According to John Griswold in his Annotations and Chronologies, the Lilly Library does not have a manuscript for TMWTGG.
He also says that The Letters of Kingsley Amis edited by Zachary Leader contains detailed information about Amis' involvement in a letter to Tom Maschler (editorial director at Jonathan Cape) dated 5th October 1964.
I'm researching (and writing) something on Kingsley Amis' Colonel Sun and I was wondering if anyone else had heard the rumour that it was supposedly Fleming's 15th novel finished after his death?
Has anyone else ever read this (provably false) rumour anywhere just out of interest?
If you can remember where you read it, that would be great too!
Thanks,
SM. -{
The only thing I have heard of was the scrapbook that was bought by Fleming estate.
"And if I told you that I'm from the Ministry of Defence?" James Bond - The Property of a Lady
In case anyone hasn't read about this on the other forums, the rumor of Amis completing TMWTGG has just received a stake through the heart.
On December 13th Sotheby auctioned off a corrected typescript of The Man With the Golden Gun for £65,000. As shown in the sample images (http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2016/english-literature-history-childrens-books-illustrations-l16408/lot.166.html), the typescript contains 80 pages bearing Fleming's handwritten revisions. We now know that Fleming added the last two lines of the novel after completing the draft and having it typed up. Those lines are "At the same time, he knew, deep down, that love from Mary Goodnight, or from any other woman, was not enough for him. It would be like taking 'a room with a view'. For James Bond, the same view would always pall."
They are the last lines Fleming ever wrote about James Bond. And they are clearly in Fleming's handwriting, and refute the idea that Kingsley Amis wrote or rewrote the book. We now have undeniable proof that the Fleming had finished a complete draft and was hand-correcting it before his death. Sotheby's also notes the presence of "a single typescript page of suggested corrections by Kingsley Amis that were later adopted in proof." That is likely the extent of Amis's involvement with the manuscript. Case closed.
All that remains to be voiced is the hope that whoever bought this manuscript will allow researchers and scholars to access it and learn how much more Fleming added to the book after drafting it.
In case anyone hasn't read about this on the other forums, the rumor of Amis completing TMWTGG has just received a stake through the heart.
On December 13th Sotheby auctioned off a corrected typescript of The Man With the Golden Gun for £65,000. As shown in the sample images (http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2016/english-literature-history-childrens-books-illustrations-l16408/lot.166.html), the typescript contains 80 pages bearing Fleming's handwritten revisions. We now know that Fleming added the last two lines of the novel after completing the draft and having it typed up. Those lines are "At the same time, he knew, deep down, that love from Mary Goodnight, or from any other woman, was not enough for him. It would be like taking 'a room with a view'. For James Bond, the same view would always pall."
They are the last lines Fleming ever wrote about James Bond. And they are clearly in Fleming's handwriting, and refute the idea that Kingsley Amis wrote or rewrote the book. We now have undeniable proof that the Fleming had finished a complete draft and was hand-correcting it before his death. Sotheby's also notes the presence of "a single typescript page of suggested corrections by Kingsley Amis that were later adopted in proof." That is likely the extent of Amis's involvement with the manuscript. Case closed.
All that remains to be voiced is the hope that whoever bought this manuscript will allow researchers and scholars to access it and learn how much more Fleming added to the book after drafting it.
Thanks for posting, Revelator. In short of your wish for expert analysis (a personal desire I share for all of us who are intrigued by the Amis TMWTGG conundrum), do you think this specific typescript + Flemings handwritten corrections = the final, published version of TMWTGG? By “stake in the heart,” it sounds conclusive but I would love to one day see even a summary from an authoritative analysis of the manuscript.
Regarding your mirror post on the CBN Fleming forum, careful about the forum moderator, Dustin, because he’ll trash any dissenting opinion and if you dare to respond in kind, he’ll suspend your account…not fair in the slightest. The fact that he's actually allowed to moderate there while bullying others is a reflection on the quality of that forum, one where you can literally hear virtual crickets instead of fresh discussions about the Ian Fleming Bond books.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
In case anyone hasn't read about this on the other forums, the rumor of Amis completing TMWTGG has just received a stake through the heart.
On December 13th Sotheby auctioned off a corrected typescript of The Man With the Golden Gun for £65,000. As shown in the sample images (http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2016/english-literature-history-childrens-books-illustrations-l16408/lot.166.html), the typescript contains 80 pages bearing Fleming's handwritten revisions. We now know that Fleming added the last two lines of the novel after completing the draft and having it typed up. Those lines are "At the same time, he knew, deep down, that love from Mary Goodnight, or from any other woman, was not enough for him. It would be like taking 'a room with a view'. For James Bond, the same view would always pall."
They are the last lines Fleming ever wrote about James Bond. And they are clearly in Fleming's handwriting, and refute the idea that Kingsley Amis wrote or rewrote the book. We now have undeniable proof that the Fleming had finished a complete draft and was hand-correcting it before his death. Sotheby's also notes the presence of "a single typescript page of suggested corrections by Kingsley Amis that were later adopted in proof." That is likely the extent of Amis's involvement with the manuscript. Case closed.
All that remains to be voiced is the hope that whoever bought this manuscript will allow researchers and scholars to access it and learn how much more Fleming added to the book after drafting it.
Thanks for posting, Revelator. In short of your wish for expert analysis (a personal desire I share for all of us who are intrigued by the Amis TMWTGG conundrum), do you think this specific typescript + Flemings handwritten corrections = the final, published version of TMWTGG? By “stake in the heart,” it sounds conclusive but I would love to one day see even a summary from an authoritative analysis of the manuscript.
Regarding your mirror post on the CBN Fleming forum, careful about the forum moderator, Dustin, because he’ll trash any dissenting opinion and if you dare to respond in kind, he’ll suspend your account…not fair in the slightest. The fact that he's actually allowed to moderate there while bullying others is a reflection on the quality of that forum, one where you can literally hear virtual crickets instead of fresh discussions about the Ian Fleming Bond books.
Thanks for posting, Revelator. In short of your wish for expert analysis (a personal desire I share for all of us who are intrigued by the Amis TMWTGG conundrum), do you think this specific typescript + Flemings handwritten corrections = the final, published version of TMWTGG? By “stake in the heart,” it sounds conclusive but I would love to one day see even a summary from an authoritative analysis of the manuscript.
I cannot be 100% certain, but I am 99% certain this was the final version of the book. The Sotheby's description also supports this:
noted as the setting copy, autograph revisions in blue ink to about 80 pages, notably the addition two sentences at the end of the novel, and extensive editorial corrections in red, green and black ink, including some further revisions probably added from another typescript, 182 numbered pages, with an additional five pages of preliminaries (half-title, title page, list of Fleming's other books, imprint, and contents page), one leaf cancelled and with the revised text supplied in contemporary photocopy, 4to (255 x 200 mm), June-July 1964, with a single typescript page of suggested corrections by Kingsley Amis that were later adopted in proof, the first page of text with a note from the printer, Richard Clay & Co., requesting the return of marked proofs by 29 December 1964, loose in a red folder; staining to some leaves, some creasing, final leaf torn without loss
Even if this typescript was not the final version (and the description suggests the publishers thought it was) it was close enough--the sample pages show that Fleming had written a complete draft whose text, alongside his handwritten corrections, matches the final published text. I think that is the clincher. All Amis could have contributed were notes and suggestions--no massive changes.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
Thanks for posting, Revelator. In short of your wish for expert analysis (a personal desire I share for all of us who are intrigued by the Amis TMWTGG conundrum), do you think this specific typescript + Flemings handwritten corrections = the final, published version of TMWTGG? By “stake in the heart,” it sounds conclusive but I would love to one day see even a summary from an authoritative analysis of the manuscript.
I cannot be 100% certain, but I am 99% certain this was the final version of the book. The Sotheby's description also supports this:
noted as the setting copy, autograph revisions in blue ink to about 80 pages, notably the addition two sentences at the end of the novel, and extensive editorial corrections in red, green and black ink, including some further revisions probably added from another typescript, 182 numbered pages, with an additional five pages of preliminaries (half-title, title page, list of Fleming's other books, imprint, and contents page), one leaf cancelled and with the revised text supplied in contemporary photocopy, 4to (255 x 200 mm), June-July 1964, with a single typescript page of suggested corrections by Kingsley Amis that were later adopted in proof, the first page of text with a note from the printer, Richard Clay & Co., requesting the return of marked proofs by 29 December 1964, loose in a red folder; staining to some leaves, some creasing, final leaf torn without loss
Even if this typescript was not the final version (and the description suggests the publishers thought it was) it was close enough--the sample pages show that Fleming had written a complete draft whose text, alongside his handwritten corrections, matches the final published text. I think that is the clincher. All Amis could have contributed were notes and suggestions--no massive changes.
I agree, a closer reading of the auction notes details the likely sequence of events in Fleming’s specific revisions to TMWTGG; it’s noteworthy in appropriately documenting how this process differed from Fleming’s established routine that some other authoritative references also detail while some others merely gloss over.
Nonetheless, I still think a decent literary and textual analysis by capable scholars would finally decide on this issue about the extent of Amis’ involvement and if we are to be intellectually honest, we should not just default to their conclusions because we do not know which points are mere assumptions based on “common knowledge.” To note, we the public have only this small sample and whatever the auction’s expert has to say on the issue.
Why does it matter? Again, as we know ad nauseam, it’s the extraordinary circumstances of the book’s writing and the “contamination” of Amis’ involvement, who at the time was a published author who would shortly include to his credit two works related to James Bond, a phenomenon that never happened with Fleming’s other books.
In terms of likelihood, I grant that the merits of this manuscript can potentially rule out the Amis ghost writing theory. However, here's a litmus test; before having compelling documentation like this, what was the basis of one's conclusion on the matter in light of the unique circumstances I mentioned? With data like this typescript, a good conclusion at least wouldn’t be based on a fan’s romanticize ideal about Fleming, or an antagonistically dogmatic conclusion like Dustin’s, the charming Lord Farquaad of the commanderbond.net forums.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Amis’ involvement, who at the time was a published author who would shortly include to his credit two works related to James Bond
The James Bond Dossier (1965)
The Book of Bond (1965)
Colonel Sun (1968)
I stand corrected, and I have a copy of the one I left out, "The Book of Bond" but neither of the other two (which I repeatedly borrow from the library)!
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
I used to have two copies of the Dossier, but I gave one to Loeffelholz some years ago. I do have a spare "Colonel Sun" in this edition:
If you'd like it, drop me a PM.
I have that one too in my Colonel Sun collection. Had to buy it online as you'd be lucky to find it in secondhand bookshop.
May I also say what a kind gesture that is, Barbel. -{
"The tough man of the world. The Secret Agent. The man who was only a silhouette." - Ian Fleming, Moonraker (1955).
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
It looks like the detractors of the Amis theory accept as damning evidence the auction inclusion of “a single typescript page of suggested corrections by Kingsley Amis that were later adopted in proof.” Yup, if a publisher is going to hire a ghost-writer, yup yup yup, we’re gonna compile the entire compilation of his extensive edits and keep it for posterity because future generations are entitled to the truth and besides, someone can make a fortune by auctioning it off one day. But because there’s only one page of minor suggested changes, no ghost-editing was ever involved…what geniuses...BTW, I have for sale a grocery list handwritten by Fleming himself with one page that officially vouches for its authenticity!
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
But because there’s only one page of minor suggested changes, no ghost-editing was ever involved…what geniuses...
If Amis had ghost-written the book, why would he have submitted a single page of changes alongside a typescript that had corrections in Fleming's own handwriting that matched the final text of the novel? Furthermore, if Amis had ghostwritten the book, wouldn't we have turned up evidence of this by now, considering that 50 years have passed? There's no credible evidence to believe that Amis ghost-wrote TMWTGG. That theory now has the same credibility as as the ones about 9-11 being an inside job or the moon landing being faked in my back yard.
But because there’s only one page of minor suggested changes, no ghost-editing was ever involved…what geniuses...
If Amis had ghost-written the book, why would he have submitted a single page of changes alongside a typescript that had corrections in Fleming's own handwriting that matched the final text of the novel? Furthermore, if Amis had ghostwritten the book, wouldn't we have turned up evidence of this by now, considering that 50 years have passed? There's no credible evidence to believe that Amis ghost-wrote TMWTGG. That theory now has the same credibility as as the ones about 9-11 being an inside job or the moon landing being faked in my back yard.
Still waiting for that grassy knoll proof...
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
With respect, the grassy knoll theory had been purported by multiple witness testimonies, but it did not conclusively satisfy the Warren Commission’s findings. Per the JFK movie, perhaps we’ll find out the truth in 2038 when the National Archives declassify CIA and FBI documentation on the assassination )
But because there’s only one page of minor suggested changes, no ghost-editing was ever involved…what geniuses...
If Amis had ghost-written the book, why would he have submitted a single page of changes alongside a typescript that had corrections in Fleming's own handwriting that matched the final text of the novel? Furthermore, if Amis had ghostwritten the book, wouldn't we have turned up evidence of this by now, considering that 50 years have passed? There's no credible evidence to believe that Amis ghost-wrote TMWTGG. That theory now has the same credibility as as the ones about 9-11 being an inside job or the moon landing being faked in my back yard.
Now, you are being facetious with comparisons with 9/11 and Moon Landing conspiracy theories, for which a wealth of documentation exists to prove the veracity of both events, just as the same documentation can potentially provide solid and reasoned counter-arguments…and with all of that none hold water and those conspiracy theories were sufficiently debunked.
The issue here, on the other hand, is a lack of sufficient documentation, or at least a lack of access to it. Think for a moment that you are Jonathan Cape and realizing that much more work was needed for TMWTGG. From a business standpoint, you intentionally bring in a qualified author who is a Fleming expert to not just "look at it" but to actually provide more than just a grammatical and continuity polish, a situation that will raise red flags with the publishing world and more importantly, the public, with serious questions about the bonafides of Fleming's last novel for which his authorship is a critical attraction for readers.
To quell any doubts, what would you do if you were the publisher? Logically, you would destroy any paper trail about your solution and put out there diversionary apparatuses, and this single page of Amis' "recommendations" to accompany one of the final typescripts fits the bill. Is that too fantastic? If you were an astute publisher and if that were the situation you faced (a final manuscript that falls short of publication quality), you would be foolish to not consider such measures.
As I said, in short of us seeing an expert summation of the entire manuscript, not just mere auction blurbs, can you reasonably rule out any other scenario that differs with what's being officially purported? Again, I’m not stating that my assertions are absolutely true, but unless otherwise disproven or ruled out, it remains a reasonable possibility.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
To quell any doubts, what would you do if you were the publisher? Logically, you would destroy any paper trail about your solution and put out there diversionary apparatuses, and this single page of Amis' "recommendations" to accompany one of the final typescripts fits the bill.
And logically, some documentation of this--at the very least in the form of contracts--would still exist in (a) the company's innermost archives and (b) Amis's papers. After 50+ years, such documents would have been discovered by now, especially since Amis's papers have been exhaustively documented.
The paper trail that we do have regarding TMWTGG--such as Amis's letter to Tom Maschler--further disproves the idea of him rewriting the book: Amis's suggestions for improving the novel never made it into the final text (if TMWTGG had been rewritten by a master novelist, why wasn't it a better book?). Amis also mentions "an enclosed list of errors" which is almost certainly the same as the sheet mentioned in this auction.
The more fundamental question is why anyone should believe a theory for which no actual evidence exists? There is no evidence to back up the idea that Amis did a deep edit or rewrite, whereas we now have evidence--in the form of those sample pages--that Fleming personally corrected the typescript that provided the final text of the novel. How on earth would the Amis theory fit into that? It doesn't, so there is even less reason to believe it. What we do have is new evidence that Fleming wrote and revised what was ultimately published, right down to the last sentence.
if TMWTGG had been rewritten by a master novelist, why wasn't it a better book?
I submit that this is a very valid point. The track record of Kingsley Amis doesn't need cited here. If he had rewritten the book, I don't think there's any question that it would have been the stronger for it. He pointed out the weaknesses of Fleming's work several times (in the Dossier, his contemporary review, his communications with Cape), even going so far as to discuss the possibility, no more, of his rewriting parts, and yet the final version is lacking in many ways which Amis' involvement in a more than editing capacity would have dealt with.
This is not to say that TMWTGG as we have it lacks all merit. The opening few chapters ingeniously bring 007 back with a bang and throw an offbeat light on M, Tanner & co. Once Bond is in Jamaica things go downhill of course, but even so there are a few memorable moments (the erotic dance on the giant hand, for example). And where would Roger Moore have been without the superfluous papilla to make jokes about?
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
if TMWTGG had been rewritten by a master novelist, why wasn't it a better book?
I submit that this is a very valid point. The track record of Kingsley Amis doesn't need cited here. If he had rewritten the book, I don't think there's any question that it would have been the stronger for it. He pointed out the weaknesses of Fleming's work several times (in the Dossier, his contemporary review, his communications with Cape), even going so far as to discuss the possibility, no more, of his rewriting parts, and yet the final version is lacking in many ways which Amis' involvement in a more than editing capacity would have dealt with.
This is not to say that TMWTGG as we have it lacks all merit. The opening few chapters ingeniously bring 007 back with a bang and throw an offbeat light on M, Tanner & co. Once Bond is in Jamaica things go downhill of course, but even so there are a few memorable moments (the erotic dance on the giant hand, for example). And where would Roger Moore have been without the superfluous papilla to make jokes about?
I think the simple answer to Revelator's question, is that it would have been a step too far that would obviously not be a product of Fleming. The problem of the various arguments that attempt to resolve this issue is that they often go to extremes, like "why was not TMWTGG intentionally made out as a masterpiece," or how the auction sample of Fleming's handwritten addition of the novel's final line is proof that all the published edits were done by him alone. IMO, because of the situation at hand, e.g., Fleming's declining health and subsequent death, the manuscript was in a particular state of flux that was in serious need of attention and the parties involved did what they deemed judicious to do, in whatever measured amounts, whether simple or slightly more complex as needed.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
IMO, because of the situation at hand, e.g., Fleming's declining health and subsequent death, the manuscript was in a particular state of flux that was in serious need of attention and the parties involved did what they deemed judicious to do, in whatever measured amounts, whether simple or slightly more complex as needed.
It's documented that Amis offered his thoughts on the weaknesses of the book, along with "an enclosed list of errors." The latter were almost certainly rectified in the final text, whereas Amis's ideas clearly weren't. Why should we assume anything more? We have two pages of Fleming's typescript, edited in his own handwriting, and those pages match those in the published text. So why should we assume that other hands heavily reworked the book, when the pages we have indicate otherwise? The final novel came out weak and feeble, so what exactly was accomplished by this supposed reworking?
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
IMO, because of the situation at hand, e.g., Fleming's declining health and subsequent death, the manuscript was in a particular state of flux that was in serious need of attention and the parties involved did what they deemed judicious to do, in whatever measured amounts, whether simple or slightly more complex as needed.
It's documented that Amis offered his thoughts on the weaknesses of the book, along with "an enclosed list of errors." The latter were almost certainly rectified in the final text, whereas Amis's ideas clearly weren't. Why should we assume anything more? We have two pages of Fleming's typescript, edited in his own handwriting, and those pages match those in the published text. So why should we assume that other hands heavily reworked the book, when the pages we have indicate otherwise? The final novel came out weak and feeble, so what exactly was accomplished by this supposed reworking?
As I've stated previously:
(1) Anyone can put out whatever documentation they want to portray; it's been done since documentation, i.e., history, began. In this particular case, the assumption is based on a situational need that without adequate access to us at large, was a state with variables still not completely known...which therefore is one that cannot be concluded with finality. Is that such a hard reality to accept?
(2) Again, because there are only 2 pages revealed to us at large, how can anyone confidently assume that they prove how the rest of the manuscript was similarly, adequately edited to its final form by Fleming? What if he worked his way backwards in regard to edits, or if he jumped around? It's like assuming that your late Uncle Theodore bequeathed a specific Sterling amount in the millions to you, based on a statement of the signature page of his will that stated his fondness for his nephew.
(3) What if the state of the manuscript was just a bit worse for publishing and Glidrose/Jonathan Cape would have deemed it needed selected and measured rewrites to bring it up to an acceptable level for print? If the text was reworked any more than it was, you would have Colonel Sun.
I defer to the available expert opinions as follows:
Jon Gilbert in Ian Fleming, the Bibliography, pp. 412-413:
"Although Fleming was involved in part of the typescript state, The Man With The Golden Gun did not undergo such meticulous revisions by the author in typescript and the majority of corrections were carried out by others, including fellow cape-published writer Kingsly Amis, as Fleming’s health declined in the summer of 1964”
“Beryl Griffie-Williams, Fleming's secretary sent out batches of the manuscript to various people stating, " ...Mr. Fleming has not been too well and consequently been unable to face the corrections."”
"The script was subject to the usual editorial scrutiny in July and August, but without the input of the author on this occasion, whose health was deteriorating. In the absence of Ian Fleming, Kingsly Amis was called upon to tidy up the script of The Man With The Golden Gun. Fleming, who died from heart failure on 12th August 1964, would not see the final typed draft of the novel, which was ready by September.”
John Griswold in his Ian Fleming's James Bond: Annotations and Chronologies for Ian Fleming's Bond Stories, p. 434:
“Ian Fleming died on August 12, 1964 after correcting only half of the final manuscript of The Man With The Golden Gun.”
Andrew Lycett in his Ian Fleming: The Man Behind James Bond (pp. 444-45) highlighted how Glidrose was seriously concerned about “keeping the Bondwagon” rolling, which belies their financial interests to ensure that TMWTGG would succeed in the market; it was this concern that got Amis involved in the TMWTGG (though Lycett took the more innocuous route) and the first continuation novel. However, all of that pretty much covers means, motive, and opportunity on their part.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
The documentation one has is all one has to work with. Why invent phantom papers when real ones exist that fit the purpose ascribed to the phantoms?
The idea that Fleming might have worked backwards is disproven by the fact that one of the sample pages is from the first third of the novel.
It's true that not every page has been corrected. Sothebys reports that out of 182 pages, 80 have received "autograph revisions" and "extensive editorial corrections." So the much of the typescript might have needed corrections, but "selected and measured rewrites" is a step too far. Plomer--who apprently read this exact typescript, according to Sotheby's--assured Fleming that it didn't need rewrites at all. Fleming might have written the book while ill, but there's little reason to assume that he lost his competence.
I like deferring to expert opinion too, but none of those experts think Amis rewrote the book (and would he really agree to a rewrite knowing that his major suggestions couldn't be used? A successful novelist has more important things to do with his time.) They all agree that Amis did correcting and "tidying up." It's also unlikely that the experts had seen this typescript, whose provenance is rather mysterious.
Sotheby's states that "three sub-edited typescripts were completed by 24 June," including this one. This is the first that has turned up in the public eye, and we don't know which of these might have been seen by the experts.
Now, until this typescript has been fully examined, we can't state with 100% certainty that it represents the final text, but it does show that Fleming edited parts of this typescript into a state corresponding to it. And it makes the Amis rewrite theory--for which there is not a single shred of evidence--even more unlikely.
Silhouette ManThe last refuge of a scoundrelPosts: 8,845MI6 Agent
Anyone else want to throw in their tuppence on this topic (in the OP)? I'd be most grateful!
No, I didn't mean the TMWTGG comments, rather the CS rumours. The "Letters" is a massive tome (over a thousand pages, not about to flick through it right now!) and I do recall Amis saying that CS was all his own work... though it might have been elsewhere since it's been years since I read it!
Comments
Although the letter doesn't seem to clear much about Amis' involvement...
The only thing I have heard of was the scrapbook that was bought by Fleming estate.
On December 13th Sotheby auctioned off a corrected typescript of The Man With the Golden Gun for £65,000. As shown in the sample images (http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2016/english-literature-history-childrens-books-illustrations-l16408/lot.166.html), the typescript contains 80 pages bearing Fleming's handwritten revisions. We now know that Fleming added the last two lines of the novel after completing the draft and having it typed up. Those lines are "At the same time, he knew, deep down, that love from Mary Goodnight, or from any other woman, was not enough for him. It would be like taking 'a room with a view'. For James Bond, the same view would always pall."
They are the last lines Fleming ever wrote about James Bond. And they are clearly in Fleming's handwriting, and refute the idea that Kingsley Amis wrote or rewrote the book. We now have undeniable proof that the Fleming had finished a complete draft and was hand-correcting it before his death. Sotheby's also notes the presence of "a single typescript page of suggested corrections by Kingsley Amis that were later adopted in proof." That is likely the extent of Amis's involvement with the manuscript. Case closed.
All that remains to be voiced is the hope that whoever bought this manuscript will allow researchers and scholars to access it and learn how much more Fleming added to the book after drafting it.
Thanks for posting, Revelator. In short of your wish for expert analysis (a personal desire I share for all of us who are intrigued by the Amis TMWTGG conundrum), do you think this specific typescript + Flemings handwritten corrections = the final, published version of TMWTGG? By “stake in the heart,” it sounds conclusive but I would love to one day see even a summary from an authoritative analysis of the manuscript.
Regarding your mirror post on the CBN Fleming forum, careful about the forum moderator, Dustin, because he’ll trash any dissenting opinion and if you dare to respond in kind, he’ll suspend your account…not fair in the slightest. The fact that he's actually allowed to moderate there while bullying others is a reflection on the quality of that forum, one where you can literally hear virtual crickets instead of fresh discussions about the Ian Fleming Bond books.
Case re-opened.
I cannot be 100% certain, but I am 99% certain this was the final version of the book. The Sotheby's description also supports this:
Even if this typescript was not the final version (and the description suggests the publishers thought it was) it was close enough--the sample pages show that Fleming had written a complete draft whose text, alongside his handwritten corrections, matches the final published text. I think that is the clincher. All Amis could have contributed were notes and suggestions--no massive changes.
I agree, a closer reading of the auction notes details the likely sequence of events in Fleming’s specific revisions to TMWTGG; it’s noteworthy in appropriately documenting how this process differed from Fleming’s established routine that some other authoritative references also detail while some others merely gloss over.
Nonetheless, I still think a decent literary and textual analysis by capable scholars would finally decide on this issue about the extent of Amis’ involvement and if we are to be intellectually honest, we should not just default to their conclusions because we do not know which points are mere assumptions based on “common knowledge.” To note, we the public have only this small sample and whatever the auction’s expert has to say on the issue.
Why does it matter? Again, as we know ad nauseam, it’s the extraordinary circumstances of the book’s writing and the “contamination” of Amis’ involvement, who at the time was a published author who would shortly include to his credit two works related to James Bond, a phenomenon that never happened with Fleming’s other books.
In terms of likelihood, I grant that the merits of this manuscript can potentially rule out the Amis ghost writing theory. However, here's a litmus test; before having compelling documentation like this, what was the basis of one's conclusion on the matter in light of the unique circumstances I mentioned? With data like this typescript, a good conclusion at least wouldn’t be based on a fan’s romanticize ideal about Fleming, or an antagonistically dogmatic conclusion like Dustin’s, the charming Lord Farquaad of the commanderbond.net forums.
The James Bond Dossier (1965)
The Book of Bond (1965)
Colonel Sun (1968)
I stand corrected, and I have a copy of the one I left out, "The Book of Bond" but neither of the other two (which I repeatedly borrow from the library)!
If you'd like it, drop me a PM.
I have that one too in my Colonel Sun collection. Had to buy it online as you'd be lucky to find it in secondhand bookshop.
May I also say what a kind gesture that is, Barbel.
I think I've seen that list:
Two bottles vodka, made from grain
One bottle Kina Lillet
Lemons
Two dozen eggs
Butter
Nah, can't be his!
If Amis had ghost-written the book, why would he have submitted a single page of changes alongside a typescript that had corrections in Fleming's own handwriting that matched the final text of the novel? Furthermore, if Amis had ghostwritten the book, wouldn't we have turned up evidence of this by now, considering that 50 years have passed? There's no credible evidence to believe that Amis ghost-wrote TMWTGG. That theory now has the same credibility as as the ones about 9-11 being an inside job or the moon landing being faked in my back yard.
Still waiting for that grassy knoll proof...
The additions of 6 boxes of 100-count Morland cigarettes and lighter petrol would prove it authentic beyond a doubt!
With respect, the grassy knoll theory had been purported by multiple witness testimonies, but it did not conclusively satisfy the Warren Commission’s findings. Per the JFK movie, perhaps we’ll find out the truth in 2038 when the National Archives declassify CIA and FBI documentation on the assassination
Now, you are being facetious with comparisons with 9/11 and Moon Landing conspiracy theories, for which a wealth of documentation exists to prove the veracity of both events, just as the same documentation can potentially provide solid and reasoned counter-arguments…and with all of that none hold water and those conspiracy theories were sufficiently debunked.
The issue here, on the other hand, is a lack of sufficient documentation, or at least a lack of access to it. Think for a moment that you are Jonathan Cape and realizing that much more work was needed for TMWTGG. From a business standpoint, you intentionally bring in a qualified author who is a Fleming expert to not just "look at it" but to actually provide more than just a grammatical and continuity polish, a situation that will raise red flags with the publishing world and more importantly, the public, with serious questions about the bonafides of Fleming's last novel for which his authorship is a critical attraction for readers.
To quell any doubts, what would you do if you were the publisher? Logically, you would destroy any paper trail about your solution and put out there diversionary apparatuses, and this single page of Amis' "recommendations" to accompany one of the final typescripts fits the bill. Is that too fantastic? If you were an astute publisher and if that were the situation you faced (a final manuscript that falls short of publication quality), you would be foolish to not consider such measures.
As I said, in short of us seeing an expert summation of the entire manuscript, not just mere auction blurbs, can you reasonably rule out any other scenario that differs with what's being officially purported? Again, I’m not stating that my assertions are absolutely true, but unless otherwise disproven or ruled out, it remains a reasonable possibility.
http://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/43407/scaramanga/
http://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/35271/does-any-one-here-think-amis-wrote-tmwtgg/
http://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/30928/the-man-with-the-golden-gun-question/
and most especially
http://jamesbond.ajb007.co.uk/a-licence-to-read-tmwtgg/
And logically, some documentation of this--at the very least in the form of contracts--would still exist in (a) the company's innermost archives and (b) Amis's papers. After 50+ years, such documents would have been discovered by now, especially since Amis's papers have been exhaustively documented.
The paper trail that we do have regarding TMWTGG--such as Amis's letter to Tom Maschler--further disproves the idea of him rewriting the book: Amis's suggestions for improving the novel never made it into the final text (if TMWTGG had been rewritten by a master novelist, why wasn't it a better book?). Amis also mentions "an enclosed list of errors" which is almost certainly the same as the sheet mentioned in this auction.
The more fundamental question is why anyone should believe a theory for which no actual evidence exists? There is no evidence to back up the idea that Amis did a deep edit or rewrite, whereas we now have evidence--in the form of those sample pages--that Fleming personally corrected the typescript that provided the final text of the novel. How on earth would the Amis theory fit into that? It doesn't, so there is even less reason to believe it. What we do have is new evidence that Fleming wrote and revised what was ultimately published, right down to the last sentence.
I submit that this is a very valid point. The track record of Kingsley Amis doesn't need cited here. If he had rewritten the book, I don't think there's any question that it would have been the stronger for it. He pointed out the weaknesses of Fleming's work several times (in the Dossier, his contemporary review, his communications with Cape), even going so far as to discuss the possibility, no more, of his rewriting parts, and yet the final version is lacking in many ways which Amis' involvement in a more than editing capacity would have dealt with.
This is not to say that TMWTGG as we have it lacks all merit. The opening few chapters ingeniously bring 007 back with a bang and throw an offbeat light on M, Tanner & co. Once Bond is in Jamaica things go downhill of course, but even so there are a few memorable moments (the erotic dance on the giant hand, for example). And where would Roger Moore have been without the superfluous papilla to make jokes about?
I think the simple answer to Revelator's question, is that it would have been a step too far that would obviously not be a product of Fleming. The problem of the various arguments that attempt to resolve this issue is that they often go to extremes, like "why was not TMWTGG intentionally made out as a masterpiece," or how the auction sample of Fleming's handwritten addition of the novel's final line is proof that all the published edits were done by him alone. IMO, because of the situation at hand, e.g., Fleming's declining health and subsequent death, the manuscript was in a particular state of flux that was in serious need of attention and the parties involved did what they deemed judicious to do, in whatever measured amounts, whether simple or slightly more complex as needed.
It's documented that Amis offered his thoughts on the weaknesses of the book, along with "an enclosed list of errors." The latter were almost certainly rectified in the final text, whereas Amis's ideas clearly weren't. Why should we assume anything more? We have two pages of Fleming's typescript, edited in his own handwriting, and those pages match those in the published text. So why should we assume that other hands heavily reworked the book, when the pages we have indicate otherwise? The final novel came out weak and feeble, so what exactly was accomplished by this supposed reworking?
As I've stated previously:
(1) Anyone can put out whatever documentation they want to portray; it's been done since documentation, i.e., history, began. In this particular case, the assumption is based on a situational need that without adequate access to us at large, was a state with variables still not completely known...which therefore is one that cannot be concluded with finality. Is that such a hard reality to accept?
(2) Again, because there are only 2 pages revealed to us at large, how can anyone confidently assume that they prove how the rest of the manuscript was similarly, adequately edited to its final form by Fleming? What if he worked his way backwards in regard to edits, or if he jumped around? It's like assuming that your late Uncle Theodore bequeathed a specific Sterling amount in the millions to you, based on a statement of the signature page of his will that stated his fondness for his nephew.
(3) What if the state of the manuscript was just a bit worse for publishing and Glidrose/Jonathan Cape would have deemed it needed selected and measured rewrites to bring it up to an acceptable level for print? If the text was reworked any more than it was, you would have Colonel Sun.
I defer to the available expert opinions as follows:
Jon Gilbert in Ian Fleming, the Bibliography, pp. 412-413:
"Although Fleming was involved in part of the typescript state, The Man With The Golden Gun did not undergo such meticulous revisions by the author in typescript and the majority of corrections were carried out by others, including fellow cape-published writer Kingsly Amis, as Fleming’s health declined in the summer of 1964”
“Beryl Griffie-Williams, Fleming's secretary sent out batches of the manuscript to various people stating, " ...Mr. Fleming has not been too well and consequently been unable to face the corrections."”
"The script was subject to the usual editorial scrutiny in July and August, but without the input of the author on this occasion, whose health was deteriorating. In the absence of Ian Fleming, Kingsly Amis was called upon to tidy up the script of The Man With The Golden Gun. Fleming, who died from heart failure on 12th August 1964, would not see the final typed draft of the novel, which was ready by September.”
John Griswold in his Ian Fleming's James Bond: Annotations and Chronologies for Ian Fleming's Bond Stories, p. 434:
“Ian Fleming died on August 12, 1964 after correcting only half of the final manuscript of The Man With The Golden Gun.”
Andrew Lycett in his Ian Fleming: The Man Behind James Bond (pp. 444-45) highlighted how Glidrose was seriously concerned about “keeping the Bondwagon” rolling, which belies their financial interests to ensure that TMWTGG would succeed in the market; it was this concern that got Amis involved in the TMWTGG (though Lycett took the more innocuous route) and the first continuation novel. However, all of that pretty much covers means, motive, and opportunity on their part.
The idea that Fleming might have worked backwards is disproven by the fact that one of the sample pages is from the first third of the novel.
It's true that not every page has been corrected. Sothebys reports that out of 182 pages, 80 have received "autograph revisions" and "extensive editorial corrections." So the much of the typescript might have needed corrections, but "selected and measured rewrites" is a step too far. Plomer--who apprently read this exact typescript, according to Sotheby's--assured Fleming that it didn't need rewrites at all. Fleming might have written the book while ill, but there's little reason to assume that he lost his competence.
I like deferring to expert opinion too, but none of those experts think Amis rewrote the book (and would he really agree to a rewrite knowing that his major suggestions couldn't be used? A successful novelist has more important things to do with his time.) They all agree that Amis did correcting and "tidying up." It's also unlikely that the experts had seen this typescript, whose provenance is rather mysterious.
Sotheby's states that "three sub-edited typescripts were completed by 24 June," including this one. This is the first that has turned up in the public eye, and we don't know which of these might have been seen by the experts.
Now, until this typescript has been fully examined, we can't state with 100% certainty that it represents the final text, but it does show that Fleming edited parts of this typescript into a state corresponding to it. And it makes the Amis rewrite theory--for which there is not a single shred of evidence--even more unlikely.
http://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/46443/unfinished-fleming-manuscript-rumour-about-kingsley-amis-colonel-sun/
Yes, he does give his thoughts on the weaknesses of TMWTGG in his Letters, but not on the unfinished Bond novel rumour about his own Colonel Sun.
I did read this earlier today http://thebondologistblog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/eleven-years-later-addendum-to-dossier.html which you might be familiar with, SM!