Talk:The Spy Who Loved Me (novel)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Shortest?

The Man With the Golden Gun is around ten pages shorter, isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.212.84 (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

I guess I don't understand what this means:

As a result, for British readers who never purchased the 1962 hardcover edition, The Spy Who Loved Me, not The Man with the Golden Gun, was their final Fleming James Bond novel.

Can you explain this a little better please? K1Bond007 18:42, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe there's a better way of putting it. What I meant was that many British readers never saw the 1962 release of the novel. The paperback release occured after Man with the Golden Gun and the Octopussy paperback collection. So for many readers in the UK, Spy who Loved Me (for better or for worse) was the last "new" Ian Fleming Bond work they ever saw. (Feel free to reword all that! ;-) ). 23skidoo 23:57, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I think I get it. Perhaps it should be reworded a little. K1Bond007 03:32, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Do not split the article

I oppose splitting the article into separate film and novel articles, as well as a needless separate article for the novel. It works fine as a cohesive whole. If the decision is made to split the novelisation off, it needs to be sent to the title James Bond, The Spy Who Loved Me as this is the correct title of the work. 23skidoo 12:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Each seperate piece of art needs a seperate article. See Revenge of the Sith ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 00:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

But the section just isn't big enough to have its own article, and there's no way it could be expanded without including OR, POV or anything else that Wikipedia does not want or need. Double Dash 18:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Which section? The novel by Fleming or the novelisation by Wood? We can build an article off of Fleming's novel easily - I could anyway. Not so sure about the novelisation - not right now. Too short and I can't recall all the differences. K1Bond007 03:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

References in other films

While I'll grant the possibility of Dr. No being inspired by Spy Who Loved Me's "pillow trick" scene (though I think the film was shot before the novel came out), suggesting that a shower scene in A View to a Kill was in any way inspired by SWLM is utterly NN so I have removed it. If someone can provide a good source to suggest that it did inspire the scene, please feel free to put the reference back. Another reference worth adding (but I need to find the book where it's mentioned) is that Jaws was apparently inspired by a character in the original novel who had steel teeth. I need to confirm that one before adding, however. 23skidoo (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Another connection to Dr No. Chapter 7 of The Spy Who Loved Me (Novel) is titled "Come into my Parlour.." while Chapter 14 of Dr No is the same.

Suggested Move

Since most the the other James Bond novel articles are titled name of book (novel), shouldn't this article be The Spy Who Loved Me (novel) because there was a movie too. Emperor001 (talk) 02:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If no one responds soon, I will move this article. Emperor001 (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:FlemingTSWLM.jpg

Image:FlemingTSWLM.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Logical quotation

There is a disagreement over the placement of the full stop in the following sentence:

Writing in The Observer, Maurice Richardson described the tale as "a new and regrettable if not altogether unreadable variation", going on to lament: "I hope this doesn't spell the total eclipse of Bond in a blaze of cornography."

MOS:LQ states: "Where a quotation is a sentence and coincides with the end of the sentence containing it, terminal punctuation should normally be placed inside the closing quotation mark. Where the quotation is a single word or fragment, terminal punctuation should be placed outside."

Unfortunately, the Internet archives of The Observer do not go back to 1962, and I do not have ready access to the 15 April 1962 edition of this newspaper. However, there are only two possibilities. Either Richardson's sentence began with "I" and ended with "cornography" or it didn't. If the quote does match Richardson's sentence, by MOS:LQ the full stop goes inside the close quote.

Suppose Richardson's original sentence were something like, "Furthermore, I hope this doesn't spell the total eclipse of Bond in a blaze of cornography, because I detest corn." In that case, the quotation would still be a sentence, but not Richardson's sentence, and I would recommend revising as follows:

going on to lament: "... I hope this doesn't spell the total eclipse of Bond in a blaze of cornography...."

If someone has the 15 April 1962 edition of The Observer, or a reliable quotation of this piece, we can determine if any ellipses are required. Until then, I believe MOS:LQ calls for placing the full stop in quotes, because the quotation is a sentence, even if it is not the exact sentence written by Richardson.

I realize that other editors may have other views on this matter, and I am open to new understanding of this issue. I promise to make any further comments as brief as possible. — Anomalocaris (talk) 00:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't try and re-write the rules to fit with your bizarre interpretation. Simple rule of thumb: if you don't have a source, don't dick around with the quotes. - SchroCat (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I would be inclined to think the quoted sentence ended there, unless the person who originally entered the quote indicated otherwise by putting the period outside. Dicklyon (talk) 03:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

(ec) SchroCat, you're being less than civil. I suggest that you confine your comments to the matter being discussed rather than commenting on another's editing. By your own criterion: do you have a source for your edits? —Quondum 03:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The extant version remains, which is right and proper. I am being civil: I am tired of trying to explain the basics of this to someone who keeps inventing new rules for a very old form of punctuation. Inventing rules isn't civil; asking people not to do so is not uncivil. Dicklyon, it's not just about whether the sentance ends there: it's about where it begins too. - SchroCat (talk) 05:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Sentance tweaked: the problem is no more. Time to move on to more useful things. - SchroCat (talk) 06:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Your version of what constitutes being civil differs from mine. Phrases like "your bizarre interpretation" and "don't dick around" seem utterly inappropriate; you have also failed to adhere to the WP guideline in that you have failed to make your reasons clear, for example about what rules are supposedly being invented. A perfectly simple response, if you have a source, would have been to say that the sentence in question was actually a fragment. This is what talk pages are for. In this thread, you come across as someone whose sole purpose is to express irritation at another editor, and not to reach a mutual understanding. Editing in WP does take time and energy to keep the multiple collaborators on the same page. If you are so "tired of trying to explain" that you fail to explain or even point to relevant people such as me to review, then perhaps it is time to take a break to enjoy the festive season? —Quondum 14:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

As this is something the other editor is incapable of taking on board, I am happy with my response. My irritation is because I have had to deal with the same point on several pages. It is not my sole purpose, just as it is not my sole purpose to listen to tedious civilty lectures by people who do not see a bigger picture than one tiny fragment of a thread. Your lecture isn't helping, and has brought no constructive clarity to the situation which is, as I hae indicated above, a problem that no longer exists. Time to be productive elsewhere, methinks. - SchroCat (talk) 14:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)q

Minor character

"..Jack Donaldson, a friend of Fleming's wife" is almost certainly Jack Donaldson, Baron Donaldson of Kingsbridge. When I have time I will go over the source for clarification. Harfarhs (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SpyWhoLovedMeNovel.jpg

Image:SpyWhoLovedMeNovel.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Moisejp (talk · contribs) 23:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I will be reviewing this article for GA. It may take up to a week for me to finish the review. Moisejp (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi again! Good to see you back. Looking forward to the review again. - SchroCat (^ • @) 05:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

No disambiguation links or linkrot. Moisejp (talk) 05:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Good prose, although I had some concerns re. points below

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The sources all seem reliable. No evidence of OR. I couldn't check the books themselves, but I assume good faith.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Covers the topic well.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   NPOV.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No edit wars.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The one image has a FUR and suitable caption.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Some comments:

• Like for Octopussy and The Living Daylights, I believe there are a number of books in the bibliography that aren't referenced—if you wanted, you could move them to a Further Reading section. Also, the McLusky et al. Horak link in References seems not to work again.

• Done them both - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• So, is the book split up into Me, Them, and Him sections? If so, this should maybe be explicitly stated in the lead and at the beginning of the Plot summary section.

• Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• On my computer, the green box with the quote from the prologue overlaps over regular text.

• Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• By America, do you been the United States, or North America (is Viv just traveling in the US, or in the US and Canada)? Either way, it would be better to be precise about that.

• Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• I wonder if some of the details in Background could be excised, or if some of the sentences could be otherwise shortened, e.g.,

"Similarly, he took incidents from his own life and used them in the novel and Vivienne Michel's seduction in a box in a Windsor cinema mirrors Fleming's loss of virginity in the same establishment, the Royalty Kinema, Windsor. --> either remove mention of "the Royal Kinema" (is it important?) or shorten to "Vivienne Michel's seduction in a box in the Royal Kinema movie house, Windsor, mirrors Fleming's loss of virginity in the same establishment"—if it were me, I'd cut "the Royal Kinema", though, unless you have a reason it's important.

• Done (although not using the US term "movie house"!- SchroCat (^ • @) 09:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

"A colleague at The Sunday Times, Robert Harling, gave his name to a printer at a "steam-age jobbing printers in Pimlico",[12] while one of the stories told by the publisher at the printers involves a bus conductor named Frank Donaldson: the name of one of Fleming's wife's friends who was staying with the couple when Fleming was writing the novel was Jack Donaldson." --> "A colleague at The Sunday Times, Robert Harling, gave his name to a printer in the story, while another minor character, Frank Donaldson, was named after Jack Donaldson, a friend of Fleming's wife." Some of the other details don't seem as important to me, but you may disagree.

• Done; I've left in the details as they show how Fleming was a bit of a magpie - picking up details from all over his life to fill his stories. It's the same level of available detail in the other Bond articles, so when read altogether a really full, rich picture comes up. - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Reviews: So, just to confirm, all the reviews you could find were negative?

• Yep - sadly this was seen as a woeful novel, partly because it was so different from all the other Bond novels. - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• I would consider cutting the Mickey Spillane comparison review. I didn't know who he was, though I found out from Wikipedia. But even if someone does now who he is, the "as if [he] had tried to gatecrash his way into the Romantic Novelists' Association" will likely not be clear.

• Sadly done! - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• I find the last two sentences contradictory: "The only elements from the novel that are used in the film are the character of James Bond (along with his MI6 associates) and the title.[29] Although Fleming had insisted that no film should contain anything of the plot of the novel, the steel-toothed character of Horror was included, although under the name Jaws." In the first of the two you say the Bond and the title are the only elements, but in the last sentence you say there was another element. I tried to think of an easy way to change it, but I think it may require changing the first of the two sentences.
  

• Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I think that is about all I noticed. Moisejp (talk) 05:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• All done, I think! Let me know if there's anything I've missed or anything you want me to look at again. - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Lookin' good! Congrats on another very nice Good Article. Moisejp (talk) 04:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SpyWhoLovedMeNew.jpg

Image:SpyWhoLovedMeNew.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Strenuous

Currently we have this: Fleming found writing the Bond novels increasingly strenuous and I'm just having a little worry about "strenuous". This might be just me, and if told to stfu about it I will probably comply ... but to me it sounds maybe a little too far along the spectrum towards physical effort. Closer to weightlifting than thinking/plotting/typing. I wondered about looking for a different word which to me would be a bit further along the line towards intellectual effort. Could it be stressful, arduous, difficult, challenging, demanding, taxing, laborious ... exhausting?? Yes, some of those words are indeed a bit rubbish, well spotted Tamsin. But something like that? Meh, dunno. Educate me. Best to all, DBaK (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. I went with arduous, which I think probably best sums up his approach at this point. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Brilliant, thank you. DBaK (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Guineas

I made a couple of changes to the bit mentioning guineas in the designer's fee. Please have a look and see my ESs for the rationale – I'm happy to discuss. Hope this helps. DBaK (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)