108 replies to this topic

[scaramanga]

Raymond Benson receives a lot of criticism for making his stories like EON screenplays. But many people, fans of the film series, would go into a book shop and pick up a Bond novel thinking it is the same as a movie. They are, however, almost right. The Facts of Death, for example. I've heard of many people who like the films saying that it is unreadable because it has too many mentions to former books. So why don't they read the bloody books? I've also heard of many people criticising the book for being too much like a film. I think that many "casual" (you know who you are!) fans don't know that there is a difference. And this is where Benson is caught in a trap. He has to make his books so that die hard Bond novel readers can enjoy them, but he also has to make the books so that casual fans and the film fans can read them too. I refer to this as "The Benson Dilemma". In other words, he's damned if he does and he's damned if he doesn't. Personally, I enjoy his books and look forward to a new Bond novel every year and don't want them to stop. After all, who will take over?

[Jacques Nexus]

scaramanga (08 Feb, 2002 02:37 p.m.):
Raymond Benson receives a lot of criticism for making his stories like EON screenplays. But many people, fans of the film series, would go into a book shop and pick up a Bond novel thinking it is the same as a movie. They are, however, almost right. The Facts of Death, for example. I've heard of many people who like the films saying that it is unreadable because it has too many mentions to former books. So why don't they read the bloody books? I've also heard of many people criticising the book for being too much like a film. I think that many "casual" (you know who you are!) fans don't know that there is a difference. And this is where Benson is caught in a trap. He has to make his books so that die hard Bond novel readers can enjoy them, but he also has to make the books so that casual fans and the film fans can read them too. I refer to this as "The Benson Dilemma". In other words, he's damned if he does and he's damned if he doesn't. Personally, I enjoy his books and look forward to a new Bond novel every year and don't want them to stop. After all, who will take over?

And what about the "Gardner Dilemma" ?. I assume it must have been worse because I've always thought at least half his Bonds were incredibly boring...so much so you have to wonder how many potential new Bond literary fans were turned off altogether. At least Benson writes bloody entertaining thrillers which is a good way to attract new readers.

[Blue Eyes]

RossMan (11 Feb, 2002 10:07 p.m.):
If he really tried, I know he can make terrific, classic Bond stuff that die hard fans will like. I don't care about the casual fans who just pick up a copy occasionally and don't understand the book Bond.

Ah but you see Benson can't do this. His books are commissioned for everyone, not just the die hard fans. Face it, they don't sell well enough to everyone, can you imagine if he cut them out and left it for about 200 people?

At the end of the day he's been asked for write it with the films in mind. Why? Because everyone has seen a Bond film, few people have read a Fleming novel.

[Mister Asterix]

My father worked in the newspaper business and he told me once that when trying to be objective they could tell they got it correct when they got an equal amount of complaints from each side. I suppose Mr. Benson has to play a similar game with his Bond books. One would hope as he becomes more established in his role as Bond author that he can ignore his critics and enjoy a bit more freedom with his stories.

[RossMan]

I think Benson just has to stop worrying about whether or not the casual fan will know what's going on. Reading the Bedside Companion, Benson really knows his Fleming, even says Gardners not Fleminglike, but he makes his books just like EON movies. If he really tried, I know he can make terrific, classic Bond stuff that die hard fans will like. I don't care about the casual fans who just pick up a copy occasionally and don't understand the book Bond. Which reminds me, I was at another forum once where someone stated how they don't like Fleming becuase his books MESS UP the TRUE James Bond in the movies. I say, no offense meant to you casual or non-literary Bond people, but screw them! Why should our enjoyment of a Bond novel decrease so that some guy who saw 1 or 2 Bond movies will be comfortable with reading a book. (Besides, it's us regulars who keep Glidrose in business with).

Benson's books are like EON movies with numerous references to the Fleming stuff. I say Benson should either go 100 percent literary Bond, kinda like Doubleshot, or if he must, follow the fourmula of Zero Minus Ten. I think that book was the perfect cross between movie and book Bond, movie people know what's going on, and book people still like it.

Sorry for the length of this post but I get frustrated with Bond fans who are at least not even familiar with Fleming's originals. (Gee, who's that Ian Fleming guy mentioned before each movie? they say)

[Evil Doctor Cheese]

I don't profess to having read the books but I have to say that I'm very very aware of the books and their content. I'm not a great fiction reader but I make sure I know all about the Flemming Books. I don't think that Benson should make his books for people who are one step down from me... ignorant of the Flemming books. I agree with Scaramanga and I'm not even a big book fan yet. Hey I'm 17 and I'm just on Casino Royale... got years left to read the rest of them.

[James Page]

scaramanga (08 Feb, 2002 02:37 p.m.):
he's damned if he does and he's damned if he doesn't.

Do the Bart man!

You raise a really interesting point Scaramanga. Personally, I'm quite happy with this inbetween pitch of the novels, especially when we are at the depths of movie drought. However, ask me that when we are in November and you'l probably see me reaching for a Fleming.

[Icephoenix]

These days I think Benson has to make them seem more like movies. If you want to drag a younger audience inm u gotta give them what they want. Some people may disagree, but it's a tough battle in the world of books. When I write, i usually have the JB them pumping in my head. So I usually produce action (but keeping with the plot). I kinda wanted a TND type of pre-titles in my book SILVERMOON, just to get people drawn in.

[Jacques Nexus]

It doesn't worry me whether Benson goes 100 % literary Bond or an EON hybrid. All I want is a bloody good story and caper that excites me long after I've read it. I've enjoyed all the Bensons and will continue to do so. The only thing Benson needs to improve on is his prose style, something he doesn't pay much attention too. For me beautiful descriptive writing is a wonder to read. What Benson should try to aim for is the eloquence of the first paragraphs of ZMT & HTTK...great openings for those two novels.

[RossMan]

Part of the problem maybe that here in the US the Fleming books aren't even available so many readers aren't even familiar with the book Bond. When Gardner wrote the books, they reprinted Fleming's, at least some of them.

I'm starting to agree with Nexus. Benson has a sucsessful formula, Fleming's original character with movie scenarios, and probably won't change it so I'll just have to accept his books being more cinematic, at least it's better than no new Bond novels every year.

[Jacques Nexus]

Just imagine if EON kept on making masterpiece Bonds after GOLDFINGER. Because in the latter half of the 60's EON lowered 007's stature to a cartoon character, they've been consequently trying to raise the bar again since the 80's: that in essence is the heart of the "Benson Dilemma". No matter how much EON tries, the world at large finds it hard to accept that 007 is a character worth taking seriously. Therefore Benson must operate in this "twilight world".

[Jacques Nexus]

scaramanga (08 Feb, 2002 02:37 p.m.):
Raymond Benson receives a lot of criticism for making his stories like EON screenplays. But many people, fans of the film series, would go into a book shop and pick up a Bond novel thinking it is the same as a movie. They are, however, almost right. The Facts of Death, for example. I've heard of many people who like the films saying that it is unreadable because it has too many mentions to former books. So why don't they read the bloody books? I've also heard of many people criticising the book for being too much like a film. I think that many "casual" (you know who you are!) fans don't know that there is a difference. And this is where Benson is caught in a trap. He has to make his books so that die hard Bond novel readers can enjoy them, but he also has to make the books so that casual fans and the film fans can read them too. I refer to this as "The Benson Dilemma". In other words, he's damned if he does and he's damned if he doesn't. Personally, I enjoy his books and look forward to a new Bond novel every year and don't want them to stop. After all, who will take over?

And what about the "Gardner Dilemma" ?. I assume it must have been worse because I've always thought at least half his Bond were incredibly boring...so much so you have to wonder how many potential new Bond literary fans were turned off altogether. At least Benson writes bloody entertaining thrillers which is a good start to attract new readers.

[Loomis]

At the end of the day he's been asked for write it with the films in mind. Why? Because everyone has seen a Bond film, few people have read a Fleming novel.

In retrospect, this seems a classic mistake: "We'll blend the movie Bond with Fleming's Bond, and that way we'll attract both the film fans, and people who are into the literary 007." What happened, of course, is that the books failed to appeal to either camp. Those who were only interested in the films simply stuck with the films, while many readers were turned off by what appeared to be cheapskate cash-in potboilers without literary merit.

If there are going to be further novels featuring the adult 007, I hope that they'll go "100 percent literary Bond", as RossMan puts it. IFP should forget about the Eon Bond - don't even try to capture that market.

[David Schofield]

At the end of the day he's been asked for write it with the films in mind. Why? Because everyone has seen a Bond film, few people have read a Fleming novel.

In retrospect, this seems a classic mistake: "We'll blend the movie Bond with Fleming's Bond, and that way we'll attract both the film fans, and people who are into the literary 007." What happened, of course, is that the books failed to appeal to either camp. Those who were only interested in the films simply stuck with the films, while many readers were turned off by what appeared to be cheapskate cash-in potboilers without literary merit.

If there are going to be further novels featuring the adult 007, I hope that they'll go "100 percent literary Bond", as RossMan puts it. IFP should forget about the Eon Bond - don't even try to capture that market.

Let's be honest, the main reason we now have "young Bond" coming is because of Benson and his series of hardback screenplays. Presumably, IFP had had enough, couldn't work out how to bring "literary Bond" back so opted for Higson's efforts as a way of keeping Bond on the bookshelves. Ultimately, I suspect, IFP will find a writer who both wants to and can (perhpas Higson?) write Fleming and attempt a relaunch of older Bond, though whether in 50s or 60s set or contemporary is open to debate. One things certain, they will NOT got for a Bond fan with no writing talent whatsover, Mr Benson...

[spynovelfan]

I don't see it like that, David, and I don't agree with Loomis' take, either. Clearly, books by Benson *can* sell - look at Splinter Cell. I don't think they flopped because they were a melding of Fleming and the films. I think the flopped because about nine copies were printed. Hard to sell millions when only thousands are printed. If they'd had him write a Goldeneye novel that tied into the film and the computer game, printed bucketloads of them, marketed them properly - why would they not have done as well if not better than Splinter Cell (or The Bourne Legacy, another continuation)? Goldeneye's every bit as popular a game as SC. Bond's every bit as big a brand as Clancy. I think they could have done it. Benson's doing it now, with people who have a clue.

As for the Higson idea, I think IFP went for that because they saw the success of Harry Potter. Yeah, they couldn't work out how to bring the literary Bond back - but I'm not sure they have since, either.

[Loomis]

Clearly, books by Benson *can* sell - look at Splinter Cell.

But isn't it being sold on the name "Tom Clancy"? And I'd disagree that "Bond's every bit as big a brand as Clancy" - at least, the literary Bond hasn't been a big brand for many, many years. Good point about the low print runs for Benson, though.

"100 percent literary Bond" might not sell truckloads, but I'm sure it'd do a heck of a lot better than the Benson Bonds - because, basically, it would be taken more seriously. It'd be seen (if marketed properly, natch) as something new, rather than just same old same old.

After all, you're more likely to buy a novel if you think it's going to be really good.

[David Schofield]

Clearly, books by Benson *can* sell - look at Splinter Cell.

But isn't it being sold on the name "Tom Clancy"? And I'd disagree that "Bond's every bit as big a brand as Clancy" - at least, the literary Bond hasn't been a big brand for many, many years. Good point about the low print runs for Benson, though.

"100 percent literary Bond" might not sell truckloads, but I'm sure it'd do a heck of a lot better than the Benson Bonds - because, basically, it would be taken more seriously. It'd be seen (if marketed properly, natch) as something new, rather than just same old same old.

After all, you're more likely to buy a novel if you think it's going to be really good.

Yes, I think the Splinter Cell Benson works because of Clancy, not Benson. Because Fleming is so distinctive, it's very hard to follow - a non-writer like Benson with his EON hybrid's had no chance: it will take a very good writer to succeed.

Also, Spynovelfan, how much cash do you really need to throw at the publicity to relaunch literary Bond? Benson doing a Goldeneye novel/PC game/movie tie in would just be that, not literary Bond. Also, I seem to recall when Benson got the gig quite a few reviews in mainstream UK newspapers and magazines of Zeron Minus Ten because Glidrose/IFP sold them on the return of Flemings Bond after Gardner. Unfortunately, they all said the book was lousy and Benson couldn't write - doesn't really help with the sales, does it?

[spynovelfan]

The *game* Splinter Cell was sold on Clancy's name - not sure Clancy did anything but lease the use of his name, though, and that was only initially. People don't play the game now because of Clancy - they play it because it's a good game. People who like the game will consider buying the book. Benson has written a book of a computer game that is branded with Clancy's name. That's a pretty vague connection. I think James Bond - even with the Fleming confusion - is a stronger brand, potentially.

More later.

[Loomis]

Check out the "Splinter Cell" front cover, spy - you've got "TOM CLANCY'S" in enormous letters (larger than the typeface for the book's title), plus an additional mention of Clancy: "CREATED BY #1 NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLING AUTHOR TOM CLANCY".

http://www.commander...linter_cell.jpg

Now, if that's not trading on Clancy's name to sell a book, I don't know what would be.

Benson doesn't even get to use his own name. He has to make do with "David Michaels". So "books by Benson *can* sell", hey? Only when A. the fact that Benson wrote them is carefully concealed, and B. the name of one of the most commercially successful authors of all time is invoked, it would seem.

So I'm not sure where you're coming from when you write that: "The *game* Splinter Cell was sold on Clancy's name" (implying that the novel isn't); or when you suggest that there's only "a pretty vague connection" between the use of Clancy's name and the success of this novel.

OTOH, maybe I'm completely misinterpreting your post.

[spynovelfan]

Okay. When they were coming up with the game, they needed a way to distinguish it from the mass of other similar games out there. So they paid Clancy to use his name as 'creator' of the 'concept'. Either that, or he did come up with the concept, on the back of an envelope, in five minutes. In any case, in no meaningful way could Splinter Cell the game be described as being Tom Clancy's creation - it is merely the Clancy brand. However, once that brand had succeeded in separating SC from the other games on the shelves, and users tried it out, it was a massive success. Not because of the Clancy elements - non-existent, as every first person shooter has this kind of stuff - but because it was a really good game. Today, people buy these games because they're good - not because of the Clancy thing. That was just the initial booster.

For the book, they're doing the same thing. Some people will, certainly, buy this book because it has Clancy's name in massive letters on it. But most will buy it because they're fans of the game and want more. The Splinter Cell branding is more important for the book than Clancy.

You wrote:

'So "books by Benson *can* sell", hey? Only when A. the fact that Benson wrote them is carefully concealed, and B. the name of one of the most commercially successful authors of all time is invoked, it would seem.'

Indeed. But I'm advocating having 'IAN FLEMING PUBLICATIONS PRESENTS' and 'JAMES BOND 007' in massive letters on the covers - and no writer's name at all. When I said 'literary Bond' I just meant in the sense of the books. I think it's a mistake to try to be 'literary' in the sense of Graham Greene. Frankly, Fleming wasn't. If you're going to go that route, sure, Benson isn't your man. We go to the William Boyd/JG Ballard idea. But if you want to *make a lot of money* and compete with continuations like Bourne and series like Splinter Cell, you just get a writer or preferably several writers to produce several exciting thrillers branded 'James Bond' and watch sales rocket. It doesn't make the slighest difference if the critics think they're crap - do you think that will stop sales of Splinter Cell? Do you think 16-year-old boys care for the reviews? That only matters if you make the mistake of trying to be literary. I agree that there's a dilemma: go literary and you risk very low sales and even falling flat on your face if they're not up to scratch; go Splinter-style and you risk the opprobium of Fleming fans and/or messing up the heritage Fleming left. I've already presented the ideal way to get round the dilemma, though, in this thread.

Do we want the continuation novels to be massively successful - in which case, in a few years, they might be able to be a bit cleverer with them, as they'll have the clout? Or do we want them to languish in non-existence while we advocate having precisely the period recreation of Fleming we'd love to read, but which will never happen and even if it were to would sell fewer copies than there are on this board?

[Loomis]

go literary and you risk very low sales

But why? This is what I just don't understand. BTW, by "literary", I don't necessarily mean Martin Amis/Ballard/Boyd - I mean adult, intelligent, well-written Bond novels that don't totally desecrate the works of Fleming, a la our very own Jim's "Just Another Kill". I really don't see why that sort of thing wouldn't sell (as stated above, I'm sure it'd do better than Benson, since reviewers would be easily persuaded that it was quality stuff for a change, and they'd write favourable reviews, and it'd all snowball from there; of course, IFP would have to splash out a certain amount for publicity, and make sure that the covers were classier affairs than, say, the cover for "High Time to Kill", etc.). I don't think it would achieve the kind of sales of Tom Clancy, Stephen King or J.K. Rowling (or even the kind of sales of Fleming in his day), but, with a bit of luck and a following wind, it'd do okay.... surely?

I must say, though, I do like your Double-O agents idea.

[spynovelfan]

Loomis, I said 'risk' low sales. I think what you just outlined is possible - but very unlikely. There are a lot of factors, aren't there, and the balance needs to be just right. The biggest problem is who is going to write these adult, intelligent, well-written Bond novels that don't totally desecrate the works of Fleming? I haven't read Just Another Kill or From Death's Door yet, but I can fully appreciate, having read just one of clinkeroo's short stories, that he and perhaps other could manage it. Leaving aside the slightly absurd fantasy element of this conversation - it doesn't seem very likely that IFP will realise that the answer to their problems lies in contributors to the same internet site we're having this discussion on, and we're in Larry Groznik territory if we believe otherwise - I'm really not so sure that anyone capable of doing this would want to do it, come to the crunch. It's like Owen with taking the role of Bond. If you're a Golden Globe winner (perhaps Oscar-winner) just hitting your stride, suddenly after many years in art-house films a genuine hot property in Hollywood, with a chance of a long and profitable and serious career - what's your incentive for taking the part of Bond? Connery, Lazenby and Brosnan were all worried about being typecast, and the first two jumped ship because of it and Brosnan is finding out he might have been too late. Moore never even considered it, seemingly, and his subsequent career shows the others were right to worry (though Lazenby was too early). Dalton left, and it mayu have been for the same reason, but that's another thread and I'm digressing. The only reason Owen would now take the role is financial security. That is not on the cards with the IFP gig. Benson said himself he would have made as much working 9 to 5 in an office, and that he now sometimes takes temp work to supplement his income. If you could write an intelligent adult spy thriller with commercial appeal - why would you risk getting involved with this project, which has been spectacularly unsuccessful over the last few decades. and forever be typecast as 'the third guy to write those continuation Bond books', rather than 'the creator of the wonderful Gavin Hunt series' or whatever? Who remembers Gardner's Herbie Kruger series? They're a footnote. Where will IFP find this writer? If he's capable of doing what you say, he might already have had several successes. Why, then, would Jack Higgins take it on? No, it has to be someone who has the potential to do it, but hasn't yet. Jim or Clinkeroo? I really think for the money that they would make, they would be far better off trying to get their own efforts published, and making money the way Michael Connelly or Robert Wilson or any other well-reviewed but commercial thriller writer does.

[Loomis]

It's like Owen with taking the role of Bond. If you're a Golden Globe winner (perhaps Oscar-winner) just hitting your stride, suddenly after many years in art-house films a genuine hot property in Hollywood, with a chance of a long and profitable and serious career - what's your incentive for taking the part of Bond?

This is very depressing. You are, of course, almost certainly correct. It's for this reason that I'm beginning to think we may get Brosnan back for BOND 21, or failing Brosnan a total nobody who probably wouldn't be anything to write home about. Hmmm.... looks like it's Brosnan, then. On another thread a while back, I speculated that if Martin Campbell returned to the franchise, it might mean that more interesting and successful directors had been offered the gig but weren't prepared to touch Bond with a bargepole. I guess we should draw our own conclusions now that Campbell has indeed agreed to direct BOND 21 (I believe that Eon was in talks with at least five other directors: Stephen Frears, Paul McGuigan, Guy Ritchie, Lee Tamahori and Matthew Vaughn). Looks to me like the film series, financially successful though it is, is generally held in low regard by people whose careers are going places, just like the flop literary series.

I was watching THE BOURNE IDENTITY last night with a friend, and we started talking about Bond (her view is that Owen lacks the charm to be 007 - my protestations that Dalton didn't have much charisma, and that Fleming's Bond isn't supposed to be particularly charming, or even especially good-looking, cut absolutely no ice). At one point she said: "There will never again be another good Bond film." (She hates DIE ANOTHER DAY, considering it just plain stupid.) I started to argue back, but then I shut my mouth, realising that she was almost certainly right.

Re: the money issue - surely being praised on sites like CBn would be enough of an incentive for any talented writer to take on Bond? No? Oh, well.

[spynovelfan]

I think Bond is seen as something of a white elephant - both the films and the books. However, the films are making money. People like you, me and your friend complain that DAD was lousy, but it did very solid business. Was it adult, intelligent, well-written and faithful to Fleming? None of the above, frankly. The Sixties have this enormous cultural cachet, and as a result of that and other factors, people now see Fleming as some kind of literary god. He wasn't. He was writing thrillers. They were decent thrillers, and they were enlivened by a fine imagiination, interesting research and some sparkling travelogue-style prose. But they were not litrerature, were they? That's a mental block we have - we see the bitter, cynical misogynistic old soak with his typewriter and shutters closed, desperate to impress his wife's friends and hammering out thrillers that in some parts are now very dated and stilted; and then we fly like moths toward the idea of the brilliant literary thriller-writer who nobody else can touch. Which is the truth? I've read Greene, Ambler, Maugham and even Kosinki. I've read dozens and dozens of spy writers who do manage to combine the literary with thrills. Fleming wasn't Ambler or Greene - not even close. He's fun, and brilliantly well-done fun for the most part. The books should be the same. Having writers ponce around the world researching locations for a year in an attempt to recreate the Fleming sweep is pointless and unprofitable. Surely the Benson era has shown that. It's time for IFP to stop being so precious and pretentious about Fleming - EON sure as hell aren't - and join in the game. Take on the Bourne books and the Splinter Cell books and the rest.

I don't think my idea's unworkable at all.

[Loomis]

people now see Fleming as some kind of literary god. He wasn't. He was writing thrillers. They were decent thrillers, and they were enlivened by a fine imagiination, interesting research and some sparkling travelogue-style prose. But they were not litrerature, were they?

No, but Fleming's books are a heck of a lot better than the continuation novels (exception: "Colonel Sun"; mind you, I've read a lot of good things about the Christopher Woods, which I've never read).

Indeed, we should not make Fleming out to be something he wasn't - but, still, he was good. Not a great writer, but certainly a good one, whose books by and large still hold up very well. I know we'll never again get another Fleming writing Bond adventures, but why can't we hope for another good writer? Yeah, yeah, I know - you've already answered that one.

It's time for IFP to stop being so precious and pretentious about Fleming - EON sure as hell aren't

Well, I'm not so sure that IFP is precious or pretentious about Fleming - to judge by its apparent attitude over the past couple of decades of: oh, let's just bung any old rot into the marketplace. Would an organisation hung up on Fleming have released such poorly-written, juvenile rubbish as "High Time to Kill"?

[spynovelfan]

The pretension comes from releasing any old rot and trying to get them reviewed as literary thrillers, as if Benson and Gardner were the 'heirs' to Fleming, giving them a year to research, and so on. The preciousness is in wanting to see synopses, plots being vetoed, titles by committee. But you're right - in both cases, they're rather belied by the results. It's one thing to be pretentious and precious of Fleming's estate - but when one claims to be doing that and the result is the veto of the title The World Is Not Enough because it's not Fleming-esque, or the allowing of Gardner to introduce Q'ute, or any of the other guffs, it is tragic. Had High Time To Kill been written anoymously, been one of four Bond novels released that year, and been marketed properly and printed in significant figures, it would have been a great success and I could just write it off as one Bond novel I thought was crap. As it is, each novel that comes out is scrutinised more than any of Flemings ever were.

I think good old-fashioned fun continuation novels that sell a lot are acheivable. They won't be great literature, but neither was Fleming. They won't, in all probability, even be as good as Fleming. Continuations rarely are. But just look at what they've done with the success of *two* Bourne films. The first continuation is penned by a middle-ranking thriller writer of some repute, is panned by critics, is panned by many Ludlum fans, and still sells roughly 97 million times more than all of Benson's books put together. Look at what they've done off the back of two computer games based on a 'concept' Tom Clancy dreamed up between dessert and coffee - 'Um, okay, an elite lone-wolf spy countering terrorism - will that do? A name? Um, James Pond? No? Fisher, James Fisher? Jeremy Fisher? Sam Fisher? Done! Send the check to my office' - a book based on the games written by Benson has outsold by roughly 16 billion all of Benson's previous books.

Why on *earth* wouldn't it be possible to do with Bond. People can complain all they want, but there are now *no* adult continuation books. Which would you rather?

[Loomis]

The pretension comes from releasing any old rot and trying to get them reviewed as literary thrillers

I didn't know they tried to do that. It's been my impression that the Bensons (as well as most of the Gardners) were just shoved out there halfheartedly, with virtually nonexistent print runs, to deafening silence from critics and no reaction whatsoever from the reading public. I mean, I've always considered myself a hardcore Bond fan hip to what's happening, but I didn't even know that new novels were being written until, a few years ago, I stumbled across a copy of "Doubleshot" that had somehow managed to find its way into a bookshop.

But just look at what they've done with the success of *two* Bourne films. The first continuation is penned by a middle-ranking thriller writer of some repute, is panned by critics, is panned by many Ludlum fans, and still sells roughly 97 million times more than all of Benson's books put together.

I've never understood why Gardner and Benson were asked to come up with a new novel every year. Why didn't they release a book every two or three years (allowing more time to produce something really good), to roughly coincide with each new film (obviously, a new Bond movie reawakens public interest in the character)? Seems to me that the only reason "The Bourne Legacy" did well is because it appeared at roughly the same time as THE BOURNE SUPREMACY.

[spynovelfan]

The pretension comes from releasing any old rot and trying to get them reviewed as literary thrillers

I didn't know they tried to do that.

Oh, yeah, right from Licence Renewed. Complete with Gardner and Benson giving interviews all over the place - ie in newspapers and magazines, outside fandom - about their job. Hell, the magazine I work for was sent High Time To Kill to review because some of it was set in Brussels - and I did an email interview with Benson and wrote up a page feature. Here's an article from The Observer:

'The brand's Bond, James Bond

Robert McCrum
Sunday May 5, 2002

When good writers die, they join, if they're lucky, the canon of western literature and live on, as major or minor classics. Lesser writers are quickly forgotten, but some bestselling names enjoy another kind of afterlife. They become franchised. Their heirs and literary agents authorise a succession of sequels that keep the money rolling in long after the usual obsequies.

The publishing industry cheerfully conspires with the process by which a good popular writer's memory is piously demeaned by inferior imitations churned out by penurious hacks. Publishers, like film studios, are often so desperately short of imagination that nothing gives them greater satisfaction than placing the corporate shirt on a sure-fire winner.

And who could blame them? The lottery of public taste is so chancy and the responses of the literary marketplace so capricious that a dead cert will always exhilarate the chequebooks of the men (and women) in suits. No wonder a good bet like a sequel will have the book trade quivering with anticipation.

So although Alistair Maclean, for example, has been dead these 15 years, mass market editions of adventure stories 'based on' or 'inspired by' his notes and drafts, and published under his bestselling name, continue to bring home the bacon for the Maclean estate.

Next to a hatchet-job of a biography, there's probably nothing so damaging to a deceased popular writer's memory and reputation as a pot-boiling sequel. Which brings me to the intriguing case of Ian Fleming's James Bond, who is about to celebrate his 50th birthday. (Casino Royale was first published in 1953).


James Bond is a literary brand name par excellence, a guarantee of a distinctive and reliable kind of armchair experience. As Simon Winder perceptively puts it in his entertaining Penguin anthology, My Name's Bond, James Bond, 'Fleming's hold on the British male imagination remains so great that the landscape of our postwar culture would be unrecognisable without his iconic hero. He has nourished the fantasies of millions on a scale only otherwise approached by Tolkien...'

An important part of Fleming's grip, of course, depends on 007, the suave and cruelly handsome Englishman (named after a distinguished ornithologist), a 'knife-thrower' whose 'vices' included 'drink... and women', but that's not the whole story. Fleming, a one-time journalist and literary maverick, is a genre writer who deserves much more serious critical consideration than is usually accorded to such writers.

What do you look for in a novelist? Imagination? Turn to Bond's dinner with Goldfinger. Narrative drive? Try Tatiana's encounter with Rosa Klebb in From Russia with Love. Dialogue? How about: 'Doesn't do to get mixed up with neurotic women in this business. They hang onto your gun-arm, if you know what I mean.'

Yes, of course Bond is a snobbish, shallow-minded chauvinist with sado-masochistic inclinations, but Fleming's prodigal, strangely euphoric, and jewel-encrusted prose remains, half a century later, a constant delight. No wonder that after his early death from heart failure at the age of 56, the Fleming estate persuaded themselves to license the 007 franchise.

The latest manifestation of a strictly commercial operation, The Man with the Red Tattoo, by Raymond Benson (Hodder

[Loomis]

[quote name='spynovelfan' date='17 January 2005 - 14:53']What's missing is Fleming's inimitable voice, that languid, Fleet Street drawl as smoky and cynical as the morning-after atmosphere of a Mayfair nightclub.

[/quote]

Ah! I've read those words before somewhere, forget where, but, yes, very true, very true indeed. On the other hand, it is possible to do a reasonably good approximation of "the real thing" - Amis did it, and so too, so I'm told, did Wood.

[quote name='spynovelfan' date='17 January 2005 - 14:53']I find the whole idea of having Benson's name on the thing, him taking a year to do his research round the world, giving interviews all over as he does as Fleming's successor and so on - I think that's a lose-lose situation, as he'll never convince the likes of McCrum he's anywhere as good as Fleming (because he isn't, but that shouldn't be the focus) or readers who are currently devouring Clancy and Lustbader and, um, Benson, because they play computer games and watch DVDs and want something now. You need to give them stuff to buy, or they can't buy it!

Zero Minus Ten's UK print run - 5,000 copies. "In order to be a New York Times Bestseller, a book has to sell at least 100,000. It

[spynovelfan]

Well, I don't mind Benson's name on the cover, or the idea that he should make a name for himself and do interviews and trot the globe and so on - people like McCrum probably wouldn't entertain the idea that anyone could ever be as good as Fleming, and I'm sure he wouldn't be impressed with "David Michaels"-style pseudonyms. But you're right: you need to give readers books to buy, otherwise you're stuffed.

LOL. I don't mind Benson's name on the cover per se. The reason I'm objecting to it is because, like you, I want half-decent intelligent continuation novels that sell. I think to do that, you have to

1. Have lots of them printed.

2. Have lots of them written - Benson's next Splinter Cell will be out before year's end, and is part of the Clancy brand roster. Last month saw the publication of Wild Card, the eight book in the Tom Clancy's Power Plays series. This month is the turn of Springboard, the ninth book in Tom Clancy's Net Force series. June sees the release of War of Eagles, the 12th book in Tom Clancy's Op-Center series. None of these books are written by Tom Clancy.

3. Have lots of writers to do the above.

With the Clancy brand, they put 'Tom Clancy's' and then the name of the writer in small at the bottom - either the real name or, as with Benson, a pseudonym. I think the only option with Bond continuations is the pseudonym. That's what they did with the Nick Carter books. Why does it work? Because writers are happy to do the job, take the check and then go on to their proper careers. Writers like Martin Cruz Smith. How many people say 'Oh, yeah, but he wrote those crappy Nick Carter novels?' Nobody. The point is that Gardner and, to a lesser extent Benson (because he was an unpublished novelist before), have this millstone around their neck that they wrote the Bond novels. Nobody takes Gardner's other writing seriously now. Not really. A few reviews of the Kruger series aside. He's always going to be the guy who did Bond, and he was under a microscope. Dozens of sites, including this one, dissect the decisions he took with the character, because he was doing one a year or whatever it was and he was the only guy writing them. How many sites analyse the Boysie Oakes series or his other books? None. Now look at Cruz Smith.

So if you want to attrract decent writers to pen the continuations, putting their name on the cover doesn't allow them to 'make a name for themselves'. It damages their name! It damages their future brand. To get these people to do it, you need to offer them decent money, and anonymity. That's partly a reflection of the status of the Bond continuations, partly because of the whole Fleming problem, and partly because continuations already have an image problem. The very fact that the Bond/Fleming brand is so big is ironically what makes it vital to have the writers anonymous. It's not *about* the writers - it's about the books.

My idea is for IFP to have a stable of writers - all anonymous - and you have IAN FLEMING PUBLICATIONS PRESENTS... across the top and JAMES BOND 007 in massive letters on the cover - and no author's name. That way, you avoid all the articles saying this new guy ain't no Fleming - even McCrum would see that that is not an issue. They're not taking themselves that seriously - they're not competing with Fleming. The only problem with this is how to avoid damaging Bond, because dozens of novels (the Nick Carter series ran to well over two hundred) will mean that he goes through a fair bit. I think the Double-0 idea works. It's similar to TOM CLANCY'S OP-CENTRE. It's IAN FLEMING PUBLICATIONS PRESENTS 'A DOUBLE-0 SECTION' ADVENTURE. Yes, the book brand isn't as big as Clancy! That's the problem I'm looking at. It has the potential to be bigger, because everyone in the world knows the brand, and most people have seen the films. The brand of James Bond is bigger than Tom Clancy, so it stands to reason that it must be possible to use that brand to sell books.

Edited by spynovelfan, 17 January 2005 - 04:40 PM.