Accounting for James Bond’s Enduring Mass Appeal

Cinema, Creative Writing, Literary & Linguistics, Media & Communications, Popular Culture

🇬🇧 🔫 🇬🇧
The phenomena of James Bond in both book and movie form was meant to be purely escapist entertainment, bereft of the slightest pretension that they were anything remotely cerebral. Interesting then that Bond has gleaned so much serious academic enquiry and analysis over the years. A sample of articles on JSTOR reveals a feast of scholarly entries on the subject of James Bond — “Shaken, Not Stirred Britishness: James Bond, Race, and the Transnational Imaginary”, “The Marketable Misogyny of James Bond“, “Paradoxical Masculinity: James Bond, Icon of Failure”, “Why James Bond Villains Prefer Post-Soviet Architecture”, “The Spy Who Loved Globalization”, ”How safe do you feel?: James Bond, Skyfall, and the Politics of the Secret Agent in an Age of Ubiquitous Threat”, and so on it goes.

The James Bond film franchise is certainly sui generis among English-language movie series. October 5 this year marked the 60th anniversary of the introduction of James Bond to cinema screen audiences (Dr No, 1962), and the cinematic sequence remains as yet unbroken, notwithstanding ”the elephant in the room” of last year’s No Time To Die in which the indestructible James Bond actually dies! Virtually all other elongated movie series have ultimately reached a natural (or unnatural) termination point – even the long-running, prolific and increasingly unimaginative Carry On comedy series ran out of steam by the Eighties 🄰.

Ian Fleming ‘Casino Royale’, 1st 007 novel (Image: bondfanevents.com)
°
Box office El Dorado
Over a six-decade period the 25 movies🄱 constituting the James Bond industry made by Eon Productions (Broccoli and Saltzman’s production company) have earned a total somewhere north of US seven billion dollars. Boosted undoubtedly by the mass popularity of screen Bond🄲 the James Bond spy novels written by former WWII naval intelligence officer Ian Fleming, on which the cinema franchise is based, have themselves racked up sales of more than 60 million copies.

If you came anew to the Bond movies looking for a healthy dose of gritty social realism based on the world of espionage a la John LeCarre, you’d be sadly disappointed. The franchise’s entries are all about fantasy and high-adventure escapism. Unlike the shadowy cloak-and-dagger characters that the real world of spies and secret agents (apparently?) inhabit, James Bond 007 in his public persona is an open book, he doesn’t use a fake name, he doesn’t try to disguise his appearance or furtively hide in dark corners. He’s direct, brash, brutal and recklessly undisciplined in his actions and antics, with a propensity to be easily distracted from the assignment at hand by the happy prospect of a spot of horizontal folk-dancing.

Though wildly successful at the box office over an extraordinarily long shelf life, James Bond is not everyone’s cup of tea. An early critic Judith Crist described the series’ first vehicle Dr No as “an updated comic strip of the Fu Manchu school, fast moving, faster shooting, utterly fantastic”. JB has been pilloried by feminists for his unrepentant chauvinism—especially in Sean Connery and Roger Moore’s interpretations of the character—and four decades of “Bond Girl“ objectification of women. The backlash against JB’s misogyny compelled producers to tone down the blatant sexism in the most recent incarnation of the most famous of all British secret agents played by Daniel Craig. Bond has also been excoriated as a “thug trained to wear a tuxedo”…007’s “license to kill” green-light unleashes the agent’s deep predilection for perpetrating extreme, lethal violence in cold blood.

Predictable Bondery
Then there’s the plots! The storylines are more than fanciful…James Bond’s arch-villains hatch mind-bogglingly ludicrous schemes which suggest that they have been maxing out on the Kool-Aid – such as nuking Fort Knox’s gold reserves; constructing a massive capsule-gobbling rocket to capture the space crafts of both superpowers; detonating explosives along the Californian fault lines to destroy Silicon Valley; ad nauseum. The franchise has also been lambasted for being BORING! Agent 007 has been called out for living “the same story over and over” (Elizabeth Winterhalter). Repetition is a constant motif…we see Bond right on cue rendezvous with a typically crotchety “M” to be briefed on his latest world-rescue mission, flirting with Miss Moneypenny in their regular tête-à-tête ritual, and getting a rundown on the very latest weapon gadgetry from an equally irascible “Q”. In every second scene, just about, JB is pursued by a posse of miscellaneous henchmen only to miraculously escape certain death by the barest of margins every time. The movies almost invariably end in the same formulaic fashion: Bond infiltrates the arch-villain’s impregnable lair, triumphs over the likes of Blofeld and Goldfinger and numerous assorted henchmen, and finishes by bedding his leading lady on an inflatable dingy, in space, a balcony, etc and signing off to “M” with a corny double entendre🄳.

Bond with “Jaws”, larger than life henchman turned ally

°

Cultural relevance to the West
Some Bondphiles have an altogether different take on this Groundhog Dog trait in James Bond of repeating the same basic plot structure infinitum…they see it as a key ingredient of the franchise’s success: ”the simplicity of the plot arch allows the films to seamlessly transcend and become culturally relevant to the audience” (‘What is the Secret of James Bond’s Eternal Success?’, www.undandy.com). Another explanation of James Bond’s allure contends that the fictional MI6 spy instantly resonated with Western audiences in the climate of the Cold War, being seen as a kind of antidote to the prevailing morass of the social order (especially in the US). 007’s talent as a fixer of “global crises” casts him in the guise of a saviour salvaging the world from an inevitable downward spiral into chaos and discord (‘James Bond and America in the Sixties’, Drew Moniot, JUFA, Vol.28, No.3, 1976). Moniot also attributes JB’s popularity in America to the existence of a vacuum of real-life heroes in 1960s society, the emergence of 007, a mythological hero who was invincible, fulfilled that psychological need at that time.

British Bond and foreign Blofeld

°

Vicarious🄴 charm of the bon vivant lifestyle
Part of the appeal lies in the character of James Bond. Fleming visualised 007 as fit, sensual, with superior grey matter and a technical wiz, a model of “red-blooded heterosexuality”. He also emphasises Bond’s “Britishness” in the novels, JB’s 100% success rate on missions and in the romance stakes presents Bond as representing the “Best of British”… Fleming’s idea of an antidote to the sad realities of a declining Britain denuded of empire. Leaving aside the ever-present mortal danger to his very existence, Bond leads “a ridiculously good lifestyle (by) any man’s standards”🄵(Undandy), his appearance is akin to a “GQ cover model”; an endless supply of the best alcohol (which the MI6 agent knocks back with worryingly frequency); the best cars (trademark Aston Martin DB5); his apparently irresistible sex appeal to women (‘Bond by rules’, Tim Brayton, 2012, www.alternateending.com). As crime doyen Raymond Chandler neatly put it, “Every man wants to be James Bond and every woman wants to be with him”.

Tropeville central
Aside from JB’s personal magnetism, the series’ catalogue of recurring tropes helps to cement the franchise’s appeal. Familiar ingredients include the default opening sequence depicting 007 in action through the prism of a gun barrel; over-the-top hi-tech gadgets; a smorgasbord of diverse exotic locations; a brisk cocktail of action stunts (car chases, boat chases, ski pursuits, etc); the centre-stage presence of the Bond Girls and of a megalomaniacal arch-villain mastermind; all eagerly anticipated by James Bond‘s legion of rusted-on fans. Also adding value and lustre to the films are the high quality title-songs – like the utterly unforgettably iconic Goldfinger theme, and not far behind that Shirley Bassey classic, Live and Let Die, Diamonds Are Forever, and You Only Live Twice, etc, etc.

Bond, tapping into the zeitgeist of the day
One (insider) view on the longevity of James Bond comes from those at the helm of the multi-billion dollar franchise today, Cubby Broccoli’s daughter Barbara and his step-son Michael Wilson. Broccoli’s heirs attribute the success to the family having managed to keep hold of the franchise’s reins throughout its entire history, and to JB’s and the franchise’s adaptability, 007 being able to change with the times🄶 (‘Why James Bond Has Endured For So Long, According to the Franchise Producer’, Joshua Meyer, Film, 8-Dec-2021, www.slashfilm.com).

Footnote: James Bond, books v films
The early
James Bond movies kept pretty faithful to the plots of Ian Fleming’s crime thrillers, however as the series went on, the screen adaptations bore increasingly less resemblance to the novels (eventually everything except the Fleming titles were jettisoned). Other differences relate to the protagonist himself, 007’s proclivity for terminating with extreme prejudice (and without a skerrick of compunction) the various henchmen aligned against him increases tenfold from the books to the movies, as does his appetite for sexual conquests whilst on the job. Another point of departure from the novels for the films is the lack of story continuity from one picture to the next (eg, Bond in a grieving state at his wife’s murder at the end of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service doesn’t get a mention in the follow-up Bond feature).

─═══─═══─═══─═══─═══─═══─

🄰 probably the closest to it is the Star Wars franchise (1977 to the present)

🄱 there was in addition one non-Eon Bond film, Never Say Never Again, a Taliafilm production

🄲 even Bond’s snobbish swipe at the Beatles in Goldfinger at the height of Beatlemania in 1964 didn’t dent his appeal with the public

🄳 with one or two notable exceptions…On Her Majesty’s Secret Service ends with the death of Mrs James Bond and No Time To Die ends with the death of 007 himself

🄴 in creating the overachieving superspy Fleming was in fact acting out his own vicarious impulses…endowing 007 with the sort of ideal, action-man hero lifestyle that the writer dreamt of

🄵 one writer characterised it as “elegant lifestyle porn” (Brayton)

🄶 one example: in the rebooted Skyfall (2012), the film and JB concern themselves with the very real and very contemporary threat of the ubiquity of the internet and cyber-terrorism

The Astérix Series: High Comic Art with a Few Dark Shadows

Creative Writing, Leisure activities, Literary & Linguistics, Media & Communications, Memorabilia, Popular Culture, Public health,

“The year is 50BC. Gaul is entirely occupied by the Romans. Well, not entirely . . . One small village of indomitable Gauls still holds out against the invaders.”

𓆸 𓆸

The “indomitable Gauls” in question are the tribe of Astérix, pint-sized Gallic hero of the long-running eponymous French comic strip with its legion of dedicated fans. Like all classic literary modes, be they of a pop cultural kind or more highbrow, the Astérix comic can be read on more than one level. On the surface the impossible but highly comical escapades of its principal cartoon characters (Astérix and his sidekick Obélix) are much loved and savoured by aficionados across the globe. On another level some observers have detected various allegorical meanings delving within the cartoon series.

Astérix’s debut, 1959

The Astérix comic strip (in France known as a bande dessinée – literally “drawn strip”) made its debut in 1959 in the Franco-Belgian comic magazine Pilote under the the strip title Les aventures d’astérix. The Astérix phenomenon that followed that unassuming beginning was the result of a long and harmonious collaboration between writer René Goscinny and illustrator Albert Uderzo.

Getafix, Druid & grandmaven

What a Gaul!
The basic plot of the comic is that Astérix and his XXL-sized friend Obelix reside in the sole remaining village in Gaul which has not been conquered by the might of the Roman war machine. The reason enabling its continued freedom is that Astérix has access to a magic potion supplied by the village’s Druid Panoramix (in English translations: Getafix) which gives him temporary, superhuman strength (Obelix is already endowed with extraordinary strength courtesy of having fallen into the cauldron of magic potion as a baby). The two companions, usually accompanied by Obelix’s little dog, Idéfix (English: Dogmatix), spend their time roaming around the countryside of Armorica (modern-day Brittany) bashing countless numbers of heads, mostly of the hapless and unsuspecting Roman legionnaires. In many of the books the magic potion-fuelled duo venture out on escapades to lands both far and near from Gaul.

Dubbleosix in ‘The Black Gold’

Undisguised punnery
Much of the humour in Astérix revolves around Goscinny’s and translator Bell’s (see below) use of puns and in-jokes which abound in the character names, Astérix, the comic’s central protagonist is of course “the star” (for which “asterisk” is another word); the monolithic-like Obelix is a carter and shaper of menhirs which are also known as “obelisks”; Bell translated Obelix’s dog’s name as…Dogmatix – what else! A spy Druid in Astérix and the Black Gold with more than a passing resemblance to Sean Connery is given the name Dubbelosix.

Nomenclature of the dramatis personae
When sketching out the framework of their fictional First century BC Gaul Goscinny and Uderzo decided on a formula for the names of each of the groups of characters. The Gauls’ men’s names would end in -ix (the inspiration for this was the real-life Gallic chieftain Vercingetorix who revolted against Julius Caesar’s Rome in 52BC), so we have Vitalstatistix (chief of Astérix’s tribe) and his brother Doublehelix; Assurancetourix (English: Cacofonix) (bard and scapegoat of the village); Geriatrix (oldest member of the village); Unhygienix (village fishmonger); Cétautomatix (village smith) (Eng: Fulliautomatix); Saingésix (wine merchant) (Eng: Alcoholix), etc. etc. The Romans mostly are identified by names with the suffix “-us” (although “Julius Caesar” (Fr: Jules César) appears as a fictional character under his own name)…as the “bad guys” the Romans all tend to have derogatory or demeaning names, eg, Pamplemus (Arteriosclerosus); Cadaverus; Caius Fatuous; Caius Flebitus …you get the idea!

‘Astérix and the Normans’

Goscinny employed suffix-identifiers for other national groups in the books. For instance, the names of the fearsome Norman tribesmen were all given -af endings, so we get lots of joke names like Psychopaf, Riffraf, Autograf, Nescaf and Toocleverbyhaf, ad tedium…basically anything preposterous enough Goscinny and Bell could think of that would raise a laugh. The device extends to Britons (-ax)(usually puns on taxation, eg, “Valueaddedtax”), Germans (-ic), Greeks (-os) and Egyptians (-is).

‘Astérix and Cleopatra‘

Stereotyping and racial tropes
One of the preoccupations of the Astérix comics and the source of much of its humour is ethnic stereotyping. Uderzo and Goscinny delight in lampooning the perceived national traits of different groups of Europeans. The English are depicted as phlegmatic, love to drink lukewarm beer and tend to speak in a chipper, upper-class way. The Iberians (Spanish) are displayed as being full of pride and tend to have choleric tempers. The Normans (Vikings) drink endlessly and fear nothing. Goths (the Germanic tribes) are disciplined and militaristic, but are not unified and fight among themselves. This all reads as a bit problematic especially in this age of political correctness. In the case of the Spanish the generalisations are compounded by Uderzo’s unflattering drawings of them. But the most disturbing element of the books’ stereotyping of races exposing the creators to
considerable criticism relates to the bigoted portrayal of Black Africans. Slaves in the series are always Black and sometimes they have have bones through their hair and other cliches (eg, Astérix and Cleopatra). Uderzo also introduced the character of a caricatured Black pirate (Baba)—notoriously depicted with exaggerated racial features, enormous, full red lips—who appears in several books including Astérix in Corsica and Astérix and Obélix All At Sea. For this reason American cartoonist Ronald Wimberly has described the Astérix comics as “blatantly white supremacist” in nature and thus unsuitable for children (’Race and Representation: Relaunching Astérix in America’, Brigid Alverson & Calvin Reid, PW, 19-Aug-2020, www.publishersweekly.com). In recent versions of the comic edited for the US market the overt racialist profiling has been toned down a bit (‘Asterix Comes to America‘, Jo Livingstone, Critical Mass, 17-Jun-2020, www.newrepublic.com).

Black pirate lookout in ‘Astérix in Corsica’
Bravura and the village women in revolt

Uderzo v feminism
Similarly, Astérix has attracted criticism for its negative portrayal of women in the strips. Asterix and the Secret Weapon for instance introduces a female bard Bravura from Lutetia (Paris) who incites the women of the village to revolt against their husbands and the patriarchy. ’Secret Weapon’ unsubtly parodies feminism and gender equality. By 1991 when the album was published it might have been hoped that Uderzo would have expressed a more enlightened and nuanced perspective on sexual politics, but he and Goscinny were very much products of their time so it probably shouldn’t surprise that the artist/storyteller was still implacably fastened on to his old ideals of male chauvinism and hegemony.

The ludicrous amount of violence dished out in Astérix—the heroic Gallic duo are constantly bashing Roman skulls senseless—has also opened the comic strips up to criticism from some quarters. In 2007 the Swiss-based organisation Defence for Children International echoed Wimberly’s sentiments, saying that Astérix, Obélix & Co set a bad example for the young by constantly fighting with everyone, never at peace with their neighbours…adding that the comic series was “too monocultural” in its obsession with “invaders” (The Guardian).

‘Astérix and the Great Crossing’: Astérix & Obélix tango with native Americans – more sterotyping of ”the other”

With Goscinny’s untimely early death in 1977 Uderzo took on responsibility for the Astérix scripts as well as the artwork. Uderzo solo added another nine comic books to the Asterix oeuvre, although he retained the late M Goscinny’s name on the covers as co-creator. The Astérix‘s scripts written by Uderzo were not in the same class of storytelling as Goscinny’s—lacking René’s incisive wit and punchiness—but even so, the Uderzo-penned comic albums still proved bestsellers, such was the lustre of the Astérix brand.

Enter the new generation of Astérix comic artists
By 2011 Uderzo in his eighties was ready to pass the Astérix baton on to two cartoonists who he had been mentoring. The new team, Jean-Yves Ferri (writer) and Didier Conrad (illustrator), having got the master’s nod of approval, produced Astérix and the Picts in 2013, followed by four more Astérix albums thus far. Ferri and Conrad have even introduced new characters with contemporary and topical resonance, eg, Confoundtheirpolitix, a muckraking journalist, spoofing Julian Assange (Astérix and the Missing Scroll). Unfortunately, since becoming custodians of the world’s most famous cartoon Gaul, Messieurs Conrad and Ferri have missed the opportunity to redress the earlier derogatory depiction of Africans drawn by Uderzo. Instead Conrad tactlessly reprised Uderzo’s Black pirate lookout character in 2015 in ‘Missing Scroll’) with the same racist depiction of Baba with bulbous red lips.

‘Astérix en Bretagne‘

Astérix for Anglos
Translations into English of the iconic comic books began in 1969. Anthea Bell, in collaboration with Derek Hockridge, was the gifted translator who worked with the full sequence of Astérix creators. Bell’s distinctly English expressions and puns as translated won much praise “for keeping the original French spirit intact” (‘Anthea Bell’, Wikipedia, http://en.m.wikipedia.org). Bell also shared with Goscinny a delight in the humour of historical anachronisms which filter through the various books.

The Astérix industry
As at 2021, with the publication of the 38th Astérix comic book Astérix and the Griffin, the books have sold a staggering combined total of 385 million copies worldwide. They have been translated into 111 languages and dialects including Afrikaans, Welsh, Hebrew, Occitan, Arabic, Urdu and even Latin. Astérix adaptation to the screen comprise 10 animated films and four live action films (of which only Mission Cleopatra merits any accolades at all). There’s the usual accompaniment of merchandising of course and even a theme park, Le Parc Astérix, north of Paris. The comic books’ following spans the globe, in their heartland, France and Belgium, in Germany, Britain, just about everywhere they have been in vogue with the notable exception of the US.

What’s the secret of the Asterix comics’ success?
To M Uderzo the endearing nature of Astérix’s popularity remained a puzzle that he couldn’t fathom, best left to others of which there has been no shortage of opinions aired over the years. Clearly, the character of Astérix is deeply rooted in French popular culture. Two-thirds of the French population had read at least one Astérix books according to a 1969 national survey (‘Going for Gaul: Mary Beard on 40 years of Astérix’, The Guardian, 15-Feb-2002, www.amp.theguardian.com . Some observers put the appeal down to the escapism the comics represented – providing “a world of joyful innocence born in the aftermath of (world) war” ‘My hero: Asterix by Tom Holland‘, The Guardian, 26-Oct-2013, www.amp.theguardian.com . This sentiment is echoed by those who have called the series ”the most brilliant antidote to (the catastrophe of) Vichy in French literature”. Many French people identify with the petit Gaul as a symbol of rebellion, standing up for the “little guy“ against Goliath. To them Astérix’s steely determination to defy the juggernaut of Roman power mirrors the impulse in the hearts of many modern-day French citizens to hold out and not succumb to the all-conquering globalisation driven by the United States. While the French feel an inextinguishable pride in Astérix (“simply French”), to many outsiders the comics personify what they take to be the French character, such as the trait of “infuriating, occasionally endearing contradictions” (John Thornhill, Lunch with the FT: Asterix the national treasure’, Financial Times, 24-Dec-2005, www.financialtimes.com). Another take on Astérix’s popularity beyond the borders of France is that the idea of an heroic “native freedom-fighter” defying Rome struck a resonant tone in countries which had once been subjected to the tyranny of the Roman Empire (Beard).

Footnote: In Astérix in Belgium, the 24th volume in the series, village chief Vitalstatistix, Astérix and Obélix head off to Belgae to tangle with an equally fierce tribe of Belgian Gauls. As usual, the comic is saturated with cultural references, Goscinny weaves in a series of gently digs at the Belgians, spoofing famous national celebrities like Walloon actress/singer Annie Cordy and cyclist Eddie Merckx. The comic’s battle scene is a riff on the historical Battle of Waterloo and Uderzo draws in a cameo appearance by fictional detectives Thomson and Thompson from Belgium’s most honoured cartoon strip Tintin (‘Asterix v24: “ Asterix in Belgium”’, Augie De Blieck Jr, Pipeline Comics , 25-Jul-2018, www.pipelinecomics.com).

◔◡◔◔◡◔◔◡◔◔◡◔◔◡◔◔◡◔◔◡◔◔◡◔
some sort of pun on “insurance”
although it should be noted that no one is actually killed in the comics
shared by Uderzo himself who said in 2005, “the more we are under the sway of globalisation, the more people feel the need to rediscover their roots”, which is what he hoped connecting with France’s ancient Gallic past via his cartoon creation might help achieve
Goscinny died during the comic’s production and this was also the last Astérix that Albert Uderzo’s artist brother, Marcel, worked on

A Linguistic Potpourri of Mondegreens, Mumpsimus and Eggcorns

Creative Writing, Literary & Linguistics, Music history, Popular Culture
“Arfur D” Malapropising (Photo: ITV/Scope)

The chances are most folk with a passing interest in words and language have come across the odd Malapropism and Spoonerism in their travels. For these two terms for errors in natural speech (or if you prefer, modes of original linguistic inventiveness) we have the fictional “Mrs Malaprop” and the real life “Reverend Spooner” to thank. Myself, I tend to associate Malapropisms (the accidental substitution of a incorrect word in place of another, usually similar-sounding one) in fiction with Arthur Daley, the small-time, dodgy as-they-get wheeler dealer in TV’s Minder (“From now on the world is your lobster”, the “Arfur” Daley variation on “oyster”) and in real life with former Australian PM Tony Abbott (“the suppository of all wisdom” (should have said “repository”)). Spoonerisms are another type of verbal misstep where the speaker makes a “slip of the tongue”, accidentally transposing the initial consonants of two consecutive words, often with humorous results. One of the most referenced examples is “you have hissed my mystery lecture”, instead of “you have missed my history lecture”.

⌖ ⌖ ⌖

Would the latte-sipping, smashed avocado inner city set recognise a Mondegreen, Mumpsimus or Eggcorn when they see one? Probably not, these three linguistic odd fellows are the domain of dedicated language buffs and word nerds. If the ABC conducted a vox-pop in Martin Place “Mondegreen” would likely draw a blank, however the concept itself is a different story…anyone exposed to popular music would have at some point either unknowingly committed a Mondegreen or observed someone else in the act. A Mondegreen is where you mishear or misinterpret a phrase—especially a song lyric but it could also be a line from a poem—with the result that you give it a new and different meaning. I can hear the ranks of the slightly incredulous intoning “I didn’t know there was a word for that!”

Hendrix “excuse me…”

Given the associated factors of diction and high volume noise, Mondegreenisms in modern pop music are legion, one of the most iconic is the misinterpretation by untold number of listeners of Jimi Hendrix’s line, “Excuse me while I kiss the sky” (“Purple Haze”) as “Excuse me while I kiss the guy“. Two more classic confusions warranting honourable mention are The Beatles’ “The girl with kaleidoscope eyes” transformed by an erring ear into “The girl with colitis goes by” (from “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds”) and Johnny Nash’s “I can see clearly now, the rain has gone”, reinterpreted as “I can see clearly now, Lorraine has gone”. As these examples indicate, where the lyrics come unstuck it’s a fair chance that the culprit is a quasi-hononym.

Coining of Mondegreen: the word (but not the act) originated in 1954 with American writer Sylvia Wright…as a girl listening to her mother readIng a 18th century romantic poem she erroneously heard “Lady Mondegreen” instead of the actual lyric, “layd him on the green”. On being advised of her error Sylvia thought her interpretation “better than the original” and stuck to it, even inserting a character named “Lady Mondegreen” into her published stories.

Incoherent or indecipherable words in a song can be the source of “great storms in a teacup”. The Kingsmen’s 1963 recording of “Louie Louie” (vocalised incomprehensibly by Jack Ely) prompted an avalanche of complaints from outraged parents of teenagers about a supposed litany of obscene and pornographic lyrics in the single. Knee-jerk misinterpretations abounded from the morally-incensed in Middle America. One irate father even wrote to US attorney general Bobby Kennedy moaning about the lyrics’ “moral degradation” leading bizarrely to the FBI investigating the song (the Bureau failed to unearth any such obscenities)! All of which lends credence to the axiom that “people will hear what they want to hear” – which goes to the very heart of Mondegreens※.

⌖ ⌖ ⌖

Mumpsimus are a different kettle of aquatic, craniate gill-bearing animals. Practitioners of Mumpsimus stubbornly insist on an incorrect usage…even after being proven wrong” (Fritinancy). Mumpsimustas obstinately cling to an error, bad habit or prejudice, even after the foible is exposed. Examples include the use of “all intensive purposes” in lieu of the correct phrase, “all intents and purposes”; the verbal substitution of “nuclear” with “nucular” (a proclivity of George W Bush)§.

The Eggcorn: slight of hand or sleight of hand?

Another, related form of expression that derives from mishearing and involves reinterpretation is “Eggcorn”. Eggcorns, like Mondegreens revolve around the near-homonym while differing from Mumpsimus in that their use is unconscious and unintentional. It often occurs when people are ignorant of the precise words in stock phrases and substitute what they erroneously believe to be the correct words or expression. Examples are manifold – saying “mute point” instead of “moot point”; “tenderhooks” instead of “tenterhooks”; “pass mustard” instead of “pass muster” etc ad nauseum. An essential feature of the eggcorn is that it must retain some of the original meaning as the speaker understands it (eg, Alzheimer’s disease is rendered into “Old-timer’s disease”). The term itself is an “Eggcorn”, it’s genesis can be traced back to a creative utterance from an anonymous individual who inserted the word “eggcorn” where the similarly sounding “acorn” would conventionally go (Mark Lieberman, 2003).

°° ͡° ͡°° ͡° ͡°° ͡° ͡°° ͡° ͡°° ͡° ͡°° ͡°°° 
※ Steven Connor suggests that cognitive dissonance is in train in the creation of Mondegreens – the brain is constantly trying “to make sense of the world by making assumptions to fill in the gaps when it cannot clearly determine what it is hearing” (‘Earslips: Of Mishearings and Mondegreens’, 2009)

§ the word Mumpsimus, a confused misinterpretation of the Latin term “Sumpsimus” (“we have received”), was accidentally coined by an old monk who doggedly persisted in using the invented word. Mumpsimus first appears in the correspondence of famous humanist scholar Erasmus Roterodamus, dating from 1516

Britain’s Tradition of Stage Censorship: The Lord Chamberlain and the Examiner of Plays, Arbiters of the Peoples’ Taste

Creative Writing, Leisure activities, Literary & Linguistics, Regional History, Society & Culture
Current Lord Chamberlain Andrew Parker (fmr MI5 head) (Source: The Times)

The Lord Chamberlain (LC) is the most senior member of Queen Elizabeth II’s Royal Household retinue. The office has been around in Britain for over 600 years, the incumbent is usually a peer and traditionally has always been male. Today, the LC handles the organisation for the Queen’s attendances at garden parties, state visits, looks after HM’s thoroughbred horses and he supervises the annual upping of the Royal swans. For much of its history though the LC had another, controversial role, censor of the British Theatre with virtual dictatorial powers — he “was answerable to no-one, not even parliament, and was not obliged to justify his decision to playwrights or theatre managers” [NICHOLSON, Steve. Theatre Censorship in Britain (1909-1968) In: Les censures dans le monde: xixe-xxie siècle[online]. Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2016 (generated 17 novembre 2021). Available on the Internet: . ISBN: 9782753555495. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/books.pur.45008.] A much aggrieved George Bernard Shaw characterised the LC as the “Malvolio of St James’ Palace” [‘The Censorship of the Stage in England’, G. Bernard Shaw, North American Review, August 1899, Vol 69, No 513, pp.251-262, www.jstor.org/stable/25104865].


Walpole, the first PM (Source: History Today)


The politics of early Georgian drama
Theatre censorship had existed in England since the 16th century but institutionalising its practice as a function of the Lord Chamberlain’s Office (LCO) was a political manoeuvre by the ”First Minster“ Robert Walpole in the 1730s to blunt the weapon of satire which was being effectively used theatrically against his government. The 1737 Licensing Act handed the LC the “power of god” over the English theatre, remarkably this legislative arrangement stayed in force until as recently as 1968. Hitherto to the crackdown critics🄰 of the ruling Whig Party were relatively free to make satirical attacks through the theatre of the day to expose the political corruption of Walpole’s government. The LC’s new carte blanche powers were designed to silence a theatre increasingly hostile to Walpole and the Whigs🄱 [‘The Licensing Act of 1737’, Eliza Hay, www.ericsimpson.sites.grinnell.edu].

1737 Licensing Act


Examiner of Plays
The LC was provided with two officers to put the spadework, a Examiner of Plays🄲 and a Deputy Examiner of Plays (the offices remunerated by yearly stipends of £400 and £200 respectively). The examiners’ task, assisted by secretaries and other auxiliary staff, was to read the plays that came before them (the LC himself did precious little of the actual reading of the plays) and write “Reader’s Reports” for the LC. They were also required to visit theatres to check on their safety and comfort and to ensure that the LC’s licensing rules were being observed. Theatres without a licence were liable for prosecution and financial penalties [‘Licensing Act 1737’, Wikipedia, http://en.m.wikipedia.org]. Although the ultimate decision on a license rested with the LC, the recommendations to make or break a new play came from the examiners, little wonder then that Bernard Shaw called the examiner “the most powerful man in England or America”.

Above and beyond the spoken word and the text
Censorship was not confined to bowdlerising the texts and banning plays outright🄳, the scope of the Royal censors extended to the actors’ gestures, the costumes, the sound and lighting effects, the set and the stage directions (Nicholson).

Osborne’s 1965 play ‘A Patriot for Me’, the controversy of the dramatist’s refusal to make cuts helped end the LC’s censorship

The view from within the Lord Chamberlain’s Office bubble
The LCO saw themselves as licensors rather than censors. They never really grasped why any reasonable dramatist or manager could object to their control, concluding that playwrights who did so were just trying “to exploit an unsavoury incident or fact”. In the LCO’s Pollyanna-like world view authors of “ordinary decent plays” on the other hand had nothing to fear. The LCO took a disparaging and contemptuous view of the modern playwrights who would rail against their invervention (such as John Osborne and Edward Bond🄴). The LCO tended to justify its censoring role in patronising terms, seeing itself as a moral watchdog, protecting the average playgoer from unsavoury plays, custodians of good taste on the English stage (Nicholson).

Theatre Royal Drury Lane (Source: architectsjournal.co.uk)

Zero guidance for the artist
The Act’s vagueness placed playwrights in an additional dilemma, the office of the LC never really spelt out explicitly what constituted a play’s suitability or unsuitability for a licence, leaving dramatists and the actor-managers of theatres guessing as to the basis of the objection. Plays rejected for a licence or having their manuscripts blue-pencilled for wholesale cuts were usually generically herded under a non-specific catch-all of being either ”immoral or improper for the stage”.

St James’ Palace, home of the Lord Chamberlain (Source: Pinterest)

An effort at codifying
The 1843 Theatres Act made a partial effort at codifying and limiting the LC’s powers, stipulating that a play could only be prohibited if “it is fitting for the preservation of good manners, decorum or of the public peace”. A joint select committee in 1909 advising the LC provided further clarification of the powers, the following were said to be “no-nos” in plays: indecent subject matter; (if a play contains) “offensive personalities”; (if it infers) “violence to sentiments of religious reverence”; “represents invidious manner of living persons”; “calculated to conduce crime and vice”; “impairs friendly relations with foreign powers”🄵 [‘The Lord Chamberlain’s Plays with British Library Curator Dr Alexander Lock’, People of Theatre, (Vlog, 2021), www.peopleoftheatre.com].

‘Mrs Warren’s Profession’ (Photo: V & A Museum)

Plays that dealt seriously with contemporary issues especially sexuality were severely blue-pencilled, eg, prostitution in Shaw’s Mrs Warren’s Profession. The continuing influence of religion saw the LC come down heavily on blasphemy, the portrayal of biblical figures were taboo (eg, Oscar Wilde’s Salome. Obscene language in plays was a serious infraction of the code. Into the 20th century the censorship of the LC maintained its prescriptive role, plays that earned the ire of the examiners included such classics of the modern theatre as Waiting for Godot (bodily functions or parts, even mere sexual suggestiveness) and Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (homosexuality) which had already had a successful run on Broadway in the US. Increasingly as a result the LC was seen to be out of touch with modern concerns and realities.

Source: WNYC

Self-censorship and censorship by proxy
The LC held such control over theatrical performances in Britain that it even prompted an element of censorship by proxy. Rudolf Weiss has noted that fear of the LC‘s wrath led some playwrights to self-censor their work to secure a license and thus a hearing in Britain. Some of the autocratic actor-managers—fearful of financial losses arising from an aborted production—have done the LC’s work for them [‘“Unsuitable for theatrical presentation”: Mechanisms of censorship in later Victorian and Edwardian London Theatre’, Rudolf Weiss, www.ler.letras.up.pt].

Lord Chamberlain in 1960s, Baron Cobbold, resisted calls to abolish censorship (Artist: George JD Bruce)

End of the Lord Chamberlain’s censorship authority
Opposition to censorship was in the air in the 1960s with the emergence of a permissive society…a new generation of young playwrights like Osborne, Pinter and Bond were exploring increasingly polemical subjects in modern society. The Arts Council of Great Britain described the LC’s veto power as having “a contraceptive effect on the development of British drama” (Nicholson). The coup de grâce for theatre censorship came from the reformist Wilson Labour government🄶. The 1968 Theatres Act was part of a broad sweep of modernising legislation during the Sixties, along with the end of capital punishment, the decriminalisation of homosexuality, the introduction of the pill and the legalisation of abortion [‘50 years after Theatres Act, censorship has evolved’, Sandra Osei-Frimpong, Index on Censorship, 14-Aug-2018, www.indexoncensorship.org]. The repeal of stage censorship opened the floodgates for creativity and bold innovation – just one day after the ban ended, the controversial US counterculture musical Hair (New Age nudity, drug-taking) opened on London’s West End.

G Bernard Shaw (Source: thefamouspeople.com)


Footnote: Loophole in the system
The LCO’s net was wide but there were ways to get round the expurgator’s ban…when one Shaw play was banned in Britain for perceived profanity, the Irish playwright simply resorted to staging it in Liverpool and then Dublin. Later on some playwrights avoided the public theatre circuit altogether and put on their work exclusively at (private member) club theatres around the country. Even British drama institutions, the Royal Shakespeare Company and the Royal Court Theatre, frustrated by the LCO’s persistent interference, “threatened to turn themselves into private clubs for specific productions to evade the LC’s rulings” (Nicholson), which contributed to the groundswell of groups and individuals campaigning to end theatrical censorship.

Arts Theatre Club production, 1955 (Photo: V & A Museum)

…………………………………………………………….
🄰 with dramatist Henry Fielding in the forefront along with the Jacobite opponents of the Whigs
🄱 in theory the LC’s authority was limited to Westminster but effectively its jurisdiction applied to all Theatre Royal playhouses [‘Theatrical Oligarchies: The Role of the Examiner of Plays’, Oxford Scholarship Online, www.oxford.universitypressscholarship.com]
🄲 sometimes called ‘Comptroller’, in the 20th century they have mainly been military men-turned courtiers
🄳 each year relative few plays actually got banned, expurgation was the common recourse
🄴 whose play Saved was one of the last to be banned
🄵 these grounds would prove very controversial in the 1930 when the LC Lord Cromer banned a number of English plays which were hostile towards Nazi Germany (a manifestation of London’s appeasement approach to relations with Berlin). Cromer even send some scripts to the German Embassy for their ‘approval’! [‘Theatre of War: how the monarchy suppressed anti-Nazi drama in the 1930s’, Steve Nicholson, The Guardian, 22-Jul-2015, www.theguardian.com]
🄶 the previous Labour (Attlee) government had unsuccessfully tried to pass an anti-censorship bill in 1949

𓂀 𝕒𝕓𝕔𝕕𝕖𝕗𝕘𝕙𝕚𝕛𝕜 𓂀 𝓪𝓫𝓬𝓭𝓮𝓯𝓰𝓱𝓲 ⓐⓑⓒⓓⓔⓕⓖⓗⓘ ǟɮƈɖɛʄɢɦɨ