It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Nope, looked at no such setting
Their public statement does the opposite. As shown upthread, IFP claimed that Fleming in his letters preferred the American edit of LALD, yet Fleming's letters, as quoted in Pearson's biography, make the opposite case. And Fleming, who had the opportunity to re-edit the British text to make it conform to the American one, instead chose to make a single factual correction. And it's not just LALD that's being edited--several other novels are being edited to remove racial references, and those edits were never made by Fleming. The only book we know for sure that isn't being edited is CR.
And why is IFP better suited to make such changes? Because it's run by people who aren't direct descendants of Fleming, who at best knew him as children? If you believe in the idea that an author is best served when his work is published as he intended it to be published, than IFP is serving him less well than any of his previous publishers. To celebrate something like a 70th anniversary, many publishers would give you something extra in the reprints, like contextual material or annotations. But IFP has decided to give us less than even the original texts.
It's primarily a marketing ploy. And I don't think it will work. Despite the old saying, it’s not true that any publicity is good publicity. When the media is loudly talking about racism in the Bond books are and how the new editions are censored attempts to cover that up, that's not good publicity. Fanatical book collectors might snap up these editions, but otherwise they have no marketing advantage. How will they be promoted? "Now in new censored editions for sensitive readers!" But will the sort of reader who applauds censoring racism going to be happy with books that are still outrageously sexist and Imperialist? IFP wants "to protect the brand," without understanding the brand's inbuilt limits. If this is a last ditch cash grab, it deserves to fail. The books are better off in the public domain. Viva Canada!
Good to know!
My Kindle is all set. Updates turned off!
1. If you don't like them, don't buy them.
2. As you have stated previously, in this and other posts, the original texts (in US or British forms) are available all over the place, with no problem.
3. The Fleming Estate has complete authority to produce the "70th" anniversary editions as they see fit. And no amount of pounding sand can and will change that. (Note the quotation marks: are we really getting uptight over a "70th" anniversary? Nobody ever celebrates a "70th" anniversary, do they? I get the 007/70th thing, but it's a stretch.)
3. There is no censorship because of #2.
4. I repeat: the world is not coming to end.
1. I won't. Those who like buying expurgated editions will.
2. Those who want to buy new copies of the books have no choice but to buy the expurgated editions. And used editions in various stores are being bought up or rising in price.
3. The Fleming Estate has the legal right to make changes and we have the legal right to criticize them. And as the protest over the changes to Roald Dahl's work proves, complaint can make publishers backtrack. At the very least it will spread the news that the new editions are redacted ones. And since IFP itself has made a big deal over releasing 70th anniversary editions, criticizing how IFP chose to celebrate that anniversary is entirely justifiable.
4. It's corporate self-censorship, in much the same way that Hollywood studios used to cut up movies that didn't meet the Production Code.
5. No one has said it was the end of the world. Some readers are upset because the books are being re-edited for the first time since their initial publication, and the edits are unapproved by the author (and in the case of LALD, Fleming didn't approve of the American edit being used outside the US). Those who hold the principle that a book should be published as the author intended are naturally aggrieved by the new editions. They aren't going to share your complacency.
I think the circumstances dictate the urgency. Because Fleming's works are still available--and will always be so, in public domain--I am not overly concerned. If The Fleming Estate wants to do this, for better or worse, then let them. It's sort of like TV versions of films: parts get cut. Is that censorship? Or is it changing things for a different form of public consumption? It doesn't really matter as long as the original is still available. So, yeah, a film like Scarface might have all the words cut out for a TV version, but I still can watch the original, in its entirety. I'm good.
If/when Fleming's original works are "banned" and not available for sale or if reading them is considered a crime, then I'm with you.
Confused about this part; surely people will still be able to buy new copies of the books from Folio, or from Indigo in Canada (for example), which are not amended?
Will Folio be the only option for people outside of Canada who want new copies of the unedited material?
They're only in public domain in Canada. Folks elsewhere have cause for concern.
I wouldn't be happy about the estate of any author doing this, unless the books were meant for children, and unless new editions of the originals were as equally available as the redacted ones.
It's censorship for TV, but books aren't TV. Books might be edited for serialization in magazines or newspapers, but the published novels are expected to be complete. Yet the new editions aren't, and new copies of the original texts are no longer being sold (except in Canada). It's also somewhat insulting--authors of books for adults don't receive this treatment. There are dated and racist passages in Hemingway and Chandler and many other authors of Fleming's era and beforehand, yet they aren't subjected to redacted editions.
That's correct, I forgot to specifiy that in Canada you can still buy new copies of the original texts. Viva Canada!
But for everyone else, I still recommend Folio Society. Don't be cheap; you get what you pay for!
The set would cost $1400.00+!!!
I suppose you're right... I'm collecting it over time. If you want to be cheap you can get 'em on a Kindle or something and turn of automatic updates.
I think Casino Royale will be in public domain in the U.S. in 2048.
Meanwhile, the 2012 paperback editions are still available here in the U.S. on Amazon. I will keep an eye on this, because if more of the previous editions go away, as you suggest, then I'll ring some alarm bells with you. But it does not appear that this will be the case. Also, aren't those 2017 Vintage editions (just the first three) still available in the UK? Those covers were far better, imho. I am not a fan of the 70th covers at all. So even if these works had not been edited, I'm not buying them. LOL
Now, those Folio Society editions are bad ass...a bit pricey, but well worth it.
We're good, as John cork tells us: http://www.007magazine.co.uk/a_bond_is_a_bond_is_a_bond.htm
So 26 more years of redacted editions.
That link gives you the option of buying one used copy at the inflated price of $29.99. Clicking the kindle button take you to the page for the 2022 edition.
I miught be mistaken, but I've heard those three 2017 Vintage hardcovers are out of print.
I'm sorry that John Cork felt the need to besmirch his track record with such an equivocal mess. Fleming didn't intend for the American version of LALD to supersede all others, as IFP plans. Cork makes much of Fleming's work being edited for magazine republication, but everyone understands that magazine versions didn't and couldn't include every word from the novel. If you wanted the complete text of the novel, you could always go to a bookstore and buy the complete novel...until now.
Cork praises IFP for taking "a more difficult path" by censoring the books, lest they be cancelled by a "Twitter Social Justice Warrior," as if there was any real evidence of happening. But the truly "more difficult path" would have been to let the books remain as they have been and not bow to internal pressure to sanitize them. And the most enlightened path would have been to provide contextual material, and even annotations, to make readers understand material such the anachronistic or offensive passages--that's what Cork himself does in the article! Instead IFP has taken the safest path--trying to sweep embarrassing material under the rug.
Really? The copyright laws in the US sure are weird. In Europe all Fleming novels will be public domain in 2034. Looking forward to it, it'll be interesting times for sure!
My understanding is the Fleming books here in the US fall under the author’s death plus 70 years rule. The 95 year rule is most assuredly a thing, but it’s whichever happens first, in this case Fleming died in 1964 so public domain is 2035 as copyright until end of year. Canada has the death plus 50 rule, hence they’re entering there in 2015. Mind you, prior to the update to copyright laws in 1976, Casino Royale would have been public domain in 2010 which each Fleming work following each successive year (as is now happening with Agatha Christie, for example).
All that said, I’m happy to be corrected.
Also with regard to John Corks article, I didn’t realise being a fan of Fleming's books would, "become a burden.." And he asks "What do we do with the passages that are casually or cruelly offensive?" Er, we don't do anything with them. Ian Fleming wrote them 70 years ago. Either read them or don't. And stop presuming that Fleming would have been OK with the censoring of words from his books. Not you nor anyone else can know what his reaction would be.
However, in a connected world, this is hardly an impediment to finding a possibility to download his works from countries (say CA) where the copyright has already expired. And I must add, quite frankly, I don't have any qualms to do so, since I also own his novels and short stories in books that I have duly paid for, and use the "electronic" version mainly for reference and research (yes, for this forum) purposes.
I don't see any difference to being allowed to put a FLAC copy of a CD I bought and paid for on my NAS drive and another one on a USB stick for my car, which is clearly allowed under EU/German law. I paid my due for the creator's effort and to obtain a copy of it, not for a particular physical medium, and unless I start selling or widely distributing copies I can do with them what I want, for my personal purposes.
2035 is even better!!!!
Don’t know much about the legality of this sort of thing, but I know video game emulation is legal as long as you own a real copy of the game, don’t see why it should be different for books and music.
The history of the twentieth century suggests otherwise. Things often start out small to begin with.
I remember there was a discussion about censoring Dante’s “Inferno” a few years ago. Yes, that’s right, 14th Century… That does say a lot, though, doesn’t it?
Maybe, I’m just saying that objectively there is a list of logical fallacies, and slippery slope is one of them.