Talk:Live and Let Die (novel)

Upcoming GA Review

Hi, I will not have internet access next week (until Oct 2nd), but I will sort out any issues you may have from that time on. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Ireland ban

Why was the book banned in Ireland? Was it the extensive use of the ne-word?--ML5 (talk) 12:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

More comments

I seem to have just missed the PR.

• Link voodoo in lede?
• Delink Jamaica in plot
• "He disagreed with something that ate him".[1] Bond then investigates the warehouse himself and discovers that Mr Big is smuggling gold by placing it in the bottom of fish tanks holding poisonous tropical fish. He is attacked in the warehouse by Mr Big's gunman, the "Robber", and in the resultant gunfight Bond outwits the Robber and causes him to fall into the shark tank." -License to Kill haha!!
• "Bond's arrival at New York's Idlewild Airport was inspired by Fleming's own arrivals " -might reword one "arrival" to avoid repetition.
• "and the warehouse at which Leiter is attacked by a shark was based on a warehouse " -warehouse too
• Solitaire bird -I think you should display the proper name here and in the photo caption and refer to it as the Rufous-throated solitaire bird.
• Patrick Leigh Fermor's book The Traveller's Tree, -year in brackets or before "book"?
• Captain Blood - (1935) ?
• "Bond's friendship is evident in the story.[29] Despite the friendship," -rep of friendship
• "The skin was grey-black, taut and shining like the face of a week-old corpse in the river",[38] and as being intellectually brilliant. -The "and as being intellectually brilliant doesn't seem supported by the earlier prose here. "was described as being intellectually brilliant" would seem better? How about "Mr Big is described as being intellectually brilliant, with a "great football of a head, twice the normal size and very nearly round" and skin which was "grey-black, taut and shining like the face of a week-old corpse in the river".?
• s "merely incompetent gunsels when compared with a British gentleman-secret agent", whom Bond can eliminate with relative ease." -I'm not sure the value of the quote here, especially in an already quote-heavy section— I'd paraphrase it.

• I paraphrased most, but left a small stub of a quote ("merely incompetent gunsels") as I think it would loose impact if that bit is paraphrased. - SchroCat (talk) 10:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• "Black Power movement" -no link?
• "The communist threat was brought home to Jamaican " -Jamaica?
• "In May 1954 Live and Let Die was banned in Ireland by the Irish Censorship of Publications Board" -not clear why, was it too evil for the Catholics to deal with?

• The sources have no idea - even the primary one doesn't say why. I've added a note to make this clear, as a few people have asked previously. - SchroCat (talk) 09:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• "Live and Let Die was published in the US in January 1955 by Macmillan; there was only one major change in the book, which was that the title of the fifth chapter was changed from "Nigger Heaven" to "Seventh Avenue". -had to be in America of course ;-)
• "drugs lord" -usually referred to as a drug baron or drug lord rather than "drugs" I think, Drug baron I think is better.

• I think both are OK with drugs being more acceptable in BrEng. I'm not 100% sure by any means, so sending up the bat signal for Tim riley to give an opinion either way... - SchroCat (talk) 09:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd go for "drug baron" too. The OED likes it, and gives examples of its use from 1914 onwards. Tim riley talk 09:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Well drug baron it is then! Many thanks Tim - SchroCat (talk) 10:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It sounds more evil I think!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Great job, let me know when you've responded and nommed for FAC.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Mostly done otherwise, with a couple more still to address. All now sorted. Thanks very much for your thoughts - all good stuff. - SchroCat (talk) 10:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Editor SchroCat re FAC status

re edit > click > this revert < by --Laurencebeck (talk)

Will you please be careful when editing the Live and Let Die article. This is about to go to FAC and your edits will ensure that it is opposed, which is not a desirible outcome. Your latest addition is a bloating of the plot, and is (as many of your previous edits are) poorly phrased, and not written in an encyclopaedic tone. In other edits you have introduced tangential and unsourced information, or information that has minimal connection to the subject, and no connection to the book. - SchroCat (talk) 07:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Mr SchroCat.

I can confirm my understanding to you that your use of FAC means that the article was under this consideration: FAC – Wikipedia:Featured article candidates — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurencebeck (talk • contribs) 07:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The voyage by Bond and Solitaire by rail down the eastern seaboard is one of the Fleming's set pieces in LALD.
It is notable for the bombing and tommy-gunning of the no-longer occupied compartment on the train Fleming names the Silver Phantom while the couple have continued their journey on the Silver Meteor with the change at Jacksonville.
I do not believe the brief description I have added interrupts the flow of the article towards FAC status. Indeed the absence of the voyage might. Regards --Laurencebeck (talk) 07:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Your edit was poorly written and it bloated an already full plot section, which is why it was removed. While it is one of the "set pieces", it does not affect the remainder of the plot in any way, and is, therefore, superfluous in this summary of the storyline. One of the reviewers at the recent PR commented that the plot section "tries to convey too much in too little space. May want to streamline a bit": adding yet more superfluous detail is not the way to achieve a better understanding of a plot. - SchroCat (talk) 09:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

There are two things that you, (User:Laurencebeck), need to consider: one is WP:WIAFA criterion 1e; the other is WP:PLOTSUM, regarding which, I have previously noticed that you are in the habit of expanding the plot section of articles that other users had previously trimmed down. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much Redrose64.

re
"The couple travel to St Petersburg, Florida"
in the status of the article by SchroCat (talk) here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Live_and_Let_Die_%28novel%29&direction=prev&oldid=654301008

I read that you are very interested in the British Rail system. I ask you to consider that Fleming had set a great three Chapters in some novel (In Live and Let Die Chapters 10 to 12 –the greater part of– inclusive can be referred to) on the Flying Scotsman, from Euston to Edinburgh and that at York Bond and companion got off and waited for a following edition of another express and boarded that. Arriving later at their destination they learn that their compartment on the great British train, The Flying Scotsman, had been bombed and strafed with machine-gun fire. Fleming would have taken nigh on three chapters to describe this journey (another train set-piece written by Fleming is the journey from Istanbul to Paris on the Orient Express.)

When a Wikipedia editor writes, "The couple travel to St Petersburg, Florida" he is reducing three chapters to four words and the name of a town and its state. Leave out the fact that a train has been halted, half a carriage bombed and the interior given a succession of tommy-gun blasts.

Here is the description of the train journey from Istanbul to Paris on the Wikipedia page of From Russia, with Love (novel)

(Romanova), Bond and Kerim board the Orient Express with the Spektor. Bond and Kerim quickly discover three MGB agents on board travelling incognito. Kerim uses bribes and trickery to have the two taken off the train, but he is later found dead in his compartment with the body of the third agent, both having been killed by Grant. At Trieste a fellow MI6 agent, "Captain Nash", arrives on the train and Bond presumes he has been sent by M as added protection for the rest of the trip. Tatiana is suspicious of Nash, but Bond reassures her that Nash is from his own service. After dinner, at which Nash has drugged Romanova, Bond wakes up to find a gun pointing at him and Nash reveals himself to be the killer, Grant. Instead of killing Bond immediately, Grant reveals SMERSH's plan, including the detail that he is to shoot Bond through the heart and that the Spektor is booby-trapped to explode when examined. As Grant talks, Bond slips his metal cigarette case between the pages of a magazine he is holding in front of him and positions it in front of his heart to stop the bullet. After Grant fires, Bond pretends to be mortally wounded and when Grant steps over him, Bond attacks him: Grant is killed, whilst Bond and Romanova subsequently escape. Later, (they arrive) in Paris_

The reduction, from Istanbul, to "The couple travel to Paris, France" is true but would leave out the stopping of a train, a bombing of a carriage and the strafing of its interior by tommy-gun fire were it in the USA.

—"The couple travel to St Petersburg, Florida"

I trust you will see that brevity is brevity but to exclude major set pieces by one of the twentieth century's greatest descriptive writers because an editor is defeated in his capacity or careless or absent-mindedly negligent should properly leave a sense of responsibility to an independent yet diligent Wikipedia reader.

What you have noted elsewhere of my revisions to Wikipedia articles please give balanced regard to, and if you cannot, and would you wish further understanding, the wikipages are here to provide that. Regards, --Laurencebeck (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It's an utter straw man argument to refer to FRWL. The events on that train are the climax of the book and tie up all the threads of the conspiracy against Bond, thus we describe it accordingly. The events on the train in LALD are minor. They add to the feel of tension within the book, but nothing happens that affects the progression of the plot. This is a plot summary and we cannot include every tiny event in the story just because we want to. As I have already mentioned to you, one of the reviewers at the recent PR commented that the plot section "tries to convey too much in too little space. May want to streamline a bit" - and that was without reference to the minor events of the train. If we overbloat with the inclusion of superfluous detail, we do not aid the reader in their understanding of either the plot, or the book as a whole. - SchroCat (talk) 07:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear Schro, You have reverted the page back to my edit this revert " .. the couple travel by train to St. Petersburg, Florida, where they meet Leiter." which replaces your previous brief six words to encapsulate three chapters (Chapter 10 > the greater part of 12) "the couple travel to St. Petersburg, Florida, where they meet Leiter."

. . the mode of travel is my edit. The previous edit didn't have it . . Regards,--Laurencebeck (talk) 07:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know what I have done. What's your point? - SchroCat (talk) 07:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

. . Oh yes, my point . . I think it was that without my seeing that Wikireaders at least should know how the pair got down the Eastern seaboard of the US they wouldn't have a clue as it was.--Laurencebeck (talk) 07:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Well they do know. That's why it's there - and it's time to bring this kerfuffle over nothing to a swift close: it's been rumbling on past the point of anything useful or constructive. - SchroCat (talk) 07:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

End of the plot summary

Laurencebeck, I see that despite requests from two other editors to use the talk page about the end of the plot summary, you have again forced your preferred version back in. Could you please stop ignoring others and use the talk page for its proper purpose: to avoid pointless edit warring and to discuss the development of the article.

The section in question is a plot summary. It's purpose is to summarise the pertinent points of the plot, not to force every minor detail of the book into the article. The version that recently went through the peer review process finished as "... Mr Big, who survived the explosion, is killed by the sharks and barracuda. Quarrel then rescues the couple." In terms of a plot summary that is all that is needed to summarise the article. We do not need to bloat it out further with ephemera. As I have pointed out to you previously, one of the reviewers at the recent PR commented that the plot section "tries to convey too much in too little space. May want to streamline a bit": adding yet more superfluous detail is not the way to achieve a better understanding of a plot.

Please desist in padding out the summary with unneeded detail, and please desist trying to force your preferred version back in against multiple editors: the talk page should be your first port of call, not your last. - SchroCat (talk) 07:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I am puzzled as to what can be done about this disruptive editing. What steps can be taken when one editor persistently defies the consensus and refuses to discuss the matter? Tim riley talk 11:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I will reply to this, SchroCat's very balanced and considerate communication to me here, and to include Tim riley, who has commented.

The position I take up is someone who comes new to a Wikipedia page and wants to know what he can about a subject. Thousands are the times I have done that either introducing myself to a subject or brushing up on a few things i might know.

I do recall in the subject English at high school or college, depending on the term, many decades ago, being absolutely unable to précis. The English teacher would give three pages of, say, Conrad and ask for a one hundred word précis of it. My grasp of English, my mother language, was zero. I have worked and worked at it in those many decades until I think I would be satisfied with my capability now.

Regarding the bare bones of what happens in Live and Let Die I certainly do not see enough bones there in the Wikipedia summary. I believe enough it 'gets away with it.'

Regarding the PR, which I am taking to be Wikipedia:Peer review, you quote, "May want to streamline a bit."

___I should think as summaries go, the blunt end,

"... Mr Big is killed by the sharks and barracuda. Quarrel then rescues the couple,"

could certainly have some streamlining tailing-off.

Your summary begins –

The British Secret Service agent James Bond is sent by his superior, M, to New York City to investigate "Mr Big" . . . who is suspected of selling 17th-century gold coins in order to finance Soviet spy operations in America.

The attention to the history of the treasure at the completion of the novel is critical to WHAT THE WHOLE DAMN NOVEL IS ABOUT .

Tail end streamlining might have it like this ( as indeed Fleming nicely streamlined his tailing-off ) –

Quarrel rescues the couple and brings them back to the small beach house which they had used as their base. Strangways sends to his superiors in London a detailed report. Bond receives a cable from M informing him to file a claim for the treasure and to proceed immediately with its salvage. Solitaire and Bond anticipate enjoying the fortnight's leave M has additionally granted Bond.

The final attention to the relationship between the now, in Live and Let Die, second outing of a James Bond heroine and Bond himself is as streamlined as the slow slope of the sand between the sea water's edge and the grass of the beach front house where she and Bond are seated.

CHAPTER XXIII

PASSIONATE LEAVE

In but six paragraphs before the last line of the novel you can read this –

In his mind he ran once more the gauntlet of dangers he had entered on his long chase after The Big Man and the fabulous treasure, and he lived again through the searing flashes of time when he had looked various deaths in the face.

If you can cover what few words I have added regarding these "searing flashes of time when he had looked various deaths in the face," I do not think you or your PR reviewer will find any sharp edges were you to run your eyes along the lines but would read them as streamlined as the perfect edges of Solitaire's lips.

A doctor had been to visit Solitaire but had found her chiefly concerned about getting some clothes and the right shade of lipstick. Strangways had arranged for a selection to be sent over from Kingston next day.

--Laurencebeck (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

• However you try and describe your additions, they are second rate bloating of the plot summary. The additions detail you added is superfluous, badly written and not needed to understand the general progress of the plot. If people want that level of detail they can read the damned book, not this brief SUMMARY of the main events. – SchroCat (talk) 05:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I feel I should mention, just mention, that the entire briefing of Bond by M, Chapter II, (ten days before Bond's arrival in New York) is taken up with M's preoccupation with the gold of the Henry Morgan's treasure on behalf of his superiors ( whoever M's superiors might be ). M's return to the matter of this gold coinage in the last chapter in this volume makes the matter of this mission complete.

M's words in Chapter II – "I guess it’s one of the most valuable treasure-troves in history." --Laurencebeck (talk) 06:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The death of those associated with its theft (and therefore the success of Bond's mission) is covered by the plot. Single cell amoeba can make the connection: it does not need to be spelled out further with additional fluff. – SchroCat (talk) 06:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Popular British culture is a wonderful thing. — the graphic here > http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O74309/skegness-is-so-bracing-poster-hassall-john-ri/

But I think that Fleming would be closer to William Walton than the ever admirable Eric Coates, or how close would one find the occasion to say, As English as Elgar to compare with as English as Elton.

Sean Connery made his film debut in Lilacs in the Spring (1954; U.S. title Let's Make Up) which makes up the thought, As English as Ivor. --Laurencebeck (talk) 06:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The preceding three paragraphs seem to me of no relevance to the article. It is better, certainly, to have waffle on the talk page than on the article page, but how much better not to have it at all. Tim riley talk 11:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Fish toxicity

The article refers to "fish tanks holding poisonous tropical fish". However, this is an ambiguity. An animal is "poisonous" if it contains poison, that is, a substance that has to be ingested (eaten, inhaled, etc.) by the victim in order for its toxicity to become effective. An animal is "venomous" if it has venom, that is, a substance that is delivered to the victim by a sting, bite, etc. Given the active danger of the other fish mentioned in the summary (sharks, barracudas, etc.), one must wonder if the fish in the tanks are actually venomous instead of poisonous. -- Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• The novel describes them as poisonous (which is why I used the term when the article was re-written), but I have no doubt you are right in the semantics of it, and would not disagree if you changed as you see fit. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Haven't read the book, sadly. Are there any clues in the descriptions? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
    • There is (although I'm not an expert on fish, so I hope you are!) From page 147:

There must have been at least a hundred tanks of various sizes, from the large ones to hold Torpedo Skates and the sinister Guitar Fish, to smaller ones for the Horse-killer Eel, Mud Fish from the Pacific, and the monstrous West Indian Scorpion Fish, each of whose spines has a poison sac as powerful as a rattlesnake's.

Is that enough to give a clue as to which is best? - SchroCat (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

"the distinguished efforts of British clearance divers"

Laurencebeck, Please could you stop edit warring and discuss your proposed addition. This is an FA: information needs to carry a citation when it is added. If you can find something that links the activities of the clearance divers directly to Live and Let Die, then we may be able to add it. If it is added, it can be done without the WP:PEACOCKy "distinguished" and without the tenuous connection to Buster Crabbe. - SchroCat (talk) 07:13, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Laurencebeck, Again, you're adding unsourced material that is unconnected to the subject. Why? - SchroCat (talk) 07:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

If Mr Macintyre says that the limpet mine concept was from Italian operations, I think Ian Fleming would splutter over his favourite martini if told. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurencebeck (talk • contribs)

Laurencebeck, So your addition is based on your WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, rather than any WP:RELIABLESOURCES? - SchroCat (talk) 08:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Live and Let Die is a 1954 novel. The disappearance of Buster Crabb was in 1956. The Italian operations in Gibraltar 1944 directly brought in the British divers among whom was Crabb. The subsequent 1956 disappearance, sensitive as it was, and as mysterious as it remains, retroactively creates the Bond exploit a delicate matter of public conception where ideas might synthesize in incorrect directions. It is clumsily handled when it would be said that Fleming conceived his dramatic section to be of Italian inspiration. . . . kind regards,--Laurencebeck (talk) 08:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Laurencebeck, Do you have any WP:RELIABLESOURCES that link the British divers to this novel? Any at all? - SchroCat (talk) 08:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, SchroCat,

The Wikipedia article references Macintyre: the limpet mining was an Italian inspiration for Fleming, citing the Italian group whose operations were indeed far and wide. But in the Gibraltar incidents the British divers were there in Gibraltar to disengage the Italian handiwork. When the Italian divers are linked to this novel, the British by default are brought along. --Laurencebeck (talk) 09:11, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

We do not, ever, attempt to use Wikipedia to cite Wikipedia. A published WP:RS must be found for any material. See WP:CIRC. If you wish to cite material to McIntyre or any other author you must read his book: see WP:SAYWHERE. Tim riley talk 09:57, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

"By default" is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. You do not have a source that connects the British divers with this novel. With no specific source stating the connection to this book, it should not be re-added. - SchroCat (talk) 10:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Tim riley and Schrocat. WP:OR prohibits synthesizing ideas to verify something. You would need an actual source that states the connection specifically. -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:30, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

SchroCat,
Here is your edit which introduces the Macintyre matter, 10 September 2011. (click) . . . within the section
===Background=== .

. . . whilst the concept of the limpet-mining "may well be based on the extraordinary wartime activities of the 10th Light Flotilla, an elite unit of Italian navy frogmen". . . .

You allow Macintyre's words, published as they were in 2008, to speak for themselves.

Here is your edit which modifies the Macintyre matter with the word probably, 24 March 2015. (click) . . . . . . . . and where you create the section
===Plot inspirations===

. . . while the concept of the limpet-mining is probably based on the wartime activities of the elite 10th Light Flotilla, a unit of Italian navy frogmen. . . .

The actual published page is here, For Your Eyes Only: Ian Fleming and James Bond By Ben Macintyre, Bloomsbury 2008, p.89. click>

No one would wish to argue with an interpretation from Benedict Richard Pierce Macintyre while his platter is created for the full complement of passengers on the Earth, but to say that his words convey a probability I doubt is Macintyre's nuance. Thank you very much for the Wikipedia attention you give,
and high consideration and regards,--Laurencebeck (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Sources

So all your fucking about in trying to add tangential nonsense to the article, changing the sfn footnotes for something inconsistent, adding unneccesary citations, gibberish and PEACOCK-y language and all your edit warring is now down to "may" as opposed to "probably"? Do you not see just how disruptive this is for everyone else in having to explain basic process and procedure here? You've been editing here for over six years and you still haven't got to grips with basic stuff, or how to discuss things without editwarring massively first. (And you don't need to tell me what I edited and when: it makes absolutely no difference at all. - SchroCat (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Please kindly note, if you decently would, the Wikipedia editors' use of may in the second paragraph of the opening lead section of the Wikipedia article Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory and ponder to yourself, as we all should, that the adverb probably would be a little incorrectly presumptive to strike in at that point there. --Laurencebeck (talk) 23:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)