The Last WORD on the Ian Fleming Book Edits? | Calvin, Joe, Fletcher and David Discuss

[@yestoadventure007]

Great discussion and sadly necessary. It’s so important to preserve our cultural history, especially the parts that we don’t want to look at. Like the man said, “Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.”

[@Atticus75]

Anthony Horowitz summed it up best for me, put it in the preface that this written at a different era and doesn't reflect the present day. As he also said "You shouldn't change a dead man's words." On a wider issue, it is very concerning that certain books are being sought to be removed from school and public libraries in the USA.

[@playedout148]

Not just being sought, but have been removed.

[@ringbearer1420]

@@t7489 it’s tit-for-tat. Banning and censoring are two sides of the same coin… and both sides are wrong.

[@ryanjenkins6899]

@@ringbearer1420hey are not banning anything. They are readily available to be purchased. Not having them in public school libraries for children to read is not banning and to claim that it is is disingenuous. And it’s massively different than altering the versions of books that are sold.

[@ringbearer1420]

@@ryanjenkins6899 yeah that is a lie.

[@ryanjenkins6899]

@@ringbearer1420 No its not. I see those books for sale in every book store I go into. Ironically in a section that says banned books while they are for sale and objectively not banned.

[@daviddorward7684]

I cannot accept any form of censorship, which this is, so I cling more than ever to my PAN paperback originals!

[@tcvicesquad]

Got a full matching set from the 60s on my shelf and they look beautiful!

[@bradleywillard2361]

I was punching the air with joy listening to Fletcher and Calvin making their points. Regardless of whether or not the contents of the books are appropriate in a modern context, nobody should have the right to go back and reinterpret another artist‘s artwork. It just seems so disdainful, disrespectful and ethically unsound. As Fletcher said, a simple disclaimer at the front of each book, stating that the views within are no longer deemed acceptable, would have sufficed. Even the covers of the latest editions feel totally distasteful and self scornful. On a more positive note, we should celebrate the 70th Anniversary of ‘Casino Royale’ by reading the original editions, written by Fleming himself. Everything we as the fans know and love about this franchise can be found peppered in that novel. We instantly know who Bond is, what makes him tick, how he operates and thinks and what his goals are. As long as we can understand and appreciate that, then the legacy of 007 is all but assured.

[@damienfenton3880]

I don't like a vast majority of the changes George Lucas made to his original Star Wars trilogy but the crucial difference between that and the Bond novels changes is that Lucas is the original creator changing his own work. That is not the case with the changes made to Fleming's text and why that is much more egregious.

[@MrBurtonshaw]

Fleming agreed , during his lifetime to changes to his text that he could see, even back then, would be seen as unacceptable.

[@HOTD108_]

Don't excuse what Lucas did. The original Star Wars films are monumentally significant to film history and culture in general. Not to mention that George Lucas wasn't the only person who worked on those films, hundreds of cast and crew were involved as well. Some on whom had their hard work erased from the films retroactively when Lucas changed things. I like George Lucas, and I'm thankful for what he gave the world, but I also cannot accept what he took away.

[@frankb821]

If one word of Fleming's work is changed, it's censorship, because the changes are based on somebody else's idea of what is appropriate and/or necessary. Anyone participating in changing a work of art to suit their own ideologies is too self-important to justify their participation. Make no mistake, the reason these changes were made were, at least in part, political in nature. That doesn't mean we as a Bond Community have to get overtly political in response, but we do need to stand up to censorship in any form for any reason if we are to remain free to express ourselves. Everyone in this video was extremely articulate and thoughtful...thank you for this important and well presented discussion! Fletcher was brilliant...look forward to more guest spots for him!

[@NoFormalTraining]

I recall way back in high school English class the teacher would be reading out sections of the books we'd be studying, and ask questions like "what is the author trying to say?" Now Flemings work was never included in these classes, and I doubt they ever would be, but if a teacher was to read out a book by a writer that has been edited by someone else, they can no longer ask "what is the author trying to say?" because the work has been censored or redacted so any message they were trying to make has been lost, any questions they might have been trying to raise has silenced.

[@billkoenig1552]

re: editing the movies. For those of us of a certain age (like me), we've already seen the movies edited when they first appeared on television. On occasions, it was to cut for time reasons. But in other cases, it was for concern about violence, etc. When Goldfinger first appeared on ABC in the U.S., they snipped Goldfinger's line about the number of traffic deaths each year (a car company was a sponsor).

[@mannysingh3454]

You should not alter history.

[@4gegtyreeyuyeddffvyt]

I would like to see all his books redone for a modern less racist audience.

[@bigstankerino]

⁠​⁠​⁠@@4gegtyreeyuyeddffvytwhat makes you think the audience at the time were racist? Just because racism is thought of now as having been more prevalent back then doesn’t mean that everyone was a massive racist and hated anyone with slightly different skin tones No matter what way you try to frame this it isn’t as though the books were advocating for hatred of different races or cultures, just that they used some now-distasteful language. To erase that would be to erase some of Fleming and his vision of the original character, thereby taking away some of the meaning from the books… and to what end? All so that some non-existent offended people can sleep soundly in their beds knowing that a fictional spy likes them a little more than he used to. Edit to clarify: the language is not good and shouldn’t be used as flippantly in modern works as it was in Fleming’s novels but as the OP said: you should not alter history

[@clausvergara9702]

Hopefully the other editions of Ian Fleming’s Bond novels are still available! I gonna avoid buy the upcoming editions.

[@canadianmaplefan8079]

I’m of Indian descendants Mr Fleming loved Jamaica and the people of West Indies This is the vibe I got from Dr No and Bond and Cayman Islander Quaral interaction

[@willgillies5670]

ITS ORWELLIAN!

[@EthanKnight97]

I'm a lifelong Bond fan. I haven't felt so low about the Bond franchise right now for multiple reasons 1. Subverting and killing off James Bond in the movies. 2. The low key and not announcing anything for future Bond films for 60th anniversary. 3. The censoring and rewriting of Fleming's work. For whatever reason I find it morally wrong to alter a dead author's work. It is a trend driven by both political correctness and cynical advertising via outrage bait. Like it or not we are in a culture wars and there's no escaping from it as much one may try to avoid it. It's a war against Western civilization values such as nationhood, male stoism, biology truth, traditional gender roles, etc Art should be judged by the artist that created them. It's so narcissistic, and patronising to the people it's appeasing to. All that IFP need to do if they felt they have to, was add an disclaimer while leaving the work alone. 4. The last two Bond books Double or Nothing and On His Majesty's Secret Service were very poor to me and shouldn't preach politics and focus on stories appeal to everyone as IFP did before. They told John Gardner not to give Bond political thoughts he's a hero for everyone and a hero for generations to come IFP must communicate more and apologize to the fans for all this. A great video David and brilliant conversation from Calvin, Joe and Mr. Aykes who I haven't seen before and made some great points.

[@frankb821]

Well said, William! Thank you

[@michaelpoplawski2998]

Superior discussion from various perspectives. Well done.

[@samuelbarber6177]

I can see why some people would want this, but I feel like if we just ignore Ian Fleming’s, shall we say, less than acceptable views, we’re kind of giving him a free pass for them, when we really shouldn’t be, because edits to his work would create the impression that he was a different man than he was, and that both does him a disservice and gives him a pass. Not to mention, it’s a slippery slope, even just constrained to these books. If you change a word there, why not change a line. If you change a line, you can change a whole paragraph. Until eventually you have a different book about a different story by a different author. These aren’t even like Roald Dahl books, which were for children so it kind of makes sense to have a more PC-version available. The Bond novels were aimed squarely at adults. This is also why I don’t support abridging works to suit modern readers. Take Les Miserables by Victor Hugo, for instance. The original version of that novel is about 1500 pages. There are various abridged translations, but if you’re going to read Les Miserables by Victor Hugo, wouldn’t you want to read what Hugo intended?

[@eabcool]

i remember we read Huckleberry Finn aloud in High School. I didn't start talking like the characters. We should be smart enough to realize the cultural differences of the decades without changing what was written

[@user-tt6be2zx3h]

thanks David, Fletcher, Calvin, Joe, for this most timely addition to our collective 007 communities around the world. we might have to disuse any European language all together (yes that include you in the UK /Americas/Canada /Australia/NZ/etc) if we want to be so politically correctly 🤭🤗✌️✌️

[@lempingzhan5198]

First they will offer the new versions as an "alternative" but soon it will be the only version. always works like this. so never compromise.

[@justsomedude5727]

An anniversary edition should be as true to the original as possible, a loony tunes style warning would be fine, educate don't erase.

[@caseyzaft6734]

Folio Society will NOT be editing. Just buy their copies.

[@BluGiant14]

Totally forgot about Folio. Good advice!! But at $75 a pop it’s gonna be a slow rebuild of my Fleming library.

[@namideo]

Without even realizing it was the 70th anniversary I actually started rereading the books again. Just finished Diamonds are Forever before watching this video and I’ll be on to From Russia with Love probably later this week. So, I guess that’s how I’m celebrating!

[@JamesOppenheim]

For scholars, only the books representing the author's own final signature--the "fair copy"-will have any legitimacy as the basis for cultural, historical, literary, psychological, social or other analysis and discussion. Such works really are of the author's era, experience, knowledge, and temperament.

[@ringbearer1420]

On a positive note, we have the Folio editions, the most complete since the original hardback release. Would be wonderful to see you interview Fay Dalton, her art has been extraordinary.

[@RolandHulme]

What a wonderful video! Such a great discussion! It was awesome to be introduced to Fletcher, who has such great contributions to make to the discussion! I'm really excited to hear about other Bond fans creating their own list of the edits IFP made. I was trying to do something along those lines myself, but it sounds like much smarter people are already all over that. I think what would be really useful in this discussion right now would be Ian Fleming Publications officially releasing a full list of all the changes they made so we can discuss them with transparency. I think it's a real mistake on their part not to have done this already, since that list of edits is going to arrive anyway - and it reflects very poorly on IFP for not having provided it in the first place. I'm really rooting for them, and I think they knocked it out of the park with On His Majesty's Secret Service - but #fleminggate isn't going to go away any time soon and IFP have to respond to it eventually.

[@simonfirth2018]

A very intelligent video all round fellas. Excellent.

[@East-Coast-Films]

This was a great conversation! 👏

[@harrysmith2431]

Loved this video. THANKS, DAVID. I'll watch a James Bond Marathon, from Dr. No to No Time to Die, a few times this year (l've already done this twice in 2023).

[@Really007]

Fantastic discussion gents, you were all very honest but also reasonable with your views and responses. Great work guys!

[@flouxeric595]

Shocking, positively shocking...thank you for this excellent discussion

[@richardhoulton4016]

Just no. It’s not justifiable from any reasonable perspective.

[@mahalaps3]

If they wanted to edit the books, they should've been released like a "junior novelization", and not the official standard. I think the original unabridged, unedited novels should be in print and made available at least at the same time. Thankfully ebay exists and collectors can find the real books to purchase.

[@mahalaps3]

... Also, if they went the route of printing a disclaimer, I think the disclaimer should be on a page alone, with nothing printed on the back so the reader could remove that page if they chose to do so.

[@rvander7070]

IT'S AN ABOMINATION...........THESE BOOKS WERE WRITTEN OVER 60 YEARS AGO AND NO ONE BITCHED UNTIL NOW.

[@Atticus75]

I don't think anyone complained. The Fleming estate has misread the room. Hopefully, they will amend the books back for the 75th anniversary.

[@dtuk22]

@@Atticus75 Yep, Hopefully a failed experiment, and a huge loss of earnings.

[@DafyddBrooks]

Theres better things to solve in this world than editing famous books

[@agent00asmr]

So we could almost look at the edited books as cliff note editions. They could mess with the flow and feeling of the originals, but they can still get the overall story across. And the purest can still get the originals and enjoy them. I think most of us just worry about where it ends. Imagine if editing comes to KZbin. Imagine them editing all our videos to change the intent we had. Sounds far fetched, but in reality, it may not be far away.

[@neilmatthews5590]

This is awesome such a great video, some great point of views here

[@johnhansen1501]

Great discussion. Thanks gents. I do believe it was a marketing decision to avoid a potential social media s-storm. By celebrating Fleming and Bond at this time they could face accusations of celebrating an old white man with the worst kind of racist and misogynistic views and if it caught on it could be much much worse for the brand than these debates among a limited groups of fan.

[@brandonwhite8935]

Richie Fahey style covers on the US new reissues would have been nice

[@Paul1970]

Fletcher makes a great point at 22:33! Well said!

[@PharaohMan007]

How do you spot the edited books? I don't want to buy them.

[@tcvicesquad]

Get yourself some old Pan Paperbacks from the 60s.

[@ringbearer1420]

@@tcvicesquad it’s the latest run, so just avoid the 70th anniversary editions generally speaking. The Penguin editions from the 2000s, with covers by Richie Fahey are quite excellent, uncensored, well made and have beautiful covers. Therecent Folio editions are also uncensored, and actually are the most complete editions since the first hardcovers, restoring some material cut from even the Pan paperbacks.

[@cockshield]

@@ringbearer1420 I didn't know that, thanks for the heads up!

[@Pyrategalley]

The worst part is they went and made sure NO bookstore including Amazon sells the originals and now all the audible versions are being redone. I was able to get all the original versions through used book stores but now even the audio recordings done by amazing British actors is being deleted.

[@dtuk22]

This messing with the original writing of Fleming & other authors to please a minority....while offending a majority "ITS WRONG" . To alter these things they cease to be the original works. Not a wise thing to do & makes a mockery of the Author.

[@krunoslavkovacec1842]

It's not *pleasing* anybody. Because those that whine about "offensive language" probably never even read a book. And never will.

[@dtuk22]

@@krunoslavkovacec1842 You know its true. People like Bond like it for what its....those who don't like Bond and everything he is, does & the world he inhabits...don't bother with it. Its the same for anything.

[@tcvicesquad]

@@krunoslavkovacec1842 Exactly! It's just offence archeology. And the people who want to censor Bond don't just want to stop at altering a few words in the original novels, they won't stop until Bond is a trans woman of colour. Best to nip it in the bud and tell their weirdos to 4koff.

[@brenoramosmosso]

George Orwell was the code name of an English journalist. And 1984 is happening in England.😅😅😅😅😅

[@MatheusCostaaCosta]

I like how Joe approached this. Pretty reasonable, non-inflammatory and sincere.

[@lock67ca]

More than a year late to the conversation on this, so forgive me. The novels have been in the Public Domain in Canada for a few years now, so we can still get the original text here from various independent publishers. Quality does vary, of course, so you do have to shop around. But, at least, north of the border, we do have options.

[@highdesertforester]

That's a nice photo of the Fleming desk, David. Did you take measurements? Thickness of the top? Height? Species of wood? I'm sure you did. I want to build it. Let me know all the details please.

[@shannonbayley3684]

Wonderful talk on the subject gents. I'm wholeheartedly against these edited "sensitivity" editions. Hell, I'm against all re-writing of history in any way, shape or form. Period. It's just ridiculous.

[@MrMegamasterplan2]

My honest thoughts are: if it gets people reading Bond, that's a net positive. However both the originals and the new versions should be readily available to read.

[@anthonygray333]

I guess I go with others in thinking maybe just a disclaimer and sell the originals and identify the adjusted ones somehow. I originally thought they would take out some of the terms now unacceptable but as David pointed out, they seem to have gone overboard in some instances. I don’t feel comfortable with “sensitivity editors”, a term and position that didn’t exist even 20 years ago, changing things to suit there personal bias. And that’s what it is. What makes THEM sensitive may or may not seem the same to others. To recap: I don’t have a big issue with changing some of the most egregious slurs that are now unacceptable but I think it’s best that they remain as is, with a notation in a preface.

[@richardloganpowelliii4850]

The OG versions are not available at 1st party retail-they are being disappeared.

[@orangewetsuit]

DAVID & everyone, The names of the “sensitivity authors” should be included on the book covers. Do these text changes extend the books copyright time period as new books? Follow the money.

[@bigstankerino]

I don’t think the copyright would be extended From the US Copyright Office: “You may make a new claim in your work if the changes are substantial and creative, something more than just editorial changes or minor changes. This would qualify as a new derivative work. For instance, simply making spelling corrections throughout a work does not warrant a new registration, but adding an additional chapter would. See Circular 14, Copyright Registration in Derivative Works and Compilations, for further information.” Possibly the changes they have made could be classed as substantial, but substantial AND creative? I’d say probably not. Even if this were the case, the copyright would only apply to the new books, not extend copyright for the originals In my opinion this is a PR move for the snowflake generation that want to stay sheltered forever, or to make Ian Fleming Publications more attractive to investors

[@lloydpassafume5357]

I guess I understand where they are coming from, but I’m sorry, I just do not agree with changing an Author’s vision in any way. I find it very disrespectful. I fully understand that his writing does not match the writing of today, but this is nothing new: things age and not always for the better, but do not alter an author’s work.

[@brianbrownify]

David , my friends biological father was Patrick Fermer. One of the SOE’s that Fleming based James Bond after. I’m a fan of your channel , it might make an interesting video. Let me know if you’re interested. He was already told me he’ll do it . Thanks Brown, Brian Brown

[@hitchcockisthegoat]

So if they’re still releasing both versions of these novels how can someone know which one they’re buying? I’m hearing that the originals will still be available but I don’t want to buy a new printing and find out it’s the edited one.

[@russhobart7509]

If you go down the route of editing literature and film from the past then you'll never stop. There was language and attitudes from 70 years ago that are wholly unacceptable today. Likewise, there is language and attitudes from 20 years ago that are unacceptable today. And there will be things being made today that we all think are perfectly fine, that in 20 years time people will want changed or cancelled. You don't edit the past, you learn from it and make new things; the wonderful Kim Sherwood book being a perfect example.

[@Rocket1377]

Yes, and who is to say that in the future these words will be considered offensive at all? That reminds me of a Star Trek episode, where Lt. Uhura is called a "Negress" by a time traveller from the past, who quickly apologises to her for the slur. Uhura is confused by his apology, as she does recognise the word but doesn't get offended by it. The time traveler is surprised by this, as the crew informs him that human society has evolved to the point where people are no longer afraid of mere words.

[@universalexports1962]

I was interested in the comment made twice about no book stores. Here in the UK we have numerous Waterstones, WH Smith and other book stores. In my city of Sheffield there are two large Waterstones that are wonderful to walk around browsing at books. When I bought OHMSS they had eight copies.

[@pharotman2311]

If the original creator wants to change some unfortunately I think that’s up to them but DO NOT alter someone else’s art work or it ceases to be art.

[@Zeppelin180]

I just feel like these sort of changes are always being made to appease people who are never going to read the books anyway.

[@donaldrobers5028]

I think that I could be cool with censoring out that damned terry-cloth onesie that Connery wore in "Goldfinger"!

[@MrBurtonshaw]

He did wear a lovely grey Conduit cut three piece too ;)

[@donaldrobers5028]

Absolutely! I have no criticism of Bond's fashion sense, which makes me wonder what the costumer was thinking with that teddy-number. oh, well; it was the 60s.

[@brotherorchiday]

I have been drinking.... White Russian to be exact... So stereotypes are true... Fletcher... you have the bigger balls... David comes close second... Surprise!!!... As a grandson of slaves... David... thank you for having this topic on... oy gevalt!...

[@davidranderson1]

I enjoyed the discussion as an exploration of the topic, but, honestly, whatever the Ian Fleming Estate and the publishers decide to do with the books doesn't matter to me. I haven't read the books and I have no plans to do so, even though I read a lot of books including a lot of very old books. My Bond fandom extends only to the movies. I think one of the reasons is specifically because the movies keep updating the source material for contemporary audiences. Having said all of that, I can't help but feel that the debate among Bond book fans is a little over heated. I understand from a quick internet search that some books (like Casino Royale) have no changes and other books (like Live and Let Die) are using the changes made for the book's American publication back in 1954 -- because the language seemed to cross the line even back then -- and Ian Fleming had no problem when those changes were made.

[@th7297]

1984. „We have never been at War with Oceania.“ Ask Orwell 🎉

[@danielmcnamara1099]

I don’t believe they edited the books for those who have read them, they edited for those who haven’t, who might be brought to them in the 70th anniversary for the first time. Certain language has become so objectionable and weaponized for current sensibilities, I think they were afraid to re-launch the books, have some of that content in there, and lose new readers.

[@richk184]

How many people have actually read the bond novels

[@paulandrew6457]

Not a subject I feel strongly about but I am on principle against censorship and altering history which is there for us to learn from. If something is offensive to us today that might mean we have grown up a little bit but if we need to censor then maybe we haven't evolved in our thinking. If we cannot see things through different eyes then we have not learnt anything. I don't relate to Flemming I am white and working class but we don't have to be like him to appreciate his work or appreciate Bond and the impact James Bond has had in our lives and on our culture. If it was the films being edited I would say one thing this character has a license to kill his job is to kill the bad guys why is the language or attitudes to women or whoever more offensive than killing. It's fiction and escapism not reality so it doesn't matter. In fiction and films you should be FREE to create whatever you like. Within your own moral parameters.

[@ryanbarton6417]

Off topic but has anyone heard anything about the video game that was supposedly in development? I believe it's the same people that did the hitman series.

[@ThomCurley]

Great video and discussion. I’m in two minds over all this and somewhat confused too. I suppose I would start by saying whilst you guys are sensible and clever enough to see, or accept things because of historical context and look to the evolution of us, or the stories over time, others won’t share that insight or intelligence and sadly will only see what they are presented with. So I assume it’s about attracting the new potential audience, or those who don’t want to cringe when they enjoy it, maybe? This isn’t particularly a new thing in literary circles, look at the history of books like The Box Of Delights by John Masefield which has continually been altered and re adapted over and over again and sometimes because of our dated slang. Talking of slang, I confess I do struggle when phrases like ‘woke’ or ‘culture wars’ are cited as a negative thing, as if being decent, kind and mindful of others, often minority groups, who are still fighting for their human rights and change even now and not wanting to add into the negative narrative of hate or help make that acceptable is bad? As for the example you use, I do question if Bond talking about a doctor of colour is meant as a particularly positive thing, or is it an unnecessary or even barbed and derogatory? Do we know for sure? Maybe they don’t want any ambiguity or questions around it unless the intent is clear, so maybe it is better or okay to change it. I wonder if talking about how much is lost in that change is possibly over stating things a little, maybe, with the upmost respect obviously. As for the Flemings, would they really want their family name or brand to continue to support old questionable values and views and add into that hate that’s all too easily found out there? As long as the originals are still available then in some respects it’s not really an issue. Also, haven’t films, especially Bond films already been edited to be shown at different times on certain TV channels over the years? So I wouldn’t be surprised if similar happened to anything with those. Maybe its an attempt to keep the works and world of Fleming’s Bond popular, vibrant relevant and contemporary as that’s how you will bring in new fans. New versions of Shakespeare, Dickens and Austen are made all the time, junior versions of books were a thing in my childhood on shows like Doctor Who. Why can’t we have the v best of Fleming minus the racism and hateful wording? There is enough of that out there as it is, why can’t we promote understanding and kindness over that? However, the fact that from what you say they don’t treat all racism or homophobic elements in the books in the same way makes it an odd and inconsistent thing to do though. Either change it or don’t, this all feels half hearted.

[@laceybeanreads]

I think the books should stay as they are.

[@peteryttergren6118]

Look at relatively new movies like Django Unchained and 12 Years a Slave. They contain a lot of offensive language but in the context of the films seem to be ok and yet not censored.

[@EastCoastSteam4468]

Sometimes it's valid, sometimes not. I've got a 1st edition of Henry the Green Engine (Thomas the tank engine book for those not in the know) which has the N word in it. It was changed in later editions and the Rev Awdry did apologise and address the change. Context is key, 007 is based in the real world with real language, whether you agree with it or not. I lean on the side of keeping the original text, and ensuring the reader is educated in the context.

[@MrBurtonshaw]

I think that is fair... and I regard Fleming as a rich pig of a man... even though I love his work.

[@xXxCatsnakexXx]

Unforgivable -the Fleming Estate should give the books to another publisher.

[@deanf8894]

Ever hear of Anheuser-Busch? Go Woke, Go Broke.

[@Professor_Fate]

This is nothing new. It's not an assault on Western Civilization, as some would have it in the comments below. What it is is INFANTILIZING/SANTIZING. When I was a kid, IN THE 70S, I had an edition of Conan Doyle that was censored to remove all references to Sherlock Holmes' drug use. What, to my mind, they've done is given us a version of those expurgated literary classics that Scholastic Magazine (in the US) used to put out for grade school libraries. It's "The Children's James Bond." Bad and condescending as that is, it's not the end of the world.

[@monochromebluess]

Interesting group discussion. David, given your comments above withdrawing from part of the official launch - having a unique book cover launch on your channel - do you now regret that decision. As you mention it could be argued it’s a just a sunami in a teacup and some books such as Casino Royale haven’t been touched at all ?

[@meram4086]

I'm not buying them because they changed many things in the book, I used to have all of the books I lost about 6 of 'em, I misplaced it somewhere, but I'm not buying the new ones for replacements, they're somehow different

[@christopherpetersen4671]

When I first heard about the edits I was very angry. I take the Western values of freedom of speech and expression very seriously. That isn't to say there isn't descriptions of other races that Fleming describes shouldn't shock us. But this was the time. I'm happy to say I own the Folio society editions which are not taking part in these edits.

[@Djboborei]

What’s next? Editing old music, old movies? Censorship and altering works of art and history is outright Orwellian, not inclusive or progressive thinking but rather authoritarian.

[@SolitaryWolf]

Pussy Galore becomes Kitty Galore. Octopussy becomes OctoMollusca.... and so forth.

[@LittenMandrake]

Don't see why they can't just have 2 versions of the books. The publishers get to make their money (which is all they care about, let's be real), those with sensitivities can read more palatable versions of the books, and traditionalists can read the originals which are still readily available. Everyone wins. Erasing/banning the original books would be something I would have an issue with but making both an option (almost like translations) is perfectly reasonable to me.

[@tcvicesquad]

Or... or, how about just one version of the books. The original.

[@TheBondReport]

They’ve pulled in attention by striking a blow to the core fans ie all of us die hard fans and creators. Because they knew we would start making noise and in turn do the marketing for them by creating the online buzz without paying any of us a dime. Genius level strategy to reignite the brand for a second year in a row as the follow up to the 60yrs of 007. 👏👏👏 on their part to get the first two quarters of the year promoted. Now let’s see phase two as we begin to enter the 3rd quarter and do they do right and really give their core audience that fan favor of a proper unedited set. Hardbacks? Gold foil stamped 70yr logo edition? Fingers crossed it’s unedited, elegant and most of all Bond.

[@ianscorey5293]

Gentlemen..... an interesting video!!!!! But all societies what to rewrite history!!!! In the beginning we had the first treatment!!!! And that was a tough and evil book....., so the religious zealots decided to bring out a more accessible story!!!! The New Testament!!! Same is happening with James Bond!!!! I was born in the year of Moonraker...the book!!!! Hence I have seen a lot of life!!!! But to edit books that are 70 years old is just the same as the NAZI’S burning books to reflect a different story on life!!!! What was written in the 1950’s has the right to remain as it was..... a reflection on life at that time!!!!.... In Harry Saltsmans film The Battle of Britain 1969.... Michael Caine has a dog called N...... It was called that because it was a black Labrador!!!! Simple stuff really!!!! And interestingly they have never rewritten Uncle Toms Cabin!!!!! I rest my case!!!!! Regards 👨‍🎤🇳🇿

[@jeffreardon3969]

It is changing the writing artwork of Ian Fleming. You do not alter it. I have a nice collection of the originals. This is a mistake, What's next altering Hemingway?

[@dakotarayprice]

I have a Old soul

[@garybryant5946]

A.I will rewrite all the classic novels of the past in due course and old books will be the new Holy Grail

[@bigstankerino]

To change the text to tackle this issue is ridiculous. Just put in in a preface and be done at that point. As Joe said: someone reading these works today might not understand the context of the time Fleming was in. That’s fine but to change the words he wrote is effectively to change that point in history. Imagine we did this with all works from the same period; eventually we would forget that history and it would then be doomed to repeat itself. Even worse than having the knowledge and memory that such distasteful views were accepted widely, would be to relapse on them and allow such horrid history to repeat itself through our wilful ignorance of our embarrassing past

[@vitorafmonteiro]

I kind of have 2 minds on it (be warned, this will be long). As someone who has worked with editing, I can understand business-wise, wanting to work without having to get tangled in politicking one doesn't really care or want to get into, and in terms of relating to your possible clients, having more or less mainstream literature that is interesting and appropriate to most mainstream audiences but has parts that may make it awkward for readers who are having a nice ride and all the sudden come across something effed up. If one old work is fully unredeamable and hateful, I do think not commercialising it or consuming it and having it shared online free for merely historical/study ends), so I can understand editing works that are not fully hateful in whole but only part. Editing is a profession as respectable as any other, but as Jean-Luc Godard put it "Every cut is a lie" (that even applies to editing to make the original product, you edit together the different takes to turn the shooting of fiction into a real-looking fiction in universe, and in terms of books, author's do excise less fortunate things they write from draft to final version, but of course those are original creators doing it and not anyone else, nobody knowing quite why and with what standards). Once I had to deal with this one mid-20th-century children's book which by my standard above, wasn't fully hateful but had some elements, and had some artistic quality, but it had 2 black characters talking in a "[Hulk] does x" way, very "d*rk*e" imagery illustrations for those and an antagonist greed allegorical character who was clearly a Jewish caricature, and since we neither wanted to lie on the content having been done by the author the way it was nor commercialise the work for kids alongside less reprehensible works the way they wore and bring down some readers who could get hurt by it, so we divided the book in 2 sections: one the main work body with a one-sit of the story in which MINOR edits were done (the illustration of the 2 black characters were less aggressivly broad but still cartoonish way not any softer or harder than the cartoonish version of the white characters and not making the black characters look like the white one's with another hue but keeping the idea of different features, allegorical Jewish miser had the obviously Jewish name removed and still kept his allegorical title part of the name, the hair structure stayed the same but payots were off and his hat being a kippah was off, the black character who was a child still talk in "Hulk does x" way but the adult one didn't since a child talking grammar innacurately is realistic and quite fine but the grown-up black character talks in an "I do x" way), and one section at the end where all of the 10% or less of the text and pictures edited were presented unedited so those who wanted to not just read a good children's book could read it and if they wished they could explore the "cut scenes" for their own education on the progress had. Not saying that what we did is an example or should be a rule (work is work; maybe if anything is that controversial it shouldn't be sold instead of this cynical "we're winning money with it while looking righteous"), but I do think that we did somethings right in that we didn't do the altering of the author's ideology or got rid of anything that could be seen as politically incorrect (the book had a pro-authority, "obey, don't rebel" view and some militant people would want to get rid of that or any milder/subtextual bias to "make it better"), likewise we made the main book body have slightly less racist caricatural illustrations, one character's sentences still say the same ideas but have a slightly different grammar, we didn't get rid of any milder characterisation that one could say was racial paternalist or stereotypical because we could not get rid of what made the world/characters alive on their terms, we didn't get rid of dialect elements that someone from a given ethnic group would realistically use (just things they wouldn't use and are way too stereotypical, making characters of all backgrounds talk the same would be too uniformising), no plot or scene was removed, and some could still criticise us that we kept the black stereotype characters black even if we made them less stereotypical while we made the Jew not Jewish (but the black characters with minor tweaks were just black people like real black people, while there ws no non-racist reason why the allegory of greed should be a Jew), so there is some worth to us having changed very little, refusing to "correct" the author's social-political ideology or anything more subtextual or milder that is more indirectly offensive (anything non-hardcore stayed in) and keeping at the end the original content so we can learn of it, also we didn't mind doing tthe changes because the author had gotten rid of the black grown-up in the sequel book and made the black child less caricaturally drawn (too much, I'd say she almost looked like an animated rag doll designed after a white person now, to the point we edited the 2nd book's illustrations on that character so it wasn't too colourblind) and was milder in the political and racial views, so we didn't do anything not in the author's latter life's own view changes. On the Fleming edits, given my experiences with children's and adventure fiction (which Fleming isn't the former, but is somewhat the latter), I got to say that abridged versions with some cuts have been since the 1940s more and more common than we think (often still in the author's life and often approved by them), but they normally have been minor, abridged both things for sensitivity and mere plot tightening/faster reading reason, and never fully revamped the author's personal ideology (a bit in line with how the Bond films softened some elements of the books), and it is much more excusable doing that for works for children than to adults who can compartimentalise and contextualise things better (to them I'd just recommend mere disclaimers). It also should never be done without a clear view of how you're editing. Even if I can criticise ethically any edit or cuts in the way the commentators of the video and the comments do, I can at least understand the reasoning of cutting more offensive racial/sexual language, but when you get rid of strip clubs because men are leering strippers (that is what happens in those irl) you're starting to edit without anything much defensable about your editing), besides the incoherence of cutting some racist/sexist/queerphobe things and not others, and removing the race of say the black doctor may seem like you get rid of paternalism but you get rid of a "person of colour character" at the same time). If you don't have a clear idea of why and how you're editing and plan to edit the slightest to conserve the "voice" of the author, don't. The main problem here is the lack of clarity of the standards, if these will be contemporaneous alternate editions or some time on the longrun will replace the original-text ones (my experience tells me distribution tends to play favourites and on the long run replacement or harder acquisition may well happen), and that editing is now made in a different model than the one I once did (it was mostly business and possible-client-focused minded and the people who did it were ordinary editors like the ones who edit anything else, and may change book illustrations or covers for new sensibilities the way they do for all sorts of political or aesthetic or any other reasons, but now it is guided by the new "sensitivity reader" profession which is a whole "who makes them the sensitivity authority?"/"Why should we take their word for it?" and it all becomes a power dynamic issue and giving a sort of high priest/ess authority to people on the topic; when I did any sort of such editing it was rare as most books were considered fine to just let be, wanted by the publisher and audience, done on books that were often over 20 years of print and having suffered at least cover updates supporting our edit ideas, and not permanently in print for 70 years until someone did something, done minimally and not to "improve" the author's ideology and done in a general logic of publishing editing and not guided by a social-political logic either submiting to or cynically trying to profit of the culture war only a minority of people are really involved in, divorced from the ordinary artistic/business sector logic). So, I'd say editing is dangerous but not inherently wrong if we have clear red lines and this is seen as editing like any other professional one and not as a "morally-guided" "sensitivity editing" work. That's my TEDTalk about it, thank you for putting up with it. Since this includes and is being watched and read by a lot of the Bond fandom, I would like to propose anyone to determine scientifically "Which is the Bond film with the least James Bond screen time?", in one Bond fan forum this was once asked and lots of recurrent answers were given but not a uniform one, someone said the only way to settle it would be each fan in the board watching one and timing it the scientific way and there was some talk of each one voluntering to watch one specific film, but nobody went through with it. Any man of science wants to help settle it by going through their favourite films at least?

[@lifeschool]

Taking about new Bond stories again? Here is the second part of my 17 scene epic story: [Scene 2] Down in a London tube station, the black rats fight over crumbs between the abandoned and rusting tracks. A strong smell of coal dust and oil fumes pervades. Images of yesteryear adorn the walls like ghosts haunting the spirit of the living. The atmosphere is clammy, dusty and dark, with a stiff draught from the tunnel. Footsteps echo. Shadows flicker along the damp crumbling walls. Things begin to grow brighter as Fleming turns from the old platform into the ticket office, which leads to a passages beyond. Opening a door, a similarly dusty old secretary sits busily typing, while also listening to the wireless on her bakelite headphones. She tips him a side glance and a nod. Fleming throws his hat and slightly smouldering coat over to a wooden stand, and knocks on M's door. Sir Miles Messervy sits behind a red leather-topped solid wooden desk, surrounded by folders and dossiers, most of which show signs of being charred. He is a weather-beaten old man, grey from too many years of fighting fires in Whitehall. "Look here Fleming. What do you know about Turkey?". "The feathered kind, sir, or the Ottoman depraved sun-baked arid desert that passes for Asia Minor, sir?". "The Latter". "Well... I can speak fluent Arabic." "Good! We'll be sending you under cover as a merchant banker who is interested in buying Gold. Heinz Munchen, the head of German Military Exports, is shipping a crate of Nazi war bullion to his contact in Istanbul. We don't know who the contact is, so it's your job to find out, and replace him. The Turks are still smarting from Gallipoli, so you can't afford to make any friends. Do you understand?". "Yes sir." "I'll be honest with you... You're the seventh man we've had to send in on this mission, the others weren't fortunate enough to live long enough to find out any information. You're code will be SIS agent 007. Due to certain number of, shall we say, security risks, you'll also be using a code name as well. Given you'll be posing as a man in charge of stocks and bonds, we thought how about Mr. Bond? Is that all right?" "Bond?", he raises an eyebrow, "Very well, sir." "Splendid. Now go down to see the lab team. They'll give you your disguise, and a handful of technology gizmos we thing you might find useful." [Video Game Version: A quicktime event with witty comments, do not screw up the conversation with M]

[@cmclarty7953]

I love the Bond community but I think some of the older guys let politics come out by commentating or sharing things under their Bond Channel name. Disappointing to have politics spill over to everything these days

[@hat8918]

It's a slippery slope. If you sigh and accept it now, 20 years of gradual edit creep, you are going to realize its gone way too far and its too late to do anything about it.

[@wendyharbon7290]

Namaste the Bond Experience and David, The question is, what will a future Bond James Bond, carry as a concealed personal weapon. Either a semi-automatic pistol, or a double action revolver, or carry both one as a backup? Also what calibre of ammunition, would a future Bond James Boon 007 MI6 (SIS) Operative use too? Either in a future semi-automatic pistol, or in a future double action revolver too? Equally would Bond use only sub-supersonic ammunition, or standard military cartridge rounds, or some new future classified hypersonic round, which goes through all known advance body armour, like a blow torch or laser too? Or could a future Bond, be issued by “Q”, with some advanced combined Lethal and Non-Lethal Energy 30 (lethal shots) to 50 (Non-lethal shots) firing (with rechargeable battery energy interchangeable magazines) Pistol, which can kill or just stun any future enemy. Though all Bond has to do to recharge his new advanced combined Lethal and Non-Lethal Energy 30/50-Shot Firing Pistol, is plug it into his new Aston Martin fully Electric Sports Couple, maybe called a DB-15E too? Or Bond can plug his new advanced combined Lethal and Non-Lethal Energy 30/50-shoot firing Pistol, just into the nearest Overseas Luxury 5/6 or 7-Star International Hotel Suit Bond is staying in. Of course using an international plug adaptor come charging unit first, to recharge Bond’s new advanced combined Lethal and Non-Lethal Energy 30/50-shoot firing Pistol, in say ten minutes! Or Bond, carries two extra interchangeable pistol grip housed, electric battery energy magazines, for fast reloads too! Along with what pistol or revolver accessories, would it be fitted with too, Either a sound suppressor or silencer or “Can” ? Or with a green or red laser target illuminator? or a combination under barrel white light infra-red flash light, with laser target illuminator too? Or with a built or screw adaptor plate, for fitting Daylight, adverse-weather and Night-time Red or Green Dot Optical Sight? Or maybe Or with a built-in electronic digital ammunition counter, including ammo level display for the Red or Green Dot Optical Sight too? Or with a secret built-in Satellite GPS Security transmitter, so the new “M” know where new Bond is at all time? Or with a built-in pistol grip and trigger finger print security optic-reader too? So only Bond can fire his personal weapon too, you do not want a future evil bad guy’s or enemy female agents, using and turn Bond’s own gun on himself and shooting Bond with his own gun now do we? As well as will the next Bond Gun if a pistol, have standard magazines, or extended magazines, or high capacity magazine, or the option of all three? Or could we see Bond issued with a high capacity, 7 or 8 maybe 9 round cylinder revolver, for the likes of .357 SIG bottlenecked rimless centre-fire handgun cartridge, or other .357 Magnum bullet, or a modern .380 Auto cartridges? Or will we see a return, or a newer version, of the clip-on Pistol Butt Stock and hand gun and silcener plus other pistol attachments storage case in one? Especially if a future Bond pistol has three-round burst fire or fully automatic fire capabilities, Bond would need a Clip-on and easy to remove Pistol Butt Stock attachment then! So could James Bond next gun, be one of the new SIG Sauer Pistols? Or will James Bond, always use a Walther pistol of some kind, maybe a newer version of the old PPK, though in a large chambered calibre maybe in .40 S&W calibre or 10mm Auto, with 8+1 or 10+1 rounds too? Or will you see a new “Q” issuing the next Bond, with either a Glock pistol, or with a Smith & Wesson pistol? Or maybe with a Beretta pistol, or with a FN Herstal pistol, or with a Colt pistol, or with a CZ pistol? Or equally with a Dan Wesson pistol, or with a Heckler & Koch pistol, or a Kimber pistol, or a Sturm, Ruger & Co. Inc pistol? Or similarly Bond issued with old a Para-Ordnance 1911 Double stack .45ACP pistol, or a Remington Arms 1911 Double stack 9mm or 10mm pistol? Or will te new “Q” issue the new Bond with a pistol or a revolver, from some other gun manufacture, to become the next famous James Bond Gun? Or will the next James Bond pistol or revolver, be some kind of specialist upgraded improved customised firearm? That is from one of the leading world’s specialist armoury manufacturers, of customised hand guns, as in the guns used in the John Wick movies now seem to be? Or could the FN Five-seveN USG pistol with twenty FN 5.7×28mm rounds, be the next James Bond gun too? We had enough, over the international news media talking about, who or which male actor or female actress, could or should play the next Commander Bond James Bond, or Ms Bond Jamie Bond too? We want to know, is what will be the next gun Bond will carry and fire, is more important to some of us Bond and fire arms fan’s? Maybe someone should take these suggestions, up with the Bond Movie Producers, as as new Bond needs and should have a new personal concealed weapon too? Namaste Gurkhamum Wendy and Wheelchaircharlie39 David, Bond Fan since Doctor No, was first released, even as children back in the 1960’s too!

[@helgaratbone1691]

No way in hell this is a good thing!

[@LeonWick526]

So Joe Darlington is okay with the books being censored and Bond dying in No Time To Die. I hereby declare him excommunicado from the fandom and he must surrender all of his Bond merchandise.

[@deanf8894]

Lost all respect for Joe.

[@amymorrison4213]

These edits are though the right of the property owners are lies.

[@wendellarmbrusterjr2122]

Fleming was all about fighting against cant. Cant 'hypocritical and sanctimonious talk, typically of a moral, religious, or political nature'. These book edits are pure cant. Sanctimonious and hypocritical judgements.

[@dalerussell5673]

I for one really don't understand The issue. I love James bond, I watched it with my father when I was a kid and I always think of him when I'm watching the movies or reading the books. Material changes with time. Authors add and edit their books after the initial Release all the time. Stephen King is notorious for this. If this company needs a modernize the books so that they can make money, Then that's what the business is in business for. They're not gonna come to your house and burn your old copies. As a matter of fact them doing this will make you money because your old copies become more valuable.

[@SolitaryWolf]

When I heard about this, I was furious ( and still am ). I have always loved my James Bond Novels the way they were written. If anything, they should leave the text alone and place a disclaimer introduction for the reader before they begin on the James Bond journey. What next, will they re-edit Mein Kampf so Disney can make an animation that doesn't offend? All books should be left alone and not rewrite our past. For those that are offended, go find something else to read. I am not a racist or judgmental person but I do understand what I am reading and digesting. Don't mess with our beloved James Bond novels. We have reached George Orwell's 1984 dystopia. Do I need to start memorizing my books so I can recite them verbatim like in Fahrenheit 451? Thank you for your review. I share in your thoughts of this horrible editing of our beloved James Bond (as well as any other book from our past).

[@sigurd2873]

Under no circumstances will I buy these butchered tomes. History is history.