Question: will the new editions re-set the copyright clock?
Update: found an answer, I think. The new editions would be considered derivative from the originals, but:
There must be major or substantial new material for a work to be considered copyrightable as a derivative work. The new material must be sufficiently original and creative to be copyrightable by itself.
Common examples of derivative works are:
A new, updated or revised, edition of a book
Live and Let Die was problematic in 1954. So much so that it was released heavily edited in the US with the chapter N***** Heaven renamed as Seventh Avenue. Outside of that, the Bond books do have an uncomfortable amount of the racism and played up stereotypes throughout, but not enough to really offend anyone (though, this is my opinion and may not match someone else’s). Likely anyone who would be offended by this stuff isn’t reading Bond. At times, I do believe that people take this avoidance of offense to absurd extremes. Matt Stone and Trey Parker said it best years ago, “Either everything is okay to make fun of, or nothing is.” Once something is pointed out to offend someone and it has to be censored, but something else isn’t, where do you draw the line? Personally, I think LALD should probably be left as is, but have a disclaimer at the beginning explaining what is in the story. I think doing that is sufficient. Then people can make their own determinations on whether to read it or not.
For whatever it might be worth, I was born in the mid-60s and first read Bond in the early to mid-70s, a racially charged time, while living in the “sticks” in Virginia, former capital of the Confederacy, where tensions were often high. The characters in Fleming’s LALD no more resembled anyone I knew than did the characters on HR Puffenstuff. Even at that young age and with Fleming less than a decade in the grave, the Bond novels read as archaic texts, set in the distant 1950s and written by a guy whose worldview was obviously formed – and still trapped – in the 20’s and 30’s. I can’t claim to have been shocked or outraged by his opinions on blacks, Asians, Germans or any other ethnic group. If anything, I found his rants amusing, like the gripes of an eccentric geezer at the Old Folk’s home: good for a laugh but not to be taken to heart. I mean, when you see a guy claiming that homosexuality is the result of giving women the right to vote, you know you’ve got a “Crazy Uncle” on your hands. Keep him around for the great stories, but don’t ever take his advice.
I really think anyone who reads these books, with Bond salivating over cutting-edge Ford Thunderbirds, staying at roadside motels, using landline phones and boarding commercial flights with a gun under his arm while smoking 80 cigarettes a day and ruminating on the Suez Canal Crisis, will know they’re of their time and no more threatening than Huckleberry Finn, Captain Blood or Canterbury Tales. Bond is a man of the 50s as imagined by a man of the 30s, so even when the books were new they reflected outdated views. It’s part of the charm, as sure as visible zippers on Godzilla costumes and tinfoil bikinis on space babes in Star Trek. You roll your eyes and smile at the lame bits because there’s always plenty of good stuff to make up for it.
Here’s a favorite:
“Bond always mistrusted short men. they grew up from childhood with an inferiority complex. All their lives they would strive to be big – bigger than the others who had teased them as a child. Napoleon had been short, and Hitler. It was the short men that caused all the trouble in the world.”
Face it, we’ve all known a lovable grouch who delivered rants like this, sometimes but not always under the influence of drink. Maybe we’ve caught ourselves in similar rants and realized there can be a thin line between an angry tirade and a stand-up comedy routine. It feels good to vent.
Bond’s saving grace is that he’s an equal opportunity hater. Basically everyone who’s not him sucks.
If the real motivation behind the edits is some kind of copyright extension scheme, then it makes more commercial sense than presumed, and would explain why not just LALD but the other novels are being edited too. It will be very interesting to see if all the Bond novels will be revised.The Bond books are already public domain in Canada, and I imagine the sunset of the European copyrights isn’t very far-off. But this also means other publishers will eventually promote their public domain editions as “Uncensored and unexpurgated!” As it is, if IFP was concerned with the books’ reputation it seems to have scored an own goal, now that the media’s loudly reporting on all the racist and offensive passages in the novels.
I’m going to keep this as polite as I can.
I remember, a few short years ago…having an argument with someone on this site about editing out parts of the books because he found them disagreeable and outdated. My entire counterpoint to this was that the books were written in the past and that readers shouldn’t take the contexts seriously. That if ‘edits’ were to happen to one book then they’d have to happen to all of the books and it would make reading them alittle bit unenjoyable. I tried to make the point that art was subjective and that the person was just punching at shadows.
In the end, I guess he and those who think like him got their wish. Fleming’s works have gone onto unedited and uncensored reprints…in some form…for close to 70 years and now you get woke editors taking out bits and pieces they find unacceptable.
I hope it was worth it. The snowflakes have ruined Bond.
Luckily I have the 2012 Vintage editions which seem to be alright. But then again, it’s not like these new and incorrectly edited editions are going to make any kind of profit anyhow.
A statement from IFP has been released.
“Apparently favoured by Ian”…
“Apparently”? Where? When? How?
I wish IFP would actually back up the assertion “from his letters, it seems Fleming preferred the amended US version.” I’ve already quoted a letter that suggests the opposite. Quote your evidence IFP! And if Fleming preferred those changes, why did he refuse to incorporate all but one of them (a perfume correction) into the British edition? Of course, if Fleming didn’t actually prefer the American edits, then the decision to “apply the sensibilities of the original US edition of Live and Let Die consistently, across all the texts,” becomes an act of presumption, a cloak for corporate ass-covering.
Andrew Lycett has weighed in too:
A further thought: maybe the edits are meant to save the brand of Bond, in that they signify awareness of the offensive nature of portions of what Fleming wrote, and the estate does not want that keep people away from new offerings that do not go down that path. For people who come to the Bond universe through later works, the revised Flemings might even be preferable.
I’m, about to be contradictory, I don’t want what came before to be shrugged over, because I think an ignorance of the past makes you determined to repeat it, but on the other hand shoving a much younger audience in at what is now their great-grand parents attitudes in is too much.
They’re trying to make a contextual history binary. Context is needed, This isn’t fixing ignorance, it’s pretending it never existed.
That’s why I would advocate for leaving the books as is (even Live and Let Die), but include a disclaimer to inform readers. Again, some of the language in LALD was reprehensible in 1954 and was edited then. But a disclaimer should be enough to allow readers to make informed decisions about what content they consume.
We are in agreement, but the estate wants to keep the brand viable. They are not motivated by any noble pursuit such as education or preservation of history–they want to make a buck or a pound or a euro.
Not if the younger audience has had a proper education. We still teach Faulkner, whose novels can be quite problematic. And what of Melville and Pip?
Maybe another issue is that Fleming is not thought of as literature at that level (and his work isn’t). But neither is it disposable storytelling. Fleming’s work contains modest literary merit, and more than modest historical interest.
At least this fate has been avoided:
Andrew Lycett weights in…
This all started in the early 1990s,when they edited the Enid Blyton books!
Golliwogs were replaced by gremlins, the word queer become strange. Noddy and bugbears now slept in separate beds etc
Statement from IFP:
In 1953 when Ian Fleming began to write his second James Bond novel, Live and Let Die, a youthful Queen Elizabeth had just ascended the throne, Winston Churchill was Prime Minister and Jamaica, where much of the plot is set, was still nine years away from gaining its independence from the British Empire. In short, the world was a very different place than it is now.
Published a year later in Britain, Fleming’s text drew little comment from his editors. Yet, ahead of publication in the US in 1955, Al Hart, editor at Fleming’s US publisher, Macmillan, suggested a number of changes to Live and Let Die. Some of these corrected minor factual errors. Others deleted or changed passages or words Hart felt were racially troubling, even then. Fleming approved all the changes and the version of Live and Let Die published in America was therefore different from the British edition, and from his letters, it seems Fleming preferred the amended US version.
In 2017, when Vintage published a hardback edition of Live and Let Die, a version of the US text was used with an introduction explaining the changes. We have retained these changes.
Last year, Fleming’s books came home. Ian Fleming Publications Ltd, the Fleming family company that owns the literary copyright in his books, announced plans to publish them under its own imprint for the first time. Our first decision was to mark the 70th anniversary of the original publication of Casino Royale, the first Bond novel, by publishing new editions of all the Bonds. Paperback editions with brand new cover designs will be available from April 13th, and eBook versions are already available.
With that decision, came a discussion. As the author’s literary estate and now publishers, what responsibility did we have, if any, to review the original texts? We consulted with a number of external parties but ultimately decided that, rather than making changes in line with their advice, it was instead most appropriate to look for guidance from the author himself. The original US version of Live and Let Die, approved and apparently favoured by Ian, had removed some racial terms which were problematic even in mid-1950s America, and would certainly be considered deeply offensive now by the vast majority of readers.
We took that as our starting point, but felt strongly that it was not our role to comb out every word or phrase that had the potential to offend. We thus decided to apply the sensibilities of the original US edition of Live and Let Die consistently, across all the texts. Some racial words likely to cause great offence now, and detract from a reader’s enjoyment, have been altered, while keeping as close as possible to the original text and the period.
The changes are very small in number. Indeed some books, including Casino Royale, remain completely unaltered. We are certain Ian Fleming would approve these edits, just as he approved the changes to the US edition of Live and Let Die, and we encourage people to read the books for themselves when the new paperbacks are published in April.
In James Bond, Ian Fleming created one of the most famous literary characters in history. His books deserve to be read and enjoyed as much now as when they were written. We believe the new Bond editions will extend their pleasure to new audiences. We are certain that is something Ian Fleming would have wanted.
Written on behalf of the Fleming Family
As a writer, and a shock horror WOKE writer at that, I personally think an acknowledgement and disclaimer at the start of the book is the correct way to go. However, I do see that IFP do have to consider the situation carefully (keeping in mind the films, and the upcoming videogame are an ongoing concern that bring new fans into Bond’s world and probably to the books) and I don’t see a problem with a modern/commercial version of the books (your average cheap paperback edition you would find in any bookstore) that edits some of the particularly egregious stuff while retaining the intent and content of the scene (one of the edits that has been listed, I think does remove some of the intent and content of the scene and is not a great edit imo), particularly if there are unedited versions available (for example something like the Folio Society hardcovers which are higher end collector’s editions).
I will say however, that the response here, and amongst the James Bond fanbase at large that I’ve seen on social media and beyond has been predictably self righteous and does no favours to the fanbase if they are trying not to look like a bunch of racist trolls. There is a nuanced and respectful way to have this discussion and it is not being had by most in the community, which is disappointing, but again, not at all surprising.
At the moment, it is a bunch of old white men crying in social media comment sections, and grifters in the media paid to instigate knee jerk race war reactions in the general public. I would be interested to hear the perspective of Black Bond fans and fans of colour in general on what they think (of course, it’s incredibly likely that those fans have been driven from the fanbase by the words that are so viciously defended with no acknowledgement of the harm they cause, similarly to the LGBTQIA+ Bond fans who are made to feel unwelcome any time they make some mild critique of Fleming’s “commentary” on their existence).
I think it is an error, but more likely a cynical marketing ploy for the 70th anniversary and to shift copies of books that are neither rare nor obscure. However, I don’t speak for “in general”.
Aw, honey… dey ain’t no use tryin’ tuh git mad at me. Ah done nuthen tuh give yuh recasion tuh ack dat way.
Not sure you’re right; have read some interesting information here about what can be discerned about Fleming’s actual intent. The assertion, as it seems to be, that “this is what Fleming would have wanted” seems open to challenge. Not sure anyone here (myself excepted) is coming across as self-righteous. Perplexed, certainly.
Fanbase is likely to have these books (and possibly multiple times) and if there are completists who must have every edition ever issued, this may have some basic curiosity value. That may be a positive approach.
Have always been more doubtful and underimpressed by the stuff like “sweet tang of rape” which appears to have gone unmolested. But then I am not a woman nor do I consider myself a woman nor do I use connected pronouns.
Personally, I would have left the books alone but then I’m not the one trying to plump the pension pot by flogging them. Monetising, exploiting, contemporary public attitudes for one’s personal gain is, I suppose, all Fleming did anyway. So this is (thinly arguably) “back to Fleming”. And now my head hurts.
Very mature. I’m not talking about you specifically, just the general reaction I’ve seen to this. I don’t doubt there is a bit of cynicism in the decision (we live in a corporate hellscape after all).
I personally don’t give a toss what Fleming wanted to be pretty honest. he’s been dead for a long time and it’s irrelevant in 2023 and with the Bond movies being what they are, I wouldn’t be surprised if Amazon and EON have been having meetings with them behind the scenes saying we can’t have this stuff in the books that sell, largely off the back of the movies to a mainstream blockbuster audience. It’s a nice excuse that is generally trying to speak to their largely older and white male fanbase who get disproportionately and loudly upset about these things, but ultimately I think it has nothing to do with Fleming.
It will be interesting to see what else has been changed. There’s plenty beyond the Black treatment (which of course gets precedence in the media because people get cranky about BLM) - there’s the gross depiction of Oddjob in the Goldfinger novel being thrown a cat to eat/Bond saying Koreans are lower than apes, plenty of the rape stuff as you mention (though of course, there’s a whole discussion to have about why people are more upset about rape than racism or homophobia…), and the frankly bizarre diatribe about gay people being a result of giving women the right to vote… stuff like that is irrelevant to the story or characters and could be excised quite easily in an “abridged” modern edition - and these new books are targeted at people who discover Bond through the films/games and are new fans, given as you mention, everyone here and who is complaining has the copies of the books they want, and everything is widely and easily available second hand or in other editions.
Tintin got edited to remove a lot of this stuff, both by Herge and later after his death but before our current culture of aggrievance of loss of right to racism/misogyny/homophobia etc…, and while Herge certainly had more of a progressive evolution (not complete by any means) than Fleming ever did, I think even if Fleming had had some kind of epiphany and personally edited the books, the same people would still call this the woke agenda and bla bla bla and its fairly clear none of you give anymore of a shit what Fleming wanted than I do, nor does anyone really care about the purity of author’s intent. it’s very clearly just a crusade in the war on “woke”.
Again, I think a disclaimer at the start of the books is warranted given their content, and at least one of the edits is bad imo, and I think having the option to have both versions is valuable. But frankly, some of the changes people are so upset about are such laughably small changes, that make the characters and books we like more accessible to more people, and don’t really change anything about the books - and having a Modern Edition or something like that is totally fine. My point stands that there is a nuanced discussion to have about edits like this which gets turned into whatever this is bc ppl are incapable of mature discussion about complex issues.
