher is using the word "banned." That's a pretty inflammatory word.

Hopefully they'll get it sorted out with this second edition.

[doublenoughtspy]

On the other hand, I don't care for how the publisher is using the word "banned." That's a pretty inflammatory word.

Well, would censor or destroy be a better term?

South Africa and parts of Australia "banned" The Spy Who Loved Me. They didn't say the book couldn't be printed, or did anything to destroy copies. They just wouldn't import them.

However, according to this article in the Book Seller, the Ian Fleming Will Trust's lawyers are pulping, i.e. destroying, all remaining copies.

http://www.thebookse...54448-page.html

It really is too bad Tomahawk did not run the book by the IFWT before hand. It is also too bad that the IFWT is destroying the remaining stock, rather than allowing Tomahawk to license the images.

Just like the Thunderball court case, no one comes out of this smelling like a rose.

[Byron]

And btw what does Ian Fleming Trust actually do? Have they published anything? Are they the mob organising the centenary events such as the one at the Imperial War Museum?

WOuld someone kindly tell me what they do?

I'm sure if people want a copy they can always buy from a US seller, they have not been affected by all this mess.

[doublenoughtspy]

WOuld someone kindly tell me what they do?

They hold the rights to Fleming's work. The principals are Fleming's two nieces, Kate and Lucy.

I'm sure if people want a copy they can always buy from a US seller, they have not been affected by all this mess.

Copies are all gone from Amazon in the US. Tomahawk doesn't have brick and mortar book store distribution in the US.

[Mr. Blofeld]

I'm sure if people want a copy they can always buy from a US seller, they have not been affected by all this mess.

Nope; Amazon's been stripped of most of their copies.

[Bonita]

I feel really bad for Robert who seems like a good guy and a great Bond fan who just really wanted to tell this story. I also enjoyed the book a great deal.

But, good lord, how could the publisher not run a copy past the Fleming Trust first? That was reckless. Considering the subject matter, this was not a book that was going to fly under the radar. The fact that they can do a second edition tells us there is a way to do this book that's agreeable to the Flemings so, in theory, with some due diligence (the type I would expect any publisher to do), they could have avoided this mess. (I'd also like to see the second edition include source notes -- there's a fair amount of material here that appeared in articles by John Cork in Goldeneye magazine and Benson's Beside Companion).

And I don't blame the Flemings for enforcing copyright. That's what literary estates do. On the other hand, I don't care for how the publisher is using the word "banned." That's a pretty inflammatory word.

Hopefully they'll get it sorted out with this second edition.

You know, there are issues with this book. It is sloppy. Oh, so sloppy. And it doesn't need to be sloppy. I hope that this guy fixes more than the letters in the next draft.

Many are claiming that the Fleming Trust is upset about the way Fleming is portrayed in the book. Hmmm. Seems that the publication of Eve Fleming's letters was far more damning. Andrew Lycett's revelations about Fleming's penchant for sadomasochism appears a bit more of the kind of stuff that would ruffle the feathers. No, they are saying that they don't want to have Fleming's letters that were part of the trial published without permission (and, apparently, payment). But the article in 007 Magazine seems to imply that they also knew that they might not be on the most solid of ground. Rather than try to get anything in return, they asked that the books be destroyed (not uncommon in Merry Ol' England when someone gets their nose out of joint). This may have simply been the most cost-effective solution. Or just a solution to keep a lid on others who might devalue an eventual publication of "The Letters of Ian Fleming" or some other iteration of unpublished works.

I do wish the book had not been such a wet-kiss of McClory when Sellers wrote about the case. He does more to reveal the McClory I've heard talk of when he wrote about the sad lad who gets shipped off to the Bahamas only to find the chaos and acrimony McClory left behind.

Kevin, Kevin, Kevin, RIP. But I think there is more to this tale that Sellers has found, than Bryce revealed in his book and that the biographers have been allowed to reveal.

Someday...hopefully.

keep dancing
Bonita

[stamper]

I don't mind the "rough" part of the book myself, (it could have used some serious proof reading), it's more the layout that I find unattractive and amateurish, they should have made at least a double column book, here the single column is too large and you get lost reading, also the font used is ugly to the least (it's the same font used in LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD trailers, hardly neat).

I agree they should 1/ proof read the 2nd version 2/ redo the layout professionaly (I can do this for a small fee !) 3/ make notes about all the sources used when they are other books, magazines.

Otherwise, it's a top job.

[dee-bee-five]

You can have mine. But it'll cost... As I wrote elsewhere, the good thing about this is its price will rocket on ebay. It's an ill-wind...

That said, I have a first edition copy of John Pearson's biog of Fleming in immaculate condition. And it has the correction slip in it demanded by McClory ahead of publication. I wouldn't part with it for the world.

Pray tell, what's on this rejection slip. I too have a first edition, bought it at time of publication, but don't remember any extra slips of paper in mine.

It's a statement from Jonathan Cape Ltd - between pages 340 and 341 in my copy - in which the company says that certain facts written "in good faith" in Chapters 24 and 25 "do not fully reflect the events leading to the High Court action in which Ian Fleming was concerned" (in other words, the wretched McClory threw another wobbly and threatened yet more legal action). The statement concludes with a promise that alterations will be incorporated in any reprints and further editions.

[TheSaint]

Someone linked to us from the message board of FSM about the whole "banned" development. Thought I would return the favor...
Film Score Monthly Message Board

[Gobi-1]

Finally got my copy in the mail today. I'm very impressed with it. It's a lot bigger then I thought it would be and is jam packed with info.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Huzzah! Just got mine today; the last copy on Amazon!

[Gobi-1]

Congrats. I loved the book. I read the whole thing cover to cover in one 12 hour sitting.

[Turn]

Got my copy from Amazon on Monday. I rushed to get one when I found out about all this, but I am confused. According to what I'm seeing, the next printings won't be out for a while. But I understood the book was 300 pages and mine checks in at 264. Has this already started and I just didn't get in on time? Anything in particular I should look for that is to be excised in the future?

[Terry]

I imagine it's too late for the revised version of this book but for possible future editions, Mr. Sellers ought to consider including more detail on the more recent battles between McClory and the Bond producers. There were plans for WARHEAD 8 (or ATOMIC WARHEAD) in 1989 with negociations going on with Pierce Brosnan while he was in Ireland, the proposed TV series in 1992 to be produced by Ruddy/Morgan Productions and the epic legal battle between Sony and MGM studios. There's still more to the whole story. I have enjoyed reading this book, good stuff.

[Simon]

I would have enjoyed a sidebar to the Thunderball mystery surrounding the comic strip that went awry between newspaper editors.

I know it was covered in the Titan books but since Thunderball is a title involved in all sorts of legal battles, it would have been interesting to have seen this played out in the same book. i.e. to prove or offer suggestion that the title was jinxed.

Afterall, if a section on the book can be given over to the sale of McClory's house...

[Dell Deaton]

How many versions of this book ultimately came out? Does anyone know?

Thanks.

[K1Bond007]

How many versions of this book ultimately came out? Does anyone know?

Thanks.

One thus far. A second edition (or version) is due out soon.

[Mr. Blofeld]

How many versions of this book ultimately came out? Does anyone know?

Thanks.

One thus far. A second edition (or version) is due out soon.

Unfortunately, it'll be much reduced; they're removing all the pictures of the letters, including the one that makes a passing reference to OHMSS.

[MajorB]

Hear, hear! on the request for better typography in the next edition. As someone deep in the throes of middle age, I found the small sans-serif type, long lines, and tight line spacing a challenge. It actually made the information harder to take in. I'm always amazed at smaller-press books that look like smaller-press books, when anyone with decent desktop-publishing software can produce an attractive, readable page. Crossed fingers for better next time.

[TheSaint]

So, what does this latest development, the lawsuit being settled, mean for the 2nd edition?