Talk:The Spy Who Loved Me (novel)/Archive 1

Shortest?
The Man With the Golden Gun is around ten pages shorter, isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.212.84 (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Clarification
I guess I don't understand what this means:


 * As a result, for British readers who never purchased the 1962 hardcover edition, The Spy Who Loved Me, not The Man with the Golden Gun, was their final Fleming James Bond novel.

Can you explain this a little better please? K1Bond007 18:42, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe there's a better way of putting it. What I meant was that many British readers never saw the 1962 release of the novel. The paperback release occured after Man with the Golden Gun and the Octopussy paperback collection. So for many readers in the UK, Spy who Loved Me (for better or for worse) was the last "new" Ian Fleming Bond work they ever saw. (Feel free to reword all that! ;-) ). 23skidoo 23:57, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, I think I get it. Perhaps it should be reworded a little. K1Bond007 03:32, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Do not split the article
I oppose splitting the article into separate film and novel articles, as well as a needless separate article for the novel. It works fine as a cohesive whole. If the decision is made to split the novelisation off, it needs to be sent to the title James Bond, The Spy Who Loved Me as this is the correct title of the work. 23skidoo 12:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Each seperate piece of art needs a seperate article. See Revenge of the Sith ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 00:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * But the section just isn't big enough to have its own article, and there's no way it could be expanded without including OR, POV or anything else that Wikipedia does not want or need. Double Dash 18:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Which section? The novel by Fleming or the novelisation by Wood? We can build an article off of Fleming's novel easily - I could anyway. Not so sure about the novelisation - not right now. Too short and I can't recall all the differences. K1Bond007 03:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

References in other films
While I'll grant the possibility of Dr. No being inspired by Spy Who Loved Me's "pillow trick" scene (though I think the film was shot before the novel came out), suggesting that a shower scene in A View to a Kill was in any way inspired by SWLM is utterly NN so I have removed it. If someone can provide a good source to suggest that it did inspire the scene, please feel free to put the reference back. Another reference worth adding (but I need to find the book where it's mentioned) is that Jaws was apparently inspired by a character in the original novel who had steel teeth. I need to confirm that one before adding, however. 23skidoo (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Another connection to Dr No. Chapter 7 of The Spy Who Loved Me (Novel) is titled "Come into my Parlour.." while Chapter 14 of Dr No is the same.

Suggested Move
Since most the the other James Bond novel articles are titled name of book (novel), shouldn't this article be The Spy Who Loved Me (novel) because there was a movie too. Emperor001 (talk) 02:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If no one responds soon, I will move this article. Emperor001 (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:FlemingTSWLM.jpg
Image:FlemingTSWLM.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Logical quotation
There is a disagreement over the placement of the full stop in the following sentence:


 * Writing in The Observer, Maurice Richardson described the tale as "a new and regrettable if not altogether unreadable variation", going on to lament: "I hope this doesn't spell the total eclipse of Bond in a blaze of cornography."

MOS:LQ states: "Where a quotation is a sentence and coincides with the end of the sentence containing it, terminal punctuation should normally be placed inside the closing quotation mark. Where the quotation is a single word or fragment, terminal punctuation should be placed outside."

Unfortunately, the Internet archives of The Observer do not go back to 1962, and I do not have ready access to the 15 April 1962 edition of this newspaper. However, there are only two possibilities. Either Richardson's sentence began with "I" and ended with "cornography" or it didn't. If the quote does match Richardson's sentence, by MOS:LQ the full stop goes inside the close quote.

Suppose Richardson's original sentence were something like, "Furthermore, I hope this doesn't spell the total eclipse of Bond in a blaze of cornography, because I detest corn." In that case, the quotation would still be a sentence, but not Richardson's sentence, and I would recommend revising as follows:


 * going on to lament: "... I hope this doesn't spell the total eclipse of Bond in a blaze of cornography...."

If someone has the 15 April 1962 edition of The Observer, or a reliable quotation of this piece, we can determine if any ellipses are required. Until then, I believe MOS:LQ calls for placing the full stop in quotes, because the quotation is a sentence, even if it is not the exact sentence written by Richardson.

I realize that other editors may have other views on this matter, and I am open to new understanding of this issue. I promise to make any further comments as brief as possible. — Anomalocaris (talk) 00:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't try and re-write the rules to fit with your bizarre interpretation. Simple rule of thumb: if you don't have a source, don't dick around with the quotes. - SchroCat (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I would be inclined to think the quoted sentence ended there, unless the person who originally entered the quote indicated otherwise by putting the period outside. Dicklyon (talk) 03:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec) SchroCat, you're being less than civil. I suggest that you confine your comments to the matter being discussed rather than commenting on another's editing. By your own criterion: do you have a source for your edits? —Quondum 03:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The extant version remains, which is right and proper. I am being civil: I am tired of trying to explain the basics of this to someone who keeps inventing new rules for a very old form of punctuation. Inventing rules isn't civil; asking people not to do so is not uncivil. Dicklyon, it's not just about whether the sentance ends there: it's about where it begins too. - SchroCat (talk) 05:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Sentance tweaked: the problem is no more. Time to move on to more useful things. - SchroCat (talk) 06:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Your version of what constitutes being civil differs from mine. Phrases like "your bizarre interpretation" and "don't dick around" seem utterly inappropriate; you have also failed to adhere to the WP guideline in that you have failed to make your reasons clear, for example about what rules are supposedly being invented. A perfectly simple response, if you have a source, would have been to say that the sentence in question was actually a fragment. This is what talk pages are for. In this thread, you come across as someone whose sole purpose is to express irritation at another editor, and not to reach a mutual understanding. Editing in WP does take time and energy to keep the multiple collaborators on the same page. If you are so "tired of trying to explain" that you fail to explain or even point to relevant people such as me to review, then perhaps it is time to take a break to enjoy the festive season? —Quondum 14:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * As this is something the other editor is incapable of taking on board, I am happy with my response. My irritation is because I have had to deal with the same point on several pages. It is not my sole purpose, just as it is not my sole purpose to listen to tedious civilty lectures by people who do not see a bigger picture than one tiny fragment of a thread. Your lecture isn't helping, and has brought no constructive clarity to the situation which is, as I hae indicated above, a problem that no longer exists. Time to be productive elsewhere, methinks. - SchroCat (talk) 14:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)q

Minor character
"..Jack Donaldson, a friend of Fleming's wife" is almost certainly Jack Donaldson, Baron Donaldson of Kingsbridge. When I have time I will go over the source for clarification. Harfarhs (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SpyWhoLovedMeNovel.jpg
Image:SpyWhoLovedMeNovel.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SpyWhoLovedMeNew.jpg
Image:SpyWhoLovedMeNew.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Strenuous
Currently we have this: Fleming found writing the Bond novels increasingly strenuous and I'm just having a little worry about "strenuous". This might be just me, and if told to stfu about it I will probably comply ... but to me it sounds maybe a little too far along the spectrum towards physical effort. Closer to weightlifting than thinking/plotting/typing. I wondered about looking for a different word which to me would be a bit further along the line towards intellectual effort. Could it be stressful, arduous, difficult, challenging, demanding, taxing, laborious ... exhausting?? Yes, some of those words are indeed a bit rubbish, well spotted Tamsin. But something like that? Meh, dunno. Educate me. Best to all, DBaK (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I went with arduous, which I think probably best sums up his approach at this point. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Brilliant, thank you. DBaK (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Guineas
I made a couple of changes to the bit mentioning guineas in the designer's fee. Please have a look and see my ESs for the rationale – I'm happy to discuss. Hope this helps. DBaK (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)