Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Live and Let Die (novel)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Live and Let Die (novel) edit

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Live and Let Die is the second in Ian Fleming's series of Bond stories. There are some oddities to the story and, to the modern reader, a few passages of toe-curling embarrassment when Fleming expounds on his well-meaning but patronising views on race. This has undergone a re-build over the last month or so, bringing in information from new sources, re-structuring the article along the lines of Casino Royale, and giving a few passages a brush up to bring it into line with the MoS. A visit to FAC is the post-PR aim. Many thanks to all who care to constructively comment. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto's Quarrel's edit

  • The first thing that strikes me is the infobox. The front cover tells us everything we need to know. The infobox just repeats this.
  • Ian Fleming (name given three times!)  Y
  • Live and Let Die  Y
  • Published by Jonathan Cape  Y
  • Casino Royale  Y

The first para of the lead section tells us everything else. CassiantoTalk 21:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's a few other pieces in there which aren't covered, and the repeat of Fleming's name is partly because he had a hand in the cover design too. - SchroCat (talk) 08:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

  • We link Florida on the second mention and not the first.
  • We don't technically link it at all (I think it probably counts as overlinking). The second 'link' is part of the link to St. Petersburg, but I've tweaked to take Florida out of there. - SchroCat (talk) 08:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...ties Solitaire and Bond to a line behind his yacht and plans to drag them over the shallow coral reef and into deeper water so that the sharks and barracuda that he attracts in to the area with regular feedings will eat them". Didn't this happen in For Your Eyes Only too?
  • Only in the film (I guess you haven't got down as far a the Adaptations section yet!) - SchroCat (talk) 08:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • "The academic Daniel Ferrera Savoye considers the titles of Fleming's novels have importance individually and collective." -- is there a word missing from this?

Comments from Tim edit

  • Plot
    • I'm not convinced that "pirate" and "fortune-telling" need blue links.
    • The bolded initial letters don't bother me, and as far as I can see don't violate the MoS. I think you have made a good choice on this.
    • "Sir Henry Morgan" – to my eye it breaks the flow of the prose to leave the "Sir" outside the link. Piping as Sir Henry Morgan makes for a smoother read, I find.
  • Background
    • "following the same working practice he had the previous year" – doesn't read quite right to me: perhaps, "following his working practice of the previous year"?
    • "the RMS Queen Elizabeth" – is it usual to use the definite article before "RMS"? (Question asked from pure ignorance.)
    • "have a more serious tone from his debut novel" – "than" rather than "from", I'd say.
    • "Epistemological" – a link would be helpful despite the MoS's odd injunction to avoid links from within quotations.
  • Development
    • Duplicate link to St Petersburg could be blitzed.
    • "Leiter's Christian name" – best to use the secular "first name" perhaps
  • Characters
    • Quotation in first sentence could do with an in-line attribution
    • "Bond's battle with the same opponent is won by the agent" – I had to read this twice: clearer as "Bond wins his own battle with the same opponent"?
    • "which Bond can eliminate" – "whom Bond can eliminate"?
    • "For Benson, "Mr Big is only adequate villain"" – missing a word, by the look of it.
  • Style
    • "sees the two books have" – not keen on "sees", which implies that the openness is a fact.
    • "ending which Bond battling" – another phrase with a missing or mistyped word, it appears
    • "école du regard" – a link or a footnote would be nice here: I haven't the least notion what Eco is referring to
      • All now done - SchroCat (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • First rate footnote - bravo! I scratched around for a quarter of an hour without finding anything before I posted my comment, above. Tim riley talk 14:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Themes
    • In my self-proclaimed role as Noël Coward's vicar on Wikipedia I should like to see chapter and verse that he expressed views about American colonisation of the island. Does Parker (citation at end of para) say so? On what evidence? Remind me next week when I'm back in London and I'll comb the Coward section of my bookshelves, if wanted.
      • Yes, it's from Parker, who writes: "both Fleming and Coward saw the preponderance of Americans among Jamaica's hotel owners and tourists—'millionaires in beach clothes'—as cause for regret and a threat to Jamaica's integrity."
        • Hmmm. Do not be surprised to hear from me further on this next week. I don't recall reading of any such anti-American sentiments from Coward in re Jamaica, and I want to check this out in the numerous books about Coward on my shelves. More anon. Tim riley talk 21:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Friendship
    • "with regards to" – "with regard to" or "as regards", possibly?
  • Critical reception
    • "Sunday Times … sister paper, The Times" – a reasonable but in fact incorrect inference from the titles. The two papers were not under the same ownership until 1966.
    • "a lurid meller" – a what? Should this be melée or is it an unfamiliar Americanism? (Later: I find it is slang for "melodrama": an explanatory footnote would be a kindness to speakers of the Queen's English.)

That's all from me. Most enjoyable. – Tim riley talk 10:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Tim - all much appreciated, as usual. Just one point for me left to address, Eco's "école du regard", which I have something suitable to use later. All now sorted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Crisco edit

  • Hmmmm... For some reason my crop has an error tag on it from a bot. Could you have a look and let me know what else I need to do? Ta - SchroCat (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, that just means a Flickr reviewer needs to come check. Just give it time. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apart from the bird error, I think I've done the right thing on all the others. - SchroCat (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Themes section feels a bit choppy, what with the one/two sentence sections
  • There's only one sub-section that has a two sentence format, but that's probably the least newsworthy one of the lot. The other three havea bit more meat to the bones. There was a similar comment on the Casino Royale (novel) PR/FAC, and I'm still in two minds about the divisions there and here. I think it sort of works, butif others come along and comment at some point then I'll strip out the titles and go with the block of prose. Sound OK? - SchroCat (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The story centres on Bond's pursuit of an American criminal, Mr Big, who has links to the American criminal network, the world of voodoo and SMERSH, an arm of the Russian secret service, all of which are a threat to the West. - way too many commas and parentheticals
  • real name Buonaparte Ignace Gallia. - bold really necessary?
  • I think it may be too easy to flick over the name without appreciating that it's an acronym
  • I'm with SchroCat on this, though I foresee alarums and excursions at FAC. I think some form of emphasis is wanted, as the reader is likely to miss the acronym. I'm fairly sure I'd have missed it without the prompt. Out of interest I have experimented with italics (temporarily, in my sandpit) and bold is better, I think. But prenez garde, SchroCat! There will assuredly be those of a contrary opinion at FAC. Tim riley talk 14:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • but is either captured and fed to a shark or tricked into standing on a trap door over the shark tank: he survives, but loses an arm and a leg. - how is this an either-or situation?
  • "He disagreed with something that ate him" - CN, as this is a direct quote (no matter how famous the quote)
  • My impression of the plot summary is that it tries to convey too much in too little space. May want to streamline a bit
  • a more serious tone from his debut novel, - from or than?
  • based in events and situations - in or on?
  • Fleming did not use class enemies for his villains instead relying on physical distortion or ethnic identity - lack of comma in the original?
  • Mr Big is only adequate villain - missing a word?
  • and considers the discussion Bond has with René Mathis of the French Deuxième Bureau in Casino Royale, in which the Frenchman predicts Bond will seek out and kill the evil men of the world. - is "considers" the best word?
  • In May 1954, Live and Let Die was banned in Ireland by C. J. O'Reilly, a member of the Irish Censorship of Publications Board. - why?
  • The sources don't explain, unfortunately. The notebooks themselves have the title, author, date and "banned", while the two secondary sources that mention it just say it was banned, without the reasoning. - SchroCat (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch out for the Mr. / Mr thing. They're both present. — Crisco 1492 (talk)
  • Many thanks for your thoughts on this. I've covered all the points, except where commented on above. Thanks again - much apreciated as always. - SchroCat (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments edit

My Bond education continues apace. You will see from the article's edit history that I have made a few jabs at the text, all ptretty minor stuff. The main points arising from the review are as follows:

Lead
  • "Mr Big" should be in inverted commas, as in first mention in main text. As a matter of curiosity, is this the first known literary use of "Mr Big" as a desciption of a master villain behind the scenes?
  • No-one has made the claim thsat I can see, so I guess not. (I have a thought that Sapper McNeile may also have used it once or twice, but I may be wrong on that). - SchroCat (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "all of which are a threat" → "all of which are threats"
Plot
  • "girlfriends" by definition do not exclude men from their life. Perhaps a different description?
  • Leiter survives – temporarily, or permanently? The former I guess, but needs clarifying
  • No, it was permanent - and he appears in a couple of later stories - SchroCat (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "outwits" would be better then "tricks"
  • What is a "fiasherma"? Probably a typo for "fisherman", but you never know.
  • Fourth para: You should mention earlier in the para that Bond and Solitaire are still working together, rather than leaving them in St Petersburg
Background
  • Sentence needing attention: "Fleming conducted research for Live and Let Die and completed the novel before Casino Royale was published: in January 1953, still four months before the book was published, Fleming and his wife Ann flew to New York before taking the Silver Meteor train to St. Petersburg in Florida and then on to Jamaica." First, the sentence is far too long, even with the mysterious colon which was probably intended to be a semi. Also, which book does "in January 1953, still four months before the book was published" refer to? As written, this could be either of the two mentioned titles.
  • "following his working practice of the previous year": these words seem redundant as you go on to describe the working practice in detail.
  • I really dislike the description "the academic". It tells the reader nothing beyond the suggestion that he works in a university. Could ne not be described as a literary critic or some such?
Plot inspirations
  • "Much of the novel drew" → "Much of the novel draws"
  • Who was "Tommy Leiter"?
  • "From his Goldeneye home on Jamaica's northern shore, Fleming had visited Port Royal on the south of the island, which was once the home port of Sir Henry Morgan." I'm not sure how this information is relevant to the plot.
Characters
  • "the novelist Raymond Benson, who later wrote a series of Bond novels": I suggest you explain this a bit more, e.g. "the American novelist Raymond Benson, who between 1997 and 2002 wrote a series of Bond novels and short stories". You should also wikilink Raymond Benson.
  • I would combine the first two paragraphs of this section. They are conjoined by "Similarly..."
  • "The relationship between Bond and Quarrel was based on a colonial relationship of Bond's superiority" – there must be a neater way of putting this, avoiding "relationship ... relationship" (the word occurs again in the following sentence). Perhaps "based on a mutual assumption of...", im which case you wouldn't need "which was to be unchallenged by Quarrel".
  • "that if a Scots laird with his head stalker" → "that of a Scots laird with his head stalker"
  • "the academic" again. He could be a litersry analyst
  • "a departure away from" → "a departure from". I found these final sentences somewhat opaque, as a characterisation of Mr Big – perhaps they could be tweaked into more clarity.
Style
  • "thinks that the story had" → "thinks that the story has" (tense consistency)
  • Second paragraph: "considers" is not the best choice of verb. Also, can you look at the second sentence in this para, which appears to be missing a word or two towards the end?
  • Over-elaborate description of Eco; just essayist would suffice
Themes
  • "America was the Soviet objective..." I think you should preface this with "In the book,..."
  • " to outline his views on what saw as..." – definitely something missing
  • Can you be concerned "on" something? Maybe " a subject that concerned both him and his neighbour Noel Coward" would be better?
  • "Bond's briefing also provides an opportunity for Fleming to offer his views through his characters and "M and Bond ... offer their views on the ethnicity of crime, views that reflected ignorance, the inherited racialist prejudices of London clubland"; the academic Jeremy Black has pointed out that "the frequency of his references and his willingness to offer racial stereotypes [was] typical of many writers of his age". A mega-sentence if ever there was one. At the very least, break at the first "and", and I would think also at the semicolon. You also need to clarify whose quotation the statement beginning "M and Bond" is.
  • " opinions shared with Fleming from contacts in the intelligence industry" → " opinions shared by Fleming with the intelligence industry", and place a comma after industry.
  • What is "the Jamaican sphere", other than Jamaica itself?
  • Just "Puertu Rico", not "the Puertu Rico".
  • "avidly anti-communist" seems wrong. Perhaps "avowedly"? In any event, the sentence needs splitting at this point.
  • "in the form of Leiter and Quarrel" should perhaps be "in Bond's relationships with Leiter and Quarrel".
  • The meaning of the second "Friendship" sentence escapes me. Maybe the lack of punctuation is partly the reason, but perhaps a litle redrafting might be in order?
  • "Benson considers the main theme in the book to be evil" – ambiguous as written. Perhaps "Benson considers evil as the main theme of the book".
Publication and reception
  • I don't think it's necesaary to mention O'Reilly, who I imagine was acting on behalf of the censorship board. Thus: "In May 1954, Live and Let Die was banned in Ireland by the Irish Censorship of Publications Board".
  • For how long did the offensive chapter heading remain in the UK editions? Is it still the case?
  • Yes, it's still there - I've added to the footnote. - SchroCat (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Adaptations
  • Did Korda actually show the story to Lean and Reed, or did he just "want to"?
  • The source says he wanted to and goes no further. - SchroCat (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead you specifically mention that the 1973 film was the eighth in the Eon Productions series, but you don't mention the series here. You should do that, and perhaps say a word or two about the series which had, I believe, starred Connery up to that point – although I am not an expert on these things.
  • Connery and Lazenby by then - now added. - SchroCat (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

General note: I am always surprised, when I am the fourth or even fifth peer reviewer, at the number of typos, deficient punctuation, minor syntactical error (e.g. missing words), etc, that I find as I go through. It is astonishing how many of these manage to survive like cockroaches. I can't by any means guarantee that I have picked them all up, and more of course might creep in as the article is amended during the review. All I can advise is that, when the PR is over, you give yourself a couple of days for a long, slow, final read-through, before going to FAC. I invariably do this, and find it generally pays off. Brianboulton (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Huge thanks Brian, both for the tweaks and the extensive comments. I've done all but one or two which I'll think how best to address before PR. Yes, I'll take your last comment on board and give it a few solid read throughs between PR and FAC. Thanks again - SchroCat (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Peer review closed: Many thanks to all who gave their time and thoughts to this. I'll drop you all a note when this goes to FAC in a day or two. Thanks again - SchroCat (talk) 09:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Live_and_Let_Die_(novel)/archive1&oldid=1138563537"