Gee, and here I was reading 40 odd replies of what I thought was a mature discussion about a complex issue. All the self-righteousness posted here must have gone over my head.
1 Like
if you think people making pithy little jokes about perceived ridiculous “woke editing” is mature… and calling people snowflakes while being aggressively upset and offended. But yes, I didn’t mean to tar EVERYONE with the same brush…
One poster other than yourself has mentioned the words “work” and “snowflake” in a post, and I don’t believe it has been responded to. So perhaps suggesting that the others posting are “incapable of mature discussion” or going about it in a poor way isn’t the best way to contribute to a dialogue.
I also think that one shouldn’t be accusing others of self-righteousness whilst posting like they are the sole voice of reason in a crowd.
3 Likes
You already have heard our perspective right in this thread. A number of them in fact.
Why did you assume you hadn’t?
3 Likes
I respect Aus89’s right to play devil’s advocate in a thread that’s otherwise essentially reached consensus, even if based on the poster’s wording I doubt they’ve actually read most of what’s been said.
The truth is this whole story does reek of a recent pattern we’ve seen repeated ad nauseum: some product most of the world has forgotten and moved on from is changed in some fundamental way, and outrage ensues from various quarters insisting “the old ways” are under attack. Never mind that folks haven’t bought – or even thought about – the product in decades; once upon a time they liked it, and it needs to stay the way they remember it. I even saw this with NTTD: people were furious that James Bond died in the film, but when pressed they admitted the last Bond film they’d bothered to buy a ticket for was decades ago. The franchise meant nothing to them until it meant everything. Which lasted a couple of days until the next outrage surfaced and they took their pitchfork and torch and moved on.
The problem with the “forgotten yet cherished” phenomenon here is that it requires us to view the novels the way the Fleming Estate apparently does: as product. They’ve got a marketing problem on their hands, and it’s not just that the books don’t fit in with “modern sensibilities.” It’s that they don’t sell. Maybe there’s some correlation there and maybe not, but one sure way to drum up interest is with controversy, and they seem to be succeeding there. It was announced months ago that new printings were on the way, but outside of these boards I didn’t see where anyone gave a damn. The books have been printed countless times already and aren’t hard to find, so why would most people care? Then we got to see the covers and again no one cared because they’re only slightly more exciting than plain brown wrappers. But hey, announce you’re going to change the content to remove offensive remarks and attitudes, and suddenly people are VERY interested. At pretty much no cost to the estate (which based on those book covers is how they like to do things), they now have millions of dollars of publicity. Mission accomplished.
So as far as the assertion that the wishes of a long-dead author are “irrelevant in 2023,” the bigger problem is that the books themselves are irrelevant. The Fleming estate has fixed that problem, so well done…again, until the next outrage surfaces and the world goes back to not caring about Bond novels. Hope they can get 'em on the shelves fast.
6 Likes
Additionally, there is the convenient amnesia with regard to the fact that the “old ways” were not universally embraced when they were “of the moment.” Contemporary challenges did exist.
2 Likes
I’m inclined to agree with @David_M on this. I mean, when has there been such an in-depth discussion on a reprint amongst a bunch of people who almost definitely have them already?
TBH, after thinking about it for a bit, whilst my own view of “um…why?” Hasn’t changed that much, it is good that these versions exist for if my kids want to read them when they’re old enough for adventure stuff but not at a point where they know the specific context of what was considered okay, particularly among certain groups.
Again aware who contradictory my thoughts are on this.
I don’t know, I think if you’re going to have a book about an amoral government assassin, you might as well go all in and make him an opinionated misanthrope as well.
Part of the fun for me was psychoanalyzing Fleming based on his writings. The opinions he put in Bond’s mouth didn’t ruin my love of the character but they did make me wonder about his creator. I mean, any guy who looks on gays with pity and contempt and yet describes various idealized female characters as having a rear end like a little boy’s is obviously ripe for analysis.
I would say Fleming isn’t appropriate for kids but that would be hypocritical given the age I first read the books. I can still remember relating to my mother (!!!) the passage where Fleming explains how Japanese wrestlers have their genitalia bound up at a young age to keep their testicles from dropping, and the look on my Mom’s face that said, “What in God’s name is this kid reading!?!” I can only imagine the look on my own face when I in turn realized, “Maybe I should keep what I read in these books to myself.”
3 Likes
When i say older, I do mean teens. Mine are a bit off that yet.
It’s been said that there’s no wrong kind of publicity, but when the media is loudly talking in detail about how racist the books are and how the new editions are censored attempts to cover that up…well, that might not be the best kind.
That reminds me of reading The Machine Gunners by Robert Westall (first published 1975) in English class. Over the years the school had acquired a number of copies that were different editions and when we took turns reading there we would occasionally see differences. In particular there was a sequence involving the hero hospitalising the bully by hitting him in the head with his gas mask container. The older editions had they other children make fun of his bandaged head by calling him a ‘Sheikh’ while this was left out of later ones, as was the hero recieving ‘six of the best’.
Editing and updating is nothing new.
1 Like
Author Roland Hulme made a great point in a social media post today.
Some of the words they are changing are not racist when you understand the context of why they were used.
Take the immigration officer who stamps Bond’s passport upon entering Jamaica in Dr. No. The fact that he is Black is being removed, but the reason for Fleming pointing that out was not because he was racist but because he was making a political observation to readers back home.
Black people were rarely seen in 1950’s Britain outside of being in subservient roles. Bond absolutely would have taken notice of a Black man in a role of authority upon entering one of the colonies.
Colonial rule in Jamaica was crumbling and the Black population there was in a better spot than they were in Britain. They were becoming independent and moving towards self-rule, which of course happened shortly thereafter. But the average reader back then didn’t live in the small, hyper-connected world we live in now, so they wouldn’t necessarily have known that. Fleming did know it because he lived there and he was telling the British reader what life was like in Jamaica.
And now all of that context will be lost.
A side note - for the very few here who apparently feel otherwise, this was another example of a nuanced and respectful way to have a discussion about complex issues that we at CBn have always, and will continue to, have.
6 Likes
How does Fleming point out this fact? If it is simple reportage, I do not know why it would need to be removed.
The new editions will eliminate this particular textual pleasure.
1 Like
“The Negro immigration officer handed Bond his passport with indifference.”
Thank you. Interesting–what is the source of the indifference? The boredom of a functionary? A character trait of the Negro?
It reads just as the indifference of a man who’s bored from stamping passports all day.
1 Like
4 Likes
It can also read as the indifference of Negroes as a people, made manifest in this one functionary’s behavior. As the British Empire retreated, a significant element of the narrative was the imminent decay of countries’ societies as the beneficial paternalism of empire was withdrawn, and colonized populations were left to fend for themselves.
I don’t have much to add. My thoughts are largely in line with the consensus here.
I always thought Fleming’s Korean racism in Goldfinger was the most legitimately malicious and hateful of the series, yet it is rarely specifically mentioned in such discussions. Good move by IFP to not bring it up!