Talk:The James Bond Dossier

Fair use rationale for Image:JamesBondDossier.jpg

Image:JamesBondDossier.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) 22:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Re. Mhazard's recent changes

Thankyou for your recent work on this article, Mhazard9. Some of your edits I have retained. Others I take issue with as I explain below. ‘Per biographer Zachary Leader’, I have changed to ‘according to biographer Zachary Leader’. ‘Per’ is an abbreviation as in ‘as per instructions’ and should not be used as a substitute for normal locutions. I have also removed a ‘per’ in ‘The ‘Dossier’ section. As Fowler’s Modern English Usage tells us, ‘it is affected to use Latin when English will serve as well’.

In the ‘History’ section I have added ‘several’ to ‘motives’. Everybody has motives for doing things. Your version, in merely telling us that Amis had ‘motives’, therefore, doesn’t really tell us anything. Adding ‘several’ anticipates the catalogue of motives outlined in the following sentences.

I have removed the references to Buchan, Sapper and Dornford Yates. We need a reference documenting that Amis had these writers specifically in mind. I’m not sure that Buchan’s work falls into the ‘standard disposable thriller’ category anyway.

I have changed ‘He reported that the manuscript was publishable, but would require developing the characters, plot, and motives’, to, ‘He reported that the manuscript was publishable, but would require substantial modification’. If you have a reference that details Amis’s specific objections, please add it. Otherwise we have no evidence that it was ‘characters, plot, and motives’ that Amis had a problem with.

I have changed ‘Because Amis was not the only writer consulted , it remains controversial if his editorial suggestions were implemented, and the extent of his direct contributions to the manuscript revision’. This has a hanging phrase and is therefore not a sentence. I have changed it to ‘Because Amis was not the only person consulted by Jonathan Cape on this issue, there is some controversy over whether Amis's suggestions were implemented by the publishers, and to what extent Amis himself contributed directly to the revision of the manuscript.’

I have changed ‘work designation’ to ‘designation’. I don’t see what ‘work’ adds here.

In ‘Critical Endeavours’ I have changed ‘a collection of essays which discuss the morality in the Bond stories’, to, ‘a collection of essays which discuss ethical and moral issues relevant to the Bond stories’. The latter, I think suggests a broad-based discussion of ethical matters, which is what the book is about, whereas the former implies a narrower focus on moral licentiousness.Welham66 (talk) 02:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Welham66:

I concur with you, and have added the requisite citations and supported text. I defer to your stylistic anti-Latinist stance, because I am polyglot (English, Spanish, French, German), thus, it might be unfair to write so here. As a writer, I think “according to . . . ” locutions are an unimaginative narrative short cut (graceless newspaper style), my preference is integrated quotations, for a seamless narration. Although I mostly agree with the first and second Fowler’s editions, and especially like K.A.’s witty The King’s English: A Guide to Modern Usage, foreign usages work when English diction fails. Usually, I presume an educated reader, as did K.A.

Moreover, I am surprised to hear (decades since Catholic elementary school) a usage of “moral” as exclusively denoting “sexual licence”. For agreement, I reduced the description to ethical, because that word comprehends both denotations, and is unambiguous. Fair enough?

QUESTION: Are you considering writing an entry about The King’s English: A Guide to Modern Usage? I ask because your command of the subject makes you appear more of an Amis reader, than a Fleming reader. Let me know, I would like to collaborate with you, if it is the case.

Best regards, Mhazard9 (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Mhazard9. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on some of this. Re. the Amis 'Modern Usage' book. I haven't read it and don't have a copy of it (one of the few Amis titles I'm not familiar with). Thankyou for your invitation but I think I will have to leave such projects to grammarians such as yourself. Welham66 (talk) 05:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)