44 replies to this topic

[Jim]

Perhaps it was just good taste...?

Quite. it's Playboy. Playboy.

Might as well cite Razzle as the source. Or Plumpers. Or Asian Babes.

True, it's not really on not to cite a source but discretion may have been the better part of valour here.

[spynovelfan]

"The late creator of the irrepressible Bond was engagingly candid with our interviewer, who deeply moved by the author's death, writes from England that the always thoughtful Fleming graciously informed him, after reading a copy of he interview, that it was the best that ever been done with him."

Slight distaste at the wording and sentiment of this apart, this suggests to me that one reason Purdy is so often cited may be because Lycett worked from Fleming's papers - could it be that Playboy is not mentioned on the copy in Fleming's archives? I just got Henry Chancellor's book yesterday and didn't actually recognise the quotes as being precisely the same as from the published interview - are they? Playboy is mentioned twice in Chancellor's book - once in the letter on the page facing the Purdy quote - so it seems there are no qualms about naming the magazine.

I hate it when they hit a controversial part too and they state something outright yet they show no proof. An example being Chancellor stating that The Man with the Golden Gun was edited by Kingsley Amis. Where is the proof? It's just a small snippet and it's a throwaway in the book. He doesn't even expound on it and for a book that is all about the literary angle and Ian Fleming, this is rather sad.

I couldn't agree more. Just reading parts of it, I found lots of things that didn't seem credible. (Incidentally, there is proof that Amis proofread GOLDEN GUN - his published letters - but he makes clear that he did not make changes or finish the novel, as some have suggested.) I think the lack of sourcing in Chancellor's book significantly weakens some of its remarkable (and often half-hidden) new information: there is very little referencing of sources, and a lot of the original archive material is presented with substantial data missing regarding context - some of it isn't even dated. I can see that they didn't want an academic tome - not as commercial - but with such new information, it seems a real shame.

I'd love to have seen full presentations of the dossier Fleming kept for each book, and even if not all of it was shown to at least have a fuller list of what he kept. Pearson didn't source at all, so this means that Chancellor, with access to much the same material, could have backed some of it up. For example, a reference to a column in Atticus - where is it? What dates, can we have a quote, and so on. He just repeated Pearson and didn't look it up. A lot of the information I immediately recognised from about five sources, sometimes word for word or barely changed. Some of the sources he has taken chunks of for the 'real Cold War' section are simply not believable; Fleming may have used them, but presenting it as if this was what really happened and not sourcing is a problem - a lot of these mistakes will now be repeated in magazine and newspaper articles, giving this IFP-sanctioned 'official' book as a source. The bibliography may look impressive, but for something like this it's very short indeed. For example, Fleming may well have used the case of Khokhlov as inspiration for Red Grant, but to say that Khokhlov was a SMERSH executioner is very shaky - as far as I know the only source for that is Ronald Seth (Cookridge doesn't even say it, and that seems to be Chancello'r source). But that was published after Fleming's death and looks to me like a result of Fleming's success - he skips past the fact that SMERSH disbanded two decades earlier and attributes almost every KGB provocation to the organisation; he mentions Bond and seems to take a lot of his 'historical facts' from the Bond novels, such as the Kuchino training school, which is not mentioned in any other book on SMERSH I know of. So from now on it will not just be said that Fleming made a note of the Khokhlov case and so may have been inspired by it for Red Grant - the quantifiable new information from the evidence I can see Chancellor had - but also that Red Grant was based on a 'real SMERSH executioner', which I don't think is the case. Perhaps Chancellor has proof that Khokhlov was SMERSH, but without knowing his precise sources it's impossible to know. This doesn't sound like a big distinction, I know, but with lots of this kind of thing in the book I think we will see a proliferation of Chinese whispers. This board will be busy, anyway!

Sorry to be so negative, but it's frustrating to see so much never-previously-released material from Fleming's archives presented so tantalisingly, but with such scanty supporting text.

[doublenoughtspy]

Slight distaste at the wording and sentiment of this apart, this suggests to me that one reason Purdy is so often cited may be because Lycett worked from Fleming's papers - could it be that Playboy is not mentioned on the copy in Fleming's archives? I just got Henry Chancellor's book yesterday and didn't actually recognise the quotes as being precisely the same as from the published interview - are they? Playboy is mentioned twice in Chancellor's book - once in the letter on the page facing the Purdy quote - so it seems there are no qualms about naming the magazine.

That's a likely explanation regarding why it isn't sourced.

Yes, the quotes are slightly different and sentences are rearanged from the published interview. I wonder if Purdy changed them or if Playboy did? More fuel for the fire as to why he wanted his name taken off.

I know someone who has the original audio tapes, I'll see if they can shed light on this.

Sorry to be so negative, but it's frustrating to see so much never-previously-released material from Fleming's archives presented so tantalisingly, but with such scanty supporting text.

Welcome to my world.

While I see the point in hiring someone like Chancellor - you get a fresh perspective, you also get someone who might not know what he is looking at.

I found 6 errors in the book without trying too hard - some only a Bond geek would know - but others are unforgivable, such as describing "007 in New York" as "007 cut his teeth on a wartime mission in New York as detailed in this story".

HUH?

As I mentioned in my CBn review - I was also disappointed that so many of the illustrations/ads/photos aren't from the Fleming archive at all - more than 50.

And then you have things like the "Domino Letter" from the 1965 Pan Thunderball paperback - reproduced in a 2 full page centerspread. While it's an intersting curiosity - Fleming had nothing to do with it.

Meanwhile, an unpublished Fleming interview is reproduced at postage stamp size and is pretty much unreadable.

Rant over.

[Loomis]

Chancellor's book was a huge disappointment. It told me nothing I didn't know, and did so very dully. Also, the layout is horrible, and the author appears to have next to no interest in the content of Fleming's works, or indeed any passion about anything.

Benson's BEDSIDE COMPANION does it all so much better, and covers much else besides.

[dodge]

The Brits may be wiser than we are. Any sane man rightly fears girls with stapled bellies.

[spynovelfan]

Yes, the quotes are slightly different and sentences are rearanged from the published interview. I wonder if Purdy changed them or if Playboy did? More fuel for the fire as to why he wanted his name taken off.

I know someone who has the original audio tapes, I'll see if they can shed light on this.

Please do, because that goes to what Fleming said, as opposed to what someone edited him as saying. One of the things I like about that interview is it is a rare occasion of a transcript - or so I thought!

Purdy himself may not have revealed to Fleming that he was an editor at Playboy, which I think he then was, and instead introduced himself as a freelance writer who had worked with True, Parade, Argosy, Playboy and others, or something along those lines. He would have been able to sell the story to anyone if he had been allowed to, and perhaps he didn't want to tie himself down - or put Fleming off that he was 'just' from a girlie mag?

As I mentioned in my CBn review - I was also disappointed that so many of the illustrations/ads/photos aren't from the Fleming archive at all - more than 50.

And they are mostly undated. So there are two ads for Ronson lighters - but when are they from? If one is from 1950 - and it looks like it could be - and it was in a magazine we know Fleming had a copy of, or even just knew that he read, then you could speculate it might be where he got the idea from. Otherwise, it's nice to see what they looked like and the image they had at, we presume, roughly the time Fleming started writing the books, and okay, that guy looks a bit like Connery even - but we are tantalised by or knowing whether or not it *could* have been a source for him, or dated from 1958.

I think there is room for Chancellor to publish something more academic. Perhaps someone could ask him to flesh out one of the better findings for this site?

[Roebuck]

it's Playboy. Playboy.

Might as well cite Razzle as the source. Or Plumpers. Or Asian Babes.

Hmmm. How does someone who only reads ''Country Life and The Economist'' come to have such an encyclopaedic knowledge of the top-shelfers?

[Jim]

it's Playboy. Playboy.

Might as well cite Razzle as the source. Or Plumpers. Or Asian Babes.

Hmmm. How does someone who only reads ''Country Life and The Economist'' come to have such an encyclopaedic knowledge of the top-shelfers?

I have twin twelve-year old sons. They can be blamed for all my indiscretions.

[dee-bee-five]

it's Playboy. Playboy.

Might as well cite Razzle as the source. Or Plumpers. Or Asian Babes.

Hmmm. How does someone who only reads ''Country Life and The Economist'' come to have such an encyclopaedic knowledge of the top-shelfers?

Oh, please, they always do...

Besides, Country Life is bucolic p

[Jim]

[quote name='dee-bee-five' post='704684' date='22 February 2007 - 07:33'][quote name='Roebuck' post='704508' date='21 February 2007 - 20:25'][quote name='Jim' post='704306' date='21 February 2007 - 08:18']it's Playboy. Playboy.

Might as well cite Razzle as the source. Or Plumpers. Or Asian Babes.[/quote]

Hmmm. How does someone who only reads ''Country Life and The Economist'' come to have such an encyclopaedic knowledge of the top-shelfers?
[/quote]

Oh, please, they always do...

Besides, Country Life is bucolic p

[dee-bee-five]

[quote name='Jim' post='704687' date='22 February 2007 - 07:53'][quote name='dee-bee-five' post='704684' date='22 February 2007 - 07:33'][quote name='Roebuck' post='704508' date='21 February 2007 - 20:25'][quote name='Jim' post='704306' date='21 February 2007 - 08:18']it's Playboy. Playboy.

Might as well cite Razzle as the source. Or Plumpers. Or Asian Babes.[/quote]

Hmmm. How does someone who only reads ''Country Life and The Economist'' come to have such an encyclopaedic knowledge of the top-shelfers?
[/quote]

Oh, please, they always do...

Besides, Country Life is bucolic p

[Jim]

[quote name='dee-bee-five' post='704692' date='22 February 2007 - 08:10'][quote name='Jim' post='704687' date='22 February 2007 - 07:53'][quote name='dee-bee-five' post='704684' date='22 February 2007 - 07:33'][quote name='Roebuck' post='704508' date='21 February 2007 - 20:25'][quote name='Jim' post='704306' date='21 February 2007 - 08:18']it's Playboy. Playboy.

Might as well cite Razzle as the source. Or Plumpers. Or Asian Babes.[/quote]

Hmmm. How does someone who only reads ''Country Life and The Economist'' come to have such an encyclopaedic knowledge of the top-shelfers?
[/quote]

Oh, please, they always do...

Besides, Country Life is bucolic p

[K1Bond007]

I found 6 errors in the book without trying too hard

I've noticed tons myself. Turn to the Dr. No page and look for the one that is in a big bold font That's pretty bad. Maybe a typo, but come on.

[doublenoughtspy]

I've noticed tons myself. Turn to the Dr. No page and look for the one that is in a big bold font That's pretty bad. Maybe a typo, but come on.

I must be missing something. What page #? Word?

[K1Bond007]

I've noticed tons myself. Turn to the Dr. No page and look for the one that is in a big bold font That's pretty bad. Maybe a typo, but come on.

I must be missing something. What page #? Word?

Heh.. page 110. I should have just said outright. Essentially at the top of the page it says in a big font: 1957. Clearly wrong. He wrote it in '57, but it was published in '58. This is the only one he does this on.