130 replies to this topic

[Jim]

How did Benson start a war?

Ever read any of the stuff in the Benson forum round these parts?

(NB - Before I'm sued I didn't say he started a war - although he may have and good luck to him and all who sail in him; I always fancied starting my own war - but his stuff did)

[DLibrasnow]

Sorry Jim...Ever since I read ZMT I haven't paid much attention to Benson.

So, verdict on HTTK? What can we expect from the review?

[DLibrasnow]

Jim lost for words?

[Loomis]

So, verdict on HTTK? What can we expect from the review?

I'm guessing he'll roast it.

And that the review will be extremely entertaining.

[DLibrasnow]

Seriously though I am curious to hear his thoughts on it. I really enjoyed Jim's FOD review.

[DLibrasnow]

I like what I read about DOUBLESHOT. I'm guessing it would be beneficial to read this one immediately after HTTK?!

[Blofeld's Cat]

The polarised reaction to Benson's tenure as continuation author has actually prompted me to eventually read all his books to see what the fuss is all about.

Still not tempted to read the Gardner's, though.

Fleming, Amis, Pearson, Wood, then Benson.

[DLibrasnow]

I am in the process of rereading Gardner's DEATH IS FOREVER right now.

[Zing!]

The polarised reaction to Benson's tenure as continuation author has actually prompted me to eventually read all his books to see what the fuss is all about.

Still not tempted to read the Gardner's, though.

Fleming, Amis, Pearson, Wood, then Benson.

It's interesting that you say this. For as much as I've criticised Benson for his lackluster prose, I do find his books very readable. I charged through all of his Bond books with hardly a pause, and yet I find myself putting off the Gardner books that I haven't read yet again and again. I suppose this is because I find Gardner's 007 books to be somewhat boring and, even though they are more modern than Flemings, a little dated. Bond in the 80's worked in the films, but putting Bond in the 80's in the books has always rubbed me the wrong way. Oddly enough, I don't have that problem at all with Benson's books set in the late 90's and present day. I'm looking foward to Higson's 'Silverfin' and a true Bond 'period piece!'

Fleming, Pearson, Amis, Wood, and then Benson/Gardner

[DLibrasnow]

Personally speaking I like a lot of Gardners work. There are some books that I find hard to get through (MAN FROM BARBAROSSA , WIN LOSE OR DIE and COLDFALL) but the majority of them I really like (the first few LICENSE TO KILL thru SCORPIUS and SEAFIRE, DEATH IS FOREVER and NEVER SEND FLOWERS).

So Brett, I would encourage you to read the John Gardner novels. The prose is a lot less troubling than Bensons and they are IMO entertaining reads.

[Qwerty]

The polarised reaction to Benson's tenure as continuation author has actually prompted me to eventually read all his books to see what the fuss is all about.

Still not tempted to read the Gardner's, though.

Fleming, Amis, Pearson, Wood, then Benson.

If you someday do try Gardner, go with his first bunch, some of his best.

[DLibrasnow]

The polarised reaction to Benson's tenure as continuation author has actually prompted me to eventually read all his books to see what the fuss is all about.

Still not tempted to read the Gardner's, though.

Fleming, Amis, Pearson, Wood, then Benson.

If you someday do try Gardner, go with his first bunch, some of his best.

Though I do like NO DEALS MR. BOND, SCORPIUS and DEATH IS FOREVER and NEVER SEND FLOWERS

[DLibrasnow]

[quote name='zencat' date='18 April 2005 - 16:02']Ahhh...another victim as fallen into my web.

Edited by DLibrasnow, 21 April 2005 - 03:12 AM.

[Qwerty]

NEVER SEND FLOWERS

One of Gardner's best.

[Blofeld's Cat]

So Brett, I would encourage you to read the John Gardner novels. The prose is a lot less troubling than Bensons and they are IMO entertaining reads.

Actually, I'm getting a hankering to re-read his Boysie Oaks series (it's being 30 odd years).

[Qwerty]

I like what I read about DOUBLESHOT. I'm guessing it would be beneficial to read this one immediately after HTTK?!

Certainly, to continue the trilogy.

[clinkeroo]

Actually, I'm getting a hankering to re-read his Boysie Oaks series (it's being 30 odd years).

Great, great stuff . If only Gardner could have brought that energy and humour to his Bond novels. They really need to reissue these classics.

[DLibrasnow]

NEVER SEND FLOWERS

One of Gardner's best.

Oh absolutely. In my opinion it is the best of the later Gardner Bond novels.

[Qwerty]

NEVER SEND FLOWERS

One of Gardner's best.

Oh absolutely. In my opinion it is the best of the later Gardner Bond novels.

It along with SeaFire for me.

[Blofeld's Cat]

Actually, I'm getting a hankering to re-read his Boysie Oaks series (it's being 30 odd years).

Great, great stuff . If only Gardner could have brought that energy and humour to his Bond novels. They really need to reissue these classics.

Kind of like Bond, really.

 Gardner___The_Liquidator_03.JPG   28.58KB   25 downloads

[spynovelfan]

Actually, I'm getting a hankering to re-read his Boysie Oaks series (it's being 30 odd years).

Great, great stuff . If only Gardner could have brought that energy and humour to his Bond novels. They really need to reissue these classics.

How many of the Boysies have you read, Clinkeroo? I enjoyed THE LIQUIDATOR and a few of the others, but once Mostyn gets into private entreprise with his own airline and so on, I could almost feel Gardner straining to maintain his enthusiam and stretch the idea out into one more adventure. Perhaps it's just me - been a while since I read them. I didn't find them quite the Holy Grail I was expecting, though.

[clinkeroo]

How many of the Boysies have you read, Clinkeroo? I enjoyed THE LIQUIDATOR and a few of the others, but once Mostyn gets into private entreprise with his own airline and so on, I could almost feel Gardner straining to maintain his enthusiam and stretch the idea out into one more adventure. Perhaps it's just me - been a while since I read them. I didn't find them quite the Holy Grail I was expecting, though.

I don't recall reading the last, A Killer for a Song, but I charged through the rest in the late 70's. I remember Amber Nine well enough that Raymond's psycho dwarf from TMWTRT didn't come across as all that original, nor was he as effective when played straight. I think Air Apparent also turned me off a bit; it seemed as if the series was getting more serious...less fun. Certainly, it was just the evolution of the characters, and the tone and pace couldn't hold forever, but still the pages just didn't turn as easily as they had before.

[spynovelfan]

I'll have to dig them out again. I read them all very quickly, too - but perhaps too near to each other. I think even reading all the Flemings after each other they can be a bit much. (Sacrilegious bounder!) Sometimes I find the genre a bit much, and have to go and read something completely different.

Not often, though, obviously.

[DLibrasnow]

Well the first of the Benson novels I ordered arrived on Friday (HTTK). I think it is great and is a real page turner. I have been burning the midnight oil reading this adventure and my opinion of Benson has done a complete 180. Sure, his prose needs some work and his grammar has problems, but those are both faults of an inept editor not Benson.
What impresses me most is Bensons plotting, plus he seems to really understand what it takes to make it a Bond book.
Top marks Raymond...now, we just need to get Loomis to change his views on the books.

[DLibrasnow]

Bump.

The copies of DOUBLESHOT and FACTS OF DEATH arrived today. I am in 00-Heaven

[DLibrasnow]

My review of HTTK is posted:

http://www.amazon.co...939169?v=glance

[DLibrasnow]

I notice zencats review is also on this page.

http://www.amazon.co...939169?v=glance

Here is the text of mine:

How much I desperately wanted to like this novel and how hopeful I was to give it five stars. Unfortunately however there are some inescapable problems with this, Benson's third Bond novel.
As a fan of the movie (and book) of the Clint Eastwood spy movie "The Eiger Sanction" that also covers a spy having to mount an expedition up a notorious mountain, I liked what I had heard about this work. But, whereas the earlier work had a legitimate reason for the spy to make the trip (identify an enemy agent), this effort (by respected 007 fan Benson) is immediately fraught with plot holes, that are not helped by Benson's wooden prose.
I hold the utmost respect for Benson. He knows more about the character of James Bond than I could ever hope to. His reference book "The Bedside Companion" is rated by fans as one of the best, if not the best, piece of non-fiction on the character created by Ian Fleming in 1952's "Casino Royale." A character that became a seminal part of the worlds pop culture a decade later when DOCTOR NO exploded onto cinema screens starring a little-known actor named Sean Connery.
The plot involves the theft of a chemical named Skin 17 that has been developed by the British as a means that would allow planes to travel at Mach 7 without falling apart. An interesting MacGuffin surely, a mysterious terrorist group known as the Union (Benson's version of SPECTRE) has stolen the formula and has hidden a microdot with the critical information in the pacemaker of a Chinese national.
All seems to be going to plan until said national crashes into the side of a Nepalese mountain we are informed is the third highest peak in the world. The race is on.
Here lies the major problem. The plane that crashes is a twin propeller plane. We are told that it landed on a fairly level section of the mountain not far from the peak. However instead of sending men up by helicopter (many helicopters out there have flight ceilings higher than the twin-prop used), and wearing pressurized suits to recover the microdot immediately, the British decide to spend a month putting together a team to scale the mountain - why? There is no reason explained.
Aside from this principal problem with the very crux of the story, Benson (who in his defense was not a professional writer before being offered the gig by Fleming's estate) commits the cardinal sin by debunking a key piece of Bond lore laid out by Fleming himself.
In the novel "You Only Live Twice" Bond is believed dead and his boss M even writes his obituary. In it Fleming tells us that Bond was kicked out of Eton after two halves (or 2/3rds of the way through a year). However Benson has Bond musing about his two years at Eton in one of the earliest chapters.
Another continuity error is obvious to even the most casual reader. During the car chase outside Brussels, Bond deploys a remote controlled hovering weapon from the undercarriage of his Bentley called a "scout." Half way through the battle Bond returns it to its position under the car, yet a couple of pages later we are told that it is still hovering 30 feet above the Bentley. It is continuity errors like this, and Benson's troublesome prose and apparent lack of understanding of grammar that has me seriously questioning the ability of his book editor.
A book for which I had high expectations that left me shaking my head at its show of incompetence.
Sorry Raymond

[spynovelfan]

Well the first of the Benson novels I ordered arrived on Friday (HTTK). I think it is great and is a real page turner. I have been burning the midnight oil reading this adventure and my opinion of Benson has done a complete 180. Sure, his prose needs some work and his grammar has problems, but those are both faults of an inept editor not Benson.
What impresses me most is Bensons plotting, plus he seems to really understand what it takes to make it a Bond book.
Top marks Raymond...now, we just need to get Loomis to change his views on the books.

It is continuity errors like this, and Benson's troublesome prose and apparent lack of understanding of grammar that has me seriously questioning the ability of his book editor.
A book for which I had high expectations that left me shaking my head at its show of incompetence.
Sorry Raymond

Slight change of view there, Darren! I think you still let Benson off the hook rather too much by laying most of the blame at the foot of his editors. I agree that it was in dire need of editing - but that's also Benson's fault! Had he been a brilliant writer, it wouldn't have needed it. I very much doubt Fleming, Amis, Gardner or Wood had more editing done to their stuff. It also doesn't really help when it comes to the massive plot hole you point out. I found the plotting fairly basic, with some interesting developments. But I found the research shoddy and the writing and characterisation throughout weak. A lot of the more obvious errors could - and should - have been softened by someone actually reading the book first (did IFP? I doubt it, somehow) and editing it accordingly, but I don't think some of the more fundamental flaws could have been rectified that way. An editor can make a poor sentence acceptable - but he can't easily make it brilliant, because he's then rewriting the book from scratch.

But but but I realise that many peoplke have said this isn't Benson's best and and and I will give him another go at some stage.

[David Schofield]

Spy, agree 100% - often "blame the editor" seems to be the defence of Benson fans. As you say, if he had been a better writer this would not have been necessary and any continuitu cock-ups hardly fit with Benson as the all-knowing Bond expert.

Another classic from HTTK - the Governor in this story in Quantum of Solace is described as "an elderyly bachelor" by Fleming. From that I read "confirmed", though I could be wrong. Benson gives him a wife in HTTK. Why, she does nothing?

[spynovelfan]

Well spotted, David. That sort of stuff doesn't bother me too much, really - I would see that and the 'halves' mistake as the job of an editor. As well as straightforward mistakes, an editor can fix grammatical errors and clumsy language in general, but he can't - and shouldn't - go so far as to *create* the work. So if the novelist has written:

'This was a bad thing, Bond knew. It was beyond badness, it was evil incarnate, it basically sucked. What to do???? What could he ever do but wait. And hope. And pray.'

The editor could change that to:

'This was bad news, Bond realised. It was beyond that, even. But what could he do? What, he reasoned, could he ever do - but sit tight, wait, hope... and pray.'

That's already a pretty radical edit, but the prose needed it. However, it's still not great. That's really beyond the editor's control, though. What he can't do is write:

'Bond now realised that the situation was graver than he had previously thought. As he smoked his ninth cigarette of the morning, he ran over his options in his mind: aim for a straight kill - in other words, penetrate the base and try to take out Mandelson, with his bare hands if necessary; the indirect approach, ie use one of Blair's women to infiltrate on his behalf; or sit tight and wait for the whole house of cards to come tumbling down of its own accord. It was a delicate situation - and there were no obvious answers...'

Or rather, he could do that, but there would have been little point in hiring the writer - he might as well write the whole book himself.

In the case of HIGH TIME TO KILL, I think the editor - if there was one - needed to send it back and ask for anotther draft, pointing out continuity errors, plot holes and weaknesses. Editors can only do so much - they can't make flimsy plots and thinly-drawn characters come to life. That's the writer's job. If he doesn't do his job, no amount of editing can disguise the fact.

Edited by spynovelfan, 03 May 2005 - 11:35 AM.