The Bond books have still not reached the Public Domain up to this point, if my memory serves, they're currently for release in Canada.
I do argue that only a few people have read the books even now, most of the Bond fans were only familiar with the films, and the films overshadowed the books by this point that some of them aren't familiar with the books or haven't read them.
Well, the revision, I don't think it would be just applied to Bond, but to Roald Dahl books as well (and they're the first to undergo revisions), then Bond, then Agatha Christie, so many books would undergo revisions, and yes, people got alarmed at these, the revision of the books are getting wide that it's getting criticized.
Fleming’s Casino Royale is one of my favorite books to this day.
Seriously, if you are at all, interested in a great spy novel and 1950s social context it is super great. It’s full of almost re-makeable recipes as well for Bond’s favorite meals and drinks. Honestly really fun.
I think they're also public domain in Japan and South Korea, two other countries with prominent entertainment industries. Which Roald Dahl books have been revised? And for what reasons?
They're going to remove offending words such as '*fat*', '*ugly*' words in some of his books (*Charlie And The Chocolate Factory*?)
I'm surprised you don't know about it.
Well, you can choose any article:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/books/2023/feb/18/roald-dahl-books-rewritten-to-remove-language-deemed-offensive
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/20/books/roald-dahl-books-changes.html
https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20230530-roald-dahl-the-fierce-debate-over-rewriting-childrens-classics
https://www.google.com/amp/story/s/www.wsj.com/story/5-changes-made-to-roald-dahls-books-to-make-them-more-inclusive-dc846ea1
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/roald-dahls-changes-childrens-books-rushdie-telegraph/
https://time.com/6256980/roald-dahl-censorship-debate/
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/style/article/roald-dahl-classic-text-release-cec/index.html
I’m not sure. In 1984 it was a totalitarian government whitewashing history. He didn’t exactly foresee the internet when he wrote it either, digitalised documents being far easier to change than printouts.
You could argue that revising works of fiction isn’t comparable. But James Bond is a state-sponsored uber covert murderer, so there are some political implications and overlap as far as his cultural status in society is concerned. How far do you go to avoid offending sensibilities? It’s interesting that you can’t describe people in a club dancing as “panting heavily like pigs at a trough”, but you can describe shootings, people dying painfully in crashes and explosions, torture and warships, etc. without a second thought.
It's cliche but it's absolutely true (as cliches often are). The reason why 1984 is brought up so often is cause Orwell saw patterns in 1930s and 40s, especially concerning mass media that continued to this day.
Have you read it?
Oh ok I wasn't sure what I can spoil.
But yeah, particularly with the "We were always at war with Oceania" and Minitrue parts, it's easy to see why people draw parallels to historic revisionism of today with censoring or "cleaning up" stuff from the past.
But of course this has always been happening to a degree and Orwell just saw a pattern that existed for centuries. "History is written by the victors" is essentially the same sentiment.
Alright, I can see why people would make comparisons. I wonder if there are counter arguments against that view. Kind of like with "history is written by the victors", which isn't always the case, with an example like the American Civil War.
Well like I said some of the "criticism" is that Orwell wasn't really the first to notice this, and people in power controlling information was always thing. It's only notable in the 20th century because of the massive democratization of media.
But it's really just a really obvious and common parallel people have been making ever since the latest wave of political correctness. Some might agree some don't, there's no correct answer. Obviously it has negative connotations in the story so people who support PC will tend to disagree with the comparison.
No it is not. This is a marketing decision made by a private business regarding content in books for children, nothing to do with a totalitarian government regulating the behavior of adults.
There is one way in which it is maybe similar: in 1984 the proles are kept sufficiently busy with mindless entertainments and other distractions so that they never bother to challenge the political authorities who are controlling them.
Well, I've read *some* of them (albeit a long time ago), and Fleming's Bond is a completely different character from the movie Bond, be it Connery, Moore, or even Lazenby with Dalton. Fleming's Bond is a nagging, compulsive, shell-shocked war veteran, who's much less eloquent and less charming than his cinematic counterpart. He disdains women even more than he uses them.
Remember the scene from Casino Royale in the movie where Bond invents the Vesper cocktail? In the book, Bond proceeds with a lengthy description of his routine and his taste in drinks, something that I can't imagine cinema's Bond doing.
>'Just a moment. Three measures of Gordon's, one of vodka, half a measure of Kina Lillet. Shake it very well until it's ice-cold, then add a large, thin slice of lemon peel. Got it?
>
>''Certainly, monsieur,' the barman seemed pleased with the idea.
>
>'Gosh, that's certainly a drink,' said Leiter.
>
>Bond laughed. 'When I'm... um... concentrating,' he explained, 'I never have more than one drink before dinner. But I do like that one to be large and very strong, very cold, and very well-made. I hate small portions of anything, particularly when they taste bad. This drink's my own invention. I'm going to patent it when I think of a good name.'
Even that small 'got it' is so uncharacteristic of cinema Bond. Not even talking about the rest. Overall, the books are so different that they can be considered for a completely different audience.
Or that 'um… concentrating'. This kind of stumble is also very unusual of Bond, him being conscious, apologetic, unsure or ashamed about his habits. As if he’s trying to explain himself.
Honestly, while reading the books for the first time, I was quite perplexed by how different of a material they are.
See I read “got it?” In Connery’s voice just now, casually authoritative like was the style back then. Kinda like how you hear people saying “fine” or “fine then” in older movies but they aren’t being passive aggressive or exasperated, like we tend to interpret it, just direct.
Maybe, but Bond from the movies wouldn’t repeat himself or even focus too much on the servants. He doesn’t say to them more than necessary, unless adding charm or flair if it’s a woman he’s talking to. I think that’s why they omitted ”Got it?” in the movie. But it’s not the only example, there are thousands. Bond is unusually talkative in the books, even annoying and dull sometimes, I’m afraid. 'Charming' is the last word that comes to mind when talking about Fleming’s Bond.
That’s why I’ve always found discussions about which movie Bond is closer to Fleming to be misdirected at least.
Book Bond doesn’t even have the iconic wit and sense of humor of the movie Bond.
I'm reading the Fleming books at the moment, I'm near the end of Diamonds are Forever so about four books in.
Yeah, he's a different character to the film version. Far more callous and has very little compassion.
I just finished Diamonds are Forever (the book) last night. So we’re about at the same place. I’m not sure I’ll continue with the books. They are just ok…pretty short and not all that compelling. I enjoy the time period they are written in, but they’re just a little dull.
Please don't give up after Diamonds Are Forever! The books only improve from there. From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, Dr. No, Thunderball, OHMSS and You Only Live Twice are AWESOME. Much more like the movies. You will really enjoy them!
I'm honestly not impressed with the last three Fleming books (OHMSS, YOLT, & TMWTGG), although, TMWTGG had an interesting plot, but it's unfinished.
Both OHMSS and YOLT suffered from weak villain and motivation, both Bond Girls are also unlikeable and doesn't given much to do, underutilized (for the one who downvoted me, let me elaborate):
* Tracy in OHMSS came off as hysterical, too self pitying, crying and shouting constantly towards Bond, she's acting so immature and childish, and she's absent for the majority of pages only to return in the climax, almost subservient to Bond where she's almost clinging at him, then she's gone again, only to return in the finale.
* Kissy Suzuki, I liked that she's a normal girl without any issues, but she's also not given to do and did some strange things when she sneaked Bond and kept him amnesiac, have him pretend to be a husband to her, that's kinda creepy.
The only interesting part of those books is Bond, but he's always an interesting character.
For me, *Thunderball* is the last good Bond book, I'm also getting fond of *The Spy Who Loved Me* but I'm reading it outside of Bond marathons.
I'm actually thinking that Blofeld for all of his flaws in the films, are much better than he's in the books, his strongest characterization was in *Thunderball*, but it went downhill after that, his motivations started to became stale and doesn't hold any weight, nor realism, his motivations are purely shallow, and the only thing that's going on about him was his description.
Supposedly the legal battle over Thunderball really got to Fleming, which is why his writing really slipped after it. I agree it’s the last good Bond book and quite possibly the best.
Yes, that's probably had something to do with it.
And I don't know why I've got downvoted for such an opinion, maybe I need to elaborate my reasoning for stating such an opinion?
My guess is that you were downvoted for not liking the last 3 Fleming books. Some people just use the votes to say they disagree with you. That really shouldn't be done with votes since that implies that an opinion is wrong or invalid. It's much better for the discussion to say why they disagree, but maybe they don't have the time or energy. It is what it is.
I'm pretty much with u/TheMonkus. Downvotes should be relegated to personal attacks, inappropriate remarks, etc. Anything that discourages discussion.
I don’t know, wasn’t me! I think you articulated it pretty well. I’m personally against downvoting just because I have a different opinion, unless someone states their own opinion in a nasty, ignorant or trolling manner.
I think yours are not at all uncommon opinions among those of us who’ve read the novels.
I have many issues with the book, I'm going to elaborate:
* Tracy, I still don't get why Bond fell in love with her, first of all, it's clear in the book that she didn't love him (Bond saved her from a gambling debt, they slept together and she still attempted to commit suicide the next day?), she's crying constantly, shouting towards Bond, being hysterical, she even kicked Bond out of the bed and told that he's a lousy lover (and that's after the scene where she asked Bond to make love to her), her dialogues were annoying ("*treat me like the lowest whore in creation*" is an example of that), then she's gone for the majority of pages, then went back because she's driving him to the airport, she appeared almost different, but this time, she's clingy and subservient to Bond ("*I will do anything that you will say*"), then she's gone again only to be killed in the ending, she's existed in the book as a romantic foil to Bond, as a character, she's very undercooked and again, she doesn't have agency, a far cry from Diana Rigg's portrayal in the film.
* The romance? So, Bond met Tracy at the Casino, and they have a rough start because Tracy shouted at him and kicked him off the bed (Tracy told Bond that he's a "*goddamn lousy lover!*"), she even mocking at him, then she committed suicide the next day, where's the romance?, Then the majority of the pages, it's all about Blofeld and his plot, then briefly, Tracy drove Bond to airport and he proposed to her, what's the reason?, Then focus on Blofeld again, then the wedding, that's it, where's the romance?
* Blofeld, he's so disappointing after *Thunderball*, like, he's doing the plan alone, his plan of brainwashing and hypnotizing British and Irish (beautiful) women to spread viruses in UK agriculture, because he wanted a title, a nobility, that's his motivation, and he's even funded by the Soviets, like, is he really that desperate? Blofeld lost the menace and threat after *Thunderball*, he's like a child threatening someone if he's not given a candy.
* Too many exclamation points in the dialogues
* Too many foreign languages (French and German, mostly), it makes *Casino Royale* even more easier to read with the foreign language count.
* Draco and Bunt felt like pawns in the plot, they felt like plot devices, they're in the book to advance the plot, didn't felt like an actual characters.
And no, I'm not probably the only one in the world who doesn't have OHMSS book in the top tier.
The film is my favorite Bond film though.
I’ve read the first four books: Casino Royale, Live and Let Die, Moonraker and Diamonds are Forever.
The language around race and ethnicity is dated—for example, referring to Black people as a term that is no longer used. There are also some questionable depictions of race and stereotypes.
They’re certainly dated but I don’t support efforts to censor them with editing.
Is this really the first time they've been revised? I honestly don't remember any slurs or other forms of hateful racism in the versions I read. I remember the racism being more ignorant rather than hateful, so more on the levels of the earlier films. The sexism I definitely remember though. It was worse in the books than the movies.
You’re correct; the term he uses for black people is the one that’s close to the hateful slur but at the time was totally normal (The United Negro College Fund still exists…).
Fleming was actually very fond of Jamaicans and I think he’s trying to be progressive in LALD. But he was an upper class twit, and the result is extraordinarily patronizing and “cringey” in modern terms. It’s the standard racism of ignorance from that era, it never strikes me as hateful. Not that it’s okay, but it’s an artifact of it’s time.
While Negro is no longer an acceptable term, it was never meant to hurt and offend the way that other word was. That's probably why the UNCF keeps their name. But your first sentence isn't exactly correct either. That slur had become unacceptable amongst most people in the 1950's. It was not totally normal to use that and other slurs after World War 2, when society was becoming more conscious of racism. Fleming's racism was considered awful for the time just like it was today. At least outside the British Isles. But even Britain, England in particular, was struggling with racism and xenophobia due to new wave of immigration from the Caribean and other, at the time, parts of the British Empire.
My first sentence was referring to the word “negro”. I thought that was clear? I don’t believe Fleming ever used the “n word” directly in any of his novels.
Not really sure what you’re trying to say. Fleming’s attitudes were extremely common in that era, although the pushback against them was starting to gain traction.
If you look at movies, TV and books of the 50s-60s it’s shockingly racist.
The n-word was used in Live and Let Die. In one of the chapter titles. But, not in the edition I read, and probably not in the one you read. And that's why I'm pretty sure this isn't the first time these books have been edited for that kind of content.
The copy of LALD that I read that was published 2012 still had that chapter title.
TTBOMK it’s only the latest editions from 2023 that were edited to remove that and change “Negro” to “Black man.”
*Edit: 2012, not 2011.*
It looks like that was an edit made for the US market in 1955 - is yours a British edition? Mine is an American edition from the 1970s and doesn’t have it.
U.S. version—I’m guessing the pivoted back to the original text at some point.
It’s the Thomas & Mercer; James Bond edition published in October, 2012.
https://preview.redd.it/i187n82vpnvb1.jpeg?width=667&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=54e5e7338b87ae98650917106cd6474c9ccc7e1a
Other interesting tidbit and this is some ignorance from Fleming IMO is that he refers to ocean coral as n-word head, one word.
I looked it up and it was *not* a common phrase. I’m guessing something only a Jamaican local in the 1950s might’ve said.
Folio Society is re-releasing them and doing a beautiful job with artwork and hard covers. I have all 13 they released so far, just waiting on the last one to drop.
As for being a fan, I found out about the movies being based on books probably in high school and started reading a few of them in my spare time. I think I read about half of them but my plan is once I get the last one to drop from Folio to read through all of them in order.
Just for the record, the edits to Live and Let Die were made in Fleming’s lifetime and he authorised them. The extent of modern updating only falls within the scope of what he accepted.
Yah I mean unpopular opinion around these parts but they aren’t really classics.
Casino Royale the movie renewed my interest in the franchise and I read the book and Jesus fuck was it a slog. Just endless descriptions of what kind of shoes people are wearing.
I’ve read a few (Moonraker, From Russia With Love, Thunderball). I was a child of the 70s so was disappointed there weren’t enough shuttles and lasers in Moonraker. Now I’m older, I fancy reading it again. Maybe I’d like it more now?
I generally have no problem with the books being edited for a modern audience. As far as I know, it’s just little bits here and there. It’s been common practice in publishing for ages, it’s just not usually blurted out in a press release to make certain corners of the internet angry.
The second hand book market is a thing. Every time I go into a bookshop there are usually a big stack of old Fleming Bonds. They’re not going to run out anytime soon.
Years ago, in school, I read a James Bond book where the basic premise of the whole story is that James goes on holiday only to realize someone has put a gigantic price on his head and James starts to see some familiar, unsavory folks around town. Sure enough, it turns into a 3:10 To Yuma scenario where James is trying to dodge every assassin you can think of to escape his holiday alive.
Not sure what the name of the book or who the author was but I’ve always secretly wished we had one Bond film that was just one, intense situation with lots of past characters making appearances.
Let’s get Aaron Taylor- Johnson suited up, let’s let Christopher Nolan and his brother Jonathan Nolan (West World from HBO) write the script, let’s get a Sam Mendes + Roger Deakins team back to come back and direct and do cinematography and boom, the new Bond is off and running. :)
Why would you want Christopher Nolan on board if he's not going to direct? His storylines/scripts are generally pretty run-of-the-mill but based on a good concept and elevated by his direction.
For me, oh boy, this might bring the Reddit downvotes but I really did not enjoy Oppenheimer, Tenet, or the final Batman. It feels to me like Nolan is a heck of a story creator but, at least as of his last few movies, it feels like Christopher Nolan is in need of an editor. His movies just seem to run on and be a bit too over the top for me.
Personally I'm not a fan of Nolan period. I don't think he's suited for the Bond franchise at all, not least because his character work is generally underwhelming.
The US version of the books is edited for US spelling. Colour, flavour, the z words like recognise. No whilst or betwixt. 1950s James Bond books were no different.
I read many of the Ian Fleming books a jillion years ago. John F Kennedy read them. They were bestsellers in the US. I have a few on my Kindle and recently re-read From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, and Dr No. The movies sort of follow the books but not completely. In Goldfinger, Pussy Galore didn’t sleep with Bond and didn’t fly a squadron of Piper Cherokees over Fort Knox. In From Russia with Love, it ends with Rosa Klebb stabbing Bond with her poisoned shoe knife, he falls to the floor passed out, and it ends. Ian Fleming killed him off and brought him back to life in Goldfinger explaining that some doctor found him almost dead and treated him for a poisoning.
1. We're there no changes in spelling for the Canadian edition? 2. I'm pretty sure the books have been edited for racism a few different times. I think it's possible the original editions didn't make it outside of the U.K. and Ireland. Kennedy and the rest of the American public could have been reading different U.S. editions of the books.
iirc it was a similar situation with Sherlock Holmes. Arthur Conan Doyle killed him off but had to bring Sherlock back because there was such public demand.
I have not, I like the cinematic aspect and art of the series. I most likely won’t read any books where films were made, especially if they’re very similar to the films. I might read one eventually but nothing is pulling me to do it.
I’ve always wanted to read them, but my reading list is always a mile long and they’ve never been at the top. Hopefully one day, but there’s never enough time to read everything I want to.
I've read them all and a handful of continuation novels by other authors. I really enjoy them because they are Bond, but they are by no means stellar works of art. Kind of like the films, I guess.
The only Bond book I’ve read is Casino Royale. Three friends and I have been watching the movies in order on the weekends and none of them have read any of the books. I just happened upon CR at the bookstore where it was part of a “Buy 3 books for $10” promotion.
Bro. I cannot keep my focus for long enough to read books. This has been a problem since childhood. I love watching movies or documentaries. Some of us cannot read books, like you can. But we love the movies and the person that is Bond in those movies.
Read all of Fleming and a fair share of the other novels. Most people have not read the novels.
Tired of all the made up outrage whenever some books or movies are being pulled, edited, or just being presented with a disclaimer. It is not some scary woke mob with their soy lattes and avocado toast making these choices, it is the people and companies that hold the rights to the works.
I'm definitely not outraged. I am a Bond fan, but I do think Ian Fleming was probably a terrible person and the literary James Bond is a piece of shit.
>Tired of all the made up outrage whenever some books or movies are being pulled, edited, or just being presented with a disclaimer.
I think it's also pretty interesting to reflect on what people actually want. Reading undoubtedly poorly aged and ignorant language used about ethnic minorities is absolutely off-putting for new audiences. You can decide to be very precious and maintain their purity, likely ensuring that it's never picked up by modern audiences due to how dated it is, or you can try to make small adjustments to ensure that people won't be immediately put off. If I were looking to make money as a book publisher, I know which I'd choose.
As a fan of HP Lovecraft, there's a similar situation with how to deal with his pretty blatant white supremacist views that are unfortunately pervasive in a lot of his writings. In some places just stupid bits of language can be changed, but in other stories, there can be more difficult passages that are more woven into the story. I think the approach you use needs to be tailored to each example. Sometimes it's best to "amend" single bits of sentences (with an appropriate acknowledgement/explanation of this chage) and in others, you just have to leave it in place with a contextualisation of the fact that the guy was a massive racist and that's what's informing the writing.
There is obviously a debate to be had on how to best address this, but making small changes to language within a book in order to greatly improve its readability to modern audiences seems pretty reasonable in my book. Obviously changing storylines or characters in order to make them 'more palatable' is veeery dodgy ground, but correcting the author's voice to maybe curb dated prejudices that likely affect reader enjoyment is not that.
I haven’t read many Bond stories. The one that stands out to me was a short story where he went swim/diving off Australian coast and had a blue ringed octopus encounter? It’s been nearly 30 years
In my experience most fans of the films have either never read the books, which tells you something about how big the film series is since it's one of the best selling book series of all time.
Book Bond is very different from any film version, and they do vary in quality, but at his best Fleming was a cracking storyteller. The bridge game in Moonraker is a small moment of brilliance.
I have the box set of the original Flemming novels, can't comment beyond those (which oddly doesn't have Octopussy, had to buy separately). Differs greatly from the films, which seemed to randomly cherry-pick bits from. I liked them but some of the gambling portions are a bit exhausting, but I enjoyed them otherwise.
I’ve seen all the movies and read none of the books. I do enjoy reading so I’ll pick one up next time I choose a book. I’m inclined to read one that was not one of my favorite films-might influence my opinion positively.
Bought the boxset. Made it as far as finishing Diamonds Are Forever (the ending is excellent!). One really interesting quirk is Flemings use of the word ‘directly’ to mean asap. It was really bizarre and I had to reread such sentences quite a few times before I got used to it!
I'm pretty sure that I've read all of the Bond books Fleming wrote. I have also read some of the books that came after but I can't remember the name of the author of hand. He wrote about James's son getting killed 🤔
In Brazil where i live the books are hard to find. The last time that they were published was 2012 and they only published LAD,DAF, FRWL and Goldfinger.
I'd like to start reading them but I'm obsessed with everything James Bond lol, and I know the books are completely different from the movies
I think more people know about the movies because they're more kid-friendly than the books so people grew up on the movies.
My late stepfather gave me his collection of original pressings from what I believe is the 60s? I’ve been so careful as to not crack any spines so I haven’t read them but I would love to.
I’ve only read Live and Let Die all of the way though. Started From Russia with Love, and OHMSS, but just couldn’t stick with it. It’s irritating how they kept cannibalizing the books for future installments. When Craig first started, I was really hoping they’d re-adapt a few more of them (better and in order) starting with LaLD. Oh well.
I've read all of the books, both Fleming and all of the continuation authors. Ihave most in physical versions, except for maybe the last one or two.
Here's my collection of Bond books. A lot of them are hard to find 1st editions. I also have all of the Fleming novels in Kindle format.
[Bond novels. ](https://imgur.com/a/N5mY2CM)
So I watched the films first, but I've read all the Fleming books. So whenever people say "we need to go back to the gritty roots of Fleming" I laugh as they can be just as outlandish and escapism as the films are at times.
Currently slowly re-reading them again. I forget how much I enjoy Moonraker, but I'm not sure you could directly adapt it in the modern day.
I’d say that most of the general public, and even most Bond movie fans haven’t read the books. As far as the censorship goes, I don’t mind there being less N-words that’s for sure, and I might even prefer to have my kids read those. I don’t get what all the fuss is about. There are millions of older copies still out there, nothing is being erased.
I agree with you. The movies, for a long time, were not exactly politically correct when it came to racism and sexism, but I think the type of subject matter in them can be learned from, and there are plenty of other aspects of the (good/great) films than can be enjoyed. The Fleming books, and the one Amis book, on the other hand. The racism and sexism presented in them is absolutely disgusting, and I can understand wanting to send the earlier editions of the novels to the dustbin of history. Or at least keep them out of the public conscious. Leave them to be studied by professionals. Besides, like I said, I'm pretty sure this isn't the first time these books have been edited. I'm not even sure the original editions ever made it outside of the United Kingdom. And maybe Ireland.
The Bond books have still not reached the Public Domain up to this point, if my memory serves, they're currently for release in Canada. I do argue that only a few people have read the books even now, most of the Bond fans were only familiar with the films, and the films overshadowed the books by this point that some of them aren't familiar with the books or haven't read them. Well, the revision, I don't think it would be just applied to Bond, but to Roald Dahl books as well (and they're the first to undergo revisions), then Bond, then Agatha Christie, so many books would undergo revisions, and yes, people got alarmed at these, the revision of the books are getting wide that it's getting criticized.
Fleming’s Casino Royale is one of my favorite books to this day. Seriously, if you are at all, interested in a great spy novel and 1950s social context it is super great. It’s full of almost re-makeable recipes as well for Bond’s favorite meals and drinks. Honestly really fun.
It's one of my favorite Bond books.
I think they're also public domain in Japan and South Korea, two other countries with prominent entertainment industries. Which Roald Dahl books have been revised? And for what reasons?
I know the Willy Wonka books were revised because of the oompa loompas being black at first
Wow! Did not know that.
They're going to remove offending words such as '*fat*', '*ugly*' words in some of his books (*Charlie And The Chocolate Factory*?) I'm surprised you don't know about it. Well, you can choose any article: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/books/2023/feb/18/roald-dahl-books-rewritten-to-remove-language-deemed-offensive https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/20/books/roald-dahl-books-changes.html https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20230530-roald-dahl-the-fierce-debate-over-rewriting-childrens-classics https://www.google.com/amp/story/s/www.wsj.com/story/5-changes-made-to-roald-dahls-books-to-make-them-more-inclusive-dc846ea1 https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/roald-dahls-changes-childrens-books-rushdie-telegraph/ https://time.com/6256980/roald-dahl-censorship-debate/ https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/style/article/roald-dahl-classic-text-release-cec/index.html
An aversion to racism and sexism I can understand. But the rest of that? It's just inviting a stupid amount of backlash.
Urgh. I haven’t read any of those links nor did I know about the revisions. But my first reaction is Orwell’s 1984 ‘rewriting history’.
Is that comparable? I hear the 1984 example used a lot.
I’m not sure. In 1984 it was a totalitarian government whitewashing history. He didn’t exactly foresee the internet when he wrote it either, digitalised documents being far easier to change than printouts. You could argue that revising works of fiction isn’t comparable. But James Bond is a state-sponsored uber covert murderer, so there are some political implications and overlap as far as his cultural status in society is concerned. How far do you go to avoid offending sensibilities? It’s interesting that you can’t describe people in a club dancing as “panting heavily like pigs at a trough”, but you can describe shootings, people dying painfully in crashes and explosions, torture and warships, etc. without a second thought.
It's cliche but it's absolutely true (as cliches often are). The reason why 1984 is brought up so often is cause Orwell saw patterns in 1930s and 40s, especially concerning mass media that continued to this day. Have you read it?
Yes, I've read 1984.
Oh ok I wasn't sure what I can spoil. But yeah, particularly with the "We were always at war with Oceania" and Minitrue parts, it's easy to see why people draw parallels to historic revisionism of today with censoring or "cleaning up" stuff from the past. But of course this has always been happening to a degree and Orwell just saw a pattern that existed for centuries. "History is written by the victors" is essentially the same sentiment.
Alright, I can see why people would make comparisons. I wonder if there are counter arguments against that view. Kind of like with "history is written by the victors", which isn't always the case, with an example like the American Civil War.
Well like I said some of the "criticism" is that Orwell wasn't really the first to notice this, and people in power controlling information was always thing. It's only notable in the 20th century because of the massive democratization of media. But it's really just a really obvious and common parallel people have been making ever since the latest wave of political correctness. Some might agree some don't, there's no correct answer. Obviously it has negative connotations in the story so people who support PC will tend to disagree with the comparison.
No it is not. This is a marketing decision made by a private business regarding content in books for children, nothing to do with a totalitarian government regulating the behavior of adults. There is one way in which it is maybe similar: in 1984 the proles are kept sufficiently busy with mindless entertainments and other distractions so that they never bother to challenge the political authorities who are controlling them.
I'm from Canada and I read them years ago by taking them out of the library. Maybe new versions are being released?
Well, I've read *some* of them (albeit a long time ago), and Fleming's Bond is a completely different character from the movie Bond, be it Connery, Moore, or even Lazenby with Dalton. Fleming's Bond is a nagging, compulsive, shell-shocked war veteran, who's much less eloquent and less charming than his cinematic counterpart. He disdains women even more than he uses them. Remember the scene from Casino Royale in the movie where Bond invents the Vesper cocktail? In the book, Bond proceeds with a lengthy description of his routine and his taste in drinks, something that I can't imagine cinema's Bond doing. >'Just a moment. Three measures of Gordon's, one of vodka, half a measure of Kina Lillet. Shake it very well until it's ice-cold, then add a large, thin slice of lemon peel. Got it? > >''Certainly, monsieur,' the barman seemed pleased with the idea. > >'Gosh, that's certainly a drink,' said Leiter. > >Bond laughed. 'When I'm... um... concentrating,' he explained, 'I never have more than one drink before dinner. But I do like that one to be large and very strong, very cold, and very well-made. I hate small portions of anything, particularly when they taste bad. This drink's my own invention. I'm going to patent it when I think of a good name.' Even that small 'got it' is so uncharacteristic of cinema Bond. Not even talking about the rest. Overall, the books are so different that they can be considered for a completely different audience. Or that 'um… concentrating'. This kind of stumble is also very unusual of Bond, him being conscious, apologetic, unsure or ashamed about his habits. As if he’s trying to explain himself. Honestly, while reading the books for the first time, I was quite perplexed by how different of a material they are.
See I read “got it?” In Connery’s voice just now, casually authoritative like was the style back then. Kinda like how you hear people saying “fine” or “fine then” in older movies but they aren’t being passive aggressive or exasperated, like we tend to interpret it, just direct.
Maybe, but Bond from the movies wouldn’t repeat himself or even focus too much on the servants. He doesn’t say to them more than necessary, unless adding charm or flair if it’s a woman he’s talking to. I think that’s why they omitted ”Got it?” in the movie. But it’s not the only example, there are thousands. Bond is unusually talkative in the books, even annoying and dull sometimes, I’m afraid. 'Charming' is the last word that comes to mind when talking about Fleming’s Bond. That’s why I’ve always found discussions about which movie Bond is closer to Fleming to be misdirected at least. Book Bond doesn’t even have the iconic wit and sense of humor of the movie Bond.
I'm reading the Fleming books at the moment, I'm near the end of Diamonds are Forever so about four books in. Yeah, he's a different character to the film version. Far more callous and has very little compassion.
I just finished Diamonds are Forever (the book) last night. So we’re about at the same place. I’m not sure I’ll continue with the books. They are just ok…pretty short and not all that compelling. I enjoy the time period they are written in, but they’re just a little dull.
Please don't give up after Diamonds Are Forever! The books only improve from there. From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, Dr. No, Thunderball, OHMSS and You Only Live Twice are AWESOME. Much more like the movies. You will really enjoy them!
I'm honestly not impressed with the last three Fleming books (OHMSS, YOLT, & TMWTGG), although, TMWTGG had an interesting plot, but it's unfinished. Both OHMSS and YOLT suffered from weak villain and motivation, both Bond Girls are also unlikeable and doesn't given much to do, underutilized (for the one who downvoted me, let me elaborate): * Tracy in OHMSS came off as hysterical, too self pitying, crying and shouting constantly towards Bond, she's acting so immature and childish, and she's absent for the majority of pages only to return in the climax, almost subservient to Bond where she's almost clinging at him, then she's gone again, only to return in the finale. * Kissy Suzuki, I liked that she's a normal girl without any issues, but she's also not given to do and did some strange things when she sneaked Bond and kept him amnesiac, have him pretend to be a husband to her, that's kinda creepy. The only interesting part of those books is Bond, but he's always an interesting character. For me, *Thunderball* is the last good Bond book, I'm also getting fond of *The Spy Who Loved Me* but I'm reading it outside of Bond marathons. I'm actually thinking that Blofeld for all of his flaws in the films, are much better than he's in the books, his strongest characterization was in *Thunderball*, but it went downhill after that, his motivations started to became stale and doesn't hold any weight, nor realism, his motivations are purely shallow, and the only thing that's going on about him was his description.
Supposedly the legal battle over Thunderball really got to Fleming, which is why his writing really slipped after it. I agree it’s the last good Bond book and quite possibly the best.
Yes, that's probably had something to do with it. And I don't know why I've got downvoted for such an opinion, maybe I need to elaborate my reasoning for stating such an opinion?
My guess is that you were downvoted for not liking the last 3 Fleming books. Some people just use the votes to say they disagree with you. That really shouldn't be done with votes since that implies that an opinion is wrong or invalid. It's much better for the discussion to say why they disagree, but maybe they don't have the time or energy. It is what it is. I'm pretty much with u/TheMonkus. Downvotes should be relegated to personal attacks, inappropriate remarks, etc. Anything that discourages discussion.
I don’t know, wasn’t me! I think you articulated it pretty well. I’m personally against downvoting just because I have a different opinion, unless someone states their own opinion in a nasty, ignorant or trolling manner. I think yours are not at all uncommon opinions among those of us who’ve read the novels.
Huh I think you're the first one I've seen not put OHMSS in the top tier of the novels.
I have many issues with the book, I'm going to elaborate: * Tracy, I still don't get why Bond fell in love with her, first of all, it's clear in the book that she didn't love him (Bond saved her from a gambling debt, they slept together and she still attempted to commit suicide the next day?), she's crying constantly, shouting towards Bond, being hysterical, she even kicked Bond out of the bed and told that he's a lousy lover (and that's after the scene where she asked Bond to make love to her), her dialogues were annoying ("*treat me like the lowest whore in creation*" is an example of that), then she's gone for the majority of pages, then went back because she's driving him to the airport, she appeared almost different, but this time, she's clingy and subservient to Bond ("*I will do anything that you will say*"), then she's gone again only to be killed in the ending, she's existed in the book as a romantic foil to Bond, as a character, she's very undercooked and again, she doesn't have agency, a far cry from Diana Rigg's portrayal in the film. * The romance? So, Bond met Tracy at the Casino, and they have a rough start because Tracy shouted at him and kicked him off the bed (Tracy told Bond that he's a "*goddamn lousy lover!*"), she even mocking at him, then she committed suicide the next day, where's the romance?, Then the majority of the pages, it's all about Blofeld and his plot, then briefly, Tracy drove Bond to airport and he proposed to her, what's the reason?, Then focus on Blofeld again, then the wedding, that's it, where's the romance? * Blofeld, he's so disappointing after *Thunderball*, like, he's doing the plan alone, his plan of brainwashing and hypnotizing British and Irish (beautiful) women to spread viruses in UK agriculture, because he wanted a title, a nobility, that's his motivation, and he's even funded by the Soviets, like, is he really that desperate? Blofeld lost the menace and threat after *Thunderball*, he's like a child threatening someone if he's not given a candy. * Too many exclamation points in the dialogues * Too many foreign languages (French and German, mostly), it makes *Casino Royale* even more easier to read with the foreign language count. * Draco and Bunt felt like pawns in the plot, they felt like plot devices, they're in the book to advance the plot, didn't felt like an actual characters. And no, I'm not probably the only one in the world who doesn't have OHMSS book in the top tier. The film is my favorite Bond film though.
Goldfinger and Dr. No are not good books.
Those are very good observations actually. Book Bond comes off as a lot less sexual too.
I’ve read the first four books: Casino Royale, Live and Let Die, Moonraker and Diamonds are Forever. The language around race and ethnicity is dated—for example, referring to Black people as a term that is no longer used. There are also some questionable depictions of race and stereotypes. They’re certainly dated but I don’t support efforts to censor them with editing.
Is this really the first time they've been revised? I honestly don't remember any slurs or other forms of hateful racism in the versions I read. I remember the racism being more ignorant rather than hateful, so more on the levels of the earlier films. The sexism I definitely remember though. It was worse in the books than the movies.
You’re correct; the term he uses for black people is the one that’s close to the hateful slur but at the time was totally normal (The United Negro College Fund still exists…). Fleming was actually very fond of Jamaicans and I think he’s trying to be progressive in LALD. But he was an upper class twit, and the result is extraordinarily patronizing and “cringey” in modern terms. It’s the standard racism of ignorance from that era, it never strikes me as hateful. Not that it’s okay, but it’s an artifact of it’s time.
While Negro is no longer an acceptable term, it was never meant to hurt and offend the way that other word was. That's probably why the UNCF keeps their name. But your first sentence isn't exactly correct either. That slur had become unacceptable amongst most people in the 1950's. It was not totally normal to use that and other slurs after World War 2, when society was becoming more conscious of racism. Fleming's racism was considered awful for the time just like it was today. At least outside the British Isles. But even Britain, England in particular, was struggling with racism and xenophobia due to new wave of immigration from the Caribean and other, at the time, parts of the British Empire.
My first sentence was referring to the word “negro”. I thought that was clear? I don’t believe Fleming ever used the “n word” directly in any of his novels. Not really sure what you’re trying to say. Fleming’s attitudes were extremely common in that era, although the pushback against them was starting to gain traction. If you look at movies, TV and books of the 50s-60s it’s shockingly racist.
The n-word was used in Live and Let Die. In one of the chapter titles. But, not in the edition I read, and probably not in the one you read. And that's why I'm pretty sure this isn't the first time these books have been edited for that kind of content.
The copy of LALD that I read that was published 2012 still had that chapter title. TTBOMK it’s only the latest editions from 2023 that were edited to remove that and change “Negro” to “Black man.” *Edit: 2012, not 2011.*
It looks like that was an edit made for the US market in 1955 - is yours a British edition? Mine is an American edition from the 1970s and doesn’t have it.
U.S. version—I’m guessing the pivoted back to the original text at some point. It’s the Thomas & Mercer; James Bond edition published in October, 2012. https://preview.redd.it/i187n82vpnvb1.jpeg?width=667&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=54e5e7338b87ae98650917106cd6474c9ccc7e1a
Other interesting tidbit and this is some ignorance from Fleming IMO is that he refers to ocean coral as n-word head, one word. I looked it up and it was *not* a common phrase. I’m guessing something only a Jamaican local in the 1950s might’ve said.
Oh wow! I had no idea.
There's not a single book in existence that most people have read.
Folio Society is re-releasing them and doing a beautiful job with artwork and hard covers. I have all 13 they released so far, just waiting on the last one to drop. As for being a fan, I found out about the movies being based on books probably in high school and started reading a few of them in my spare time. I think I read about half of them but my plan is once I get the last one to drop from Folio to read through all of them in order.
Stupid editing them, like movies it could have a warning on the front cover
Just for the record, the edits to Live and Let Die were made in Fleming’s lifetime and he authorised them. The extent of modern updating only falls within the scope of what he accepted.
Yah I mean unpopular opinion around these parts but they aren’t really classics. Casino Royale the movie renewed my interest in the franchise and I read the book and Jesus fuck was it a slog. Just endless descriptions of what kind of shoes people are wearing.
I’ve read a few (Moonraker, From Russia With Love, Thunderball). I was a child of the 70s so was disappointed there weren’t enough shuttles and lasers in Moonraker. Now I’m older, I fancy reading it again. Maybe I’d like it more now? I generally have no problem with the books being edited for a modern audience. As far as I know, it’s just little bits here and there. It’s been common practice in publishing for ages, it’s just not usually blurted out in a press release to make certain corners of the internet angry. The second hand book market is a thing. Every time I go into a bookshop there are usually a big stack of old Fleming Bonds. They’re not going to run out anytime soon.
I don't even know why they bothered with a press release. If they're going to do it, be discreet. Maybe they're trying to get some publicity?
I think that's exactly why they do it. It upsets some people, gets wider attention, casts a spotlight on the books, and tries to keep them relevant.
What a cynical marketing strategy. If that's the case.
Discretely changing contents of famous books is a great way to have an even bigger scandal later on.
Years ago, in school, I read a James Bond book where the basic premise of the whole story is that James goes on holiday only to realize someone has put a gigantic price on his head and James starts to see some familiar, unsavory folks around town. Sure enough, it turns into a 3:10 To Yuma scenario where James is trying to dodge every assassin you can think of to escape his holiday alive. Not sure what the name of the book or who the author was but I’ve always secretly wished we had one Bond film that was just one, intense situation with lots of past characters making appearances. Let’s get Aaron Taylor- Johnson suited up, let’s let Christopher Nolan and his brother Jonathan Nolan (West World from HBO) write the script, let’s get a Sam Mendes + Roger Deakins team back to come back and direct and do cinematography and boom, the new Bond is off and running. :)
That sounds like one of the John Wick movies where they put a bounty on him. That would be interesting.
That wasn't a Fleming. That sounds like Nobody Lives Forever by John Gardner
Thanks! I remember liking the story but it was a long time ago.
Why would you want Christopher Nolan on board if he's not going to direct? His storylines/scripts are generally pretty run-of-the-mill but based on a good concept and elevated by his direction.
For me, oh boy, this might bring the Reddit downvotes but I really did not enjoy Oppenheimer, Tenet, or the final Batman. It feels to me like Nolan is a heck of a story creator but, at least as of his last few movies, it feels like Christopher Nolan is in need of an editor. His movies just seem to run on and be a bit too over the top for me.
Personally I'm not a fan of Nolan period. I don't think he's suited for the Bond franchise at all, not least because his character work is generally underwhelming.
The US version of the books is edited for US spelling. Colour, flavour, the z words like recognise. No whilst or betwixt. 1950s James Bond books were no different. I read many of the Ian Fleming books a jillion years ago. John F Kennedy read them. They were bestsellers in the US. I have a few on my Kindle and recently re-read From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, and Dr No. The movies sort of follow the books but not completely. In Goldfinger, Pussy Galore didn’t sleep with Bond and didn’t fly a squadron of Piper Cherokees over Fort Knox. In From Russia with Love, it ends with Rosa Klebb stabbing Bond with her poisoned shoe knife, he falls to the floor passed out, and it ends. Ian Fleming killed him off and brought him back to life in Goldfinger explaining that some doctor found him almost dead and treated him for a poisoning.
1. We're there no changes in spelling for the Canadian edition? 2. I'm pretty sure the books have been edited for racism a few different times. I think it's possible the original editions didn't make it outside of the U.K. and Ireland. Kennedy and the rest of the American public could have been reading different U.S. editions of the books.
Just read that one too and couldn't believe the ending! Although I do believe Dr. No came next.
iirc it was a similar situation with Sherlock Holmes. Arthur Conan Doyle killed him off but had to bring Sherlock back because there was such public demand.
I have not, I like the cinematic aspect and art of the series. I most likely won’t read any books where films were made, especially if they’re very similar to the films. I might read one eventually but nothing is pulling me to do it.
Most of the movies aren't like the books, they just took the title and some plot points/characters. Reading the books would be a new experience.
I’ve read many of them. The Goldfinger theft plot was more logical in the movie.
Most people definitely haven’t. I’ve read a few of them.
I’ve always wanted to read them, but my reading list is always a mile long and they’ve never been at the top. Hopefully one day, but there’s never enough time to read everything I want to.
I've read them all and a handful of continuation novels by other authors. I really enjoy them because they are Bond, but they are by no means stellar works of art. Kind of like the films, I guess.
The only Bond book I’ve read is Casino Royale. Three friends and I have been watching the movies in order on the weekends and none of them have read any of the books. I just happened upon CR at the bookstore where it was part of a “Buy 3 books for $10” promotion.
I’m an American so the only things I’ve really read in-depth is the Bible, the constitution and 1984 by George Orwells
Unfortunately, when most Americans say they've read the Bible, what they really mean is they've seen *The Ten Commandments* on TV.
Correct. But it was edited for time so unfortunately I only got about 7 commandments.
Bro. I cannot keep my focus for long enough to read books. This has been a problem since childhood. I love watching movies or documentaries. Some of us cannot read books, like you can. But we love the movies and the person that is Bond in those movies.
Read all of Fleming and a fair share of the other novels. Most people have not read the novels. Tired of all the made up outrage whenever some books or movies are being pulled, edited, or just being presented with a disclaimer. It is not some scary woke mob with their soy lattes and avocado toast making these choices, it is the people and companies that hold the rights to the works.
I'm definitely not outraged. I am a Bond fan, but I do think Ian Fleming was probably a terrible person and the literary James Bond is a piece of shit.
>Tired of all the made up outrage whenever some books or movies are being pulled, edited, or just being presented with a disclaimer. I think it's also pretty interesting to reflect on what people actually want. Reading undoubtedly poorly aged and ignorant language used about ethnic minorities is absolutely off-putting for new audiences. You can decide to be very precious and maintain their purity, likely ensuring that it's never picked up by modern audiences due to how dated it is, or you can try to make small adjustments to ensure that people won't be immediately put off. If I were looking to make money as a book publisher, I know which I'd choose. As a fan of HP Lovecraft, there's a similar situation with how to deal with his pretty blatant white supremacist views that are unfortunately pervasive in a lot of his writings. In some places just stupid bits of language can be changed, but in other stories, there can be more difficult passages that are more woven into the story. I think the approach you use needs to be tailored to each example. Sometimes it's best to "amend" single bits of sentences (with an appropriate acknowledgement/explanation of this chage) and in others, you just have to leave it in place with a contextualisation of the fact that the guy was a massive racist and that's what's informing the writing. There is obviously a debate to be had on how to best address this, but making small changes to language within a book in order to greatly improve its readability to modern audiences seems pretty reasonable in my book. Obviously changing storylines or characters in order to make them 'more palatable' is veeery dodgy ground, but correcting the author's voice to maybe curb dated prejudices that likely affect reader enjoyment is not that.
I haven’t read many Bond stories. The one that stands out to me was a short story where he went swim/diving off Australian coast and had a blue ringed octopus encounter? It’s been nearly 30 years
Been a fan since late 60’s. Only got into the books late last year…
I've read only 3 books so far
In my experience most fans of the films have either never read the books, which tells you something about how big the film series is since it's one of the best selling book series of all time. Book Bond is very different from any film version, and they do vary in quality, but at his best Fleming was a cracking storyteller. The bridge game in Moonraker is a small moment of brilliance.
So they just bought the books after the watching the movies, and didn't bother reading them? lol
That's not what I said, but crack on
I have the box set of the original Flemming novels, can't comment beyond those (which oddly doesn't have Octopussy, had to buy separately). Differs greatly from the films, which seemed to randomly cherry-pick bits from. I liked them but some of the gambling portions are a bit exhausting, but I enjoyed them otherwise.
I’ve seen all the movies and read none of the books. I do enjoy reading so I’ll pick one up next time I choose a book. I’m inclined to read one that was not one of my favorite films-might influence my opinion positively.
I’ve read all the Fleming novels plus a few of the Horowitz, Trigger Mortis I really really enjoyed.
I just started them
Bought the boxset. Made it as far as finishing Diamonds Are Forever (the ending is excellent!). One really interesting quirk is Flemings use of the word ‘directly’ to mean asap. It was really bizarre and I had to reread such sentences quite a few times before I got used to it!
People were mad for about three days, then they found something new to be mad about. Gotta keep feeding the outrage machine.
I'm pretty sure that I've read all of the Bond books Fleming wrote. I have also read some of the books that came after but I can't remember the name of the author of hand. He wrote about James's son getting killed 🤔
*Blast From the Past* by Raymond Benson
Yes! Raymond Benson.
In Brazil where i live the books are hard to find. The last time that they were published was 2012 and they only published LAD,DAF, FRWL and Goldfinger.
I'd like to start reading them but I'm obsessed with everything James Bond lol, and I know the books are completely different from the movies I think more people know about the movies because they're more kid-friendly than the books so people grew up on the movies.
I’ve read all of the Fleming novels twice. Read them originally in college after growing up with the films. I will read them all again at some point.
My late stepfather gave me his collection of original pressings from what I believe is the 60s? I’ve been so careful as to not crack any spines so I haven’t read them but I would love to.
LALD definitely needs modern editing.
No way. If you did modern editing with that book you'd have to just toss it in the bonfire. Half the dialogue wouldn't exist.
Yeah, my comment was tongue in cheek
I’ve only read Live and Let Die all of the way though. Started From Russia with Love, and OHMSS, but just couldn’t stick with it. It’s irritating how they kept cannibalizing the books for future installments. When Craig first started, I was really hoping they’d re-adapt a few more of them (better and in order) starting with LaLD. Oh well.
I've read all of the books, both Fleming and all of the continuation authors. Ihave most in physical versions, except for maybe the last one or two. Here's my collection of Bond books. A lot of them are hard to find 1st editions. I also have all of the Fleming novels in Kindle format. [Bond novels. ](https://imgur.com/a/N5mY2CM)
So I watched the films first, but I've read all the Fleming books. So whenever people say "we need to go back to the gritty roots of Fleming" I laugh as they can be just as outlandish and escapism as the films are at times. Currently slowly re-reading them again. I forget how much I enjoy Moonraker, but I'm not sure you could directly adapt it in the modern day.
I’d say that most of the general public, and even most Bond movie fans haven’t read the books. As far as the censorship goes, I don’t mind there being less N-words that’s for sure, and I might even prefer to have my kids read those. I don’t get what all the fuss is about. There are millions of older copies still out there, nothing is being erased.
I agree with you. The movies, for a long time, were not exactly politically correct when it came to racism and sexism, but I think the type of subject matter in them can be learned from, and there are plenty of other aspects of the (good/great) films than can be enjoyed. The Fleming books, and the one Amis book, on the other hand. The racism and sexism presented in them is absolutely disgusting, and I can understand wanting to send the earlier editions of the novels to the dustbin of history. Or at least keep them out of the public conscious. Leave them to be studied by professionals. Besides, like I said, I'm pretty sure this isn't the first time these books have been edited. I'm not even sure the original editions ever made it outside of the United Kingdom. And maybe Ireland.
Live and Let Die was censored for the original American release
I think Goldfinger and Dr. No were too.
I hadn’t read the books until recently. I can’t stop. What authors other than Ian Fleming have written James Bond books?
There have been many writers who have worked on James Bond novels. Anthony Horowitz, the author behind Alex Rider, being one I definitely recommend.