Talk:Live and Let Die (novel)/Archive 1

Output of Lazy Peer Review program
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program: You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Kweeket 18:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
 * is considered
 * might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
 * Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): didn't.
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

Sex
"Fleming's natural English reserve has been blamed for his fumbling descriptions of sex scenes in Live and Let Die."

Might it not also have more to do with the fact that at the date it was published, you could only really say so much in a mainstream novel? --MacRusgail 12:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

GA review comments
Here are my review comments: I think these issues can be resolved, particularly as it's a COTW currently, so I'll put the GA on-hold. Let me know if you'd like me to re-review it in due course. The Rambling Man 17:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think the character list is entirely appropriate, I'd prefer to see the characters, should they be significant enough, be wikilinked in the prose of the plot summary. Also, not sure why the characters are in bold either.  In any case, the character list should follow the summary as it's confusing to have mini-summaries with each character and then the whole plot summary after.
 * ✅ I think the information is relevant, and has been moved down the page under plot.  SpecialWindler   talk  05:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This probably shows my ignorance, but does the book not have an ISBN now? Perhaps the infobox ISBN is supposed to relate to the first edition, which may not have had an ISBN, in which case ignore this.
 * ✅ The first edition was published before ISBN came around, so. The ISBN's of later publications are in the publication history.  SpecialWindler   talk  06:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "MI-6" or "MI6"? consistency required.
 * ✅  SpecialWindler   talk  23:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Typos - "practicioner", "hopsital", "barricuda" to name but three...
 * ✅ Kweeket 00:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Racism section has four very short paragraphs, consider merging.
 * ✅ The first two paragraphs are the same with just a quote in the middle.  SpecialWindler   talk  12:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "...obvious inference being ..." is this original research or has somebody of prominence suggested it? If so, let's cite them.
 * ✅ Added reference Tovojolo 13:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sex section has three short paragraphs, definitely merge the last of them into para two.
 * ✅  SpecialWindler   talk  12:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd wikilink blaxploitation, it's important.
 * ✅ Kweeket 00:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Turn the list of differences from the film into prose.
 * "...part of the Casino Royale collection that includes Casino Royale and Moonraker..." what exactly is the Casino Royale collection?
 * ✅  SpecialWindler   talk  12:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comic strip adaptation section could do with citation.
 * ✅  SpecialWindler   talk  05:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is the publication history small font?
 * ✅ don't know.  SpecialWindler   talk  06:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Can the Category:Caribbean be refined?
 * ❌ I couldn't find a suitable category undeneath that one (sub categories) like "Fiction set in the Caribbean" but. Personally I don't think it should be there. But when you review this again you can remove it, If you feel like. It not a hard thing to do.  SpecialWindler   talk  05:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ❌ I couldn't find a suitable category undeneath that one (sub categories) like "Fiction set in the Caribbean" but. Personally I don't think it should be there. But when you review this again you can remove it, If you feel like. It not a hard thing to do.  SpecialWindler   talk  05:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Transcripts
You can read some Bond books here (LALD as well as TB, CR, FYEO, FRWL)

http://www.scribd.com/people/documents/1054

GA re-review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)

My concerns have now been addressed so I'm happy to make this a good article. The Rambling Man 16:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * 1) It is stable.
 * 2) It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * 1) Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:

Racism
The article is factually incorrect when it states: "His writing style cannot divert attention away from his copious use of the word "nigger" in the novel. It is used, generally, in reference to black people and, specifically, in reference to Mr. Big. Fleming uses the word to denote people of passion who think by instinct, in contrast to Bond and other white people, whom Fleming regards as thinking by logic. [2]"

The word appears twice in the text.

The first time is the usage refered to in the citation - "Nigger Heaven" - which refers to the balconies of segregated theatres. There is even a wiki entry for this reference. If this is the name used to refer to the place then its hard to consider that racist.

The second usage comes from the character Solitair when Bond rescues her and she says: "I've been shut up with him and his nigger gangsters for nearly a year."

Having just read the book looking for instances, these are the only 2 I found.

Hence the phrase "copious use of the word nigger" is factually incorrect.

The discussion of whether the book is racist is entirely appropriate. It seemed racist to me. Ian Fleming seemed to spread stereo types wildly. All black dialog is presented as poorly as one would find in a Mark Twain novel. The only intelligent black character is the villian.

But use of the word copiously is entirely incorrect.

(Note: This my first wiki contribution. Please forgive any missing common standards.)

Billvaxman (talk) 00:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC) billvaxman

Sometimes an argument is factually incorrect but the assertion is true. Having read Live and Let Die and having read Dr. No I have very little doubt that Ian Fleming would be considered racist today. In Dr. No he refers to Chinese Negro mixed as Chigroes (possibly Chegroes as my source is an ausio-book). He mentions the Chinese as being clever and wonders if the Chegroes are susceptible to the character flaws inherent in Negroes. Using Negroes in the 60s shouldn't be considered high racism, but the views about blacks exibited in the works do. That said, the racism thing should be smaller, better organized, and most of all sourced. I can think Ian a racist, but it doesn't belong in a Wiki article unless we can find excellent documentation that establishes the claim. Even then it must have some relevance. Basically, I think that there might be merit for a racism section in an article about Ian Fleming, but here it should get surface mention and point to the main Ian article. It's worth consideration.--Mokru (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

"Some critics have accused Fleming of barely concealed racism..." I have no doubt this is true -- since the popularization of the work to a mass audience through the movie in the 1970s. However, this is accusing a dead man who cannot respond to criticisms. Is there any evidence whatsoever that Fleming was criticized for political incorrectness between the book's publication in 1954 and his death in 1964? For that matter, is there any evidence that any author was accused of political incorrectness in those days? (95.149.136.110 (talk) 13:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC))

Comment
It's pretty ironic that the article basically says "This book and its author are racist" and then goes on immediately after to say "Ian Fleming couldn't write about sex well because he was English." There's real racism for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.106.71 (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense in 'Background' section
"Fleming conducted research for Live and Let Die and completed it before Casino Royale was published; his publishers had offered him a contract for three books following Royale's popularity."

This sentence needs to be revised. The contract ensuing from CR's popularity cannot have led to him undertaking research before CR was published, as implied.89.80.194.201 (talk) 11:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)