20 replies to this topic

[Predator007]

I bought this when it came out a couple years ago and never got around to reading it. Can anybody offer up any thoughts on this book? like? dislike? I have read some of the other thread discussing Draco's character in this book. don't worry about "spoiling" anything for me. I am not a big fan of Benson but i did enjoy The Facts of Death and somewhat enjoyed High Time to Kill. Is this book worth my time?

[Qwerty]

Yes, I think so. Although, there is some great debating on CBn about the quality of this book. I still won't spoil anything about this book, although, I think Tylyn is one of Benson's strongest characters yet. Pretty good book, not bad. No Bond book is not worth buying or reading!

[zencat]

I think it's the best Benson book.

[Predator007]

Cool! well...with such a recommendation from the esteemed zencat, i will begin reading it tonight....

[clinkeroo]

Not my favorite of Benson's, mostly due to the Draco issue, but I do believe it has the best torture and escape sequence of any of the Benson novels. Made me flinch. Hell, makes me flinch just thinking about it right now.

[Loomis]

It's quite a good read, but not as well-crafted or enjoyable as "The Man With the Red Tattoo" (Benson's best, IMO) or "Zero Minus Ten". Much better than the dire "High Time to Kill", though. A fun timekiller.

I reviewed it on another thread (http://forums.comman...=&threadid=9329), but you may want to skip my review for now since it's fairly spoiler-filled.

[Icephoenix]

I agree clink. The last line was the clincher. Ouch.

[zencat]

Originally posted by Predator007
Cool! well...with such a recommendation from the esteemed zencat, i will begin reading it tonight....

Thanks for the high praise, Predator. I hope it holds up. Now the pressure is on.

But do you know that it's the third book in a trilogy ("the Union Trilogy")? It goes, High Time To Kill, Doubleshot, Never Dream of Dying. It's not critical that you read them in order, but you should know that.

[B007GLE]

Not that I like to disagree with the esteemed Zencat, but "Never Dream of Dying" is my least favorite Benson book and my least favorite Bond books.

I hate to give anything away, but Bond's delay in rescuing an old frined while having a night of pleasure is dispicable. The minimizing of the threat of Le Gerant who was to be Benson's "Blofeld" also hurts the book.

I'd read all of Benson's other stuff first. Zero Minus Ten, Facts of Death and The Man With the Red Tattoo are all superior ot the Union trilogy.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by B007GLE

I'd read all of Benson's other stuff first. Zero Minus Ten, Facts of Death and The Man With the Red Tattoo are all superior ot the Union trilogy.

I wonder if Benson overreached himself with his trilogy? Too ambitious for a relatively inexperienced author? But I really like "Zero Minus Ten" and "The Man With the Red Tattoo", and I wish he'd written half as many Bond novels but taken longer honing and polishing them. Better to have three really excellent, meaty thrillers than six rather rushed, so-so ones, no?

[zencat]

The only books that felt "rushed" to me were his novelizations...and that's because they were! I think his 6 original books are all terrific. His tenure ended MUCH too soon, IMO.

[Genrewriter]

I agree, zencat. I thought he really made the character work in today's world while still keeping a certain amount of Fleming-esque style.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by zencat

His tenure ended MUCH too soon, IMO.  

I agree with you. I think he got better as he went on (as did Fleming - "You Only Live Twice" is far superior to "Casino Royale"), and really hit his stride with "The Man With the Red Tattoo".

But I do think he was made to produce too many books in too short a period. I mean, go back only six years and there weren't any Benson Bond novels! People like Fleming and Gardner were able to produce work of real quality at such a fast rate, but Benson (and you'll agree that he wasn't [a] a genius or [b] a seasoned novelist and "old pro") wasn't.

As for his novelizations, you'll probably not like me writing this but I actually think "Tomorrow Never Dies" and "Die Another Day" are better than a couple of his originals, and not just because I think the stories are better - his writing is better in those novelizations, IMO (particularly TND).

[Genrewriter]

I think he was definitely rushed by the publishers. Unless I'm mistaken, ZMT was his first actual novel.

[clinkeroo]

Originally posted by zencat
The only books that felt "rushed" to me were his novelizations...and that's because they were! I think his 6 original books are all terrific. His tenure ended MUCH too soon, IMO.

I could not agree more strongly. His strengths greatly outweighed his weaknesses, and better editing could have solved most of those.

[Sensualist]

While I was totally captivated by the fantastic HTTK and subsequently let down a touch by Doubleshot, I was hoping for a bang-up wind up to the Union 'trilogy'. Alas I did not end up enjoying it as much I was hoping to. (The dogs scene at the TV studio is absolutely hilarious and the torture and escape pieces are brilliant but I too was underwhelmed by the Draco thing having had a fondness for the character dating to OHMSS)

Still, i'd say NDOD is better than, say, TFOD and Doubleshot but not as memorable as HTTK, ZMT or TMWTRT.

As you can see, some love NDOD while others don't. Similarly so with HTTK and TFOD.

In the end they're all worthy of a read, some more so than others.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by clinkeroo

His strengths greatly outweighed his weaknesses, and better editing could have solved most of those.  

Exactly. He needed a good editor, a guiding hand. There is no shame in that (it's true of all but the very greatest of writers, and it's probably true of them, too), and I'm not having a dig at Benson. And he did, I believe, need more time per book than he was given.

From "The Bond Files" by Andy Lane and Paul Simpson:

"('High Time to Kill') is full of solecisms, errors, bad phraseology and clumsy lines, and gives the impression of not having been sub-edited at all. We can forgive Raymond Benson for not knowing that the UK has a Secretary of State and two Ministers of Defence, rather than a Minister for Defence, but someone at the publishers should have known better."

[Qwerty]

Originally posted by Loomis


From "The Bond Files" by Andy Lane and Paul Simpson:

"('High Time to Kill') is full of solecisms, errors, bad phraseology and clumsy lines, and gives the impression of not having been sub-edited at all. We can forgive Raymond Benson for not knowing that the UK has a Secretary of State and two Ministers of Defence, rather than a Minister for Defence, but someone at the publishers should have known better."

***SPOILER for the Besnon series if you haven't read it yet.***




Yes, I think it can credited to that a poor error on Benson's part, but, I think I remember reading that he described the killer once in the story as a male, but 'he' turned out to be female! I believe there is some in for in 'The Bond Files.'

[clinkeroo]

Originally posted by Loomis


Exactly. He needed a good editor, a guiding hand. There is no shame in that (it's true of all but the very greatest of writers, and it's probably true of them, too), and I'm not having a dig at Benson. And he did, I believe, need more time per book than he was given.

From "The Bond Files" by Andy Lane and Paul Simpson:

"('High Time to Kill') is full of solecisms, errors, bad phraseology and clumsy lines, and gives the impression of not having been sub-edited at all. We can forgive Raymond Benson for not knowing that the UK has a Secretary of State and two Ministers of Defence, rather than a Minister for Defence, but someone at the publishers should have known better."

I understand, Loomis. Aside from the fact that you enjoy Gardner's Bond more than I ever did, and the fact that I enjoyed HTTK, we agree on most things. But I love that quote from The Bond Files, just because I always found Lane and Simpson's book to be full of solecisms, many errors, bad phraseology, and clumsy lines. The ironic thing is, that someone such as Raymond probably could have cleaned up most of their factual shortcomings. Still, it's a nice, handy reference and has a place in my Bond bookcase.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by clinkeroo

Aside from the fact that you enjoy Gardner's Bond more than I ever did, and the fact that I enjoyed HTTK, we agree on most things.

I've only read a couple of the Gardners (thanks to availability issues - talking of which, has anyone heard any more about the three-in-one Gardner paperback omnibus supposedly coming out in January?). I respect his craftsmanship and his professionalism, as well as the class and diplomacy he's displayed in interviews. But for me, his Bond isn't really Bond, but an all-new action hero springing from Gardner's imagination (and perhaps the former military man's own experiences).

While I prefer Gardner's prose to Benson's, I'd say without hesitation that Benson is the guy I admire more a Bond novelist, due to his enthusiastic and sincere attempts to reconnect with Fleming's creation (and to revive the "travelogue" feel). Gardner tickles the part of me looking for solid, really well-written thrillers, but Benson tickles the Bond fan in me.

Originally posted by clinkeroo

I always found Lane and Simpson's book to be full of solecisms, many errors, bad phraseology, and clumsy lines.  The ironic thing is, that someone such as Raymond probably could have cleaned up most of their factual shortcomings.  

Indeed. People in glass houses....

[clinkeroo]

Originally posted by Loomis


I've only read a couple of the Gardners (thanks to availability issues - talking of which, has anyone heard any more about the three-in-one Gardner paperback omnibus supposedly coming out in January?). I respect  his craftsmanship and his professionalism, as well as the class and diplomacy he's displayed in interviews. But for me, his Bond isn't really Bond, but an all-new action hero springing from Gardner's imagination (and perhaps the former military man's own experiences).

While I prefer Gardner's prose to Benson's, I'd say without hesitation that Benson is the guy I admire more a Bond novelist, due to his enthusiastic and sincere attempts to reconnect with Fleming's creation (and to revive the "travelogue" feel). Gardner tickles the part of me looking for solid, really well-written thrillers, but Benson tickles the Bond fan in me.

I stand corrected, Loomis. Those pretty much mirror my feelings toward both authors. I didn't really enjoy his Bond books much, but I love much of Gardner's other work, and I think the Boysie Oakes novels are brilliant Bond satires while being accomplished and entertaining literature in their own right. Maybe it was Gardner's younger outlook at the time, but I find his Oakes novels to be much better "Bond," than his actual Bond novels.