Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Spy Who Loved Me (novel)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 29 February 2024 [1].

The Spy Who Loved Me (novel)

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Spy Who Loved Me is an anomaly among the Bond novels, being the least Bond-y Bond of all the Bonds. It's the only one written in a first-person narrative - and it's not even Bond's narrative, nor does he appear until two-thirds of the book is done. It wasn't well-received by the critics or public, for whom there was not enough Bond in the book, but it still has some points of interest. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from UC

[edit]

I've done the lead for now, but will get to the rest when I can. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved
  • I'd consider making a link to note B after the ninth novel and tenth book in Ian Fleming's James Bond series in the lead: yes, MOS:LEADCITE, but it's not technically a citation, and I think most readers will be confused as to how this sentence can be true.
  • a clear departure from previous Bond novels in that the story is told in the first person by a young Canadian woman, Viv Michel: I'd rephrase this to be clear that the departure is being told in the first person at all (or by someone who isn't Bond?), not being told in the first person by a young Canadian woman, Viv Michel. Cutting the sentence after first person and saying something like "Its narrator is..." would help.
  • Fleming wrote a prologue to the novel giving Viv credit as a co-author: is it worth being absolutely explicit, either here or earlier, that Viv is fictional? At least part of me is doubting myself.
    Fleming would be absolutely delighted, I'm sure! - SchroCat (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The story contains themes of Saint George against the dragon, power and the moral ambiguity: the first of these is a motif rather than a theme. Suggest "uses a recurring motif of Saint George against the dragon, and contains themes of..."
  • As the narrator who told : it's fiction, so present tense: who tells ... expresses.
  • Viv is the best-realised and most rounded: no hyphen here (predicative, not attributive).
  • female characterisation: female character, surely? I do wonder whether the (fitting) double entendre of most rounded female character was intentional...
    Ha! No it wasn't - and I suppose it's too late to claim it is now. - SchroCat (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a later letter to his editor: we don't actually have any sense of when this was, either in the article or the lead, though F's use of has sounds to me like it was fairly soon after he read those reviews.
  • Following the reactions by critics and fans: I'd go with reactions of, and perhaps negative reactions of: we haven't actually said that the fans disliked it yet.
  • Fleming attempted to suppress elements of the novel where he could: cut "when he could": we'd hardly expect him to attempt to do something he couldn't attempt to do.
  • he blocked a paperback edition in the United Kingdom and when he sold the film rights to Harry Saltzman and Albert R. Broccoli they were permitted to use only the title but none of the plot of the book: a run-on sentence. Could cut after United Kingdom and drop the and -- otherwise, though I know it'll be anathema, comma off: and, when he ... Broccoli, they were...
  • In the tenth film in the Eon Productions series, released in 1977: elegant variation, but it isn't quite clear that this is indeed The Spy Who Loved Me. Suggest something like "in the film that bears the book's name, the tenth in the Eon production series..."
    Went a slightly different way, but should hopefully have the same outcome. - SchroCat (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • only the character of one of the villains, Jaws, is loosely based on a character in the book: are other things closely based on characters from the book?
  • in daily comic strip format in 1967–1968: I'd do between 1967 and 1968 to avoid the awkward repetition.
  • and a British paperback edition was published after Fleming's death: of the novel, or the comic strip?
    Both, actually, but I meant the novel, so now clarified. - SchroCat (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be a major loss to change the verbose as well as a clear departure from previous Bond novels in that the story is told in the first person. into simply as well as the only Bond novel [story?] told in the first person.?
  • arriving as a deus ex machina: the Latinist in me isn't totally happy with the literal meaning of this -- Bond, of course, isn't actually a god and doesn't actually come out of the scenery. Could change the link text to something "arriving at precisely the right moment"? Separately: in the body text, we've presented this as Bold's individual, subjective opnion: we've promoted it to a matter of fact in the lead.
  • Viv is the best realised and most rounded female character in the Bond canon: I'd be happier if this subjective statement were phrased more objectively: "Viv has often been called..." or something.
  • Following the negative reactions of critics and readers: I still think we need to say, somewhere in the previous paragraph, that readers didn't like it either: perhaps something about how badly it sold? It's not uncommon for a book to be critically panned but commercially beloved.
    I've cut the readers out of the equation entirely: there isn't enough in the sources to say that (even through undoubtedly correct), but I'll look again to see if I can see something about sales being less than previous works. - SchroCat (talk) 09:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the first person story: hyphenate first-person when used attributively, as here.
  • Link James Bond in the blockquote as first mention in body?
  • With the manuscript was a note signed 'Vivienne Michel': I'd use double-quotes here, as the blockquote doesn't actually have quotation marks around it. Likewise in the following quotation.
  • Would link Official Secrets Act in the same quote (you may need to find the right one)
  • Vivienne "Viv" Michel, a young Canadian woman, narrates her own story, detailing her past love affairs, the first being with Derek Mallaby, who took her virginity in a field after being thrown out of a cinema in Windsor for indecent exposure: a long sentence (would break at love affairs). Would link indecent exposure. I can see an argument for rephrasing "took her virginity" to something that presents this as more of a team effort and doesn't have the connotations of defilement, but am not coming up with much at the moment.
    I've taken out the virginity aspect (so to speak) and just gone with the more bland "had sex in a field". Does that work? - SchroCat (talk) 09:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was hesitating in case it mattered that this was the first time, whether within the world of the story or for the audience, but no objection to removing that if it's not particularly important. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • when Mallaby sent her a letter from Oxford University: was he a student there? The phrasing seems almost to be trying to imply that he wasn't.
  • to work at "The Dreamy Pines Motor Court",: ominous-looking scare quotes: would drop and go with "a motel called the Dreamy Pines..." or similar.
  • Link mobsters to something appropriate? Likely to be tricky to non-native speakers.
  • "secret service" going to "MI6" is a bit of a surprise (the link text suggests that it's going to be talking about secret services in general): could we rephrase somehow? One option would be to push the link to cover "British" as well, but that has the tradeoff of moving "British" to strictly modify "secret service" rather than "agent".
  • Bond tells Viv that he is in America in the wake of Operation Thunderball and was detailed to protect a Russian nuclear expert who defected to the West and who now lives in Toronto.: the tenses are a bit tricky here: grammatically, I think they're all correct, but the sentence could probably do with a look for clarity.
  • eight books in the preceding eight years, seven novels and a collection of short stories: comma after years should be a colon, as those are the eight books.
    I think both are OK here, but swapped over. - SchroCat (talk) 10:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • He found writing The Spy Who Loved Me easier than any of his other books: better as "he later said he found..."? We can't ever know his mental state for sure, and people don't always remember or retell their own difficulties accurately.
    He said this at the time of writing (when he sent his manuscript to the publisher). - SchroCat (talk) 10:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • thoughts of killing off Bond: perhaps slightly colloquial?
  • had second thoughts: would rephrase per MOS:IDIOM.
  • This, writes Lycett, may have been a reflection of Fleming's state of mind at the time, particularly his ongoing marital difficulties, as he was having an affair with his neighbour on Jamaica, Blanche Blackwell and his wife, Ann was in a relationship with Hugh Gaitskell, the Leader of the British Labour Party.: would cut this run-on sentence after difficulties. Also needs a comma after Blackwell.
    Went with a colon instead. Does that work? - SchroCat (talk) 10:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • working on a film treatment which eventually Fleming published as Thunderball: the novel? I assume so because it's not linked, but slightly doubting myself over "film treatment".
  • Would push the link on "novel series" to "the novel series" per WP:LEASTASTONISHMENT
  • Ivar Bryce's Black Hollow Farm: who/where is this?
  • Viv was seduced by Derek: is seduced
  • Her time with Derek in the area around Cookham, Berkshire, is similar to Fleming's time at the Royal Military College, Sandhurst.: probably not relevant, but this is challenging both my impressions of Cookham and of Sandhurst! Similar in what ways?
    Reworked: it's not the area that is similar (they're not!), but Fleming's activities. - SchroCat (talk) 10:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • and is the out-door type: hyphen reads strongly archaic to me. Why not just "[enjoys] outdoor activities" -- what exactly is the outdoor "type"?
  • the character of Viv—by demonstrating a naïve view of life—reinforces: better as who demonstrates, I think (it's Viv, not her character = personality).
Thanks again UC; this lot all covered - again, hopefully satisfactorily. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the full panoply of a Bond novel, animated by his presence is absent: comma after presence, surely? Even if not in original, MOS:CONFORM could be argued.
  • Black 2005 citation: capitalise from as it's after a colon (and therefore the start of a subtitle).
  • 'hooks': double quotes per MOS:QUOTE (the MoS doesn't really approve of, or legislate for, scare quotes, but this is also in a sense a literal quote). Could be more formal and replace (with a link) with narrative hooks.
  • Benson considers that the sweep: a nitpick, but we capitalised Sweep before, so should do so here (or decap both): it's the Sweep, so a proper noun.
  • As with several other Bond stories: could we have some examples? Is it made quite as explicit elsewhere?
  • The question of morality and good and evil : what's the difference between "morality" and "good and evil"?
    One is the thought, the other the deed. - SchroCat (talk) 10:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've not come across that distinction before; I don't think many readers will have it in mind. Could do "good and evil actions", "people", or similar, or perhaps rephrase to draw a more explicit distinction between intentions and consequences? UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone for the path of cutting "morality" - it makes the section stronger and is probably slightly truer to the sources too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • He raised his fee from the 200 guineas (£210) he had charged for Thunderball, to 250 guineas (£262.50: either lose the comma or stick another after fee.
  • no paperback version appeared until after Fleming's death in 1964: it's a bit odd that this is said twice, but we only actually find out the date on the second mention.
    Where's the first mention - I must be missing something here? - SchroCat (talk) 09:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, gotcha. Reworked it so there's only one mention of it now. How does that look? - SchroCat (talk) 10:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the heightened sexual writing: I'm not sure this is quite idiomatic.
  • the company that administers all Fleming's literary works: Fowler's calling out for us to omit all here.
  • which sold 517,000 copies before the end of the year: was that good? It sounds like we're implicitly saying Fleming was wrong about the book being disliked.
    Difficult to say. I think people couldn't get hold of the limited supply of hardbacked versions, so bought big when it came to the paperback (all the publicity about the salacious aspects wouldn't have hurt sales either!) This is all OR, as the source doesn't examine the whys and wherefores for the sales levels. - SchroCat (talk) 10:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Any way to contextualise it versus previous/future Bond sales, that year's bestsellers, or similar? I've not really got a sense from the article that this was "buying big". UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SchroCat: This is, as far as I can see it, the only comment that needs a response: any thoughts on it? UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, UC: I had missed your response entirely. Let me have a think and I'll get back to you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I've added a quick line about it being one of the top paperback sellers of Fleming's work. How does that work? - SchroCat (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Very nicely, though I've made a small CE around. Moved to support: nice work all around. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The release of the bowdlerised series was for the 70th anniversary of Casino Royale, the first Bond novel: perhaps beside the point, but if they kept "the sweet tang of rape", what did they decide to cut?
    There are no sources that cover that bit, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 09:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh Dear Oh Dear Oh Dear!: needs a MOS:CONFORM treatment: would suggest mass-decapping and sticking commas or dashes in between.
  • thought Fleming was finished: MOS:IDIOM.
  • Can we do anything to explain "cornography"?
    Not without going into OR. I think we'll have to let the context and a reader's intelligence do some of the work here. - SchroCat (talk) 09:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • considered the novel to be "a morbid version of that of Beauty and the Beast": this quote hasn't quite transposed correctly: the that of in the quote suggests that he was originally talking about the novel's plot vel. sim.
  • the customary sexual consummation is associated with the kill.": I think MOS:LQ would put the full stop on the other side, but have never really understood that one. Certainly, this is the pattern followed elsewhere in the article.
    It's a complete sentence and the full stop is where it is in the quote, so the full stop goes inside the quote marks. - SchroCat (talk) 09:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good to me. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the battleship-grey Bentley and Blades Club: did the author really draw the line at capitalising Battleship?
    Yes. Somewhat surprising, I know, but I guess that's part of the description, rather than The Thing. - SchroCat (talk) 09:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • is the discovery that the cruel, handsome, scarred face of James Bond does not turn up until more than halfway through Ian Fleming's latest book.: missing close quotes.
  • The first paragraph of adaptations is a little repetitious and generally clunky: could I very unhelpfully suggest another look for general prose and panache?
    Reworked; how does that look?
  • Title of Parker 2014: Was is a verb, so should be capitalised in title case.
Thanks UC; all covered in these edits, hopefully satisfactorily. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow.

That's my lot. Not planning to do a source review, but no concerns: everything looks to be high quality. Nice work and thanks for getting to the previous comments so sharply. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks UC; I've covered what I can. There are a couple of points which you may want to look at again where I've reworked bit (Adaptations and the Pan paperback publishing). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your comments and effort here, UC. It has been very much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC

[edit]

Signing up for this :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not much to complain about through the plot section; I like the way you've structured it to mirror the novel.
  • Minor gripe: "Pressuring the two men, he eventually gets the gangsters to agree to provide him a room." Could probably be condensed to "Bond pressures the gangsters into providing him a room."
  • I love that Fleming somehow thought that writing about a beautiful woman having a bunch of sex and getting rescued by James Bond would be a cautionary tale
  • "considers the character of Viv—who demonstrates a naïve view of life—reinforces Fleming's" - the sentence doesn't quite flow for me. Remove the interlude and you get "considers the character of Viv reinforces Fleming's", which at least ought to have a "that" in there, as in "considers that". Alternately, you could revise around the interlude a bit. Something like "...Bold considers Viv's naive outlook as further evidence of Fleming's misogynistic portrayals of women..."?
    Tweaked slightly ("depiction" rather than "character"), which should overcome the issue. The "that" isn't needed in BrEng (I've just gone through through the 2016 version of Fowler to confirm. - SchroCat (talk) 10:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The other characters in the novel are given less attention" - by Fleming or by critics
  • "Chancellor considers" the absent "that" again makes the sentence awkward
    As above. - SchroCat (talk) 10:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is a love romance story;" - intentional?
  • link deus ex machina in the body
  • " Viv refers to Bond's appearance directly connecting Bond to the medieval legend" - I think this might be better in its own sentence (although won't die on that hill). Whether or not you split it, I think it might work better reversed - "Viv directly connects bond to the medieval legend when she describes his appearance:"
  • It's a crime that "cornography" hasn't entered the wider lexicon
    It's a fantastic word that should be applied to about 95 percent of most written sex scenes in novels - it's something that should be the basis of the Bad Sex in Fiction Award - SchroCat (talk) 10:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last note - the fact that Horror has steel teeth isn't noted until the very last sentence of the article, which feels odd when the lead takes the time to note that Jaws was adapted from one of the book's villains. If you could find a way to mention the teeth in the plot summary, the connection might be more clear for readers

That's all I have for you! Lots of fun. Ping me if you do more of these - I assume you're trying to up the GT to a FT? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PMC. All dealt with except where noted in these edits. It's already an FT (they don't all need to be FAs to get there), but it would be nice to have them all finished off as FAs at some point. If you enjoyed it, I have On Her Majesty's Secret Service at PR. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good, I'm a support. I rarely comment at PR but I will put the FAC for that page on my watchlist for when it goes blue :) (I think I was looking at the old GT nomination, so I didn't see it was upgraded to an FT - great work on the lot) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest adding alt text

Comments by TompaDompa

[edit]

How interesting! I'll try to find the time to do a full review. For now: the note in the lead doesn't really work, as it omits Thunderball. TompaDompa (talk) 10:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good spot! Now amended. - SchroCat (talk) 12:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
  • The article seems comparatively brief.
Lead
  • The current note works so-so. "These are the novels [...]" is a rather odd way of saying it when what is meant is that it follows the listed works. I might also put the note immediately following the comma rather than at the end of the sentence.
    • Reworked. I don't like breaking any sentence with a footnote (it's bad writing as it distracts the reader too much), but particularly in the opening sentence, which should be as clear of impedimenta as possible, so I've left it at the end. - SchroCat (talk) 10:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's probably clear from the context. - SchroCat (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is the shortest and most sexually explicit of Fleming's novels" – it is noted in the body that it was banned in some markets due to sexual content, but the comparison to the other novels does not seem to be there?
    Clarified. - SchroCat (talk) 11:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The reviewers were largely negative" – the reviewers were, not the reviews?
Plot summary
  • Not sure about the verb tenses here.
    We're following the tenses of the novel. She look back and tells her past life in the first third, then moves into the present. I think this is the correct way to follow it. - SchroCat (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Background and writing history
Development
  • The "Characters" subsection seems a bit out of place under the heading of "Development". It's mostly character reception/analysis.
  • "The historian Jeremy Black notes that while she has been a victim of life in the past, she is wilful and tough too." – is "wilful" the word Black uses? It's a rather uncommon adjective to apply to people.
    • Is it? I think I've only ever heard it applied to people. Either way, yes, it's a term used in the source - SchroCat (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the most common collocation I have come across is "wilful ignorance" (though "wilfully ignorant" may be even more common), and other than that I have mostly heard/read it used to describe actions. Seeing as it's the word used by the source, however, there is of course no problem here. TompaDompa (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The academic Christine Bold considers the depiction of Viv—who demonstrates a naïve view of life—reinforces Fleming's misogynistic view of women" – I see that this has been discussed above. Whether this phrasing is strictly speaking grammatical or not within certain varieties of English, I find that it makes the sentence awkward to read. I think it's safe to say assume a fair proportion of readers will too, considering that two different reviewers do, and this seems like a good reason to rephrase it to avoid the issue (I suppose we could call it an application of MOS:COMMONALITY).
  • "Chancellor considers the novel's lack of a supervillain makes this one of the weaker works." – as above. I'll state for the record that don't speak or write either British or American English.
(Unsolicited peanut-throw) Is "supervillain" quite the right word here? I appreciate it might not have always been so, but most readers nowadays will assume it to mean "a villain with superhuman powers". Would "primary antagonist" or something slightly flashier (perhaps with a link to Bond villain?) work? UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure "primary antagonist" gets to what Chancellor was saying. The Bond novels are known for their supervillains (These are just the sources on IA that link "Blofeld" with "supervillain" - and that's just one of the characters in the series). Lots of novels have villains/protagonists: Bond has supervillains - beating them is what makes him Bond. - SchroCat (talk) 09:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes -- I'm trying to find a way of saying "bond villain" without using the supervillain word, which gives the wrong idea (Blofeld, after all, does not have superpowers like a superhero does). Admittedly, this might not be a huge problem: thinking on it, there are plenty of more conventional superheroes (the Joker, for example) that don't have superpowers, but nobody would have a problem with using that word for them. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One might describe these types of villains as "larger than life" or "over the top", but I don't know if that gives the right impression either. TompaDompa (talk) 13:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Style
  • "The literary analyst LeRoy L. Panek observes that The Spy Who Loved Me is a love story" – MOS:SAID; "observes" is rather conspicuous here.
  • "When viewed from the romantic viewpoint, the threat of Viv's rape from the two gangsters is held in counterpoint to the consensual sex between her and Bond." – should not be in WP:WikiVoice.
    It's still Panek's point: do you want me to include his name a third time in this short paragraph? - SchroCat (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have any strong opinions about how to avoid WP:WikiVoice here. Using a pronoun would be one option, as would rephrasing. TompaDompa (talk) 13:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not convinced the current wording is in the Wikivoice, given we say "Panek argues that there are strong elements of romance" and the following sentence starts "When viewed from the romantic viewpoint". The context is clear that we're talking about the same point, and not in a Wikivoice. - If you insist on it being changed, I'm sure I can put in something that is more wordy more cumbersome and less readable. Just let me know. - SchroCat (talk) 14:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems a bit needlessly snide. We have three sentences, the first two of which use in-text attribution and the third does not. The first two also have the same reference (number 41 as of my writing this) whereas the third has a different one (number 42). This is to say that I think it's reasonable to interpret the third sentence as being intentionally presented matter-of-factly/in WP:WikiVoice. There are plenty of ways to address this; I might replace "Panek" with "He" in the second sentence and add "Panek writes that" or similar to the third. TompaDompa (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing snide there. I'll stick to the current wording, as it's not really necessary to push the 'Panek' name for the third time in a three sentence paragraph on an entirely related point. - SchroCat (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Publication and reception
Yep, fixed. - SchroCat (talk) 08:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The critic for The Times was not dismissive of Bond [...] Rather, the critic dismisses the experiment [...]" – citing the same source thrice for two sentences (that could be one with the judicious application of a semicolon) is overdoing it a bit; I gather that it was done this way because of the quotes?
    One sentence would be a little long, so two is probably better, and yes, the citations are after the quotes. - SchroCat (talk) 11:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "What aggrieved him most, however, was that "the worst thing about it is that it really is so unremittingly, so grindingly boring"." – "What aggrieved him most" and "the worst thing about it" are kind of redundant to each other.
    Trimmed. - SchroCat (talk) 08:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The lead-up to the quote is now "was that", and the beginning of the quote is "it is that it really is". I think the first three words of the quote should be trimmed, making this was that "it really is [...]. TompaDompa (talk) 13:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adaptations
  • "the newspaper turned down the opportunity to publish The Spy Who Loved Me as being too unlike the normal Bond books" – this seems ungrammatical. They turned down the opportunity, but it's the book that is unlike the normal ones, no?

Neutral I'm not familiar enough with the topic or the sources (nor have I checked the sourcing) to be able to say with confidence whether this meets the comprehensiveness criterion. The article seems rather thin on thematic analysis and the such based on my intuition and experience with similar articles, but I can't point to anything in particular that is missing. TompaDompa (talk) 21:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is very little in the sources about the themes. What there is in the sources is discussed in the article. - SchroCat (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

My few and minor quibbles were dealt with at the peer review. Rereading for FAC I have no further quibbles and am happy to support the elevation of this article. It is an excellent read, clear, evidently balanced and well sourced. A pity there are not more pictures available, but that's the way it is with articles about works of this vintage, and I'm sure SchroCat has done all that can be done in that line. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 13:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your thought and input at the PR Tim, and your further readthough here. I am, as always, much obliged to you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Igordebraga

[edit]

Support as this continues to prove Nobody Does It Better than you regarding the articles on 007's novels. igordebraga ≠ 16:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks igordebraga - kind of you to say so. I hope you're keeping well! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Source formatting seems consistent. What makes "James Bond: The Man and His World" and screenonline a reliable source? Is the publisher of "Licence to Thrill: A Cultural History of the James Bond Films" correct? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking at this, Jo-Jo Eumerus. In order of the points raised:
  1. It's an official publication of Ian Fleming Publications
  2. It's a site published by the British Film Institute
  3. Yes, It's I.B. Tauris (seen on the front cover here)
Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz

[edit]

Hi SchroCat, such an interesting discussion of this book, tempts me to read it. But first, some comments and many questions...

lede

Plot summary Me

  • by whom she would eventually become pregnant - tense? by whom she eventually became pregnant

Them

  • so that he can make a profit on the insurance - profit suggests a difference? I think we would just say make an insurance claim but perhaps Engvar?

Him

  • the wake of Operation Thunderball and was detailed to protect a Russian nuclear expert - just during the operation or still protecting him? ie had been detailed? ("wake of" suggests finished)?
  • Sluggsy and Horror set fire to the motel - did Bond put the fire out?
    It's a detail sort of overlooked, but Bond doesn't put it out, no. - SchroCat (talk) 12:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Background and writing history

  • outlined in Books and Bookmen magazine - why not direct link to Books and Bookmen?
  • Michael Howard, his publisher at Jonathan Cape, to explain - MH was his editor not publisher? (is called editor in Publication section). Move link for Jonathan Cape to here (or intentional)?
    I've duplicated (as I think we are now allowed): once on first mention, once in the Publication section (where it makes most sense)

Plot inspirations

Characters

  • Benson notes that while she has been a victim of life in the past, she is wilful - swap first "she" to Viv?
  • camping, fishing and outdoor activities - insert 'other' before outdoor? (camping and fishing are outdoors) or 'who likes outdoor activities such as camping and fishing'
  • The claim was one for which Fleming criticised - was criticised?
  • Macintyre's opinion is that - who is Mac? intro, add Ben, link
  • Kurt, is a caricature of a German—a cruel racist with little capacity for love or affection - Crikey! Gbooks won't let me read Black p. 73, is that a quote? If so, add quote marks. If not, can we really say in that in wikivoice? Could add 'Fleming's version/idea of a caricature of a German' at minimum? or 'Kurt, is a caricature of a German—a cruel racist with ...' (We already know he's German.)
    I've added it's Black's view of the character. Fleming used "German" as a shorthand for bad/evil - which his post-war audience would have understood straight away, so I think the German bit is needed. I agree that it shouldn't be in a wikivoice though - so Black's name should explain that bit. - SchroCat (talk) 12:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Black, the two thugs - move Black intro, name, link up to here from next section
  • novel's lack of a supervillain - 'absence' of better word?
  • makes this one of the weaker works - Fleming's weaker works?

Style

  • most sexually explicit of all Fleming's novels - I'm not sure if there should be another "of" here. Ie 'of all of Fleming's novels' or 'of all Fleming novels'
  • When viewed from the romantic viewpoint - 2x view, when contemplated/seen/considered from or similar?
  • In last para of Style section the novels aren't linked Casino Royale, Diamonds are Forever, Goldfinger, and Dr. No (Thunderball has links elsewhere in prose) - Is that because they are linked in notes?
    Yes, that's correct. (Actually linked twice in the notes) - SchroCat (talk) 12:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Publication history

  • UK on 16 April 1962 as a hardcover edition by the publishers Jonathan Cape; it was 221 pages long - infobox has 198 pages
    You really do have a sharp eye! - SchroCat (talk) 12:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The artwork included a Fairbairn–Sykes commando knife; - has pipe to article name but caption has no pipe - intentional?
    Yes, but I can't think what it was. Maybe I was just going for just some allowable variation. - SchroCat (talk) 12:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fleming borrowed one owned by his editor, Michael Howard at Jonathan Cape, as a model for Chopping - could pipe link "model" to Reference#Arts
  • In the US the story was later published - was also later published
  • so bad that Fleming requested that there should - are both "that"s needed?
  • Fleming requested that there should be no - is "requested" strong enough? Surely JCape couldn't say no to him? stipulated?
  • there should be no reprints or paperback version of the book - nor paperback?
    I think either are fine, but the "or" just sounds cleaner to me. - SchroCat (talk) 12:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the British market no paperback version appeared until May 1967, after Fleming's death in 1964,[61] when Pan Books published a paperback version.- "paperback version" repetition, something more like this to fix? 'For the British market a paperback version did not appear until May 1967, after Fleming's 1964 death, published by Pan Books.'
    Worked it round a bit as that make it look like Pan published Fleming's death. - SchroCat (talk) 12:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The release of the bowdlerised series was for the 70th anniversary of Casino Royale, the first Bond novel - timed for the 70th?
    Went with the more simple "was on the 70th anniversary". - SchroCat (talk) 12:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

Adaptations

Notes

  • Note e - Benson considers the motif appears all the novels - missing word 'in' all

References

  • ref 45 - Sternberg 1983 pp. 174 – 175 - tweak dash

Sources Books

  • McLusky, John; Gammidge, Henry; Lawrence, Jim; Fleming ... Omnibus - give Jim Lawrence an authorlink per above

Sources Journals and magazines

  • Sternberg, Meir (Spring 1983) ... PA - expand state to Pennsylvania per the 5 other US states

Sources News

  • Books: Of Human Bondage - should that be cite magazine for Time?

Categories

  • add Category:First-person narrative novels

Misc

  • the knife on cover is discussed (but not eg the carnation) is there any tie in? ie did thugs or Bond or Viv use one?
    Nope! I suspect it was trying to mix the romance and violence aspects, but there's no flowers anywhere to be seen. - SchroCat (talk) 12:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Horror and Sluggsy are labelled as mobsters x2 (which links to gangster), gangsters x3, thugs x2 and killers x1 but not the word that comes to my mind about such operatives, henchmen?
    I try and avoid it as it's become a bit of a cliché term. If there was a proper villain here I might consider it, but they are the ones who actually in the book, so they get the (slightly) elevated titles.

And with that I think I've asked all my questions. JennyOz (talk) 11:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Spy_Who_Loved_Me_(novel)/archive1&oldid=1211125022"