60 replies to this topic

[Qwerty]

Glad to hear.

[Mister Asterix]

Enjoy...

or fume. Your choice really.

================================================================

By: Jim

Back to top #33 Johnboy007 Johnboy007 Commander CMG Veterans 6990 posts Location:Washington, D.C. Posted 03 May 2005 - 09:35 PM ========================================== By: Jim Book or film? Brave rather than particularly successful, Mr Benson has struck out on his own, although when looked at for more than a minute, whilst original for a Bond book, there are loads of similarities to the films Back to top #34 marktmurphy marktmurphy Commander Veterans 9055 posts Location:London Posted 03 May 2005 - 09:44 PM Jeez Jim; I'm not a clever man, but you are far too intelligent to be reading this rubbish and wasting your valuable time reviewing it. Please don't tell me you read it again to write this. You're right- God you're right, but if on one hand you can tell people like Righty not to wish their life away counting down to the next 007 video game you really shouldn't turn around and burn up your own time on trashy stuff like this book, which will be remembered by no-one. Back to top #35 spynovelfan spynovelfan Commander CMG Discharged 5855 posts Posted 03 May 2005 - 10:07 PM So, if I could just get one thing out of the way first: just a few hours ago, we had: "Jesus, have you guys taken enough licks at Benson yet? Okay, you don't like his books...after 4 pages of saying the same thing over and over...WE GET IT." from a moderator - and now we have this. Just thought I'd mention it, as this seemed to takea fair few licks at Benson. Yes, it gave him some credit, too, but "By Christ, his editor should be ashamed. This book contains some of the sloppiest and most uninspired, clumsy prose since I had to grit my teeth and agree that my twin sons Back to top #36 Loomis Loomis Commander CMG Veterans 21862 posts Posted 03 May 2005 - 10:14 PM "What's of particular annoyance is that Raymond Benson (or whatever committee goes by the name of "Raymond Benson")...." Ouch. Ooh. Damn. "It is better to travel hopefully than arrive. I Back to top #37 Genrewriter Genrewriter Cammander CMG Veterans 4360 posts Location:South Pasadena, CA Posted 03 May 2005 - 11:13 PM Very nice work, Jim. Back to top #38 Qwerty Qwerty Commander RNVR Commanding Officers 85605 posts Location:New York / Pennsylvania Posted 03 May 2005 - 11:42 PM Finally finished it. Good stuff once again Jim. I may not agree with your opinion, but it is good to see a different reaction to the book. Back to top #39 Loomis Loomis Commander CMG Veterans 21862 posts Posted 04 May 2005 - 12:39 AM Wow! I didn't realise this piece went on for two pages - I think I zipped more quickly through the Benson novel! (Which I'm afraid I didn't find anything like as entertaining as Jim's review.) Well, I think it's safe to say that the world now has the definitive critical work on "High Time to Kill". (But the world doesn't need to look so pleased. ) Back to top #40 Blofeld's Cat Blofeld's Cat Commander RNVR Commanding Officers 17542 posts Location:A secret hollowed out volcano in Sydney (33.79294 South, 150.93805 East) Posted 04 May 2005 - 02:48 AM So, if I could just get one thing out of the way first: just a few hours ago, we had: "Jesus, have you guys taken enough licks at Benson yet? Okay, you don't like his books...after 4 pages of saying the same thing over and over...WE GET IT." from a moderator - and now we have this. Just thought I'd mention it, as this seemed to takea fair few licks at Benson. OK, unfortunately it seems like very bad timing, admittedly. We could've just deleted all the negative posts in that related thread, or not post this latest instalment of Jim's, or both. But we did neither. Give us a break please. Back to top #41 clinkeroo clinkeroo Commander Crew 818 posts Location:Detroit, home of the Purple Gang Posted 04 May 2005 - 04:08 AM Jim, I may disagree with many of your conclusions and opinions, but damn if they aren't fun as hell to read . Kudos, you have a rare gift. P.S.- there are no fans of the flying scout thingie, it is the one true universal commonality. Back to top #42 Genrewriter Genrewriter Cammander CMG Veterans 4360 posts Location:South Pasadena, CA Posted 04 May 2005 - 04:15 AM Gotta agree there. Heck, even a fan of cheesy stuff like me looks at that and goes "Um...no." Back to top #43 Jim Jim Commander RNVR Commanding Officers 14266 posts Location:Oxfordshire Posted 04 May 2005 - 07:08 AM So, if I could just get one thing out of the way first: just a few hours ago, we had: "Jesus, have you guys taken enough licks at Benson yet? Okay, you don't like his books...after 4 pages of saying the same thing over and over...WE GET IT." from a moderator - and now we have this. Just thought I'd mention it, as this seemed to takea fair few licks at Benson. OK, unfortunately it seems like very bad timing, admittedly. We could've just deleted all the negative posts in that related thread, or not post this latest instalment of Jim's, or both. But we did neither. Give us a break please. Yes; just spectacularly bad timing on my part. No great mystery - just standard Stewart ineptitude. Believe me or not, this was ready to go (-ish) before things blew up a bit on the other thread (and would have been there before things erupted elsewhere if I had anything approaching competence in how this fiendish machine works). It does, however, tend to show that the team is a community with a variety of differing views and can cater for a variety of interests in Bond (or tries to!). There are those who can enthuse about Fleming, the computer games, the Brosnan films, the Gardner books, the pink tie, slide-whistles and Eric Serra. Wouldn't do for us all to be alike - you'd get terribly bored, y'know. What's that rubbish we've all written in our time on our curricula vitae - "I am a team player but can take individual responsibility" - that sort of thing. Back to top #44 Jim Jim Commander RNVR Commanding Officers 14266 posts Location:Oxfordshire Posted 04 May 2005 - 08:16 AM Jeez Jim; I'm not a clever man, but you are far too intelligent to be reading this rubbish and wasting your valuable time reviewing it. Please don't tell me you read it again to write this. You're right- God you're right, but if on one hand you can tell people like Righty not to wish their life away counting down to the next 007 video game you really shouldn't turn around and burn up your own time on trashy stuff like this book, which will be remembered by no-one. One of my few talents is that I'm a colossal hypocrite. Good point though! I read it outside; does this count? Back to top #45 spynovelfan spynovelfan Commander CMG Discharged 5855 posts Posted 04 May 2005 - 08:16 AM So, if I could just get one thing out of the way first: just a few hours ago, we had: "Jesus, have you guys taken enough licks at Benson yet? Okay, you don't like his books...after 4 pages of saying the same thing over and over...WE GET IT." from a moderator - and now we have this. Just thought I'd mention it, as this seemed to takea fair few licks at Benson. OK, unfortunately it seems like very bad timing, admittedly. We could've just deleted all the negative posts in that related thread, or not post this latest instalment of Jim's, or both. But we did neither. Give us a break please. It's not about the timing. Although even after Jim's review was posted, moderators posted in the other thread to accuse people of ripping holes in Benson for the 'fun' of it, and basically being mean-spirited s. I think if you read that thread and then read Jim's review, that's an absurd line to take. There's nothing anywhere *near* as negative in the other thread as Jim's review - which I enjoyed reading very much, and think is a credit to this site. It shows, like nothing else does, how it's possible to be rude about a book and yet also be extremely entertaining and valuable and thought-provoking. But if I or others were to have posted that exact review in the other thread, we'd not just have had our posts deleted - we'd have been *banned*. It's an inconsistent position - and a really lame one. You say you could have just deleted all the negative posts in the other thread. Like DLibraSnow's review, then? Or just the posts discussing his review? Is the Benson forum not now allowed to have posts that are negative, then, for fear of being deleted? Or just negative ones within the definition of people who know Benson? While Jim writes "Christ it Edited by spynovelfan, 04 May 2005 - 08:25 AM. Back to top #46 freemo freemo Commander RNR Veterans Reserve 2995 posts Location:Here Posted 04 May 2005 - 08:43 AM Enjoyed the review Jim. Looking forward to the next one. Back to top #47 David Schofield David Schofield Commander Discharged 3026 posts Posted 04 May 2005 - 09:12 AM So, Jim, you don't particularly like HTTK, then? You allowed to say that kind of thing round here? Edited by David Schofield, 04 May 2005 - 09:12 AM. Back to top #48 Loomis Loomis Commander CMG Veterans 21862 posts Posted 04 May 2005 - 09:57 AM But if I or others were to have posted that exact review in the other thread, we'd not just have had our posts deleted - we'd have been *banned*. I hope that wouldn't happen, and I don't for a moment think it would happen. I've been posting here since 2002, and have always found this an extremely tolerant site. No one would get their posts deleted and/or get banned for slagging Benson (well, not unless they posted absolutely nothing else apart from attacks on Benson, which would also have to be very nasty - way nastier than anything I've ever seen here, Jim's review included). As far as I'm aware, staffers have only deleted posts or banned people for attacks on other members, hate speech, spamming, etc. "Negative" posts may get a few complaints (e.g. "Oh, give Benson a break"), but it's extremely unusual for them to be deleted. Just wanted to point that out. Back to top #49 spynovelfan spynovelfan Commander CMG Discharged 5855 posts Posted 04 May 2005 - 10:07 AM "Negative" posts may get a few complaints (e.g. "Oh, give Benson a break"), but it's extremely unusual for them to be deleted. Just wanted to point that out. Fair enough. I was responding to BC's post above: 'We could've just deleted all the negative posts in that related thread, or not post this latest instalment of Jim's, or both. But we did neither.' Back to top #50 Simon Simon Commander Veterans 5884 posts Location:England Posted 04 May 2005 - 10:14 AM [quote] Back to top #51 spynovelfan spynovelfan Commander CMG Discharged 5855 posts Posted 04 May 2005 - 10:40 AM In *defence* of Raymond Benson and HIGH TIME TO KILL. Gasps all round. I think some of Jim's criticisms are a result of a cumulative effect. A writer - especially in a thriller - has a grace period in which he has to grab your attention and convince you to come along for the ride. If he does this, you tend not to analyse things too closely. If he doesn't, everything tends to become a potential problem. For example, I've never read QoS, and didn't notice the abundance of Fleming references at the start - I just presumed the Governor was a Benson character, and it didn't hold me up at all. Heaving is perfectly acceptable for vomiting. Not sure wht the sic refers to with phone - nobody uses the apostrophe anymore if that's what it is. And I realised that Jim will be aware of this - the title of the series gives it away, for a start - but there's an element of having it both ways here. If the writer throws out much of Fleming and decides to have Bond a rather straightforward chap who's fond of going under the name Boldman, who works for MicroGlobe One, and so on, then he's criticised for not understanding the character. If he tries to remain faithful to Fleming, he's criticised for not managing it. Etc. I know this is in the review, but think it's worth mentioning. Some of his references don't come off, but some of his ideas do: the pacemaker thing is very much something Fleming might have come up with (and yes, I realise Jim praised it - just refocussing the angle a little). I read some of ICEBREAKER last night and in isolation it was very good. It's not a very good thriller, though, as a whole (at least for me). But I think that's partly because of an accumulation of smaller problems, which gradually overwhelm you until you think 'This doesn't work' and your good will for the thing evaporates and your mind turns against it. Same with HTTK - some parts of it do work quite well. But a few small errors and clumsy sentences can quickly set one against something. I think many of the criticisms of the plot of HTKK could be applied to other much more respected thrillers, if you analysed at every point why the main character did such and such and not so and so - but because other stuff doesn't grate, you switch off and get caught up in the ride. Just doing my bit for community relations. Back to top #52 marktmurphy marktmurphy Commander Veterans 9055 posts Location:London Posted 04 May 2005 - 11:30 AM [Incidentally, someone earlier - hrabb, I think - mentioned that 'until you've put pen to paper yourself, you can go and jump in a lake' or words to that effect. Someone else has questioned why Jim would go to the trouble of writing such a lenghty review of a book he largely didn't seem to enjoy. So that raises the question, at least for me, why am I bothering? Why post on this? Well, first of all to *avoid* the other screen, on which Chapter Ten of my own thriller stares up at me; and secondly, because it's a thriller about a British secret agent, and I'm rather interested in all this stuff. I hope that's sufficient answer to those about to tell me to 'get a life'.] Hello spy, just to be clear- I said Jim was wasting his time reading this rubbish, but I would never accuse anyone on this board 'needing to get a life' (although I've actually seen moderators do that on here before!) as it would be throwing stones in a very large greenhouse! I totally understand why you are interested; heavens, I've read all of Benson's Bonds too; but reading such disposable and inept trash again for the purposes of a review does seem like a waste of time. Except of course it wasn't a complete waste of time- it entertained all of us, for which I'm very grateful. And it taught me a bit more about writing. So thank you Jim; you didn't waste your time at all and I hope you enjoyed writing the review. And I hope the weather was nice when you read it. So, you needn't get a life at all, spy, and I'd never tell you to. I'm the saddest person I know! Back to top #53 Jim Jim Commander RNVR Commanding Officers 14266 posts Location:Oxfordshire Posted 04 May 2005 - 11:38 AM Thanks Mark - the weather was pretty decent; I just sat myself under our willow by the stream at the bottom of the garden and tapped away crazily. The shocking irony of me needing an editor to whittle it down a bit/lot ... I'd claim that's part of the "joke". Chill, everyone; it's just some typin' and some muckin' about. Y'know, only meant to be a bit of entertainment, all of this. Back to top #54 marktmurphy marktmurphy Commander Veterans 9055 posts Location:London Posted 04 May 2005 - 12:26 PM The shocking irony of me needing an editor to whittle it down a bit/lot ... I'd claim that's part of the "joke". Ah, well- I'm glad you said it first! Back to top #55 Jim Jim Commander RNVR Commanding Officers 14266 posts Location:Oxfordshire Posted 04 May 2005 - 12:38 PM The shocking irony of me needing an editor to whittle it down a bit/lot ... I'd claim that's part of the "joke". Ah, well- I'm glad you said it first! It's all true, I tells yer. As the old saying goes "There are none so blind as those who've had their heads cut off" (Old Oxfordshire saying). Back to top #56 Mister Asterix Mister Asterix Commodore RNVR The Admiralty 15519 posts Location:38.6902N - 89.9816W Posted 04 May 2005 - 01:55 PM [mra]What has amazed me about all of your Benson reviews, Jim, is that despite the fact that I find these books highly enjoyable and would definitely rate them much higher than you, I find that we seem to nearly completely agree on what the individual high and low points of the books are. The extreme examples are: I too feel Chandra is by far Benson Back to top #57 Joyce Carrington Joyce Carrington Commander CMG Veterans 4631 posts Location:Amsterdam, The Netherlands Posted 04 May 2005 - 02:32 PM As a Benson fan, it scares me how often I agree with you. I have that too - very interesting indeed. I'm a big Benson fan, and yet I can find myself in most of Jim's criticism. By the way, Jim - a very enjoyable read. Thanks. Back to top #58 Blofeld's Cat Blofeld's Cat Commander RNVR Commanding Officers 17542 posts Location:A secret hollowed out volcano in Sydney (33.79294 South, 150.93805 East) Posted 05 May 2005 - 03:06 AM "Negative" posts may get a few complaints (e.g. "Oh, give Benson a break"), but it's extremely unusual for them to be deleted. Just wanted to point that out. Fair enough. I was responding to BC's post above: 'We could've just deleted all the negative posts in that related thread, or not post this latest instalment of Jim's, or both. But we did neither.' Yikes! That part of my comment was purely hypothetical. Don't get me wrong, "We could've" doesn't mean we were even thinking about it. Sorry, but I don't want to argue/debate this issue. Back to top #59 Bondian Bondian Commander Veterans 8019 posts Location:Soufend-On-Sea, Mate. England. UK. Posted 05 May 2005 - 03:21 AM I must admit that I've never had the misfortune, or the delight to read any of his work, nor any of the other Authors. But I have read Live And Let Die by that other chap...er...what's his name?. Oh yes, Ian Fleming. ( Isn't he the chap who started it all? ). I must get reading!!!. Cheers, Ian Back to top #60 David Schofield David Schofield Commander Discharged 3026 posts Posted 05 May 2005 - 10:37 AM Jim, instead of seeing Kenneth Branagh as Marquis (and the problems in that), how about my take - Errol Flynn. Imagine Flynn v Pierce Brosnan. The possibilities are endless. Make it any easier? Back to top Prev Page 2 of 3 1 2 3 Next Back to Raymond Benson (1997-2002) Reply to quoted posts     Clear

[Johnboy007]

==========================================
By: Jim

Book or film?

Brave rather than particularly successful, Mr Benson has struck out on his own, although when looked at for more than a minute, whilst original for a Bond book, there are loads of similarities to the films

[marktmurphy]

Jeez Jim; I'm not a clever man, but you are far too intelligent to be reading this rubbish and wasting your valuable time reviewing it. Please don't tell me you read it again to write this.
You're right- God you're right, but if on one hand you can tell people like Righty not to wish their life away counting down to the next 007 video game you really shouldn't turn around and burn up your own time on trashy stuff like this book, which will be remembered by no-one.

[spynovelfan]

So, if I could just get one thing out of the way first: just a few hours ago, we had: "Jesus, have you guys taken enough licks at Benson yet? Okay, you don't like his books...after 4 pages of saying the same thing over and over...WE GET IT." from a moderator - and now we have this. Just thought I'd mention it, as this seemed to takea fair few licks at Benson. Yes, it gave him some credit, too, but "By Christ, his editor should be ashamed. This book contains some of the sloppiest and most uninspired, clumsy prose since I had to grit my teeth and agree that my twin sons

[Loomis]

"What's of particular annoyance is that Raymond Benson (or whatever committee goes by the name of "Raymond Benson")...."

Ouch. Ooh. Damn.

"It is better to travel hopefully than arrive. I

[Genrewriter]

Very nice work, Jim.

[Qwerty]

Finally finished it. Good stuff once again Jim. I may not agree with your opinion, but it is good to see a different reaction to the book.

[Loomis]

Wow! I didn't realise this piece went on for two pages - I think I zipped more quickly through the Benson novel! (Which I'm afraid I didn't find anything like as entertaining as Jim's review.) Well, I think it's safe to say that the world now has the definitive critical work on "High Time to Kill". (But the world doesn't need to look so pleased. )

[Blofeld's Cat]

So, if I could just get one thing out of the way first: just a few hours ago, we had: "Jesus, have you guys taken enough licks at Benson yet? Okay, you don't like his books...after 4 pages of saying the same thing over and over...WE GET IT." from a moderator - and now we have this. Just thought I'd mention it, as this seemed to takea fair few licks at Benson.

OK, unfortunately it seems like very bad timing, admittedly.

We could've just deleted all the negative posts in that related thread, or not post this latest instalment of Jim's, or both. But we did neither.

Give us a break please.

[clinkeroo]

Jim,

I may disagree with many of your conclusions and opinions, but damn if they aren't fun as hell to read . Kudos, you have a rare gift.

P.S.- there are no fans of the flying scout thingie, it is the one true universal commonality.

[Genrewriter]

Gotta agree there. Heck, even a fan of cheesy stuff like me looks at that and goes "Um...no."

[Jim]

So, if I could just get one thing out of the way first: just a few hours ago, we had: "Jesus, have you guys taken enough licks at Benson yet? Okay, you don't like his books...after 4 pages of saying the same thing over and over...WE GET IT." from a moderator - and now we have this. Just thought I'd mention it, as this seemed to takea fair few licks at Benson.

OK, unfortunately it seems like very bad timing, admittedly.

We could've just deleted all the negative posts in that related thread, or not post this latest instalment of Jim's, or both. But we did neither.

Give us a break please.

Yes; just spectacularly bad timing on my part. No great mystery - just standard Stewart ineptitude. Believe me or not, this was ready to go (-ish) before things blew up a bit on the other thread (and would have been there before things erupted elsewhere if I had anything approaching competence in how this fiendish machine works).

It does, however, tend to show that the team is a community with a variety of differing views and can cater for a variety of interests in Bond (or tries to!). There are those who can enthuse about Fleming, the computer games, the Brosnan films, the Gardner books, the pink tie, slide-whistles and Eric Serra. Wouldn't do for us all to be alike - you'd get terribly bored, y'know. What's that rubbish we've all written in our time on our curricula vitae - "I am a team player but can take individual responsibility" - that sort of thing.

[Jim]

Jeez Jim; I'm not a clever man, but you are far too intelligent to be reading this rubbish and wasting your valuable time reviewing it. Please don't tell me you read it again to write this.
You're right- God you're right, but if on one hand you can tell people like Righty not to wish their life away counting down to the next 007 video game you really shouldn't turn around and burn up your own time on trashy stuff like this book, which will be remembered by no-one.

One of my few talents is that I'm a colossal hypocrite.

Good point though! I read it outside; does this count?

[spynovelfan]

So, if I could just get one thing out of the way first: just a few hours ago, we had: "Jesus, have you guys taken enough licks at Benson yet? Okay, you don't like his books...after 4 pages of saying the same thing over and over...WE GET IT." from a moderator - and now we have this. Just thought I'd mention it, as this seemed to takea fair few licks at Benson.

OK, unfortunately it seems like very bad timing, admittedly.

We could've just deleted all the negative posts in that related thread, or not post this latest instalment of Jim's, or both. But we did neither.

Give us a break please.

It's not about the timing. Although even after Jim's review was posted, moderators posted in the other thread to accuse people of ripping holes in Benson for the 'fun' of it, and basically being mean-spirited s. I think if you read that thread and then read Jim's review, that's an absurd line to take. There's nothing anywhere *near* as negative in the other thread as Jim's review - which I enjoyed reading very much, and think is a credit to this site. It shows, like nothing else does, how it's possible to be rude about a book and yet also be extremely entertaining and valuable and thought-provoking. But if I or others were to have posted that exact review in the other thread, we'd not just have had our posts deleted - we'd have been *banned*.

It's an inconsistent position - and a really lame one. You say you could have just deleted all the negative posts in the other thread. Like DLibraSnow's review, then? Or just the posts discussing his review? Is the Benson forum not now allowed to have posts that are negative, then, for fear of being deleted? Or just negative ones within the definition of people who know Benson? While Jim writes "Christ it

Edited by spynovelfan, 04 May 2005 - 08:25 AM.

[freemo]

Enjoyed the review Jim. Looking forward to the next one.

[David Schofield]

So, Jim, you don't particularly like HTTK, then?

You allowed to say that kind of thing round here?

Edited by David Schofield, 04 May 2005 - 09:12 AM.

[Loomis]

But if I or others were to have posted that exact review in the other thread, we'd not just have had our posts deleted - we'd have been *banned*.

I hope that wouldn't happen, and I don't for a moment think it would happen. I've been posting here since 2002, and have always found this an extremely tolerant site. No one would get their posts deleted and/or get banned for slagging Benson (well, not unless they posted absolutely nothing else apart from attacks on Benson, which would also have to be very nasty - way nastier than anything I've ever seen here, Jim's review included). As far as I'm aware, staffers have only deleted posts or banned people for attacks on other members, hate speech, spamming, etc. "Negative" posts may get a few complaints (e.g. "Oh, give Benson a break"), but it's extremely unusual for them to be deleted. Just wanted to point that out.

[spynovelfan]

"Negative" posts may get a few complaints (e.g. "Oh, give Benson a break"), but it's extremely unusual for them to be deleted. Just wanted to point that out.

Fair enough. I was responding to BC's post above:

'We could've just deleted all the negative posts in that related thread, or not post this latest instalment of Jim's, or both. But we did neither.'

[Simon]

[quote]

[spynovelfan]

In *defence* of Raymond Benson and HIGH TIME TO KILL. Gasps all round.

I think some of Jim's criticisms are a result of a cumulative effect. A writer - especially in a thriller - has a grace period in which he has to grab your attention and convince you to come along for the ride. If he does this, you tend not to analyse things too closely. If he doesn't, everything tends to become a potential problem. For example, I've never read QoS, and didn't notice the abundance of Fleming references at the start - I just presumed the Governor was a Benson character, and it didn't hold me up at all. Heaving is perfectly acceptable for vomiting. Not sure wht the sic refers to with phone - nobody uses the apostrophe anymore if that's what it is.

And I realised that Jim will be aware of this - the title of the series gives it away, for a start - but there's an element of having it both ways here. If the writer throws out much of Fleming and decides to have Bond a rather straightforward chap who's fond of going under the name Boldman, who works for MicroGlobe One, and so on, then he's criticised for not understanding the character. If he tries to remain faithful to Fleming, he's criticised for not managing it. Etc. I know this is in the review, but think it's worth mentioning. Some of his references don't come off, but some of his ideas do: the pacemaker thing is very much something Fleming might have come up with (and yes, I realise Jim praised it - just refocussing the angle a little).

I read some of ICEBREAKER last night and in isolation it was very good. It's not a very good thriller, though, as a whole (at least for me). But I think that's partly because of an accumulation of smaller problems, which gradually overwhelm you until you think 'This doesn't work' and your good will for the thing evaporates and your mind turns against it. Same with HTTK - some parts of it do work quite well. But a few small errors and clumsy sentences can quickly set one against something. I think many of the criticisms of the plot of HTKK could be applied to other much more respected thrillers, if you analysed at every point why the main character did such and such and not so and so - but because other stuff doesn't grate, you switch off and get caught up in the ride.

Just doing my bit for community relations.

[marktmurphy]

[Incidentally, someone earlier - hrabb, I think - mentioned that 'until you've put pen to paper yourself, you can go and jump in a lake' or words to that effect. Someone else has questioned why Jim would go to the trouble of writing such a lenghty review of a book he largely didn't seem to enjoy. So that raises the question, at least for me, why am I bothering? Why post on this? Well, first of all to *avoid* the other screen, on which Chapter Ten of my own thriller stares up at me; and secondly, because it's a thriller about a British secret agent, and I'm rather interested in all this stuff. I hope that's sufficient answer to those about to tell me to 'get a life'.]

Hello spy,
just to be clear- I said Jim was wasting his time reading this rubbish, but I would never accuse anyone on this board 'needing to get a life' (although I've actually seen moderators do that on here before!) as it would be throwing stones in a very large greenhouse! I totally understand why you are interested; heavens, I've read all of Benson's Bonds too; but reading such disposable and inept trash again for the purposes of a review does seem like a waste of time. Except of course it wasn't a complete waste of time- it entertained all of us, for which I'm very grateful. And it taught me a bit more about writing. So thank you Jim; you didn't waste your time at all and I hope you enjoyed writing the review. And I hope the weather was nice when you read it.
So, you needn't get a life at all, spy, and I'd never tell you to. I'm the saddest person I know!

[Jim]

Thanks Mark - the weather was pretty decent; I just sat myself under our willow by the stream at the bottom of the garden and tapped away crazily. The shocking irony of me needing an editor to whittle it down a bit/lot ... I'd claim that's part of the "joke".

Chill, everyone; it's just some typin' and some muckin' about. Y'know, only meant to be a bit of entertainment, all of this.

[marktmurphy]

The shocking irony of me needing an editor to whittle it down a bit/lot ... I'd claim that's part of the "joke".

Ah, well- I'm glad you said it first!

[Jim]

The shocking irony of me needing an editor to whittle it down a bit/lot ... I'd claim that's part of the "joke".

Ah, well- I'm glad you said it first!

It's all true, I tells yer. As the old saying goes "There are none so blind as those who've had their heads cut off" (Old Oxfordshire saying).

[Mister Asterix]

[mra]What has amazed me about all of your Benson reviews, Jim, is that despite the fact that I find these books highly enjoyable and would definitely rate them much higher than you, I find that we seem to nearly completely agree on what the individual high and low points of the books are. The extreme examples are: I too feel Chandra is by far Benson

[Joyce Carrington]

As a Benson fan, it scares me how often I agree with you.

I have that too - very interesting indeed. I'm a big Benson fan, and yet I can find myself in most of Jim's criticism.

By the way, Jim - a very enjoyable read. Thanks.

[Blofeld's Cat]

"Negative" posts may get a few complaints (e.g. "Oh, give Benson a break"), but it's extremely unusual for them to be deleted. Just wanted to point that out.

Fair enough. I was responding to BC's post above:

'We could've just deleted all the negative posts in that related thread, or not post this latest instalment of Jim's, or both. But we did neither.'

Yikes!

That part of my comment was purely hypothetical. Don't get me wrong, "We could've" doesn't mean we were even thinking about it.

Sorry, but I don't want to argue/debate this issue.

[Bondian]

I must admit that I've never had the misfortune, or the delight to read any of his work, nor any of the other Authors.

But I have read Live And Let Die by that other chap...er...what's his name?. Oh yes, Ian Fleming. ( Isn't he the chap who started it all? ).

I must get reading!!!.

Cheers,


Ian

[David Schofield]

Jim, instead of seeing Kenneth Branagh as Marquis (and the problems in that), how about my take - Errol Flynn.

Imagine Flynn v Pierce Brosnan. The possibilities are endless.

Make it any easier?