139 replies to this topic

[00Twelve]

Mrs. Twelve is reading LALD right now, and while she doesn't think it's at all racist, her eyes do tend to widen as she stifles an incredulous chuckle at sentiments like "The nose [of Mr. Big] was wide without being particularly negroid."

[byline]

As for Fleming's "Live and Let Die", I don't think it was a racist novel either. It was written in the 50's, when the n-word, or similar words, were more common, and a bit more accepted than they are now.

Yeah, I was watching the film The Dam Busters (1955) the other day and I shocked at the name of Wing Commander Gibson’s black Labrador Retriever.

Interesting bit about that. I've read that Peter Jackson is planning a remake of this film and has already run into a bit of a buzz saw over the name. And I gather that in U.S. releases of the film, the name was redubbed as "Trigger" (here in Canada, I've watched it on TVOntario with the name intact).

A couple of examples of political correctness run amok. Do you sacrifice historical accuracy to change the name of a dog that's an anachronism now, but was accepted at the time? As Jackson points out, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

[Mister Asterix]

As for Fleming's "Live and Let Die", I don't think it was a racist novel either. It was written in the 50's, when the n-word, or similar words, were more common, and a bit more accepted than they are now.

Yeah, I was watching the film The Dam Busters (1955) the other day and I shocked at the name of Wing Commander Gibson’s black Labrador Retriever.

Interesting bit about that. I've read that Peter Jackson is planning a remake of this film and has already run into a bit of a buzz saw over the name. And I gather that in U.S. releases of the film, the name was redubbed as "Trigger" (here in Canada, I've watched it on TVOntario with the name intact).

A couple of examples of political correctness run amok. Do you sacrifice historical accuracy to change the name of a dog that's an anachronism now, but was accepted at the time? As Jackson points out, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

The version I saw here in the states on Turner Classic Movies was apparently the UK version. The dpog’s name was intact and the signal for mission completed was also not ‘Trigger’. It reminded me of the restored chapter title in the new US prints of Live and Let Die.

[DamnCoffee]

On a side note....I remember sitting through the first TRANSFORMERS movie in 2007 and thinking that Bernie Mac and Anthony Anderson's roles were essentially racist, and what an embarassment it SHOULD HAVE BEEN for either actor to do what Bay asked them to do, because clearly none of the other actors in the film were doing anything close to the same thing. At one point Bernie Mac tells a relative or friend to go hide because he was going to 'scare the white folks away'. I rolled my eyes at the time, thinking how UNNECESSARY such racial drivel was for a film about giant robots. People laughed at my comments in 2007, but they're not laughing in 2009. Across the board I'm reading all kinds of comments about how racist two or three of the robots are in REVENGE OF THE FALLEN...All I can say is: I TOLD YOU SO.

I can't say I really picked up on the racism tbh.
I was more concerned at the amount of profanity included! Especially in REVENGE OF THE FALLEN (Which I pressumed 'The Fallen' was A GROUP of something, not just ONE thing)

Anyway yes, the amount of profanity in that movie was unnecessary. I have to say I laughed at "That was my eye you mad bitch!", but the fact that it then humped her leg later on in the movie was too far. As were the two humping dogs.

Plus, I'm absoloutly POSITIVE I heard at least one use of the 'F-Word' in there somewhere. Aswell as a 'Piss' and a 'S[censored]'.

I'm suprised this got a 12a rating in the UK. Considering the movies have a large child following.

[Sark2.0]

I'm not really sure that anything that gets said or done in LALD is something you would not see in any film today with a predominantly black cast (other than a Tyler Perry film). Ever seen SOUL PLANE? WAIST DEEP? NOTORIOUS? Ever watch a rap video by Snoop Dogg? 2 LIVE CREW? I'm not really sure there's anything that LALD could do to the black community that gangsta rap hasn't already done, and worse.

Do you know why Flava Flav always wears a giant clock around his neck? So he'll always know exactly far back he set the civil rights movement. ZING!

Can't take credit for that one though, it goes to Triumph the Insult Comic Dog.

[coco1997]

I'm not really sure that anything that gets said or done in LALD is something you would not see in any film today with a predominantly black cast (other than a Tyler Perry film). Ever seen SOUL PLANE? WAIST DEEP? NOTORIOUS? Ever watch a rap video by Snoop Dogg? 2 LIVE CREW? I'm not really sure there's anything that LALD could do to the black community that gangsta rap hasn't already done, and worse.

Do you know why Flava Flav always wears a giant clock around his neck? So he'll always know exactly far back he set the civil rights movement. ZING!

Can't take credit for that one though, it goes to Triumph the Insult Comic Dog.

[CJB]

As I've stated on several occasions, Live And Let Die is no more racist to blacks than Goldeneye is to Russians.

(i.e. not at all)

[DAN LIGHTER]

Can a film be called racist?

I want to know why M was walking into Bonds bedroom at the beginning of the film? Were they lovers or did he always head there first? He had only walked in the door a few secounds and he was gingerly heading to the bed.

[DLibrasnow]

Yes, the novel is perhaps the most blatently racist of all of Flemings Bond books. It prohbably was not viewed as such when it was written in the 1950s but by today's standards it definately is.

[DR76]

As for Fleming's "Live and Let Die", I don't think it was a racist novel either. It was written in the 50's, when the n-word, or similar words, were more common, and a bit more accepted than they are now.

Just because the n-word and views of non-whites as inferiors were more open back in the 50s, doesn't excuse the novel "LIVE AND LET DIE" from being racist. Not as far as I'm concerned. Either one is racist or not . . . regardless of the period of history one lived in.

[00Twelve]

As for Fleming's "Live and Let Die", I don't think it was a racist novel either. It was written in the 50's, when the n-word, or similar words, were more common, and a bit more accepted than they are now.

Just because the n-word and views of non-whites as inferiors were more open back in the 50s, doesn't excuse the novel "LIVE AND LET DIE" from being racist. Not as far as I'm concerned. Either one is racist or not . . . regardless of the period of history one lived in.

There HAS to be some regarding for cultural context. When certain prejudices become social standards and entire generations grow up being taught those standards, how can one rightly judge them for crimes they are unaware are crimes? People are taught to view other human beings in certain various ways depending on their culture and their specific parents' upbringing, and there are few people alive even today who harbor not even the slightest prejudice toward some group of people, whether it has to do with race, gender, social status, employment, ideology, religion, etc.

LALD was written by a man who grew up in a society that was taught unequal treatment for people of varying ethnicities. That much is unequivocal. The man himself, at least what's divined by his writings, harbored no ill will toward the black community. He did apparently see some of the idiosynchracies of the poorly educated people in that community as something worth noting when creating the atmosphere of his story. I don't think he thought of himself as being offensive, or at least, didn't care if he was viewed that way. He probably felt it a little silly for anyone to raise pitchforks toward him because he gave his black characters the voice that most blacks in entertainment had been given. See Amos n' Andy for reference. By our more liberated standards of morality, it would be terribly offensive. That's why it wouldn't be written that way in our own time. But then was then, and the people were not so liberated as to influence the populace that such voicing of [in this case] black characters was immoral.

I love the story, though it has not a single damned thing to do with any sort of satisfaction with how blacks are voiced [not that I have any need to justify myself to you or anyone else whatsoever]. It's a great, suspenseful story and worthy of being praised for such. I love reading it once a year or so, and I hope that the use of the gold smuggling plot will be used again one day in a future film, not to mention the vastly superior treatment of Felix Leiter and his untimely accident.

[dee-bee-five]

As for Fleming's "Live and Let Die", I don't think it was a racist novel either. It was written in the 50's, when the n-word, or similar words, were more common, and a bit more accepted than they are now.

Just because the n-word and views of non-whites as inferiors were more open back in the 50s, doesn't excuse the novel "LIVE AND LET DIE" from being racist. Not as far as I'm concerned. Either one is racist or not . . . regardless of the period of history one lived in.

I'm sorry, but I can't agree. It is absurd to judge something written 50 or 100 years ago by our prevailing social mores. It's just politically correct nonsense to keep some academics and social commentators in jobs.

[Sniperscope]

As for Fleming's "Live and Let Die", I don't think it was a racist novel either. It was written in the 50's, when the n-word, or similar words, were more common, and a bit more accepted than they are now.

Just because the n-word and views of non-whites as inferiors were more open back in the 50s, doesn't excuse the novel "LIVE AND LET DIE" from being racist. Not as far as I'm concerned. Either one is racist or not . . . regardless of the period of history one lived in.

There HAS to be some regarding for cultural context. When certain prejudices become social standards and entire generations grow up being taught those standards, how can one rightly judge them for crimes they are unaware are crimes? People are taught to view other human beings in certain various ways depending on their culture and their specific parents' upbringing, and there are few people alive even today who harbor not even the slightest prejudice toward some group of people, whether it has to do with race, gender, social status, employment, ideology, religion, etc.

LALD was written by a man who grew up in a society that was taught unequal treatment for people of varying ethnicities. That much is unequivocal. The man himself, at least what's divined by his writings, harbored no ill will toward the black community. He did apparently see some of the idiosynchracies of the poorly educated people in that community as something worth noting when creating the atmosphere of his story. I don't think he thought of himself as being offensive, or at least, didn't care if he was viewed that way. He probably felt it a little silly for anyone to raise pitchforks toward him because he gave his black characters the voice that most blacks in entertainment had been given. See Amos n' Andy for reference. By our more liberated standards of morality, it would be terribly offensive. That's why it wouldn't be written that way in our own time. But then was then, and the people were not so liberated as to influence the populace that such voicing of [in this case] black characters was immoral.

I love the story, though it has not a single damned thing to do with any sort of satisfaction with how blacks are voiced [not that I have any need to justify myself to you or anyone else whatsoever]. It's a great, suspenseful story and worthy of being praised for such. I love reading it once a year or so, and I hope that the use of the gold smuggling plot will be used again one day in a future film, not to mention the vastly superior treatment of Felix Leiter and his untimely accident.

Sadly it's Fleming's heavy handed stereotypes and oh so culturally superior tone that makes LALD impossible for me to read nowadays.
Having said that when you think about it Bond's foes are almost always defined by their "foreign-ness" or immigrant status - look at Drax, Goldfinger, Largo, Blofeld, Dr No and of course Mr Big. They exist in opposition to Bond (and Fleming's) valorisation of British (although specifically English, Anglo-Saxon) values.
By the very nature of Bond's profession he is always fighting the dreaded "Other" (or perhaps even the Jungian Shadow) and interestingly these are not only foreign but frequently handicapped in some way! In many ways the Bond milieu is a vehicle for Fleming's conservative reactionism to the changes Britain underwent after WW2, especially with UK's declining international clout and the rise of multiculturalism. In so many ways Fleming wrote a fantasy in which Britannia still ruled the waves - should it be any surprise that it's a Brit who cleans up Harlem's "Mr Big"? Not likely...
Still, to me, it matters not one whit if the novel was written 40 years ago or yesterday. If it is offensive or racist it needs to be acknowledged as such and if Fleming harboured no ill will towards the African American community it is irrelevant really. Every aspect of his depiction of their culture is drawn from very broad and crude stereotypes (the voodoo stuff is the worst aspect) and is laced with the ignorance and prejudice of his background.
At the end of the day, though, I would vote probably LALD (as Fleming wrote it) as xenophobic rather than intentionally racist.

As for Fleming's "Live and Let Die", I don't think it was a racist novel either. It was written in the 50's, when the n-word, or similar words, were more common, and a bit more accepted than they are now.

Just because the n-word and views of non-whites as inferiors were more open back in the 50s, doesn't excuse the novel "LIVE AND LET DIE" from being racist. Not as far as I'm concerned. Either one is racist or not . . . regardless of the period of history one lived in.

I'm sorry, but I can't agree. It is absurd to judge something written 50 or 100 years ago by our prevailing social mores. It's just politically correct nonsense to keep some academics and social commentators in jobs.

No way. if something is offensive it is - regardless of the era in which it was created.
People have always judged things by prevailing standards. That is exactly how prejudice was once able to flourish so openly and why today it is deemed offensive.

Edited by Sniperscope, 01 July 2009 - 08:29 AM.

[dee-bee-five]

As for Fleming's "Live and Let Die", I don't think it was a racist novel either. It was written in the 50's, when the n-word, or similar words, were more common, and a bit more accepted than they are now.

Just because the n-word and views of non-whites as inferiors were more open back in the 50s, doesn't excuse the novel "LIVE AND LET DIE" from being racist. Not as far as I'm concerned. Either one is racist or not . . . regardless of the period of history one lived in.

There HAS to be some regarding for cultural context. When certain prejudices become social standards and entire generations grow up being taught those standards, how can one rightly judge them for crimes they are unaware are crimes? People are taught to view other human beings in certain various ways depending on their culture and their specific parents' upbringing, and there are few people alive even today who harbor not even the slightest prejudice toward some group of people, whether it has to do with race, gender, social status, employment, ideology, religion, etc.

LALD was written by a man who grew up in a society that was taught unequal treatment for people of varying ethnicities. That much is unequivocal. The man himself, at least what's divined by his writings, harbored no ill will toward the black community. He did apparently see some of the idiosynchracies of the poorly educated people in that community as something worth noting when creating the atmosphere of his story. I don't think he thought of himself as being offensive, or at least, didn't care if he was viewed that way. He probably felt it a little silly for anyone to raise pitchforks toward him because he gave his black characters the voice that most blacks in entertainment had been given. See Amos n' Andy for reference. By our more liberated standards of morality, it would be terribly offensive. That's why it wouldn't be written that way in our own time. But then was then, and the people were not so liberated as to influence the populace that such voicing of [in this case] black characters was immoral.

I love the story, though it has not a single damned thing to do with any sort of satisfaction with how blacks are voiced [not that I have any need to justify myself to you or anyone else whatsoever]. It's a great, suspenseful story and worthy of being praised for such. I love reading it once a year or so, and I hope that the use of the gold smuggling plot will be used again one day in a future film, not to mention the vastly superior treatment of Felix Leiter and his untimely accident.

Sadly it's Fleming's heavy handed stereotypes and oh so culturally superior tone that makes LALD impossible for me to read nowadays.
Having said that when you think about it Bond's foes are almost always defined by their "foreign-ness" or immigrant status - look at Drax, Goldfinger, Largo, Blofeld, Dr No and of course Mr Big. They exist in opposition to Bond (and Fleming's) valorisation of British (although specifically English, Anglo-Saxon) values.
By the very nature of Bond's profession he is always fighting the dreaded "Other" (or perhaps even the Jungian Shadow) and interestingly these are not only foreign but frequently handicapped in some way! In many ways the Bond milieu is a vehicle for Fleming's conservative reactionism to the changes Britain underwent after WW2, especially with UK's declining international clout and the rise of multiculturalism. In so many ways Fleming wrote a fantasy in which Britannia still ruled the waves - should it be any surprise that it's a Brit who cleans up Harlem's "Mr Big"? Not likely...
Still, to me, it matters not one whit if the novel was written 40 years ago or yesterday. If it is offensive or racist it needs to be acknowledged as such and if Fleming harboured no ill will towards the African American community it is irrelevant really. Every aspect of his depiction of their culture is drawn from very broad and crude stereotypes (the voodoo stuff is the worst aspect) and is laced with the ignorance and prejudice of his background.
At the end of the day, though, I would vote probably LALD (as Fleming wrote it) as xenophobic rather than intentionally racist.

As for Fleming's "Live and Let Die", I don't think it was a racist novel either. It was written in the 50's, when the n-word, or similar words, were more common, and a bit more accepted than they are now.

Just because the n-word and views of non-whites as inferiors were more open back in the 50s, doesn't excuse the novel "LIVE AND LET DIE" from being racist. Not as far as I'm concerned. Either one is racist or not . . . regardless of the period of history one lived in.

I'm sorry, but I can't agree. It is absurd to judge something written 50 or 100 years ago by our prevailing social mores. It's just politically correct nonsense to keep some academics and social commentators in jobs.

No way. if something is offensive it is - regardless of the era in which it was created.
People have always judged things by prevailing standards. That is exactly how prejudice was once able to flourish so openly and why today it is deemed offensive.

Well, we shall have to agree to disagree. Do I think LALD is racist? No. Am I offended by it? No. Is there any evidence Ian Fleming fundamentally was a racist? No.

[Zorin Industries]

No way. if something is offensive it is - regardless of the era in which it was created.
People have always judged things by prevailing standards. That is exactly how prejudice was once able to flourish so openly and why today it is deemed offensive.

That is utter utter bull[censored].

"People have always judged things by prevailing standards"....??!!! Now that's the mantra of book-burning Republicans if ever I heard it. In order to claim something needs to be judged by "prevailing standards" you need to actually know what - in this instance (i.e. a cultural contribution such as a book or film version of it) - are makes the "standards".

"Prejudice" is maintained and continued when idiots think LIVE AND LET DIE is racist so must be taken off the shelves. That is akin to saying "we won't upset the black people with this new-fangled TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD as we and only we know what is good for them".

Some people will claim BRUNO is offensive. They are usually the same people that haven't a clue about irony, sarcasm, sexuality in all its forms and what it is to invoke a reaction via culture.

So by your reckoning we can ban the Bible because it is homophobic, represses woman and promotes radical behaviour, yes? Because I personally find that particular book to be very "offensive" in my world of "prevailing standards".

Sniperscope, if I have read you wrong then I apologise.

[Jim]

Our own behaviour is likely to be judged as some sort of negative -ism in years to come, I'm sure - not that we would recognise it now.

Things are of their time. Everything looks different with the benefit of hindsight and with the lumping onto them of contemporary attitudes.

If Live and Let Die were the work of a new author, published today, admittedly it probably wouldn't get through. That it was published in 1954 tells one quite a lot about 1954. Blame 1954 if you're going to blame anything. Fifty-five years ago, smoking on aeroplanes and cladding your house with asbestos were acceptable ideas too. Twenty-five years ago, the snood. It's a museum piece, of curiosity value - treat it like that if it makes anyone feel any better. About as real a criticism as slagging off the Mona Lisa because it's not on 15 megapixel. It's rather quaint, in much the same way as the perception of these books being somehow illicit and adult and sexually racy is pretty laughable now. Live and Let Die is not telling you how to live so I would suspect any sensible person would only really be offended if they thought it was some sort of manifesto; but that probably says more about the reader than the text.

[dee-bee-five]

It's rather quaint, in much the same way as the perception of these books being somehow illicit and adult and sexually racy is pretty laughable now.

Oh, Jim - it felt very naughty and daring to be reading Fleming when I was nine - a long. long time ago.

[Jim]

It's rather quaint, in much the same way as the perception of these books being somehow illicit and adult and sexually racy is pretty laughable now.

Oh, Jim - it felt very naughty and daring to be reading Fleming when I was nine - a long. long time ago.

Too true. Still, now they seem a bit Joyce Grenfell and gym knickers, frankly. Nice gels, all of them.

So by your reckoning we can ban the Bible because it is homophobic, represses woman and promotes radical behaviour, yes? Because I personally find that particular book to be very "offensive" in my world of "prevailing standards".

Good Samaritan = all other Samaritans are bad. Racist drivel.

[Sniperscope]

No way. if something is offensive it is - regardless of the era in which it was created.
People have always judged things by prevailing standards. That is exactly how prejudice was once able to flourish so openly and why today it is deemed offensive.

That is utter utter bull[censored].

"People have always judged things by prevailing standards"....??!!! Now that's the mantra of book-burning Republicans if ever I heard it. In order to claim something needs to be judged by "prevailing standards" you need to actually know what - in this instance (i.e. a cultural contribution such as a book or film version of it) - are makes the "standards".

"Prejudice" is maintained and continued when idiots think LIVE AND LET DIE is racist so must be taken off the shelves. That is akin to saying "we won't upset the black people with this new-fangled TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD as we and only we know what is good for them".

Some people will claim BRUNO is offensive. They are usually the same people that haven't a clue about irony, sarcasm, sexuality in all its forms and what it is to invoke a reaction via culture.

So by your reckoning we can ban the Bible because it is homophobic, represses woman and promotes radical behaviour, yes? Because I personally find that particular book to be very "offensive" in my world of "prevailing standards".

Sniperscope, if I have read you wrong then I apologise.

Phew settle down Zorin! Read the other post I made about this issue as well! I'm saying that we need to recognise if something is racist etc. and it's based upon prevailing standards - which are admittedly changable -but I think your indignation neatly evades the point that prevailing standards of the past did allow prejudice to be widely accepted...

But as I've also said (quite a few posts back) this does not invalidate the book but it's a recognition of the fact that it presents a mindset that today may be found offensive. That's all I'm saying! No censorship, no book-burnings, no pogroms. All of these things are anathema to me.

But to equate my point with the ignorance of book burnings and right-wing ideology is however offensive and more than a bit OTT.
The two classic examples of book burning I can think of are those perpetrated by the Nazis (and their crime was racially and politically motivated) and by the Christians in Alexandria (which was anti-intellectualism) and perhaps should actually make you more than aware of the reality that prevailing standards do affect the way people behave and see the world... for better or worse. But come on Zorin - neither of these examples have any bearing on a the discussion at hand and are quite beyond the scope of my post or my intention!

As for sarcasm and irony - I'm assuming you're being ironic re. TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD... (which of course is one of the greatest anti-racism novels ever written) and your reference to BRUNO is hardly appropriate to the discussion either - are you claiming Fleming was being ironic, sarcastic or poking fun at sexuality with LALD!?!? My dear fellow, really!

Edited by Sniperscope, 01 July 2009 - 10:34 AM.

[Zorin Industries]

It's rather quaint, in much the same way as the perception of these books being somehow illicit and adult and sexually racy is pretty laughable now.

Oh, Jim - it felt very naughty and daring to be reading Fleming when I was nine - a long. long time ago.

Too true. Still, now they seem a bit Joyce Grenfell and gym knickers, frankly. Nice gels, all of them.

"William...? Don't do that...." (Joyce Grenfell).

It was certainly probable that Grenfell met Fleming. They certainly moved in similiar circles.

[dee-bee-five]

Joyce Grenfell and gym knickers.

That's the 50s summed up neatly in five words!

[Sniperscope]

Our own behaviour is likely to be judged as some sort of negative -ism in years to come, I'm sure - not that we would recognise it now.

Things are of their time. Everything looks different with the benefit of hindsight and with the lumping onto them of contemporary attitudes.

If Live and Let Die were the work of a new author, published today, admittedly it probably wouldn't get through. That it was published in 1954 tells one quite a lot about 1954. Blame 1954 if you're going to blame anything. Fifty-five years ago, smoking on aeroplanes and cladding your house with asbestos were acceptable ideas too. Twenty-five years ago, the snood. It's a museum piece, of curiosity value - treat it like that if it makes anyone feel any better. About as real a criticism as slagging off the Mona Lisa because it's not on 15 megapixel. It's rather quaint, in much the same way as the perception of these books being somehow illicit and adult and sexually racy is pretty laughable now. Live and Let Die is not telling you how to live so I would suspect any sensible person would only really be offended if they thought it was some sort of manifesto; but that probably says more about the reader than the text.

You are 100% correct Jim! Thanks for expressing so articulately the fundaments of this thread! For me - discussion closed!

[Zorin Industries]

No way. if something is offensive it is - regardless of the era in which it was created.
People have always judged things by prevailing standards. That is exactly how prejudice was once able to flourish so openly and why today it is deemed offensive.

That is utter utter bull[censored].

"People have always judged things by prevailing standards"....??!!! Now that's the mantra of book-burning Republicans if ever I heard it. In order to claim something needs to be judged by "prevailing standards" you need to actually know what - in this instance (i.e. a cultural contribution such as a book or film version of it) - are makes the "standards".

"Prejudice" is maintained and continued when idiots think LIVE AND LET DIE is racist so must be taken off the shelves. That is akin to saying "we won't upset the black people with this new-fangled TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD as we and only we know what is good for them".

Some people will claim BRUNO is offensive. They are usually the same people that haven't a clue about irony, sarcasm, sexuality in all its forms and what it is to invoke a reaction via culture.

So by your reckoning we can ban the Bible because it is homophobic, represses woman and promotes radical behaviour, yes? Because I personally find that particular book to be very "offensive" in my world of "prevailing standards".

Sniperscope, if I have read you wrong then I apologise.

Phew settle down Zorin! Read the other post I made about this issue as well! I'm saying that we need to recognise if something is racist etc. and it's based upon prevailing standards - which are admittedly changable -but I think your indignation neatly evades the point that prevailing standards of the past did allow prejudice to be widely accepted...

But as I've also said (quite a few posts back) this does not invalidate the book but it's a recognition of the fact that it presents a mindset that today may be found offensive. That's all I'm saying! No censorship, no book-burnings, no pogroms. All of these things are anathema to me.

But to equate my point with the ignorance of book burnings and right-wing ideology is however offensive and more than a bit OTT.
The two classic examples of book burning I can think of are those perpetrated by the Nazis (and their crime was racially and politically motivated) and by the Christians in Alexandria (which was anti-intellectualism) and perhaps should actually make you more than aware of the reality that prevailing standards do affect the way people behave and see the world... for better or worse. But come on Zorin - neither of these examples have any bearing on a the discussion at hand and are quite beyond the scope of my post or my intention!

As for sarcasm and irony - I'm assuming you're being ironic re. TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD... (which of course is one of the greatest anti-racism novels ever written) and your reference to BRUNO is hardly appropriate to the discussion either - are you claiming Fleming was being ironic, sarcastic or poking fun at sexuality with LALD!?!? My dear fellow, really!

Just using BRUNO as an impending example of a homo-comedy that we will be told is either promoting homosexuality (which does its own marketing, believe me!) or being cruel to the gays (it isn't) when it addresses a few truths some quarters won't like.

I was being sarcastic using the great MOCKINGBIRD as an example. But I stand by my thoughts that "removing" or altering books so they don't offend (not that that is what you suggested) is wrong. Very wrong. Of course Harper Lee's beautiful book is anti-racist but there are people who would say it should be banned because it paints a negative picture of black people. They are the same people who would view BRUNO as homophobic.

Wasn't Fleming ALWAYS "being ironic, sarcastic or poking fun at sexuality" in his books?

And I must ask that if something was created fifty years ago in a different world, different culture, different attitudes... WHY would it be offensive now when attitudes have changed? I would certainly hope that intelligence and perspective had changed (though when you look at the world we may easily argue otherwise).

But - as my disclaimer said - if I read you wrong, then I apologise.

[dee-bee-five]

I'm saying that we need to recognise if something is racist etc. and it's based upon prevailing standards - which are admittedly changable -but I think your indignation neatly evades the point that prevailing standards of the past did allow prejudice to be widely accepted...

But this is the point, surely? We may look back at something and recognise racist/homophobic/whatever elements. What we surely cannot do is to judge those writers for what they wrote. Why? Because they cannot possibly be held responsible for offending future generations when they were unaware they were being prejudiced. I don't think for one second that Ian Fleming would have considered himself a racist; in fact, though he was probably a Tory at heart, on private and social matters he strikes me as far more liberal than most of his generation/class; on sexual matters he was practically an anarchist.

The trouble with going down the route you propose (not you, alone, of course - I'm not holding you responsible for the entire idiotic PC industry) is deciding where it ends. The whole idea of the Slave Trade is utterly regunant to me. But the city where I'm now writing this was partly built on the proceeds of the trade. What are we supposed to do? Dismantle every brick to assuage our guilt? The human race evolves. History can teach us so much (which is why the current UK government's downgrading of it in schools is so shortshighted) and, yes, we can learn from past mistakes. But judging the past to make ourselves feel somehow morally superior is just nonsense.

[Sniperscope]

And I must ask that if something was created fifty years ago in a different world, different culture, different attitudes... WHY would it be offensive now when attitudes have changed? I would certainly hope that intelligence and perspective had changed (though when you look at the world we may easily argue otherwise).

I really wish this could be true Zorin, but as you correctly point out the world has not really caught up... my own heavy-handed comments over this is probably a reflection of my frustration at the prejudice and intolerance that is still all too prevalent in society.

[dee-bee-five]

My own heavy-handed comments over this is probably a reflection of my frustration at the prejudice and intolerance that is still all too prevalent in society.

That is very much to your credit. And it's a sentiment I share.

[Sniperscope]

I'm saying that we need to recognise if something is racist etc. and it's based upon prevailing standards - which are admittedly changable -but I think your indignation neatly evades the point that prevailing standards of the past did allow prejudice to be widely accepted...

But this is the point, surely? We may look back at something and recognise racist/homophobic/whatever elements. What we surely cannot do is to judge those writers for what they wrote. Why? Because they cannot possibly be held responsible for offending future generations when they were unaware they were being prejudiced. I don't think for one second that Ian Fleming would have considered himself a racist; in fact, though he was probably a Tory at heart, on private and social matters he strikes me as far more liberal than most of his generation/class; on sexual matters he was practically an anarchist.

The trouble with going down the route you propose (not you, alone, of course - I'm not holding you responsible for the entire idiotic PC industry) is deciding where it ends. The whole idea of the Slave Trade is utterly regunant to me. But the city where I'm now writing this was partly built on the proceeds of the trade. What are we supposed to do? Dismantle every brick to assuage our guilt? The human race evolves. History can teach us so much (which is why the current UK government's downgrading of it in schools is so shortshighted) and, yes, we can learn from past mistakes. But judging the past to make ourselves feel somehow morally superior is just nonsense.

I won't disagree with any of your points here DB5 and I would never claim any kind of moral superiority and I hope I haven't suggested a judgmentalism based upon the past (that was not my intention at all)...
Your point about the past is for me the point I was making about Fleming and LALD (I think) - recognise it for what it was but it doesn't invalidate it as a worthwhile story or whatever. That's where it ends for me.

[Ambler]

Plenty of Guardian readers here.

[Zorin Industries]

My own heavy-handed comments over this is probably a reflection of my frustration at the prejudice and intolerance that is still all too prevalent in society.

That is very much to your credit. And it's a sentiment I share.

Ditto.

[dee-bee-five]

Plenty of Guardian readers here.

Well, let's not detain you from your Daily Star any longer, then...