Talk:Casino Royale (novel)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Casino Royale (novel) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
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.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 13, 2015.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
September 23, 2011 Good article nominee Listed
April 17, 2012 Good topic candidate Promoted
February 14, 2015 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article
WikiProject Novels (Rated FA-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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-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 FA-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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Unofficial PR[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Tim riley, Brianboulton‎, Dr. Blofeld, Cassianto, As I already have something at PR at the moment, I cannot start a second one, so would you gents mind commenting on this article, which I've given a dust up and re-write recently. I think it may be there-or-thereabouts for an FA, but any and all comments would be appreciated. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Gladly. I've got two other (formal) PRs already on my to-do list but will be here as soon as I can. Tim riley talk 21:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Comments from Tim riley

Not much from me:

  • Titles of newspapers: "the Daily Express" and "the Daily Mail" but "The Sunday Times". Consistency wanted.
  • You've got Blanchard's advice in twice.
  • "He used well-known brand names and everyday details to support a sense of realism" – according to Rupert Hart-Davis, a close friend of Peter Fleming, it wasn't so much the sense of realism as blatant product placement: "when Ian Fleming mentions any particular food, clothing or cigarettes in his books, the makers reward him with presents in kind … Ian's are the only modern thrillers with built-in commercials."
    • The Waller ref is fine, but if you prefer I can substitute the original source. Tim riley talk 22:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
      • That would be great if you could, thanks! - SchroCat (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Semiotician" – blue link wanted, I think. Being semi-idiotic I can never remember what the word means.
  • "I thought by God, (James Bond) is" – square not rounded brackets wanted here, I'd say.
  • "both American singer Hoagy Carmichael" – false title, my bête noir.
  • "learns not to do his job because of principals" – I think you mean "principles" here.

That's my lot. This is a fine article, beautifully researched. Tim riley talk 11:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Many thanks, Tim! It's hugely appreciated, as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Lead feels heavy on the adaptations, light on the creative process
  • "The bitch is dead now." - As a direct quotation, should be referenced
  • Chemin de Fer - worth a link?
  • slice in two the testicles of British wartime agents - slice the testicles ... in half, perhaps?
  • Is the price really necessary? Most of our FAs on literature don't include it
  • 4,728 copies of Casino Royale were printed, selling out in less than a month - shouldn't start a sentence with a numeral
  • a breathtaking plot - schoolboy stuff - isn't this rather inconsistent?
  • Casino Royale was the first James Bond novel to be adapted as a daily comic strip which was published in The Daily Express and syndicated worldwide. - ambiguous whether or not this is "the first James Bond novel to be adapted as a daily comic strip" or "the first James Bond novel to be adapted as a daily comic strip published in The Daily Express and syndicated worldwide". Suggest restructuring — Crisco 1492 (talk)
  • Cheers Crisco - much appreciated. All done, bar the lead, which I'll work on shortly, per your suggestion. - SchroCat (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • (subscription needed) is generally not part of the title. We have templates like {{Subscription required}} which can be used. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I figured that as the article was that good and because of Tim and Crisco's irritatingly good comments, it would be easier to give things a light copy edit instead of posting my measly nitpickings! Just one observation: What are the rules of past and present tense? Personally, I'm a fan of using the former, but I may be completeley wrong in doing so. Do we go on the fact that whoever we are talking about is dead or alive? I have also left a few hidden comments, just in case you missed them. Feel free to adopt or disregard at your leisure; you've done the article much justice in your revamp. Nice job! CassiantoTalk 20:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Cheers Cass - and good to see you back again (hopefully permanently!) I'll have a spin through for your comments and mull over the past/present tense - it's always a balance between common sense and consistency, but we'll see what the FAC reviewers make of things! Cheers, as always - SchroCat (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • non im timere, I'm hoping for mid-March, but even then it could be delayed until June. I'll still be about for small things though. CassiantoTalk 09:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Comments from Brianboulton
  • Lead
  • May I suggest that, to avoid the intrusive quote marks around "Secret Service", you introduce your protagonist as "the British secret agent James Bond" – which also confirms Bond's nationality among the varied cosmopolitan cast that you then introduced
  • If it's possible, I'd get rid of "in order to", which always blights good prose.
  • I'd say "reflected" rather thsn "included" many of Fleming's personal tastes.
  • Rather than "was adapted as a comic strip" I'd say "has appeared as...", which standardises the tenses and avoids the "adapted" repetition
  • All done. – SchroCat (talk) 09:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Plot
  • Slightly bemused by the citation – they don't normally appear in plot synopses
  • That's true for the summary in general, but quotes (which should only be used sparingly) should probably carry a citation. - SchroCat (talk) 09:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Background and writing
  • Perhaps too much "background". The stuff about Fleming's wartime service, and his postwar employment with Kemsleys, is germane to the novel's subject matter and therefore fine, but I can't see much relevance in Ann Charteris's convoluted affairs, and I recommend you take the scissors to most of this detail.
  • Instead, a few words about how Fleming acquired Goldeneye might be more appropriate, since he wrote all his books there.
  • "Describing the work as his "dreadful oafish opus", Fleming had his manuscript re-typed in London by Joan Howe..." This is one of those sentence constructions that used to rouse the ire of Tony1. It's an elision of two unrelated events: Fleming's deprecation of his work, and Miss Howe's typing of it. Various alternatives would work – here's just one: "Back in London, Fleming had his manuscript—which he described as his "dreadful oafish opus"—retyped by Joan Howe..." (Note: no hyphen in "retyped")
  • "partially based" → "partly based"?
  • Style
  • "Benson" needs introductory info. Actually, he has a WP article so you can link him
  • Yap, done (and a very nice chap he is too: I had a chat with him after he complained about my inclusion of an incorrect quote about his books) - SchroCat (talk) 09:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Plot inspirations
  • Chemin-de-fer capitalised? (Would you, for example, write Poker rather than poker, or "Roulette"?)
  • Characters
  • Again I find the quotes round "Secret Service" distracting. I suppose the point is that there is no actual organisation that holds this title. But it is a popular nickname for the Intelligence services, and I'd be inclined to de-quote it.
  • "Lycett sees much of Bond's character as being much "wish fulfilment" by Fleming" – rephrase to avoid "much...much"
  • "...Aleister Crowley, whose physical features are similar to Le Chiffre's" Hmm, Crowley was a real person – whose physical features were similar to those of a fictitious one? Needs turning round, e.g. "...Aleister Crowley, on whose physical features Fleming based Le Chiffre's". I would end the overlong sentence at this point, and continue: "Crowley's tastes, especially in sado-masochism, were also ascribed to Le Chiffre; as Fleming's biographer Henry Chancellor notes, "when Le Chiffre goes to work on Bond's testicles with a carpet-beater and a carving knife, the sinister figure of Aleister Crowley is there lurking in the background."
  • Yes, all done - SchroCat (talk) 09:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Britain's position in the world
  • Could you check the wording of the Woolacott/Bennett quote? It's the words "imaginary power" that make nonsense of the sentence as it stands.
  • Embarrassing misquote now corrected. - SchroCat (talk) 09:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Anglo-American relations
  • "Black" needs proper introduction
  • I'm not sure which four MI6 operatives had defected at this point, but my main problem with this paragraph is again the question of fiction versus fact. The relationship between Bond and Leiter was fictional; to say it was "not mirrored in the wider US-UK association" appears to give it factual status. I would reword: "...did not reflect the reality of the US-UK relationship".
  • The Amis quotation, despite the ellipses, ought to parse, which it does not at present.
  • All tweaked. (I'll add a footnote to cover who had defected shortly) – SchroCat (talk) 09:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Treachery and fifth columnists
  • "Chancellor sees in Casino Royale that the defections showed the moral ambiguity of the cold war, which was reflected in the novel". I'm not sure that this makes sense as written – I can't figure it out anyway. I think it needs rewriting, perhaps to something simpler, e.g. "Chanceller sees the moral ambiguity of the cold war reflected in the novel".
  • Good versus evil
  • "Benson considered" (past) and Parker "agrees" (present). I'd use the present tense consistentlt; both writers are reasonably contemporary
  • "The subject was also dealt with the academic Beth Butterfield..." A "by" missing?
  • "point of view" → "viewpoint"?
  • More rewriting necessary: "In light of the Bond's conversation" should presumably be "In the light of Bond's conversation". Also, I think "until he learns not to do his job because of principles..." etc would be better as "to the point where he does his job not because of principles, but to pursue personal battles".
  • Yes, all done - SchroCat (talk) 09:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Publication history
  • "hardcover" – isn't the Brit idiom "hardback"? I've not seen "hardcover" in a British publishing context. Also the clash with "cover" in the same line could be avoided.
  • "Fleming himself" – or just "Fleming"?
  • Critical reception
  • The verb "critique" is not normally used in the sphere of book criticism, more in the evaluation of research papers etc, so I'd reconsider this usage.
  • All sorted now – SchroCat (talk) 09:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Adaptations
  • Just a couple of minor observations. Your account of the perigrinations of the film rights doesn't say how Sony came by them. And finally, if the Craig film is supposed to depict Bond in his early days, what are we to make of Dame Judi, who inherited the M role relative late in the film sequence yet assumes it here? There probably isn't any answer to that.
  • There isn't to the second point, no. I suspect a lesser person in the role may have been dropped, but you can't rid yourself of La grande dame Dench lightly. As always with the Bond films, there is a great need for the willing suspension of disbelief! I'll cover the first point shortly, when I've dug up a very useful court report from the states that tracked these things. SchroCat (talk) 09:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, I hope these comments are helful. You can follow in the edit history the several minor amendemnts I've made to the article text. Brianboulton (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks, Brian: hugely helpful, as always. I'll work my way through this and try and cover all your excellent points. Many thanks once again. - SchroCat (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: for "helful" read helpful" Brianboulton (talk) 10:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • All comments now dealt with as best I can: a huge debt of thanks to all who took part. – SchroCat (talk) 11:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


This article is now at FAC. All comments and thoughts are welcome there. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


Congratulations to all the contributors to this featured article. You deserve a lot of applause, recognition and appreciation. What a interesting and wonderful article.

  Bfpage |leave a message  11:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)