Part 5 of Jacques Stewart's Benson Book Review Series
The Impossible Job: Never Dream of Dying
#1
Posted 02 March 2009 - 02:07 PM
#2
Posted 02 March 2009 - 05:08 PM
#3
Posted 02 March 2009 - 05:30 PM
#4
Posted 02 March 2009 - 05:32 PM
I'd like more explanation of this.If you're a bloke, some passages will probably give you a funny but nice feeling.
#5
Posted 02 March 2009 - 07:03 PM
BTW, this is just my opinion.
#6
Posted 02 March 2009 - 09:34 PM
Perhaps I'll read it in installments over the next few months, but in the meantime: perhaps get an editor, old chap?
#7
Posted 02 March 2009 - 09:41 PM
#8
Posted 02 March 2009 - 09:54 PM
Yes, CBn is still free and not pay-per-view. Amazing. I hope that the article prompts Bond fans to buy Mr Benson's work and judge for themselves.
Jim, does your wife know that you've been rogering the English language? That was positively Shakespearean. Have a smartie.
#9
Posted 02 March 2009 - 10:18 PM
I think Jim's wife is just glad he's not twisting and pulling her nipples like radio control knobs.Jim, does your wife know that you've been rogering the English language?
#10
Posted 02 March 2009 - 10:23 PM
#11
Posted 03 March 2009 - 02:30 AM
#12
Posted 03 March 2009 - 09:00 AM
Other than his clear limitations (that as polite as I can be) as a writer, my greatest annoyance with Benson is the repetition of the very conceit that he is truthfully writing Fleming-Bond, and that, conversely, John Gardner didn't. Though this seems to be a view that only holds with Benson's American peer group. ("Hey, Al. Benson's got James Bond. James Bond is now an American! And so is Pierce Brosnan...!). To write Fleming-English (that is, about Fleming's England) would be hard enough for a 50s Brit: for a Chicago drama teacher it seems well-nigh impossible.
And yet, had Benson approached the task as what is should have been - published fan-fiction - he would have travelled better. As has been suggested on these boards about a paperback series about Craig's Bond, had Benson sold himself as the writer of the non-filmed adventures Pierce Brosnan-Bond all would have, pretty much, been forgiven. As fan-fic, Benson could have worked within his limitations. As it was, he got all pretentious - Fleming Bond now returns under the guidance of a Bond historian after years away under the guidnance of an increasingly cynical John Gardner - insiting he was writing the "real thing". When the opposite was true.
Because ultimately, as an uber fan and writer of fan-fic, Raymond Benson has a fantasy figure in James Bond, and his books tell us that he clearly want to be ed by James Bond. At least Jim is his own fantasy figure, though I am quite sure he s himself long and often.
#13
Posted 03 March 2009 - 09:49 AM
I'll forward my bank account number to your pm-box so you can already start amortising the sum.
#14
Posted 03 March 2009 - 12:18 PM
Has Jaques Stewart gone insane?
No, he was always this brilliant.
Seriously Jim. I agree with most of what you've written, not all - sometimes you seem a bit too harsh (but that's my opinion ). But the way you've written it is just... great.
#15
Posted 03 March 2009 - 12:51 PM
#16
Posted 03 March 2009 - 12:58 PM
Testicle robbing, apparently. And it worked, he's got mine.Jim, what did you hope to achieve with this piece? What goal did you have in mind?
#17
Posted 03 March 2009 - 01:08 PM
Jim, what did you hope to achieve with this piece? What goal did you have in mind?
He must be trying to crash the CBn server.
#18
Posted 03 March 2009 - 02:57 PM
As ever.
#19
Posted 03 March 2009 - 03:47 PM
Jim, what did you hope to achieve with this piece? What goal did you have in mind?
As with any review, it is a vanity piece and more about the reviewer than the reviewed.
#20
Posted 03 March 2009 - 04:10 PM
Oh, I enjoyed a lot of it, and it made me laugh and think and there's a lot of brilliant insight into the genre and James Bond... but it seemed to me to be close to bullying. Sorry, but it did. You don't know Raymond Benson personally (I hope), but you must know that several people who frequent this place do, and that at some stage he may see this - is quite likely to, if I know writers. If, hypothetically speaking, IFP were to ask him to write another Bond novel and he accepted the job, and he then sent you an email saying, in effect, I've read some of your criticisms and would like you to read this book and tell me what you make of it (I said it was hypothetical)... how would you reply? Why would it be different to what you've done here? Benson has, after all, written several Bond novels, which you haven't - you think his heart might not have been in this one, but if I gave you a deadline to finish your Bond novel, what would it look like? Say the deadline is the end of June. It's easy to criticise, and you do it well... but to what purpose?
'Yes. I'm a dreadful hypocrite, I know. I say so in the piece. I'm wasting my life on this stuff. I loathe opinion. Have at me.'
Do what you like, of course. But it just seems to me to be an awful waste of your energies, and terribly negative and somehow just plain old discourteous to a fellow writer and human being. Why not concentrate on writing articles celebrating Bond novels you do enjoy, like the splendid piece on TMWTGG - or finishing your own? What would you think if I were to write a review of your own efforts along the lines you've done here? I know, I know. You wouldn't care less.
Sorry, but it left a sour note for me, brilliant as it was. I went back and read your first piece in this series - the difference in tone, and in the respect paid to the writer being criticised, is quite palpable. You've already predicted such a reaction in the piece, admitted you're wasting your time and it's opinion and so on, heading off any meaningful discussion beforehand by saying you simply won't care what anyone reading it thinks. I do wish you would.
#21
Posted 03 March 2009 - 05:18 PM
In this case, though, Jim's absolutely right that it's "more about the reviewer than the reviewed" - a lot more. Taken in that spirit, it's a veritable banquet of Pure Jim with a few passing thoughts on a Bond continuation novel sprinkled in. And those who like that sort of thing will like it a lot.
#22
Posted 03 March 2009 - 05:22 PM
Oh, and it was funny. I was sniggering.
#23
Posted 03 March 2009 - 05:33 PM
Is that really the case with all literary criticism, though? How about it being constructive criticism about the work itself?
I get what you're going at with that. But as things are at the moment, there is really only little chance that Benson will ever return as Bond author. So the constructive side of a criticism of a book penned nearly ten years ago is bound to fall short in any case. Especially as the subgenre Benson started out with is unlikely to attract him any more.
It's debatable if this subgenre really was fit to bring the best out of Benson as a writer. But I think it's sure that he picked it himself and did so because he cared very much for his topic and character. Perhaps cared for it even too much.
In my view Benson's quality as author really should be judged by his original works. That his commissional work would always be under harsh criticism he was certainly aware of himself from the start, having Gardner's example vividly in mind. I for one was happy to have Benson take over on a most thankless task and, naturally, was underwhelmed in the end nonetheless. It's what us fanboys will never be content with: the object of our worship, the source of our frustration. As a writer I hope Benson isn't offended by this schizophrenic attitude. As a fanboy I hope he understands it.
#24
Posted 03 March 2009 - 05:37 PM
You put it very nicely .In my view Benson's quality as author really should be judged by his original works. That his commissional work would always be under harsh criticism he was certainly aware of himself from the start, having Gardner's example vividly in mind. I for one was happy to have Benson take over on a most thankless task and, naturally, was underwhelmed in the end nonetheless. It's what us fanboys will never be content with: the object of our worship, the source of our frustration. As a writer I hope Benson isn't offended by this schizophrenic attitude. As a fanboy I hope he understands it.
#25
Posted 03 March 2009 - 05:41 PM
Ultimately, it exists
Wouldn't be as much fun though. But still funny.
#26
Posted 03 March 2009 - 06:08 PM
I think everyone needs to operate on the assumption that everything they write on the net, whether it be on a main page or forum, will absolutely be read by the person they are talking about (I discovered this the hard way). Whether it be Raymond Benson or David Arnold or Daniel Craig -- you ARE addressing the person directly. This is not a private conversation. So, yes, consider the purpose of what you write and how it impacts that person (personally or professionally) -- because it does. Also consider the picture you're painting of yourself. Before I hit the submit button I always ask myself why I'm posting this and how committed I am to it, especially when it's a criticism. If it's only because I think it makes me sound smart, I tend to delete it.Oh, I enjoyed a lot of it, and it made me laugh and think and there's a lot of brilliant insight into the genre and James Bond... but it seemed to me to be close to bullying. Sorry, but it did. You don't know Raymond Benson personally (I hope), but you must know that several people who frequent this place do, and that at some stage he may see this - is quite likely to, if I know writers. If, hypothetically speaking, IFP were to ask him to write another Bond novel and he accepted the job, and he then sent you an email saying, in effect, I've read some of your criticisms and would like you to read this book and tell me what you make of it (I said it was hypothetical)... how would you reply? Why would it be different to what you've done here? Benson has, after all, written several Bond novels, which you haven't - you think his heart might not have been in this one, but if I gave you a deadline to finish your Bond novel, what would it look like? Say the deadline is the end of June. It's easy to criticise, and you do it well... but to what purpose?
I'm actually not talking specifically about Jim here -- I haven't read his review because I already know what I think of this book. I'm taking about those who make it their "style" to only ever offer snarky criticisms. Sometimes it's just because they are young and feel anonymous and see others doing it. Yes, it's very easy to write "he sucks" (or worse). But know one day you might have to explain it to the person face to face, or get knocked on your for it.
#27
Posted 03 March 2009 - 06:56 PM
#28
Posted 04 March 2009 - 07:53 AM
I was looking forward to a critique of the book, instead I have to wade through a river of nonsense. 12 paragraphs before your critique even begins is a bit over-the-top.
The flaws of the "piece" are the flaws of the book. This is the structure. This is part of the joke. All a lot of pointless foreplay leaving one unfulfilled. It's not easy being this horrible, y'know.
but this latest offering gave me a strong sense of déjà vu, and I'm not sure what it does other than recycle old criticisms wrapped up in a helluva lot of padding
The flaws of the "piece" are the flaws of the book. This is the structure. This is part of the joke. Loads of the same old stuff as before, unnecessary padding. It's not easy being this horrible, y'know.
Skip to the end: he didn't like it. Not exactly a Bruce-Willis-was-dead-all-along-he-was-dressed-up-as-his-dead-mum twist there, then!
The flaws of the "piece" are the flaws of the book. This is the structure. This is part of the joke. Far too much pratting about until an unsurprising ending. It's not easy being this horrible, y'know.
I must make my subtleties more blatant. Next time I shall do words of one syllable. Or, given the setting, haiku. On reflection, that's not a bad idea at all. Well done me. A new game to play.
At least Jim is his own fantasy figure
At least someone gets the joke.
Oh, I enjoyed a lot of it, and it made me laugh and think and there's a lot of brilliant insight into the genre and James Bond... but it seemed to me to be close to bullying. Sorry, but it did. You don't know Raymond Benson personally (I hope), but you must know that several people who frequent this place do, and that at some stage he may see this - is quite likely to, if I know writers. If, hypothetically speaking, IFP were to ask him to write another Bond novel and he accepted the job, and he then sent you an email saying, in effect, I've read some of your criticisms and would like you to read this book and tell me what you make of it (I said it was hypothetical)... how would you reply? Why would it be different to what you've done here? Benson has, after all, written several Bond novels, which you haven't - you think his heart might not have been in this one, but if I gave you a deadline to finish your Bond novel, what would it look like? Say the deadline is the end of June. It's easy to criticise, and you do it well... but to what purpose?
Noted. The "piece", such as it is, was written in the throes of the depressingly cretinous stuff that was appearing here in the light of the release of Quantum of Solace. Its intention, aside from playing a comedy game with structure which I appear to have been alone in enjoying, was indeed to demonstrate how absurd internet criticism can be - it is, indeed, deliberately extreme, but perhaps no more extreme than some of the unmitigated pus that was being bandied about about mr Forster or Mr Bradley or Mr White and Ms Keys. By focusing on a different subject, I would have intended to draw that out and have people think. Timing was against me for many reasons particular to me - you make an especially pertinent point about deadlines! - and now, the moment lost, it probably does stand as knocking at an already well-opened door. Whilst I wouldn't readily accept a charge of bullying, if you do believe that there is material in there that is personally abusive to Mr Benson as a person, rather than abusive to the qualities of the enterprise that he took part in (the flaws of which cannot all be his responsibility), I am happy to remove.
Also consider the picture you're painting of yourself.
S'up in the attic and it looks frightful, I assure you.
#29
Posted 04 March 2009 - 09:39 AM
Ah, indeed.The "piece", such as it is, was written in the throes of the depressingly cretinous stuff that was appearing here in the light of the release of Quantum of Solace.
In fact, such was the level of the cretinous that I found my posting dropped to something like 0.05 per day.
#30
Posted 04 March 2009 - 10:47 AM
Noted. What I will say - and I'm sure I'm not alone in this - is that I always welcome new material from you, be it a short post advising us that the latest film you've seen is LETHAL WEAPON 2, or a lengthier opinion (dirty word, apparently) piece. I have no such anticipation for the output of the "They should of gotten Amy Whitehouse instead of this stragling the cat from Alice Keys and Jack Wade" brigade.
Now, imagine (if you can bring yourself to pretend to care for a fleeting moment) my disappointment when you gave me this, the CBn equivalent of an especially self-indulgent John Bonham drum solo circa 1974. Is it virtuoso stuff? Absolutely it is, as always. Is it someone doing what he does best? Sure. (I mean, I assume that writing is - in terms of "creative or skilled stuff" - what you do best - unless, of course, you have a genius for, say, boxing that you've kept quiet about here.) On the other hand, boy, is it tough to take. All in one sitting, that is.
Now, I imagine that Benson never intended NEVER to be read in one sitting (although, of course, it can be). Perhaps you feel that, Benson's intentions aside, there's only so much of the novel that you can stomach before you have to put it down and pursue something more interesting like, oh, I dunno, watching yer grass grow or allowing your eye to rest on my thoughts on how RAMBO V should turn out.
Thing is, though, Benson's is the book, yours is the review of it. Then again, you never promised us you'd follow convention, so, erm, as you were.
And you know none of us would part with you for the world, Jimbles, you old so-and-so, you.