Live And Let Die: Difference in versions
#1
Posted 21 May 2003 - 11:18 PM
#2
Posted 21 May 2003 - 11:23 PM
#3
Posted 21 May 2003 - 11:43 PM
Now to confuse things further the new U.S. Penguin version is suppose to have the original U.K. edit.
If this is your first time reading Live and Let Die, I’d say get either version, but if you have read the U.S. version before you might try to get your hands on the U.K. edit.
#4
Posted 22 May 2003 - 12:30 AM
#5
Posted 22 May 2003 - 02:15 AM
#6
Posted 22 May 2003 - 10:11 AM
#7
Posted 22 May 2003 - 11:32 AM
>>If this is your first time reading Live And Let Die, I
#8
Posted 22 May 2003 - 03:00 PM
In french versions there was some parts of the original texts cut off. Specially all the bad things about french people .;-)
#9
Posted 22 May 2003 - 10:27 PM
Although I'm not sure if this have ever been properly established. Does anyone know how Fleming reacted to these changes?
Sometimes authors can be very tolerant to what seems to me to be excessive meddling with their work. From the Fifties to the late-80s, the UK version of CATCHER IN THE RYE had over 100 changes to the text made by the UK editor. One was straightforward censorship: the f-word, written in full in the US edition, was replaced by f----, but the other changes were deletions of repetition of words and other such things. It changed the rambling, schitzophrenic nature of Holden's narration, yet the author, JD Salinger, apparently approved of the UK edition.
#10
Posted 23 May 2003 - 02:47 AM
Originally posted by Coop
I take your point, Mr Asterix, but the fact remains that the cut material is all of a racial nature- use of the word '' and vernacular dialogue between a young black couple. This suggests that it was censored rather than just altered to make the book better.
I suppose it comes down to whether Fleming agreed to the changes or not. That I don’t know. However, the editing was done by representitives of Fleming. It was not a forced censorship by the government. Now Macmillan may have told Fleming that the material was removed or they don’t publish the book, or they may have simply said to Fleming that they felt that thge text would not play well with an American audience. Either way, Fleming agreed. Though possibly under duress.
Of course, Macmillan could have easily just said they felt it was a better book without the racial remarks. No telling. If I ever make it to IU again I'll see what I can find out.
#11
Posted 08 June 2003 - 03:23 AM
Sometimes it is easier to use derogatory words than it is to think of more clever ways to explain a situation or character.
Recently I was editing someone's fan fiction and the N word was used not by Bond, but by a secondary character, and I, as her editor, advised her to change it.
I advised her to change it because the N word is not acceptable anymore.
I advised her to change it because she is not Fleming and is not racist at all, and I wouldn't want her to be viewed as such.
I advised her to change it because there are better ways to show someone is an idiot then by making their racism obvious.
If I were Fleming's American editor, for the reasons I listed above, I would have changed the title of that chapter, and toned some other things down as well.
It's unfortunate that the UK edition recently released hasn't come to the realization that there is no reason to use that word.
-- Xenobia
#12
Posted 08 June 2003 - 03:25 AM
#13
Posted 08 June 2003 - 03:58 AM
-- Xenobia
#14
Posted 08 June 2003 - 10:30 AM
Why is this word so taboo all of a sudden? And if it's so offensive, why do black people use it?
Censorship makes me sick. A lot of people find the word "****" offensive, so does that mean we ban its use? That means Lady Chatterley's Lover and Ulysees will have to be purged.
What harm in there in calling a chapter Nıgger Heaven? It's hardly going to corrupt anyone. And if it offends people, tough! I found that recent Martin Lawrence film racist towards whites and offensive but so what? I wouldn't ban it. If he wants to do it, let him. It's called freedom of speech!
#15
Posted 08 June 2003 - 09:19 PM
#16
Posted 08 June 2003 - 10:29 PM
Mind you there is the argument that Bond dehumanizes everyone as part of the job, be he can do so without using that kind of language.
-- Xenobia
#17
Posted 09 June 2003 - 11:38 AM
Originally posted by Xenobia (edited)
...Bond's use of the N word is not meant in jest, it is meant to demean and dehumanize...
When did Bond use the ‘N word’? I don’t recall Bond ever saying that. No. The only time the word is used is in the chapter title in question, so that would be on Fleming. Except because of the way it is presented it is not clear of the context of the word. Is ‘Nıgger Heaven’ Bond’s thoughts on Harlem? Or is it Felix’s? Or is it possibly the thoughts of one of the black people in the chapter? Or could is it just Fleming’s words? Like I said it is not clear. The chapter title is not in context so we will never know. Personally, with my knowledge of Fleming, I would think that it is Fleming’s words, but not particularly meant in harm. Fleming likes to find the most colourful names for things and places, and this chapter title is an example of that. Seventh Avenue is not a particularly colourful title, it evokes no emotions. It doesn’t seem like Fleming’s word.
I am for the ‘N word’ never being used in the future, but I am completely against erasing history. So I want Nıgger Heaven to remain as the chapter title, particularly in the UK editions. I do wish though that the word someday becomes one of those words in old literature that students would have to look up to find the meaning of.
#18
Posted 09 June 2003 - 12:27 PM
Originally posted by Mister Asterix
I am for the ‘N word’ never being used in the future, but I am completely against erasing history.
I agree. I am very much against the Bond novels (and other respected works of literature) being bowdlerized according to today's standards. Fleming's works ought to be preserved as they are, so that we can understand the man and his era to the best possible extent. Also, censorship is, generally speaking, A Bad Thing (especially retrospective censorship). And if "" were cut from "Live and Let Die", I doubt that the following observation from "The Spy Who Loved Me" would be permitted to remain: "All women love semi-rape. They love to be taken." What if some politically correct busybody decided that "chigroes" was an offensive term? Where would it end? Which other authors would the censors start on? If it were decided that the use of "" in Fleming was intolerable, what would be the argument for tolerating the films of, say, Quentin Tarantino, in which that word is used by white as well as by black characters?
#19
Posted 09 June 2003 - 06:44 PM
And as for Mr. Tarantino, I will harken you back to the comments made by the Killkenny Kid. Some folks think it is OK to use that word now, but those folks do not speak for the majority of African Americans.
-- Xenobia
#20
Posted 09 June 2003 - 07:00 PM
Originally posted by Xenobia
OK....there is a difference between political correctness, and out and out offense. The N word is out and out offense.
And as for Mr. Tarantino, I will harken you back to the comments made by the Killkenny Kid. Some folks think it is OK to use that word now, but those folks do not speak for the majority of African Americans.
-- Xenobia
Fair enough, but given the number of people who have seen PULP FICTION, compared to the size of today's readership of "Live and Let Die", I imagine that Tarantino has reached and insulted far more black (and white) people than Fleming with his use of the taboo word. For the sake of consistency, we must call for the likes of PULP FICTION to be banned or censored if that is the treatment we feel appropriate for Fleming's novels. And we couldn't stop at Fleming and Tarantino, obviously.
#21
Posted 09 June 2003 - 07:10 PM
#22
Posted 11 September 2004 - 11:48 AM
When did Bond use the ‘N word’? I don’t recall Bond ever saying that. No.
There's a bit of dialogue in the UK Edit of Diamonds Are Forever, however, where Bond remembers speaking to Felix Leiter, and referring to Mr. Big as "That damned ."
Here it is, page 91 of the Pan paperback:
Bond had a natural affection for coloured people, but he reflected how lucky England was compared with America where you had to live with the colour problem from your schooldays up. He smiled as he remembered something Felix Leiter had said to him on their last assignment together in America. Bond had referred to Mr Big, the famous Harlem criminal, as'that damned '. Leiter had picked him up. "Careful now, James," he had said. "People are so dam' sensitive about colour around here that you can't even ask a barman for a jigger of rum. You have to ask for a jegro."
The memory of Leiter's wisecrack cheered Bond up. He took his eyes off the Negro and looked over the rest of the Acme Mud Bath.
In retrospect, that looks to me like it could be Fleming himself grumbling about the sensitivities of Americans requiring changes in LALD. Wouldn't he have been writing DAF at about the time the changes were made for the American publication?
#23
Posted 11 September 2004 - 01:51 PM
#24
Posted 21 September 2004 - 04:01 AM
This could very well be the case Leviathan. Nice catch there.In retrospect, that looks to me like it could be Fleming himself grumbling about the sensitivities of Americans requiring changes in LALD. Wouldn't he have been writing DAF at about the time the changes were made for the American publication?
Fleming may have decided to tone down his views after reading the flack he may have copped from what he wrote in Live And Let Die.
BTW, cheers for giving me the headup in the Yahoo Spynovels Group.
#25
Posted 21 September 2004 - 10:52 AM