James Bond books edited to remove racist references

1910111315

Comments

  • Posts: 988
    I'd love to see all the changes they made, laid out side-by-side with the original text.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited May 2023 Posts: 2,895
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Part of Bond's appeal nowadays is that he is in some ways quite anachronistic in the modern world. If you strip that away it takes away a lot of the fun and nostalgia.
    Yes! Hence Phoebe Waller Bridge's comment that 'The world's changed, but he doesn't have to. He should be true to his character.' I hope they keep that line in mind for the next guy's run - there's potential for some great moments there.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    Revelator wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I don't think anyone is saying that he will have 'preferred' these edits to the other books, just that there's no evidence that he wouldn't have accepted it.

    Or evidence that he would.

    Oh gosh, it's just 'he said' 'she said' now. We're going around in circles. As I said, there is evidence that he was okay with them being altered for other markets, there's not much evidence to say he put his foot down over it. Dr No got a different title in serialisation etc. and that was the sixth one in. So the balance tips towards 'might have accepted it'.
    Revelator wrote: »
    Well I'm sure; I'd like to see all sorts of things from behind the scenes. I'd love to see Pierce Brosnan's original audition. They have no obligation to produce them though.

    They don't, but they're in the business of appealking to readers, and if they wanted to prevent or counter some of the criticism they received they could have done a better job of making their case.

    Maybe, but your point was that "IFP has also yet to produce any convincing evidence that its profits will rise or be affected", that's what I was replying to, and their profits are none of our business.
    Revelator wrote: »
    It's all rather half-hearted in Canada though... I think the black-covered Fleming reprints avoid having 'James Bond' on the cover, don't they? I can't find an image of them now.

    You can easily find them by searching the website of Canada's largest bookseller, which sells them in stores as well. Nothing half-hearted about that.

    Okay found them: as I said, they don't have 'James Bond' on the cover. Which was to my original point. Yes I know the new IFP ones don't either, but they hardly downplay it as much, and I do still wonder how the trademarking works. You don't have to answer, it's a rhetorical question.
    Also the new original fiction was what I meant by half-hearted: no-name authors in a short story collection and little else.
    Revelator wrote: »
    Alterations and additions were made, whereas these new versions have a word here or there trimmed out.

    Aside from the differences between the US and UK edits of LALD, where entire sentences and pages have been eliminated, the edits to the other books remove phrases and sentences to remove mention of characters' ethnicity.

    That's what I said, yes.
    Revelator wrote: »
    So they're changing the original editions as agreed by the publishers/authors etc. when they were alive. You see, a lot of these arguments are presented as absolutes, when there's always been movement on them in reality.

    They're publishing new translations to better capture the author's original text, not later impositions by translators and editors.

    That's great, and illustrates my point, yes.
    Revelator wrote: »
    So you actually want them to be edited down further? Because your other points suggest that you're not happy with the edits.

    I don't want them edited at all, especially because the current edits show how such a project is bound to be inconsistent in its purpose.

    Right: that's what I mean about being disingenuous then. When you said "Why stop at racism?" and "by this logic those passages should be removed" you don't want that, and changing the conversation to complain about something that you don't want to happen not happening is just pointless.
    Revelator wrote: »
    The original texts are easily findable as ebooks. The Folio editions are out there. They're not going anywhere. And when I went to my bookshop they still had a load of the penguin versions.

    Good for folks who go to your local bookshop, but it's still unfortunate that most readers can no longer buy new copies of the original texts. As for ebooks, those can be changed even more quickly than print editions, as others have pointed out.

    Nonsense. If folks have previously bought the ebooks then they've bought them from Penguin, not from IFP. IFP will have no access to ebooks distributed by Penguin. But regardless, I have copies of the ebooks which aren't tied to purchases and live entirely offline, and those are easily findable.
    And as I said, there are so many books which people can't buy any new editions of because they're out of print. These books simply haven't disappeared.
    Revelator wrote: »
    You should doubt yourself then. I daresay quite a few people have bought the Folio editions of the Flemings just because of the beauty of the item and never actually read the pages.

    And those people bought the Folio editions because they already had read the original books. Such people don't represent a substantial amount of the reading public either.

    You're just arguing each individual response rather than remembering the context. My point was that people enjoy printed books as a product experience, they are more than the text.
    Revelator wrote: »
    It ignores his preferences and decisions, which is what the problem seemed to be earlier.

    It ignores his preferences and decisions about the cover, not about the author's actual work. And nothing suggests Fleming was upset by his books being reprinted as paperbacks with different covers.

    Nothing suggests he was upset about alterations either. And as I said, books are products. Fleming even designed the original cover of CR himself, so that is his actual work.
    Of course Fleming did try and censor his work when he said he didn't want TSWLM reprinted: are we happy about his preferences being ignored there?
    Revelator wrote: »
    Most people are able to spot a change of cover, but I suspect the large majority won't be able to spot these few words being trimmed out.

    If they've read the original texts before, they'll almost certainly recognize when some of the most racist passages are missing.

    Only if they've memorised them, come on. If the book I read last week had a paragraph taken out I doubt I'd notice if I read it again next week, I would be amazed if that was different for 95% of people.
    Revelator wrote: »
    The original editors and publishers approved the cover, the typesetting, the introductions etc. These are constantly revised, and supply context to the book.

    They don't supply what we think of the actual book, when we say "I've read that book." And though covers matter in selling a book, they don't matter enough to not be continually changed. Whereas no respectable editor thinks, "well, let's get a new cover for our new edition of Farewell to Arms and let's get some new text too!"
    You think no-one looked at the Pan cover to Moonraker and allowed that to shape their idea of what Bond, the rocket, Gala etc. looked like? That's changing the experience for, let's say, the majority of readers, every time.

    I reread books with different covers all the time, and while I might buy a certain edition because I like its cover more than another's, the cover doesn't alter or influence my perception of the author's text, whether I'm reading for the first or fourth time. I don't judge the text by the cover, which is primarily an advertising element designed to grab the buyer's eye. The same thing goes for movie posters--I prefer the originals but I'm not going to think less of a movie, or judge it differently, if they used a bland modern poster for the DVD cover.

    That is purely anecdotal for you though. Your experience is not universal.
    Revelator wrote: »
    I should say again to make my position clear: my preference would be for them to remain unedited. But I can see why they've done it, and the alterations sound like they're so minor that I think they're being overstated and I find a lot of the arguments that books must never be edited to be on slightly shaky ground, especially in this case.

    As written above, I don't believe the alterations are minor in nature, and they go beyond changing a few words. These carefully chosen edits present a false and sanitzed picture of Fleming's racial attudes to new readers.
    The principle that a book shouldn't be retroactively edited by someone else beside the author isn't shaky--it's widely held and consistently maintained, which is why the news of Agatha Christie, Roald Dahl, and Fleming being retroactively altered made the news and was heatedly discussed. Most readers want to read the text authorized and preferred by the author, as seen in most editions of respected authors. What we're seeing now is authors being edited "to protect the brand," rather than present the text the author authorized and preferred. At best IFP could claim that re-releasing the American edit of LALD in America was justifiable, though in 2003 the British text of LALD was published in US and supplanted the American one. Reinstating the American variant just seems retrograde, especially in its estimation of readers.

    A lot of the reasons this stuff has made the news is for the culture war rubbish which has taken over a lot of our public discourse recently: the media and right wing want people to be incensed by culture wars because they know they don't have a lot else to stand on. And there's nothing more likely to outrage people than being told that the new generation want to throw you away, that the things you liked aren't okay anymore; because it speaks to that most triggering fear of all: that of mortality.
  • edited May 2023 Posts: 2,887
    mtm wrote: »
    Oh gosh, it's just 'he said' 'she said' now. We're going around in circles.

    Yes, which is why I'm wrapping this conversation up, from my end at least.
    As I said, there is evidence that he was okay with them being altered for other markets, there's not much evidence to say he put his foot down over it. Dr No got a different title in serialisation etc. and that was the sixth one in.

    Not strong evidence, since serialization is a different kettle of fish from the full published novel. Changes are universally expected in serialization, but they don't affect the text of the published novel.
    Maybe, but your point was that "IFP has also yet to produce any convincing evidence that its profits will rise or be affected", that's what I was replying to, and their profits are none of our business.

    Yes, my point was that IFP is pursuing a business practice of unproven worth and of dubious wisdom.
    Okay found them: as I said, they don't have 'James Bond' on the cover. Which was to my original point.

    I don't see why that's of much consequence, except for marketing purposes. Fleming is public domain in Canada and non-IFP editions are openly sold by the country's biggest book chain. I look forward to this happening in the UK and USA, whether or not the covers say "James Bond."
    When you said "Why stop at racism?" and "by this logic those passages should be removed" you don't want that, and changing the conversation to complain about something that you don't want to happen not happening is just pointless.

    Questioning why IFP's product is inconsistent with its own stated purposes isn't disingenuous. It's pointing out the obvious flaws in the project's rationale. If, as IFP's director says, the books are being "updated," the update is half-assed and flawed by its own standards, regardless of my own desire for the books to not to be updated at all.
    Nonsense. If folks have previously bought the ebooks then they've bought them from Penguin, not from IFP.

    But not all the ebooks are from Penguin, at least not in the US.
    My point was that people enjoy printed books as a product experience, they are more than the text.

    My point is that people primarily buy books to read them.
    Of course Fleming did try and censor his work when he said he didn't want TSWLM reprinted: are we happy about his preferences being ignored there?

    The text of the book wasn't censored, and though Fleming's wishes were disregarded, at least this was done to make the book available rather than suppressed.
    Only if they've memorised them, come on.

    So you wouldn't notice if the long conversation between the African American couple in Harlem was cut? The racist passages in the books stand out for obvious reasons, so one easily notices their absence.
    You think no-one looked at the Pan cover to Moonraker and allowed that to shape their idea of what Bond, the rocket, Gala etc. looked like?

    If it did, I doubt it was made a profound or even permanent impression. The text of the book is more likely to shape our ideas, since readers employ their own imaginations on it.
    That is purely anecdotal for you though. Your experience is not universal.

    I doubt it's a minority experience either.
    A lot of the reasons this stuff has made the news is for the culture war rubbish which has taken over a lot of our public discourse recently: the media and right wing want people to be incensed by culture wars because they know they don't have a lot else to stand on.

    Yes, the right wing enjoys stoking the culture wars. But the principle that a book shouldn't be retroactively edited by someone beside the author is one held by readers on the left and right, and it's why people on both sides objected when hearing of Dahl, Christie, and Fleming being retroactively edited. Salman Rushdie is hardly on the right, and neither am I. The issue goes beyond the surface noise of the culture wars, regardless of how it's exploited.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    All I'll say is, I read all the Bond Books late in the game when I was in my very late 30's - 40's, and if my American Berkley edition of of the second novel (LALD) had had the N-word in it as prominently in it as the earlier UK version, I would have stopped right there & not even finished reading it. So I guess changing the N-word or 'coloured' to black doesn't bother me in the least. Fleming never intended the phrases to be hurtful, and new readers would doubtlessly be even more put off now than I would have been way back then. Just sayin'.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    Posts: 8,656
    chrisisall wrote: »
    All I'll say is, I read all the Bond Books late in the game when I was in my very late 30's - 40's, and if my American Berkley edition of of the second novel (LALD) had had the N-word in it as prominently in it as the earlier UK version, I would have stopped right there & not even finished reading it. So I guess changing the N-word or 'coloured' to black doesn't bother me in the least. Fleming never intended the phrases to be hurtful, and new readers would doubtlessly be even more put off now than I would have been way back then. Just sayin'.
    I can totally relate to that, with my Penguin edition still containing those words. But nevertheless: "Negro" isn't as bad as the N-word which even (or only) Black persons use to address each other. "Colored" is out of fashion as a substitue for the foregoing, but "POC" doesn't seem to me as a totally different approach.

    Now I would never talk about a Black person (or POC) using these words (I wouldn't know why I'd even have to mention their skin color), but it should be remembered that the oldest existing Black civil rights organizations are still called National Associaton for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and United Negro College Fund. Two words that seem to be out of bounds today, it seems. But does it really help to leave certain terms to the haters? I don't think so.

    I could continue regarding words, or even abbreviations, in the German language which are literally burnt because the Nazis used them for their purposes. I still think we should recover those words and abbreviations for a normal use, since surrendering them to the Nazis means a symbolic victory for them. But this probably leads too far here.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,985
    chrisisall wrote: »
    All I'll say is, I read all the Bond Books late in the game when I was in my very late 30's - 40's, and if my American Berkley edition of of the second novel (LALD) had had the N-word in it as prominently in it as the earlier UK version, I would have stopped right there & not even finished reading it. So I guess changing the N-word or 'coloured' to black doesn't bother me in the least. Fleming never intended the phrases to be hurtful, and new readers would doubtlessly be even more put off now than I would have been way back then. Just sayin'.

    So if you started watching Reservoir Dogs I assume you wouldn't be able to finish that either..?
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    chrisisall wrote: »
    All I'll say is, I read all the Bond Books late in the game when I was in my very late 30's - 40's, and if my American Berkley edition of of the second novel (LALD) had had the N-word in it as prominently in it as the earlier UK version, I would have stopped right there & not even finished reading it. So I guess changing the N-word or 'coloured' to black doesn't bother me in the least. Fleming never intended the phrases to be hurtful, and new readers would doubtlessly be even more put off now than I would have been way back then. Just sayin'.

    So if you started watching Reservoir Dogs I assume you wouldn't be able to finish that either..?

    Well, I really dislike that movie for many reasons, but go figure- I like Pulp Fiction a lot! And Jackie Brown. Anyway, I was just stating my reading preferences when authors use the word casually; use of the N-word is fine with me as used in movies as long as it's not to crush black spirit and lives with glee.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 2023 Posts: 14,861
    Revelator wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Oh gosh, it's just 'he said' 'she said' now. We're going around in circles.

    Yes, which is why I'm wrapping this conversation up, from my end at least.

    That's fair enough, I think I'm wrapping up too.
    Revelator wrote: »
    As I said, there is evidence that he was okay with them being altered for other markets, there's not much evidence to say he put his foot down over it. Dr No got a different title in serialisation etc. and that was the sixth one in.

    Not strong evidence, since serialization is a different kettle of fish from the full published novel. Changes are universally expected in serialization, but they don't affect the text of the published novel.

    Not strong evidence, no: I didn't say it was: I said "So the balance tips towards 'might have accepted it'." All I'm saying is that there's marginally more evidence that he may have accepted it than there is evidence that he wouldn't. I don't think that's an unreasonable thing to say.
    I know that's not enough to act on, and I do generally agree with the principle that the text shouldn't be changed, but sometimes principles bend in real world applications.
    Revelator wrote: »
    Maybe, but your point was that "IFP has also yet to produce any convincing evidence that its profits will rise or be affected", that's what I was replying to, and their profits are none of our business.

    Yes, my point was that IFP is pursuing a business practice of unproven worth and of dubious wisdom.

    Maybe, I guess it's hard to know the inner workings of a company. Maybe they've seen data that suggests it is needed; I agree with you that seems unlikely, but who knows. From the outside we can't know for certain, and we can't expect them to produce anything to prove to us; certainly not their profit margin. And of course they've never actually published the books before so their profits will be different no matter what!
    Revelator wrote: »
    Okay found them: as I said, they don't have 'James Bond' on the cover. Which was to my original point.

    I don't see why that's of much consequence, except for marketing purposes. Fleming is public domain in Canada and non-IFP editions are openly sold by the country's biggest book chain. I look forward to this happening in the UK and USA, whether or not the covers say "James Bond."

    As I said, it was just rhetorical; I didn't say it was of 'much consequence'.
    Revelator wrote: »
    When you said "Why stop at racism?" and "by this logic those passages should be removed" you don't want that, and changing the conversation to complain about something that you don't want to happen not happening is just pointless.

    Questioning why IFP's product is inconsistent with its own stated purposes isn't disingenuous. It's pointing out the obvious flaws in the project's rationale. If, as IFP's director says, the books are being "updated," the update is half-assed and flawed by its own standards, regardless of my own desire for the books to not to be updated at all.

    It's something we don't want to see, so there's not much point in calling for it. Also, race is very incidental to the Bond books, whereas attitudes to women are far more ingrained, and are part of the character of Bond rather than the narrator's voice.
    Revelator wrote: »
    Nonsense. If folks have previously bought the ebooks then they've bought them from Penguin, not from IFP.

    But not all the ebooks are from Penguin, at least not in the US.

    Again, that's irrelevant as publishing houses won't have any access to ebooks published by other publishing houses.
    We don't have to argue every single thing, surely.
    Revelator wrote: »
    My point was that people enjoy printed books as a product experience, they are more than the text.

    My point is that people primarily buy books to read them.

    Yep, primarily yes. But part of the pleasure is having the designed object.
    Revelator wrote: »
    Of course Fleming did try and censor his work when he said he didn't want TSWLM reprinted: are we happy about his preferences being ignored there?

    The text of the book wasn't censored, and though Fleming's wishes were disregarded, at least this was done to make the book available rather than suppressed.

    This speaks to my point: many of these hard and fast lines which must not be crossed turn out to have many little qualifications to ways in which it is actually okay to cross them, and they have been crossed before.
    Revelator wrote: »
    Only if they've memorised them, come on.

    So you wouldn't notice if the long conversation between the African American couple in Harlem was cut? The racist passages in the books stand out for obvious reasons, so one easily notices their absence.

    I honestly wouldn't. It's been years since I read it last: you could take out a whole chapter and I probably wouldn't spot it. I'm not saying anyone should, just that perhaps your expertise in the books means you know them better than most people. That's not unreasonable to say is it?
    Revelator wrote: »
    You think no-one looked at the Pan cover to Moonraker and allowed that to shape their idea of what Bond, the rocket, Gala etc. looked like?

    If it did, I doubt it was made a profound or even permanent impression. The text of the book is more likely to shape our ideas, since readers employ their own imaginations on it.
    That is purely anecdotal for you though. Your experience is not universal.

    I doubt it's a minority experience either.
    A lot of the reasons this stuff has made the news is for the culture war rubbish which has taken over a lot of our public discourse recently: the media and right wing want people to be incensed by culture wars because they know they don't have a lot else to stand on.

    Yes, the right wing enjoys stoking the culture wars. But the principle that a book shouldn't be retroactively edited by someone beside the author is one held by readers on the left and right, and it's why people on both sides objected when hearing of Dahl, Christie, and Fleming being retroactively edited. Salman Rushdie is hardly on the right, and neither am I. The issue goes beyond the surface noise of the culture wars, regardless of how it's exploited.

    Yes, I think that's fair to say, but it certainly has been exploited to the maximum and a lot of the reaction has been stoked up by that way beyond what is reasonable in some cases (I'm not talking about yourself). As I say, I'm not in favour of this, but I think perhaps there is some reasoning behind it which makes it more understandable, if not desirable. Certainly I can't imagine that IFP wanted to do it, or wanted this fuss; so I have to think that they have thought long and hard about it and have their reasons for it, some of which I have tried to understand.

    As we're coming to the end of this, I don't think I've been unreasonable through this conversation, I hope you would agree too and I've enjoyed our civil exchange of points; I'm just challenging some of those hard and fast reasons why things can never be altered and that a lot of them aren't as unprecedented as some would say.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,727
    The Washington Post weighs in on the censorship of 20th Century books debate:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/06/12/books-editing-retouching-free-expression/
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    edited June 2023 Posts: 3,985
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    The Washington Post weighs in on the censorship of 20th Century books debate:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/06/12/books-editing-retouching-free-expression/

    "Historical honesty" and "Cultural artifacts" are very good descriptions for the argument against this insidious butchery.

    'Sensitivity readers' need to become a thing of the past. And quickly.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,448
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    The Washington Post weighs in on the censorship of 20th Century books debate:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/06/12/books-editing-retouching-free-expression/

    "Historical honesty" and "Cultural artifacts" are very good descriptions for the argument against this insidious butchery.

    'Sensitivity readers' need to become a thing of the past. And quickly.

    I absolutely agree, @LeonardPine. I don't need anyone to "sanitize" the author's words. If they hurt contemporary readers, then so be it. We can only learn from that. Pretending the words were never used doesn't clean up the past or make the pains of history suddenly go away. Wounds don't heal by erasing the memory of them; you face the scars and tells stories about them so that younger generations avoid getting them.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited June 2023 Posts: 2,895
    Agreed. These people are censors. Dressing them up as 'sensitivity readers' reveals the insidious nature of this whole agenda. Who could object to concerns for the sensitivity of potentially vulnerable people, right? But give em an inch...
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,727
    Actor Brian Cox hits out at rewriting of classic works including James Bond books (Euronews):

    https://www.euronews.com/culture/2023/10/26/actor-brian-cox-hits-out-at-rewriting-of-classic-works-including-james-bond-books
  • Enid Blyton to be censored next no doubt
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    Enid Blyton to be censored next no doubt

    Arf! Try 60 years ago :D
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,727
    mtm wrote: »
    Enid Blyton to be censored next no doubt

    Arf! Try 60 years ago :D

    Yes, I thought that had already happened to be honest.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    To be fair, Scara may have been making a subtler joke than we usually see around here- I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on that one! :)
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 7,948
    I think the whole problem is the fact that people think words can be racist. That is utter b***ocks.
    Racism is an opinion, a position one can take in which one feels superior to others on the basis of biological perceptions alone. Words can't do that. They can, however, when they're put in that order, transfer that intent to the reader.
    So, is Fleming's work racist? Do we feel, in any of the texts, that his writing was meant to position himself, or people with whom he'd identify himself, above others?
    Personally, I don't think so. Yes, he used terms that are often used by others in a way I discribed above, but that doen't make those words racist. Or the intent of the writer using the same words.
    Are the passages about the coupe discussing in a sothern twang with a lot of new york meant to show their inferiority, or were they meant to give readers an idea of a culture they otherwise wouldn't know about?
    Personally I never read Fleming's work as deregatory of any people. He's discriptive in a way that isn't always quite complimentary, but that doesn't mean it's meant to put the subjects down or present them as inferior.
    So, taking away passages or words that don't have a racist intent is just distorting the work of art it is. Like watering down wine to appeal to the palate of more people. Is that the way to go? We might end up with only water.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,727
    mtm wrote: »
    To be fair, Scara may have been making a subtler joke than we usually see around here- I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on that one! :)

    It's certainly possible. I myself often make jokes that go over most sane people's heads. ;)
  • Posts: 6,682
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    To be fair, Scara may have been making a subtler joke than we usually see around here- I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on that one! :)

    It's certainly possible. I myself often make jokes that go over most sane people's heads. ;)

    I didn't get the joke in this post. Is there one?
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,727
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    To be fair, Scara may have been making a subtler joke than we usually see around here- I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on that one! :)

    It's certainly possible. I myself often make jokes that go over most sane people's heads. ;)

    I didn't get the joke in this post. Is there one?

    That's good. That means you are sane and do not possess the sick and twisted mind of a evil genius with a black cat on his shoulder and a thousand-yard stare. >:)
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    Oh man, I'm going to have to read Dragon's posts at least twice from now on! :)
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,727
    mtm wrote: »
    Oh man, I'm going to have to read Dragon's posts at least twice from now on! :)

    Read Between the Lines.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,050
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,727
    MaxCasino wrote: »

    Maybe this one will be written in code instead? We'll need a Spektor decoder to translate it. :)
  • Posts: 2,750
    Maybe it's just me, but I absolutely hate that cover...

    FRWL isn't a story about code breaking. The Spektor Decoder is little more than a McGuffin and could have been literally anything. It looks like the cover to a Le Carre novel or, more likely, a comparatively boring Cold War spy novel, not a James Bond adventure. It doesn't even look pretty.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,727
    007HallY wrote: »
    Maybe it's just me, but I absolutely hate that cover...

    FRWL isn't a story about code breaking. The Spektor Decoder is little more than a McGuffin and could have been literally anything. It looks like the cover to a Le Carre novel or, more likely, a comparatively boring Cold War spy novel, not a James Bond adventure. It doesn't even look pretty.

    I think they're trying to recall the classic green Penguin crime/spy novel covers of yesteryear with this latest release. It's an OK design I suppose, but not the most exciting cover this novel has ever had. Exciting covers and Penguin Books have never really went hand in hand though, at least historically. They're usually pretty bland, often with only the titles changing between books in a particular series. Compare classic Penguin covers to classic Pan covers and you will immediately see the difference.
  • edited November 2023 Posts: 2,750
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Maybe it's just me, but I absolutely hate that cover...

    FRWL isn't a story about code breaking. The Spektor Decoder is little more than a McGuffin and could have been literally anything. It looks like the cover to a Le Carre novel or, more likely, a comparatively boring Cold War spy novel, not a James Bond adventure. It doesn't even look pretty.

    I think they're trying to recall the classic green Penguin crime/spy novel covers of yesteryear with this latest release. It's an OK design I suppose, but not the most exciting cover this novel has ever had. Exciting covers and Penguin Books have never really went hand in hand though, at least historically. They're usually pretty bland, often with only the titles changing between books in a particular series. Compare classic Penguin covers to classic Pan covers and you will immediately see the difference.

    Yeah, all true. Still, I do think it's a bit misleading having a cover based on code breaking with this particular novel. It's just not about that. Bond novels are far more interesting!
Sign In or Register to comment.