31 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

Whose work do you prefer, and why?

[DLibrasnow]

John Gardner....I had the pleasure of corresponding with him in the 1980s...a wonderful man who managed to resurrect and update the literary James Bond.

My personal favorite non-Fleming bond novel is "Icebreaker", followed by either "No Deals Mr. Bond" or "Role of Honor".

[Loomis]

Based on what I've read of both men's work (six Bensons, including novelizations, and, well, only one-and-a-half Gardners) I'd say that Benson tickles the Bond fan in me, while Gardner satisfies the bloke who wants a solid, well-written thriller.

I'm reading "Icebreaker" at the moment, and the suspense is really beginning to kick in. With the Bensons I've read, there's never the slightest doubt as to the identity and plans of the villain(s) - all is telegraphed with crashing, crushing obviousnesness right from the beginning.

Both as a plotter of thrillers and as a craftsman of the English language, Gardner is far superior to Benson. His writing skills simply leave Benson standing, in much the same way as, well, as Timothy Dalton is a much more technically proficient actor than George Lazenby.

Does that mean that Benson is a dead loss? No, far from it. I greatly enjoy his books (especially "Zero Minus Ten" and "The Man With the Red Tattoo") and admire the way he incorporates his personal passion for Bond into his work. And he has a terrific eye for location - the "travelogue" quality - that makes his novels a pleasure to read.

As for Gardner, I never feel that he has much interest in Bond as a character; or at any rate in Fleming's Bond. Perhaps it's for the best that he doesn't try to recreate the characters and universe of the Master (certainly, one could argue that Benson is too in thrall to Fleming).

So at the moment, I'd say I prefer.... neither. It's a draw, more or less.

[DLibrasnow]

As you read more Gardner I think you will find his novels more enthralling. Gardner is a professional writer with a lot more experience and his English is far better than that of Benson who has a tendency to use a lot of redundancy!

[Loomis]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow

As you read more Gardner I think you will find his novels more enthralling.  

I hope so, although I believe that the consensus is that his later output is awful.

Originally posted by DLibrasnow

Gardner is a professional writer with a lot more experience and his English is far better than that of Benson....

Definitely. Gardner is a pro, whereas Benson is an enthusiastic amateur (bless him).

[DLibrasnow]

For all his enthusiasm Bensons lack of adept prose is truly annoying and I find it hard to make it through his work, I think he should stick to writing books like the excellent "Bedside Companion".
I think towards the end of his stint as the reigning 007 author that Gardner had become bored with Bond. He always claimed the Bond novels were harder to write than his own books (by that I mean characters original to him like Boysie Oaks) and I am sure that Glidrose made a lot of demands on him.
All in all the Gardner novels are simply more professional and better written!

[Loomis]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow

All in all the Gardner novels are simply more professional and better written!  

And, at the end of the day, that's what counts, isn't it?

The Benson era failed because it was, essentially, officially-sanctioned fan fiction. No wonder Joe Public tuned out.

Originally posted by DLibrasnow

I think he should stick to writing books like the excellent "Bedside Companion".

The best Bond-related book I know of, and crying out for an update.

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by Loomis


The best Bond-related book I know of, and crying out for an update.

"Bedside Companion" is certainly a very impressive achievement but I think Steven Jay Rubin's "The James Bond Films: A Behind the Scenes History" and John Brosnan's "James Bond in the Cinema" are the two best reference materials on the Bond movies.

Rubin's book (last updated in 1983) and Brosnans book are both definately crying out for an update.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow

Steven Jay Rubin's "The James Bond Films: A Behind the Scenes History" and John Brosnan's "James Bond in the Cinema" are the two best reference materials on the Bond movies.

I've read neither, but I've heard good things about them. I only own "James Bond The Legacy", which is a fine book but just too darn large and unwieldy, and Pfeiffer and Worrall's "The Essential Bond", which is just hopelessly dull and really serves no useful purpose at all IMO. Oh yes, I also own "The Rough Guide to James Bond" and "The Bond Files", which are informative and great fun (TEB manages to be neither despite greater length and a higher price).

[DLibrasnow]

If e-bay ever carries a copy of Rubin's or Brosnan's books I would definately recommend picking them up...

[Loomis]

On another thread (http://forums.comman...s=&threadid=460), Mr Asterix makes an interesting comparison between the Bond authors and the Bond actors:

Originally posted by Mr Asterix
 
Fleming/Connery:
This is Bond, what all others must strive for, but cannot hope to top.

Amis/Lazenby
One Shot. Really the closest stylistically to Fleming/Connery, but the closeness brings comparisons that Amis/Lazenby will never win. A quite good story that is often overlooked.

Gardner/Moore
Made Bond his own for better and for worse. Started strong, got stronger, but trailed off in the end. Has the same number of outings as Fleming/Connery, more if you don't count short story collections/Never Say Never Again.

"Colonel Sun" is, for me, one of the very best Bond novels ever, and quite possibly the best - just as ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE is right up there among the very greatest of the films, perhaps the greatest ever. But just as (because of my age, I guess) I often consider Connery and Moore the only two "true" Bond actors, I guess I kind of unconsciously think of Fleming and Gardner as the only two real Bond authors, with everyone else being people who are just passing through.

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by Loomis

I often consider Connery and Moore the only two "true" Bond actors, I guess I kind of unconsciously think of Fleming and Gardner as the only two real Bond authors, with everyone else being people who are just passing through.

I thought you were a Daltonite Loomis!!

[BONDFINESSE 007]

to me i can relate to benson more, i dont know really why that is, i just enjoy his books more

[DLibrasnow]

His lack of a grasp of the English language is what irks me about Benson. I guess that's the editor in me talking.

[clinkeroo]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow
His lack of a grasp of the English language is what irks me about Benson. I guess that's the editor in me talking.

I don't know if it is so much his lack of a grasp, as it is the fact that he just wasn't as good at prose as Gardner. It is like comparing someone with a trained voice, who has studied music since they were a child, with someone who really loves music quite a bit, has some talent, and would love to take a stab at it.

That written, I have always felt that writing is not only about being skilled in the use of the language, but about the three traditional Greek essentials: plot, character, and setting.

Benson's writing would make me pause, on occasion, to shake my head for clarity, but I think he excelled over Gardner's Bond books in his plotting, his characterizations, and certainly his settings. These latter three are the foundation of the "Fleming sweep," an area I strongly felt Gardner was lacking in.

I believe that Gardner didn't become bored with Bond in the latter novels; I believe he was bored with Bond, and held the character in a certain degree of contempt, long before he ever assumed the mantle. As he continued with the novels, he simply became more, and more, bored. I'm not trying to roast Gardner either, I was just disappointed in his Bond novels, but I think Lucky Jim is brilliant, I enjoyed his Moriarty books, his "Secret" series, and loved the Boysie Oakes novels.

The last is especially vexing :mad:. I never understood how he could write such wonderful and creative Bond satires, and yet when he had the original character in his hands, he made him so humorless, bland, and boring. It was as if when he was writing Bond, any passion he had went out the window.

Benson, for all his stylistic flaws, did not lack passion. I know that Loomis, whose opinions I respect greatly, mentioned the fact that Benson would telegraph who the bad guy was going to be very early in the book, but to me, this isn't a flaw in his plotting, it's a strength. Gardner is a skilled artist who is a student of literature; Benson is a less skilled craftsman who is a student of Fleming. Revealing the villain early is pure Fleming, the only elements of real mystery through much of the canon are finding out what the baddie was up to, how Bond is going to do him, and his scheme, in, and who Bond would sleep with along the way. Benson

[Jim]

Seems quite difficult to compare the two, because rather oddly, where one has strengths, the other is weaker - it's not an exercise in A is good but B is better at it; rather A is wretched but B is strong.

Example: Mr Gardner patently hates James Bond and thinks he is a bore. This comes across. Mr Benson has fondness for the Bond character. This comes across.

Mr Benson does very good "place". Mr Gardner's locations are OK, but hard pressed to say he makes much effort to make them interesting

Mr Gardner believes in his own characters. Mr Benson uses his as ciphers for in-references. There is little or nothing memorable about them.

Mr Benson's plots are easier (perhaps too simplistic) to follow. Mr Gardner's have an unfinished quality to them.

Mr Gardner writes a story. Mr Benson tells a story.

It's like that tale of GB Shaw and [forget the woman's name].

Woman to Shaw: Just think what our children would be like with my looks and your brain.

Shaw to woman: Ah yes, but just think what they would be like with my looks and your brain.

Accordingly, James Bond novels with Benson's plots and Gardner's writing - fine. The other way around - run!

Depends what you're looking for. If it's a couple of hours of story, go for Benson. If it's something that's been written, go for Gardner. If it's both, go for Fleming.

[DLibrasnow]

I respect your opinion clinkeroo....but I still have trouble getting over Bensons prose and use of redundancy.

[Loomis]

[quote]Originally posted by DLibrasnow

"I often consider Connery and Moore the only two "true" Bond actors, I guess I kind of unconsciously think of Fleming and Gardner as the only two real Bond authors, with everyone else being people who are just passing through."

I thought you were a Daltonite Loomis!!  
[/quote]

I don't go in for such labels. No, I like Dalton very much, and I often defend him, but I cannot pretend that he possesses the iconic stature of Connery and Moore, the only two actors to have really "owned" the Bond role (by virtue of long association with, and many appearances as, the character - I guess Brosnan may be on the verge of such ownership, too, but we shall just have to wait and see how nostalgia for his "era" develops). Connery in the tux is a powerful, nostalgic symbol of the 1960s, and Moore in the tux is a powerful, nostalgic symbol of the 1970s. Dalton in the tux is.... well, nothing very much at all as far as the man on the Clapham omnibus is concerned.

[quote]Originally posted by clinkeroo

Benson would telegraph who the bad guy was going to be very early in the book, but to me, this isn't a flaw in his plotting, it's a strength. Gardner is a skilled artist who is a student of literature; Benson is a less skilled craftsman who is a student of Fleming. Revealing the villain early is pure Fleming, the only elements of real mystery through much of the canon is finding out what the baddie was up to, how Bond is going to do him, and his scheme, in, and who Bond would sleep with along the way. Benson

[zencat]

I'll take Benson over Gardner. I think he has a better grasp on what makes a great James Bond book, and I think he books are just better overall. Besnon really understands that in a Bond book location is a character. ZMT is "the Hong Kong" book, FOD is "the Greece book", HTTK is "the Nepal book", NDOD is "the France book" and TMWTRT is "the Japan book." Aside from his first 3, it's hard to nail down Gardner's books location-wise. NDMB, NSF, DAF, SF, COLD or SCORPIUS are "the ? books." Even when Gardner sends Bond to an interesting locale, he usually maroons him in a hotel room. Don't get me wrong, I like Gardner and I enjoy the Gardner books, but for me the Benson books are much enjoyable Bond adventures.

[DLibrasnow]

Well to each his own....although I do agree with you regarding the location as a character. It's a real shame that the current Bond movie team seem to have forgotten this factor in the most recent movies.

What happened to location as a character in the movies??? That was a really important aspect of the movies in the 60s, 70s and ealy 1980s (who can forget the Greek locations in FYEO and the good use of them)
I recall John Glen (because I watched the commentary for FYEO only two days ago) talking about how they tried to incorporate the unique characteristics of each location in the Bond movies.

Let's look at the recent movies:

TND: Germany, but it could be any nondescript European country.
TWINE - Only seen it once and frankly don't remember anything about it...other than I was bored silly.
DAD - Korea, but filmed in Cornwall...

There was none of the strong use of location in either TND or DAD.

[zencat]

I agree, DLibrasnow. The movies do seem to have lost this idea.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by zencat

Besnon really understands that in a Bond book location is a character.  

If only Benson's characterization of people were as good as his portrayal of location (which is, even by Fleming standards, very good indeed). He seems to have the habit of giving everyone a single defining attribute and leaving it at that: Guy Thackeray is an alchoholic, Sunny Pei is kindhearted, Roland Marquis is competitive, Hope Kendall is a sex addict, Leon Essinger is nervous, Goro Yoshida is a nationalist, Reiko Tamura is smart, etc. Ah, well, I guess it leaves plenty up to the reader's imagination.

Originally posted by zencat

Even when Gardner sends Bond to an interesting locale, he usually maroons him in a hotel room.  

Ha! Yes, Gardner does seem to have a thing for hotel rooms.

I guess if Gardner and Benson had been able to combine their talents and co-write the continuation novels, well, that might have hit the spot!

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Loomis

I guess if Gardner and Benson had been able to combine their talents and co-write the continuation novels, well, that might have hit the spot!  

The idea's growing on me. I can see it now:

INT. OFFICE SHARED BY GARDNER AND BENSON - DAY.

Gardner sits at his typewriter. Nearby is Benson's desk, with typewriter. Benson enters.

GARDNER: Morning, Ray. I've just been putting your draft of chapter two into decent English. And instead of covering the fight between Bond and the goons in one paragraph, I thought we might spread it out over three pages and try and give the reader more suspense.

BENSON: Thanks, John. I've added a few more Fleming touches to the first chapter. There's a very nice little reference to "Quantum of Solace" I'm very proud of.

GARDNER: "Quantum of Solace"?

BENSON: It's a Fleming story.

GARDNER: Ah.

BENSON: So where are we moving the action to from here?

GARDNER: I was thinking about the Finnish-Russian border.

BENSON: Again? No, no, I've got a better idea: Bangkok. I took a lot of really great notes when I was there last year.

GARDNER: Terrific. Hey, how about some other country that borders the USSR? We could have Bond slipping behind enemy lines into the Russian---- (Holds hands up and smiles) Okay, Raymond, you win. Locations are your department, after all. Bangkok it is.

BENSON: Fine. I'm just going to start work on a scene in which Bond visits one of Bangkok's most famous temples. (Starts giggling to himself) Actually, it's a temple that Roger Moore drives past in THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN.

GARDNER (Absently): That's nice. Okay, I'm going to spend this morning giving your villain some personality.

BENSON: But no Nazi past, okay, John? We agreed.

GARDNER: Okay.

BENSON: In fact, John, I really think we should leave everything to do with World War II out of it this time.

GARDNER: Ah.... okay. Hang on. You were saying you wanted to use this Tiger Tanaka fellow, but wasn't he an ex-kamikaze pilot in the original Fleming?

BENSON: Yes. Doesn't matter.

GARDNER: But wouldn't that make him rather too old to be----

BENSON: Doesn't matter. It's okay, John, really it is.

GARDNER: If you say so.

BENSON: One more thing: I made some really cool notes for the ending at home last night.

GARDNER: You've already decided on an ending?

BENSON: Sure? Isn't that normal? Settle on a ending early on and write towards it?

GARDNER: Well, I....

BENSON: Hey, John?

GARDNER: Yes?

BENSON: Good job we don't have to argue over a title.

GARDNER (Through gritted teeth): Yes, that's Glidrose's department, isn't it?

BENSON: Sure is.

Gardner and Benson commence a heated discussion of Glidrose during which several not-entirely-complimentary things are said....

[DLibrasnow]

It's not accurate to assume that Gardner had not read Fleming as you allude too Loomis...He had read and admired Fleming, I just think he didn't feel it necessary to copy Flemings style of writing.

[ChandlerBing]

Having spoken personally to Benson about Bond, I must admit to being biased for his writing.

[zencat]

LOL! Brilliant, Loomis.

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by ChandlerBing
Having spoken personally to Benson about Bond, I must admit to being biased for his writing.

I am exactly the opposite.....I have spoken to Gardner about Bond, but never had the pleasure of discussing the series with Benson....

[Loomis]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow

It's not accurate to assume that Gardner had not read Fleming as you allude too Loomis...He had read and admired Fleming....

No, I know. I was deliberately exaggerating the prejudices some have regarding Gardner and Benson* (e.g. Gardner had no interest in Fleming or James Bond, Benson is illiterate, Gardner kept falling back on WWII-related storylines, Benson is nothing but a Bond-crazy fanboy....).

*And Glidrose.

Originally posted by zencat

LOL! Brilliant, Loomis.  

Thanks, zencat. To be honest, I was in two minds about putting that up, since I thought that some might get upset (I wasn't thinking of you, BTW, or indeed of anyone in particular) and think that I was just out to bash Benson and/or Gardner. Rest assured that I was merely "having a laugh", affectionately, and poking gentle fun at two writers whom I have a great deal of respect for, despite a number of things I have written on this site in the hope of generating discussion.

[zencat]

Originally posted by Loomis
...Rest assured that I was merely "having a laugh", affectionately, and poking gentle fun at two writers whom I have a great deal of respect for...

And that came across.

[Loomis]

Cool.