61 replies to this topic

[nanolark]

A question to all Bond fans. What do you think are the reasons for novels' immense popularity?

One of my dear friends suggested that the readership is interested in the Bond books just because of the influence of the movies. I didn't agree but I also lacked strong evidence to prove he's not right.

What is it then?

 

[Mr_Wint]

It's a no-brainer: Because of the movies.

[Pierceuhhh]

The movies. If Modesty Blaise had had a good movie series made about it we'd be having this discussion on modestyblaise.net

[Dustin]

I agree, it's the films; only I'd add it's the fact the film series is still going.

There have been many, many popular series in the past, all of them successful in their time and often bringing their respective writers huge fame in the process. But many of those are all but forgotten today, even some of the greatest names. How many people read Chandler or Hammet today? Cornel Woolrich? Eric Ambler? Lionel Davidson?

Fame - at least the kind that comes from having your name on the cover of a book, that is - has become an increasingly fickle commodity, impossible to foretell, often coming out of the blue and just as often fading overnight in our times. The only constant among those whose fame lasts over decades seems to be a continuous exposition of their names to the public. A thing like 'Ian Fleming's James Bond 007 in...'

[Guy Haines]

Agreed about the films, and if it hadn't been for the 1960s classics we wouldn't be having this online conversation because, if the film makers hadn't somehow or other got it right, the film series might have ended after two or three movies. Unless, that is, someone "discovered" Fleming's Bond novels later on and decided to do something with them, and even then there's no telling whether it would have worked out.

 

Dr No started it. From Russia With Love continued it, and Goldfinger nailed it. And that's why, 23 official movies later, we are looking forward to "Spectre" this autumn.

[AMC Hornet]

It's also partly in seeing some films, then reading the corresponding novels and having a completely different yet still similar experience.

 

Does that make sense?

[Dustin]

Perhaps that too. The films tried from the start to translate Fleming into a visual format that was both different from the original - and rather bloodthirsty - tales, yet didn't just water the prose down but replaced Fleming's mixture with an altogether more surrealist, bizzare and spectacular style. Goldfinger's 'Pressure Room' with the buzz saw and the half-naked Odd Job giving Bond the third degree? Far too much into splatter country - just think of the unbelievable mess and horrors of such a setup. Instead the hero is strapped onto a tabletop of massive gold, itself an incredible fortune, and threatened with castration and painful death by a car-sized laser gun.

This kind of transformation between book and film has become the hallmark of the Eon films for a long time; death was meted out by extremely costly, unconventional weapons and means. And the resulting oblivion often enough a joke whose punchline made the audience just a bit uneasy while they chuckled.

There is of course a relation between film and book. Sometimes it's a close one, sometimes it's inverted in a strange kind of pantomime, as if the film told the story the book didn't dare telling, and vice versa. See DAF for an example of that case.

And sometimes the film ventures far, far away, leaves behind Earth and with it Fleming's mostly unpretentious juvenile adventures. But when you take a closer look you realise the film is in fact still pretty close to Fleming's idea, it's only the rites and customs of late-70s adventure cinema that act as a smokescreen for the fact that particular film is still about a man planning to gass human life on the entire planet and replace it with his very own race of Riefenstahl 'heavenly bodies', a task Fleming's original villain would no doubt have supported if he hadn't been killed by his own rocket.

[AMC Hornet]

There is of course a relation between film and book. Sometimes it's a close one, sometimes it's inverted in a strange kind of pantomime, as if the film told the story the book didn't dare telling, and vice versa. See DAF for an example of that case.

The very one I had in mind.

 

No Mustang chase, no Blofeld, no oil platform - but a overview of 1950s Vegas, a ghost town and train and an auction on the Queen Mary.

 

Same title, same hero, same beginning, then everything else comes out of left field - whether you read the book or saw the film first.

 

Two for the price of one!

[DaveBond21]

What's the cheapest way of buying all the novels at once?

[Dustin]

All at once? Hmmm, other than going for various used paperbacks you probably might get a decent deal with an e-reader bundle. I faintly remember the company with the capital A had a number of three-book omnibuses for their kindle device.

[Pam Bouvier]

I don't know.  I read the first book long before I saw a Bond movie.  Once I read Casino Royale I was hooked and sought out the rest.  Of course that was in the early 70's and things have changed a lot since then.

 

The think Fleming writing has endured. The movies many initially lead people to the books but once you read one, you see how very different the books are from the films.  The books give Bond depth that many of the films simply can't.

 

IMHO that is a  large factor in why the books are still popular.

[Emrayfo]

Whilst most of the topics nanolark has started have produced some interesting discussion, once you go to his/her profile on select 'content' it is clear this person is trying to crowd source their academic paper.

[JLaidlaw]

Whilst most of the topics nanolark has started have produced some interesting discussion, once you go to his/her profile on select 'content' it is clear this person is trying to crowd source their academic paper.

 

Ha! Resourceful idea. But in that case, I think I'll just respond to this:

What's the cheapest way of buying all the novels at once?

Everytime penguin rerelease the novels, a boxset ends up at discount UK book retailers The Works or The Book People for around £15. These links are currently sold out; The Fahey Covers and the Vintage Fleming Set. I got the former for £10.99 once. I'd wait and see if the books are rereleased for Spectre, secure in the knowledge you'll get a better deal.

 

As for second hand version of these boxes, most people seem to be selling them off at ludicrous 1000% profits on Amazon. However there's a Vintage one on Gumtree, London for £15 which is still available, if you can somehow get it to Sydney.

Edited by JLaidlaw, 05 July 2015 - 03:41 PM.

[Emrayfo]

What's the cheapest way of buying all the novels at once?

Everytime penguin rerelease the novels, a boxset ends up at discount UK book retailers The Works or The Book People for around £15. These links are currently sold out; The Fahey Covers and the Vintage Fleming Set. I got the former for £10.99 once. I'd wait and see if the books are rereleased for Spectre, secure in the knowledge you'll get a better deal.

 

As for second hand version of these boxes, most people seem to be selling them off at ludicrous 1000% profits on Amazon. However there's a Vintage one on Gumtree, London for £15 which is still available, if you can somehow get it to Sydney.

 

 

Yes, DaveBond21, this is very good advice from JLaidlaw. I bought my set this way. You could try doing a search on www.booko.com.au which searches multiple bookseller websites. 

[Double Naught spy]

To quote one of my best friends - who happens to be gay, "Yeah, why are they still popular?"  As much as I enjoy the novels, I have a hard time defending Fleming's attitude towards homosexuals to my friend.  Fleming's numerous (and arguably ignorant by even 1950's standards) comments on how gays are either confused misfits or, in Pussy Galore's case, are only gay as a byproduct of a past sexual assault, are off-putting and hurtful to many in the gay community.

 

Maybe it is time for us (i.e. the fans) to demand that IFP edit out any-and-all hurtful (Felix's "jigro" joke and 007's "n***er" from DAF also comes to mind) passages from Fleming's novels.  It's a shame that, if it weren't for a few throwaway-able sentences, more people shouldn't be allowed to enjoy Fleming's otherwise-brilliant literary works.   

Edited by Double Naught spy, 06 July 2015 - 04:31 AM.

[Emrayfo]

Double Naught, while I appreciate the tenor and good intent of your suggestion, and am very sympathetic to those ill-treated in Fleming's texts - viz women, non-whites, homosexuals, the disabled et al - I cannot support this suggestion. I have a strong aversion to censorship of any type. The 2002 re-release of Steven Spielberg's E.T. utilised CGI to replace all the government operatives' guns with walkie talkies. While arguably in the case of E.T. it is a valid editorial choice by the original author of the work - like a 'Director's Cut' - to me that kind of forced change to the historical record is anathema. It is the kind of thing that was routinely practiced in the USSR and other totalitarian regimes. It was rightly pilloried in 1984 by George Orwell.

 

Rather, I think the better path is to acknowledge both the art and the flaws of these works as they were originally constituted. They were a product of a particular time and place and a particular personality with his obsessions, prejudices and foibles. Remember, as L.P. Hartley wrote, "The past is another country: they do things differently there".

 

Instead, we should look to the continuation authors and the new EON films to 'right' these 'wrongs', if that is what they are. Or another way to put it, to bring Bond and his world up-to-date with the values and mores of the contemporary world, while maintaining those aspects of the character that make him who he is, to the point we can recognise him both in 2008's Carte Blanche novel and in 2006's Casino Royale film, as much as in any of the original Fleming books or the film of FRWL.

 

There are doubtless things in Dostoyevsky or the Brontë sisters' novels we would/should object to today, but they continue to be read and interpreted and adapted and that is because they remain inspiring works of art. Let Fleming be Fleming.

[Call Billy Bob]

Double Naught, while I appreciate the tenor and good intent of your suggestion, and am very sympathetic to those ill-treated in Fleming's texts - viz women, non-whites, homosexuals, the disabled et al - I cannot support this suggestion. I have a strong aversion to censorship of any type. The 2002 re-release of Steven Spielberg's E.T. utilised CGI to replace all the government operatives' guns with walkie talkies. While arguably in the case of E.T. it is a valid editorial choice by the original author of the work - like a 'Director's Cut' - to me that kind of forced change to the historical record is anathema. It is the kind of thing that was routinely practiced in the USSR and other totalitarian regimes. It was rightly pilloried in 1984 by George Orwell.
 
Rather, I think the better path is to acknowledge both the art and the flaws of these works as they were originally constituted. They were a product of a particular time and place and a particular personality with his obsessions, prejudices and foibles. Remember, as L.P. Hartley wrote, "The past is another country: they do things differently there".
 
Instead, we should look to the continuation authors and the new EON films to 'right' these 'wrongs', if that is what they are. Or another way to put it, to bring Bond and his world up-to-date with the values and mores of the contemporary world, while maintaining those aspects of the character that make him who he is, to the point we can recognise him both in 2008's Carte Blanche novel and in 2006's Casino Royale film, as much as in any of the original Fleming books or the film of FRWL.
 
There are doubtless things in Dostoyevsky or the Brontë sisters' novels we would/should object to today, but they continue to be read and interpreted and adapted and that is because they remain inspiring works of art. Let Fleming be Fleming.

Spot on, Emrayfo. I applaud you. Censorship is never the answer. We should both appreciate the greatness of the past while also learning not to repeat the mistakes others made.

[Major Tallon]

I've mentioned elsewhere that "updating" Fleming is already taking place, and not just with respect to his racial and social opinions.  In the Vintage edition of Diamonds Are Forever, the editors have changed Tiffany's reply to Bond's question, "Do you mind if I smoke?"  The original response was, "As long as it's tobacco" (chapter 5), indicating not only Tiffany's intolerance for certain non-tobacco substances, but also suggesting her dislike for the weak "tobaccoless" cigarettes that were marketed from time to time.  In the Vintage edition has Tiffany respond, "If that's the way you want to die," a curious riposte for a woman who, in chapter 9 of the same edition, would have Bond light her cigarette at dinner.  What 's next, one may wonder.  Should Bond be lectured on the evils of drink or admonished because of his car's carbon footprint?

 

I agree with Emrayfo and Call Billy Bob.  Censorship isn't the answer.

[tdalton]

Can't say that it's surprising that the publishers would look to censor, or "update", Fleming.  You can't say anything anymore that has even the potential to offend just one person.  Say something that someone doesn't agree with, they claim offense, round up a bunch of like-minded people, and shout the other down with stupid phrases like "wrong side of history" until the person with the original comment is shamed into backing down or shutting up.  Seems like the same standard is now applying to our various forms of entertainment, like books in this case.

 

It's also part of the entitlement culture that is just running rampant.  People who feel, in many cases not entirely unjustifiably, that Fleming's work is offensive in some ways, also feel that they're entitled to consume anything and everything that they want, even if that means having to change things that they don't like in order to line up with their own "morals".

[Revelator]

How many people read Chandler or Hammet today?

 

A good amount I'd say. Chandler and Hammett are still in print and can be found in any decent bookstore. They're still around because they're recognized as literary classics, the founding texts of the American detective story. They might not be airport bestsellers, but they're still widely read and influential in America.
 

I've mentioned elsewhere that "updating" Fleming is already taking place, and not just with respect to his racial and social opinions.

 

I don't have Gilbert's Fleming Bibliography near me for consultation, but if I remember correctly Gilbert says the line change in DAF is not a matter of updating but rather of divergent proofs or manuscripts.

[Emrayfo]

 

How many people read Chandler or Hammet today?

 

A good amount I'd say. Chandler and Hammett are still in print and can be found in any decent bookstore. They're still around because they're recognized as literary classics, the founding texts of the American detective story. They might not be airport bestsellers, but they're still widely read and influential in America.

 

I read Raymond Chandler. I think Marlowe is a great character and I esteem the way the stories are written - so much better than the copy-cats and caricatures that have been mediated down to us over the years. I've yet to try any Dashiel Hammet but I've been meaning to get around to it.

 

 

It's also part of the entitlement culture that is just running rampant.  People who feel, in many cases not entirely unjustifiably, that Fleming's work is offensive in some ways, also feel that they're entitled to consume anything and everything that they want, even if that means having to change things that they don't like in order to line up with their own "morals".

 

Well put, tdalton. 

 

A lot of the concerns of Double Naught Spy are justified in their contemporary judgement, and they do often represent historical affronts that ought be addressed by our culture. But these same critics must accept that improving the future is not best served by sanitising the past.

 

Casino Royale is a case in point. There may be many aspects of the original novel that may seem out of date now, whether it is the way people relate to each other, the technology of the day, the treatment of certain classes of people, or the geopolitical situation in Europe. Yet the novel remains the same today as when it was written and can be enjoyed on its merits, or not. The 2006 film that drew on the novel represents an excellent example of how we can cope with source material that may contain what we would now consider undesirable elements for telling the story anew in our time. Casino Royale the film is recognisably the same story, even though it changed many of the minor elements that no longer fit well within or reflect contemporary culture. A new presentation or interpretation is fine, but not censoring the original to fit our new world.

 

One of the strongest criticisms leveled against the series Mad Men was it's depiction of the gross and overt sexism that was once commonplace and, despite the latent sexism still in our world, strikes many in the early 21st century as repugnant, unbelievable, or just unhelpful to the contemporary cause. For a show that stove for fidelity to the times and places it sought to depict, we should expect to be somewhat disturbed. It is good to be reminded of how far we have come, and that change is possible. The advent in the 20th century and ongoing negotiation of civil rights, women's rights, disabled rights, homosexual rights is something to be proud of - we have cultivated remarkable cultural change in a relatively short span of time. Knowing how far we have come is another way of reminding us not to become complacent and that there is still much more to be done. Otherwise we risk being stranded in an a-historical ever present now, like the characters in Brave New World and 1984. If we don't know about what has changed, how can we judge our government's and our society?

[Revelator]

 

I don't have Gilbert's Fleming Bibliography near me for consultation, but if I remember correctly Gilbert says the line change in DAF is not a matter of updating but rather of divergent proofs or manuscripts.

 

 

I'm embarassed to report that I was completely wrong. I can't find anything about that line change in Gilbert, despite having been sure I'd read about it there. 

[Orion]

 

 

How many people read Chandler or Hammet today?

 

A good amount I'd say. Chandler and Hammett are still in print and can be found in any decent bookstore. They're still around because they're recognized as literary classics, the founding texts of the American detective story. They might not be airport bestsellers, but they're still widely read and influential in America.

 

I read Raymond Chandler. I think Marlowe is a great character and I esteem the way the stories are written - so much better than the copy-cats and caricatures that have been mediated down to us over the years. I've yet to try any Dashiel Hammet but I've been meaning to get around to it.

 

 

It's also part of the entitlement culture that is just running rampant.  People who feel, in many cases not entirely unjustifiably, that Fleming's work is offensive in some ways, also feel that they're entitled to consume anything and everything that they want, even if that means having to change things that they don't like in order to line up with their own "morals".

 

Well put, tdalton. 

 

A lot of the concerns of Double Naught Spy are justified in their contemporary judgement, and they do often represent historical affronts that ought be addressed by our culture. But these same critics must accept that improving the future is not best served by sanitising the past.

 

Casino Royale is a case in point. There may be many aspects of the original novel that may seem out of date now, whether it is the way people relate to each other, the technology of the day, the treatment of certain classes of people, or the geopolitical situation in Europe. Yet the novel remains the same today as when it was written and can be enjoyed on its merits, or not. The 2006 film that drew on the novel represents an excellent example of how we can cope with source material that may contain what we would now consider undesirable elements for telling the story anew in our time. Casino Royale the film is recognisably the same story, even though it changed many of the minor elements that no longer fit well within or reflect contemporary culture. A new presentation or interpretation is fine, but not censoring the original to fit our new world.

 

One of the strongest criticisms leveled against the series Mad Men was it's depiction of the gross and overt sexism that was once commonplace and, despite the latent sexism still in our world, strikes many in the early 21st century as repugnant, unbelievable, or just unhelpful to the contemporary cause. For a show that stove for fidelity to the times and places it sought to depict, we should expect to be somewhat disturbed. It is good to be reminded of how far we have come, and that change is possible. The advent in the 20th century and ongoing negotiation of civil rights, women's rights, disabled rights, homosexual rights is something to be proud of - we have cultivated remarkable cultural change in a relatively short span of time. Knowing how far we have come is another way of reminding us not to become complacent and that there is still much more to be done. Otherwise we risk being stranded in an a-historical ever present now, like the characters in Brave New World and 1984. If we don't know about what has changed, how can we judge our government's and our society?

 

Indeed. Summed up by that old adage - Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

 

As long as people keep in mind that these book where written in the 50's and 60's by a man born in 1908 and have the morals and views you'd expect for a man of that age, in that time, these books are quite beautifully written. The opening chapters of both Casino Royale and Goldfinger are some of the finest opening pages ever committed to paper.

[Major Tallon]

Hi, Revelator,

 

It looks like I'm the one who was wrong!  As I've noted several times, I've made numerous trips to the Lilly Library in Bloomington, Indiana, a rare book library that houses Ian Fleming's personal copies of the James Bond manuscripts, and made a line-by-line comparison between the original typewritten manuscripts and the eventual published editions.  Diamonds Are Forever is one of the most heavily edited Bond manuscripts, with numerous editorial changes in pen and ink.  After our discussion of this topic, I checked my notes and confirmed that Tiffany's line, "If that's the way you want to die," was a change made in Fleming's handwriting from the line he'd originally written for Tiffany ("Don't mind if you burn"), and this changed response was the one published in the British editions of the text.  The change to "As long as it's tobacco" would appear to have been made by Fleming's US publisher.  

 

I've found many instances in which Fleming's text was changed in the old American editions.  Various reasons can be speculated about, but in this case, I imagine there was some commercial connection between the publisher and a tobacco company that underlay the change. 

 

Perhaps Fleming thought that the response he'd originally given Tiffany ("Don't mind if you burn") made her seem a bit too hard-boiled, though "If that's the way you want to die" isn't much softer.  In any event, as I noted in Post #18, this initial alteration seems incongruous in light of the fact that Tiffany was herself a smoker.

[Revelator]

Oh! Then perhaps Gilbert discussed the change elsewhere than in the chapter on DAF. Or I have an overactive imagination...

The American editions also made changes to parts of the books discussing race. The American version of LALD removes all instances of the n-word, and the lousy "jegro" joke is absent from DAF. I grew up reading the American editions of those two books and sometimes regret that Fleming's British editors didn't excercise similar judgment. But Britain was a less racially senstive country back then.

[Orion]

Oh! Then perhaps Gilbert discussed the change elsewhere than in the chapter on DAF. Or I have an overactive imagination...

The American editions also made changes to parts of the books discussing race. The American version of LALD removes all instances of the n-word, and the lousy "jegro" joke is absent from DAF. I grew up reading the American editions of those two books and sometimes regret that Fleming's British editors didn't excercise similar judgment. But Britain was a less racially senstive country back then.

I think it was just assumed (wrongly) that the entire audience for Fleming's novels in Britain where white men similar to Fleming who wouldn't find issue with the things that Fleming was writing.

[Double Naught spy]

Whoa!  I'm not calling for Fleming to be "censored."  What I'm advocating is that the owners (IFP) of Fleming's work seriously consider what's more important to them: Maintaining the historical integrity of his works at the expense of hurting a (very vocal) segment of the population or, potentially increasing the sales of updated versions of Fleming's novels via the positive PR they, IFP, would doubtlessly receive by taking such a bold, enlightened step towards the future?   

 

Perhaps, because it is Fleming, this hits too close to home on this site, so I'll use another, current-day, example to illustrate what I mean.  No one (except for a small minority) is upset with Bubba Watson for his plans to paint over the Confederate Flag on his Dukes of Hazard car.  It is his property, and as such, he can do with it as he pleases.  Mr. Watson realizes that the image of the Rebel Flag is hurtful to many, and as such, has decided to act accordingly.  No one, government or otherwise, is forcing him to do this. 

 

However, if Mr. Watson had not made the right choice, then it would be entirely within the rights of the those offended by such racist-tinged imagery to go through the legal system to force him to get rid of the painted flag.  We're a long way away from official, governmental  censorship of the less-enlightened elements of Fleming's novels.  In the meantime, I'm all for giving IFP the opportunity to do the right thing without feeling the need to get government involved.  

Edited by Double Naught spy, 08 July 2015 - 02:55 AM.

[Revelator]

Whoa!  I'm not calling for Fleming to be "censored."  What I'm advocating is that the owners (IFP) of Fleming's work seriously consider what's more important to them: Maintaining the historical integrity of his works at the expense of hurting a (very vocal) segment of the population or, potentially increasing the sales of updated versions of Fleming's novels via the positive PR they, IFP, would doubtlessly receive by taking such a bold, enlightened step towards the future?  

 

I can see why that would seem like an attractive idea, but I don't think it would work. The genie's been out of the bottle for half a century. Taking out the offensive bits would likely draw more attention to them, not less. It would undoubtedly draw negative publicity. Some would attack it as an attempt to fool the public and point to the well-known censored passages, giving them even more unwelcome attention. Readers whose only experiences were with the sanitized books would feel betrayed and angry upon later encountering the offensive passages--and such encounters would be quite likely, since those passages can hardly be expunged from the public record. Such a project would also go against common standards--it's common for controversial passages of older books to be restored, but not for an uncensored older book to be censored. I doubt that IFP would chance the loss of prestige associated with censorship.

 

And ultimately I don't think creating sanitized versions of the novels would drive up sales. We don't have evidence that bad public word of mouth has kept sales down. The cultural prominence of the Bond movies has probably had a more negative impact since the films have completely overshadowed their sources and affected the public's perception of them (a frequent complaint I've heard is that the Bond books have "less action" than the movies). The readership for old thrillers is also small. William Le Queux and E. Phillips Oppenheim were once among the most widely-read spy novelists in the world. Who reads them today, aside from literary historians? Moving forward, there are more readers for Eric Ambler and Graham Greene and John LeCarre (who is still active), but that's partly because they've been acclaimed as classics, like Chandler and Hammett in the detective field. And whether one likes it or not, it's usually the acclaim of academics and influential critics that allows a book to survive after it's stopped being a bestseller (those who don't believe me should take a look at the lists of the ten best-selling books of any random year--whether it's 1942 or 1958 or 1971, most of the blockbusters have passed into oblivion). Though Fleming has recently achieved more critical respectability recently, he's not out of the woods yet. 

 

Fleming's work has been strong enough to generate a cult following, but there's a limit to its size, especially because the Bond films are no longer the hot novelty they were in the 60s. Since the Bond books are concerned with adult interests they'll never have the childhood appeal of stuff like Harry Potter, and they're too rooted in their time and place to have the cult appeal of Tolkien and other fantasies.

I don't foresee censored editions of the Bond books coming out anytime soon, but it's instead possible they might be reissued with "Trigger Warnings"--though I think they're of dubious effectiveness, I don't mind a compromise on that scale.

[AMC Hornet]

'Trigger Warnings'? Sounds like an alternate title for Anthony Horowitz's pending entry!

 

Actually, abridged versions of Fleming's works have already appeared.

 

I remember seeing a couple of paperbacks for OHMSS and TMWTGG in the eighties (I think they may have actually been published in the 70s) that had been abridged for a teen readership. I did not collect them as I - like others here - am not interested in watered-down, juvenile versions of adult thrillers (yes, I bought Higson's volumes, as they were original works, but I find they don't compel rereading the way the master's do).

 

I don't remember which publisher put them out, but I do remember that Chapter One of OHMSS had been retitled 'Bond at the Beach' and was noticeably shorter than the original, as were all the chapters. Gone was anything deemed too racy and violent for impressionable young minds such as mine had been when I was ready to graduate from Hardy Boys Mysteries a decade earlier.

 

TMWTGG featured the film version of the titular weapon on the cover, although the description of the Colt .45 remained intact. Within, Scaramanga sure wasn't at no. 3 1/2 Love Lane for the sake of his 'weed and a bit of tail'!

 

Personally, I was offended by the sanitizing of these stories, but then they weren't intended for me - they were intended for youths who hadn't read the originals yet (or who weren't 'ready' for them) - just like Higson's and now Cole's work.

 

I haven't listened to all my CDs of Rufus Sewell reading the Bond novels yet, but I expect that, as they are by necessity judiciously abridged, LALD will be missing the offending, marginalizing words and passages. Recorded books are a good medium for that.

 

So would ebooks be - there's where the changes can be made, for the benefit of younger readers who aren't interested in holding a real, cardboard-and-pulp volume in their sweaty, frustrated pubescent hands. Better to keep these innocent, sanitized, inoffensive adventure stories on the same device they use for playing GTA and MoH and for surfing internet porn.

[Dustin]

I sense a missing tongue here. May have gotten stuck inside one's cheek...