Talk:Casino Royale (novel)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Casino Royale (novel) has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic star Casino Royale (novel) is part of the Ian Fleming's James Bond novels and stories series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
WikiProject Novels (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject James Bond (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject James Bond, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of James Bond on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Conflict in text[edit]

This line removed: "Some sources have suggested that this was intended as a pilot for a potential Bond TV series starring Nelson." because in the opening lines of this same section it states that a TV series was the reason for the pilot in which Barry Nelson was the star! I guess the conflict came in due to constant editing by different people adding different bits, which means that the entire article should be read again to see if more of this confusion appears in the body.

MI6 or British Secret Service?[edit]

In my readings of the novels over many years, Bond always works for the British Secret Service. This seems to have morphed into MI6 in the more recent movies. Surely when discussing the original novels we should stick with the Secret Service?

Same difference. The British Secret Intelligence Service is MI6. - SchroCat (^@) 11:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Removed section[edit]

I've removed the following, which seems to me be be a bit of overkill really...

The following is a list of English language editions of Casino Royale;

  • Casino Royale (1953 first edition)
  • Casino Royale (1954)
  • Publisher: Macmillan
  • Hardcover
  • United States
  • You Asked For It (1955)
  • Casino Royale (1955)
  • Casino Royale (1960)
  • Casino Royale (1964)
  • Casino Royale (1971)
  • Casino Royale (1978)
  • Publisher: Granada
  • Paperback
  • UK
  • Casino Royale (1979)
  • Publisher: Chivers Press
  • Hardcover
  • UK
  • Large print edition
  • Casino Royale (1980)
  • Publisher: Jove Books
  • Paperback
  • US
  • Casino Royale (1982)
  • Publisher: Berkeley Books
  • Paperback
  • US
  • Casino Royale (1987)
  • Publisher: Charter Books
  • Paperback
  • US
  • Casino Royale (1987)
  • Publisher: Berkeley Books
  • Paperback
  • US
  • Casino Royale (1988)
  • Publisher: Coronet
  • Paperback
  • UK
  • Casino Royale (2002)
  • Casino Royale (2002)
  • Publisher: Penguin Books
  • Paperback
  • UK
  • Casino Royale, Live and Let Die, Moonraker (2003) [Omnibus volume][1]
  • Casino Royale (2004)
  • Casino Royale (2006)
  • Publisher: Penguin Books
  • Paperback
  • UK
  • Casino Royale (2006)
  • Publisher: Penguin Books
  • Paperback
  • UK
  • Casino Royale (2008)
  • Publisher: Penguin 007
  • Hardcover
  • UK

After 2002, all English language editions of Casino Royale have been published by Penguin Books, or an imprint of Penguin. [2]

If anyone really wants it back in, then please let me know, but this does seem to be unsourced and a little excessive, as well as only being a record of the UK publications and not global ones... - SchroCat (^@) 10:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Casino Royale (novel)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk contribs count) 10:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Still one of my fave Bond novels, but I'll try not to let that influence me to be either too hard or too easy in this review... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

That's great, cheers Ian! Annoyingly I'm away from Sat 17 until Tuesday 20 and then from 26th to Oct 1, but I'll update in between and when I return - I hope this is OK! Cheers - SchroCat (^@) 10:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Technical review

  • Dab links: None (no action required)
  • External links: Some warnings only (no action required)
  • Alt text: Not present (not strictly required however)

Prose/content

  • Performed a copyedit for grammar and to cut some repeated words, however still some things I'd like you to look at:
    • Style point first off: unless you something I don't about MOS (entirely possible, BTW!), why have the quotes from Fleming and Benson in italics? Suggest using the same formatting as the passage from the book re. the vodka martini.
    • I think you're quoting excessively (except in the Reception section, where quoting directly from reviewers is appropriate). While I understand the temptation to quote because the source expresses things in a neat way and/or you don't want to just change a word or two and risk being accused of plagiarism or close paraphrasing, too much can look a bit lazy. I'd suggest you go over everything before the Reception section and see if you can't put into your own words more of the things you're quoting. No need to eliminate all of them, particularly if the source is a notable person or the quote is really apt, but try to achieve a better balance between your words and your sources'.
    • In the Reception section there are too many instaces of "so-and-so thought..." There are variations you can use for "thought", such as "considered", "felt", "believed", or "opined". You could also say "according to so-and-so..." or "in so-and-so's opinion..." Of course that doesn't mean you can only use "thought" once, but try to sprinkle some of these other terms in there between them...
  • I notice you have other Bond novels up for GAN, so suggest you consider reviewing them and perhaps rejigging based on the above points, when this nom is complete.
All Yes check.svg Done - I'll follow up with the subsequent novels over the weekend and then when I'm back online as I'm out of internet range for the week - SchroCat (^@) 23:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks mate. Made a few more changes myself but happy with your additions and with changes to wording in the review section. Re. the quotes, I think the balance is much better now, and you've still managed to keep most of the best ones intact. However I believe you should attibute those you have left -- not necessarily the ones of only a couple of words, but the more extended ones. You've done this with the quote by Lycett at the beginning of Characters and themes; suggest you do it for all the authors of your longer quotes as well. Yes check.svg Done I think I should have covered them all now, but please let me know if I've missed one (or doubled up on one!) Cheers - SchroCat (^@) 13:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Okay, tks mate. Heh, I realise now that where you attribute a quote to notable person (i.e. one with a linked WP article), and especially to a very well known one (e.g. Hitchins or Amis), you may not need to identify them with a profession. Sorry I didn't clarify that before -- I'd say leave the ones you've done except for Amis -- he's famous enough...!
I'll leave them in - including Amis - as with the standards of modern education I'm sure he's not mentioned outside university courses nowadays! ;) - SchroCat (^@) 14:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Not a problem... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Another thing I noticed first time round but forgot to highlight here was Childhood friend Brett Hart was the basis for the novel, including a trip to Lisbon that Fleming and the Director of Naval Intelligence, Admiral Godfrey, took during World War II en route to the United States. -- This is phrased awkwardly; how is Hart the basis for the novel? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done Thought I'd cleared that one before as it is a legacy from before my edits: now re-written and (hopefully) clearer. - SchroCat (^@) 13:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
  • That helped, though it still needed a bit of finetuning...! Also there seems to be a contradiction. If Fleming claimed that he was cleaned out, and Admiral Godfrey said this was fantasy, shouldn't the last bit be "...Fleming only played Portuguese businessmen and that afterwards he fantasised about German agents and the excitement of being cleaned out by them", rather than "cleaning them out"? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Sort of, but I may have convoluted the telling of it: Fleming claimed to have played Nazi spies and lost. Godfrey said F played Portuguese businessmen and lost, but that subsequently F had fantasised about beating Nazi spies. - SchroCat (^@) 14:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Mmm. I think then better just say "...Fleming only played Portuguese businessmen and that afterwards he fantasised about German agents" and stop there -- I'm just concerned that others will see this as an error in the article if you leave in the contradictory "cleaning them out", even it it's in the source... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done - SchroCat (^@) 16:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Structure

  • Seems to follow the broad requirements of the MOS for novel articles.

Referencing

  • You seem to have used a broad range of sources and cited them meticulously, which is great.
  • I'm a little dubious about commanderbond.net as sole reference for the unproduced stage play. While it's not a huge deal at GA level, it would come under deeper scrutiny at FAC -- couldn't a more obviously reliable source be found?
Yes check.svg Done (sort of!) I've left it in there for the quote, but added a cite from Benson's own site as well as back-up
  • That's fine by me for the purposes of this review, at least, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Supporting materials

  • Fair use seems applicable for the sole image used, i.e. first edition cover.

Summary

  • This is a nice effort with good depth of research. If you can look to the comments above, particularly the over-quoting and the wording re. what reviewers "thought", I'm sure I'll have no problem passing for GA in due course. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  • The use of Template:Rquote does not conform to the 'Template documentation' which says "This template should not be used for block quotations in article text." and goes on to recommend more appropriate templates to use. maclean (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done - SchroCat (^@) 23:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Okay, happy to pass this now, tks for all your hard work, Schro! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
That's great - many thanks Ian for your help - nice review process to! - SchroCat (^@) 17:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

bond's original name[edit]

The protagonist was originally supposed to be named James Secretan. Pls add that info from here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2309144/The-names-Secretan--James-Secretan-Early-Ian-Fleming-draft-reveals-nearly-chose-different-007.html?ito=feeds-newsxml ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 13:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Reading the article, his first cover name was supposed to be Secretan. His name was still Bond to friends and coworkers. DonQuixote (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

John Dee and 007[edit]

I've just seen that this is in here, having removed it from the Dee page (where it had previously been removed) - please see my comments there. But the problem is this: it's clearly a hoax. There are no credible sources for it. They all lead back, eventually, to a writer called Richard Deacon, aka Donald McCormick. There's no evidence for it anywhere else. It has been comprehensively debunked in this article: http://www.jwmt.org/v2n19/golden.html McCormick was also a proven hoaxer on Jack The Ripper. I've also shown, in some depth, how he was responsible for several other hoaxes about James Bond in this article on my blog: http://jeremyduns.blogspot.se/2011/02/licence-to-hoax.html This idea, like his ones about Ian Fleming having an affair with Christine Granville and luring Hess to Scotland, is so persistent because it's so wonderfully attractive. Here's just one recent internet discussion showing how drawn people can be to the idea: http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/6769/john-dee-the-original-007 Unless someone can provide a credible source that doesn't lead back to McCormick that shows a letter or document written by Dee using the symbol I suggest as an encyclopedia we leave it out for good, and don't continue to perpetuate this myth just because it sounds cool. Can I get a consensus on this? Jeremy Duns (talk) 23:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

If nobody objects, I'll edit out the stuff on Dee shortly, as per my explanation in the above paragraph. Jeremy Duns (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Three dubiously reliable sources against the University of Cambridge? - SchroCat (talk) 12:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Sigh... Hello, SchroCat. What are the 'three dubiously reliable sources'? Did you really read what I wrote above carefully before chiming in? Did you read the links I gave? Please also read my comments at the John Dee Talk page, where I deal with that UoC online news article. And take a closer look at the UoC article - the source is given as Deacon, aka McCormick. Plenty of reputable media and institutions have been fooled by him on this (and several other matters). But there's no credible evidence for it.
Would you also mind signing your name next time, and perhaps being a little more civil and constructive when you do? Thanks. Jeremy Duns (talk) 07:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Sigh? Are you 12? If not, then cut the uncivil nonsense and try and be a lot less condescending when you deal with others please. A fansite and a blog are not classed as reliable sources. The University of Cambridge is. I will admit that I have not looked into the background of whether the Journal of the Western Mystery Tradition should be considered a reliable source or not. I will look more closely at the UoC posting and the JWMT later. - SchroCat (talk) 08:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
A sigh is not uncivil. Not bothering to check anything before dismissing it really is! I was being very restrained, considering the pattern of your comments. I haven't cited a fansite to refute McCormick's claim. If you had read what I actually wrote, rather than just jumping to contradict me at every turn, you'll discover that rather than suggesting the fansite discussion disproved this idea that John Dee used '007', I actually linked to it to show how attractive people find this fabricated idea. You just saw that I had made a comment and wanted to catch me out. You didn't even *read* the comment, let alone the links. You just spotted I'd used three urls and that one of them was for a fansite. You didn't read what I had written about it, which was not in evidence against this claim but to show how often it's taken as true by fans, and so easily spreads, but thought 'Oooh, he's cited MI6! Got him!' and so immediately objected that I was using an unreliable source. Both your comments above prove you didn't even read mine. That's both astonishingly bad faith and sloppy. Please actually *read comments before criticizing them*.
The Journal of the Western Mystery Tradition is not something I'd ever heard of before I looked at McCormick, but it is cited on various Wikipedia entries. It's also just clear from reading the article - an extraordinary idea! But try it - that it's authoritative and right on this. The alternative would be that someone has falsely debunked it, which is possible, but common sense suggests infinitessimally unlikely, especially as McCormick is known to have been a hoaxer on other topics.
UoC is generally a reliable source, yes, but that is a news item on their webpage, not an academic article, and respected sources can get things wrong, and be fooled by clever hoaxers. There is the Journal debunking this and my own debunking of other aspects of his journalism suggesting a pattern of deception (yes, it is on my blog, but I'm a published author and have some expertise in this area - incidentally, Andrew Lycett has been very kind about that article and said it was about time someone pulled McCormick up on his fabrications).
But even if you ignore both of those, this is a very odd thing to have in an article about the novel Casino Royale anyway! If it were true, I'd suggest moving it to the James Bond character page, where there's already a redirect for people searching for '007'. But to do that, and to keep it here, someone needs to provide a credible source that doesn't lead back to McCormick that shows a letter or document written by Dee using the symbol. But, please trust me, nobody is going to be able to do that, because if you put down your knife for a moment and realize I know my onions, and read my article on my blog, you'll see that, yes, McCormick has fabricated several very plausible-seeming and attractive ideas about Fleming and James Bond, and that they have been perpetuated unthinkingly by a lot of otherwise reliable sources, and by Wikipedia. And if you put your pride down about the fact you have had to restore all the edits of mine you've objected to so far, and we have not got on at all, and instead we work together, like Crowe and Pearce in that great scene in LA Confidential, we could actually take a wrecking ball to a lot of nonsense, and stop just retaining things because they sound cool and a few otherwise reliable sources have fallen for them, but look deeper, look to see if primary sources even exist, use common sense, be bold, and improve the information here. Or you can continue to try to catch me out. But I haven't been wrong yet, and it's really a sunny day. It would be great to spend some of it outdoors rather than having to argue with you about things you haven't checked yet! Jeremy Duns (talk) 08:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)