130 replies to this topic

[David Schofield]

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 needed to send it back and ask for more work to be done. Editors can only do so much - they can't make weak plots and characters come to life.

[/quote]

Isn't that the whole Benson problem - he isn't much of a writer. That must have been obvious - hopefully - to IFP and the publishers. So what did Benson bring to the gig that meant he got it in the first place? Peter Janson-Smith is quoted as saying it's Benson's encyclopaedic knowledgedge of Bond. Clearly not the case - hence the continuity cock-ups. Putting the name Raymond Benson on the cover? Wel, the recognition worked with Bond fans - but the general public?! A quality staff writer could have done better.

I also think Benson is aware of his short-comings. He continually needs to re-introduce Fleming characters (something Gardner determinedly avoided) as if to say, "Look, I know this might not sound like Fleming's Bond but, hey, these are his characters, so it must be." Benson shows little confidence in his own story-telling and prose to have his own direction. Whatever one say about Gardner, he can never be accused of that.

[spynovelfan]

Who knows why they chose Benson? I'd hazard a guess the following played a part:

Gardner was roundly criticised for not knowing Bond. They wanted someone who did.

With Gardner, they'd had to settle for an established, but decidedly second-rung thriller writer. They now realised that even that was out of their reach. So perhaps it would be a novice writer - that's what they could afford, and what their clout could get.

Benson knew Bond - whatever you say about the errors, compare to Gardner! - and he would have been very happy to take the role. Other 'Bond experts' would either have been too busy, too expensive or no longer interested in Bond.

Something like that, anyway. Janson-Smith's admitted to me that the process of picking new authors hasn't been consistent over the years.

[David Schofield]

Who knows why they chose Benson? I'd hazard a guess the following played a part:

Gardner was roundly criticised for not knowing  Bond. They wanted someone who did.

With Gardner, they'd had to settle for an established, but decidedly second-rung thriller writer. They now realised that even that was out of their reach. So perhaps it would be a novice writer - that's what they could afford, and what their clout could get.

Benson knew Bond - whatever you say about the errors, compare to Gardner! - and he would have been very happy to take the role. Other 'Bond experts' would either have been too busy, too expensive or no longer interested in Bond.

Something like that, anyway. Janson-Smith's admitted to me that the process of picking new authors hasn't been consistent over the years.

I'm sure you're right, all in all - Benson was cheap, SUPPOSEDLY knew his Bond, wouldn't try flex too may muscles with IFP, and about the level they could get at the time (just shows, Brozza not only re-enlived the movie Bond but also convinced IFP they could be bold enough to tap into Charlie Higson!).

What I DONT understand is why did IFP continue to publish Benson when his shortcomings became fairly obvious (Chapter 1, Zero Minues 10, I jest!) quite quickly? Surely they didn't sell enough to make serious money for IFP? Then again, perhaps some money (and demeaning the product) was better than none...

[spynovelfan]

Then again, perhaps some money (and demeaning the product) was better than none...

Is, I suspect, the right answer.

[DLibrasnow]

I changed my review when I posted it on Amazon...the discrepency you poiint out is clarified on the product page for HTTK.

[zencat]

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.

[hrabb04]

No one twisted your arms into reading Benson. If you hate him, fine. Get over it. Some of us liked those books and are sorry he did not write anymore. Until you are ready to put your own words to paper and write a book yourself, I would shut the hell up already.

[zencat]

Amen, brother.

[DLibrasnow]

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.

I think my review speaks for itself John. I haven't been beating up on Benson for four pages, and I have even been criticized for being too easy on Benson in my review.

[zencat]

It wasn't really directed at you, Dlibs. I like how you gave Benson a "second chance" and it's obvious you've put some thought into your review.

It was just directed at the relentless Benson bashing in general. Right or wrong, after a while enough is enough.

[spynovelfan]

Well, I thought that might happen. I suppose there were a few posts too many.

Would it be unfair to point out, though, that people continually 'bash' Brosnan, DIE ANOTHER DAY, Barbara Broccoli and John Gardner on this forum, with no reaction anything like this? Could it be that being a friend of the writer might also bias one's view? I think 'No one twisted your arms into reading Benson. If you hate him, fine. Get over it. Some of us liked those books and are sorry he did not write anymore. Until you are ready to put your own words to paper and write a book yourself, I would shut the hell up already.' is much more 'bashing' than anything written in this thread about Benson - and doesn't even begin to rebut any of the points made - but curiously it gets an 'Amen, brother'. Am I take it to mean that only published novelists can now critique Raymond Benson's work in the Raymond Benson section of this site? I was also directing my comments at Darren's review, and in general at the editing process. I think if you read what I wrote *separating yourself from liking Raymond Benson*, you'll see that, far from bashing, I was making some fairly generic points, and doing so in a reasonably polite and dignified and, I hope, articulate, manner.

And I am writing a book.

Sorry to have trod on anyone's toes. Benson's brilliant, so there, so shut the hell up. Best argument ever.

EDIT: Sorry if I'm coming on strong here, but this is the Raymond Bensomn forum and people are going to have their views either way. I'm not going to write as if Raymond Benson was reading what I write anymore than I would as if Pierce Brosnan were. I think disagreeing with people *using reason* is great - that's the idea. But just dismissing what people say as '4 pages of saying the same thing' is lazy and insulting (as is the implication that Darren put some thought into what he wrote but others were just being, I don't know, lazy and insulting?). Dismissing people's opinions without any counter-argument or back-up doesn't really get us anywhere, does it?

Edited by spynovelfan, 03 May 2005 - 06:59 PM.

[Loomis]

It wasn't really directed at you, Dlibs. I like how you gave Benson a "second chance" and it's obvious you've put some thought into your review.

It was just directed at the relentless Benson bashing in general. Right or wrong, after a while enough is enough.

I love a couple of Benson's books, but I also hate a couple of Benson's books. Am I to be included among the Benson-bashers?

[David Schofield]

Well, I thought that might happen. I suppose there were a few posts too many.

Would it be unfair to point out, though, that people continually 'bash' Brosnan, DIE ANOTHER DAY, Barbara Broccoli and John Gardner on this forum, with no reaction anything like this? Could it be that being a friend of the writer might also bias one's view? I think 'No one twisted your arms into reading Benson. If you hate him, fine. Get over it. Some of us liked those books and are sorry he did not write anymore. Until you are ready to put your own words to paper and write a book yourself, I would shut the hell up already.' is much more 'bashing' than anything written in this thread about Benson - and doesn't even begin to rebut any of the points made - but curiously it gets an 'Amen, brother'. Am I take it to mean that only published novelists can now critique Raymond Benson's work in the Raymond Benson section of this site? I was also directing my comments at Darren's review, and in general at the editing process. I think if you read what I wrote *separating yourself from liking Raymond Benson*, you'll see that, far from bashing, I was making some fairly generic points, and doing so in a reasonably polite and dignified and, I hope, articulate, manner.

And I am writing a book.

Sorry to have trod on anyone's toes. Benson's brilliant, so there, so shut the hell up. Best argument ever.

EDIT: Sorry if I'm coming on strong here, but this is the Raymond Bensomn forum and people are going to have their views either way. I'm not going to write as if Raymond Benson was reading what I write anymore than I would as if Pierce Brosnan were. I think disagreeing with people *using reason* is great - that's the idea. But just dismissing what people say as '4 pages of saying the same thing' is lazy and insulting (as is the implication that Darren put some thought into what he wrote but others were just being, I don't know, lazy and insulting?). Dismissing people's opinions without any counter-argument or back-up doesn't really get us anywhere, does it?

I agree with Spy, Zencat. Benson may be a friend but he did write the books and therefore has to stand crticism or otherwise. Had his books been first class, he would have accepted the praise. Seems ironic that Benson can call Gardner's books hambuger compared with Fleming's steak and yet his (Benson.s) fans/friends not accept he was rather poor.

For heaven's sake, don't you think we'd really have liked Zero Minus Ten to re-introduce Fleming's Bond?

And if Benson were a pal of mine or I ever got into his social circle I'd be polite, suggest - as I think he knows himself - it wasn't really the gig for him. And, of course, remember that when I wanted my plumbing fixing I got a real plumber to do the job.

Edited by David Schofield, 03 May 2005 - 08:39 PM.

[Loomis]

For heaven's sake, don't you think we'd really have liked Zero Minus Ten to re-introduce Fleming's Bond?

For me, "Zero Minus Ten" did reintroduce Fleming's Bond - to an extent, anyway. At any rate, there seems a lot more of Fleming's hero in ZMT than in any of the Gardner books I've read. Benson really dropped the ball with "The Facts of Death" and "High Time to Kill", though.

[Loomis]

Sorry if I'm coming on strong here, but this is the Raymond Bensomn forum and people are going to have their views either way. ... Dismissing people's opinions without any counter-argument or back-up doesn't really get us anywhere, does it?

Quite. Personal abuse directed at Benson would be unacceptable (as well as irrelevant to the question of his merits as a writer, of course), but I don't believe anyone here's been going in for that. I don't see why Benson fans, or even why friends of Benson, should be so upset about people having some negative criticisms of his work.... and I don't understand why those who'd wish to be counted in the "pro-Benson" camp won't respond with counterargument to support what they presumably believe, i.e. that his books are absolutely excellent. Doing the equivalent of sticking fingers in your ears and yelling "Lalalalala, I can't hear you!" is disappointing.

[Athena007]

Having an opinion & negative criticisms are one thing, but ripping someone to shreds just for the "fun" of it is another. And I'm sorry, but disappointingly the second is what I see relentlessly going on in this forum.

[Hitch]

Surely CBn and similar websites exist so that fans and enthusiasts can enjoy these types of debates? Where else is one going to read fans' heartfelt opinions of Bond novels if not at places like this? As long as the posts do not become abusive then surely members should be encouraged to expound on their opinions of Benson, Gardner, Fleming and all things Bondian? How long can I keep writing rhetorical questions?

[Loomis]

Having an opinion & negative criticisms are one thing, but ripping someone to shreds just for the "fun" of it is another. And I'm sorry, but disappointingly the second is what I see relentlessly going on in this forum.

There's a lot of praise of Benson here, too. I've written quite a bit of it myself - see, for example, my posts on "Zero Minus Ten". I've banged on at great length about how I think it's a terrific book and why (not asking for a medal, BTW ). I've also praised "Never Dream of Dying" and "The Man With the Red Tattoo", and basically been very complimentary about what I see as Benson's strengths and good works. Do I slate some of Benson's stuff? You bet I do, but I like to think it's okay for me to do that as long as no major lines are crossed. And I don't see anyone else crossing lines. Expressing negative criticisms, even if the subject of those criticisms is unlikely to be pleased, does not automatically equate to "ripping someone to shreds just for the "fun" of it". I see a few regular members regularly telling us why they don't like this Benson book or that Benson book, and that why is the reason I respect these views of theirs. It's not just "Benson sucks" - it's "This novel is poor because of.... Fleming and Gardner succeeded because.... but Benson on the other hand...."

And these views are always open to counterargument. Shouldn't this thread be a vigorous (and, hopefully, thought-provoking) debate on the Benson novels, with Benson fans speaking up enthusiastically for the merits of his work (as opposed to just essentially saying: "You're being very mean about Benson - please stop")? Instead, it seems to have turned into a debate about how we should conduct debates. As Hitch says: "Surely CBn and similar websites exist so that fans and enthusiasts can enjoy these types of debates? Where else is one going to read fans' heartfelt opinions of Bond novels if not at places like this?"

[Blofeld's Cat]

Man, I can't wait to read what ALL the fuss is about!

[Triton]

I don't believe that Raymond Benson should bear the entire responsibility for his "wooden prose", plot holes, and violations of the Ian Fleming James Bond canon.

He had to run a gauntlet of editors from Ian Fleming Publications, Hodder & Stoughton Ltd, and GP Putnam & Sons. In addition Ian Fleming Publications approved his outline and drafts.

With so many eyes approving and editing these drafts, you would presume that someone would have objected or called the errors to Benson's attention for a emendations and corrections. Is it unreasonable to presume that these people should know James Bond too? Why does Benson shoulder the entire responsibility?

Also is it possible that some of the errors are a result of changes or re-writes made by editors who believed that they knew better than Benson?

It has always seemed to me that Raymond Benson had more knowledge of the Ian Fleming literary series and the James Bond character, as evidenced by his analysis in the The James Bond Bedside Companion, than he was ever really able to demonstrate in his continuation novels.

Were there too many cooks that spoiled the soup as it were with Benson having to please Ian Fleming Publications, Hodder & Stoughton Ltd, and GP Putnam & Sons?

[Blofeld's Cat]

I don't believe that Raymond Benson should bear the entire responsibility for his "wooden prose", plot holes, and violations of the Ian Fleming James Bond canon.

He had to run a gauntlet of editors from Ian Fleming Publications, Hodder & Stoughton Ltd, and GP Putnam & Sons. In addition Ian Fleming Publications approved his outline and drafts.

With so many eyes approving and editing these drafts, you would presume that someone would have objected or called the errors to Benson's attention for a emendations and corrections. Is it unreasonable to presume that these people should know James Bond too? Why does Benson shoulder the entire responsibility?

Also is it possible that some of the errors are a result of changes or re-writes made by editors who believed that they knew better than Benson?

Replace "Benson" with "Pervis & Wade" and your comments would still be perfectly valid, Triton

I agree with everything you've said (including the last portion I haven't quoted).

[Jim]

Having an opinion & negative criticisms are one thing, but ripping someone to shreds just for the "fun" of it is another. And I'm sorry, but disappointingly the second is what I see relentlessly going on in this forum.

Hmm.

Dissecting his work isn't to dissect him, though. I bear him no ill-will, and without wishing to speak for others, I expect that to be true of the others who don't think too much of his books - he seems a genuine and good-natured (and exceedingly tolerant person). I'm not sure anything written here suggests he's unpleasant, nor that his personality is being annihilated.

[spynovelfan]

Having an opinion & negative criticisms are one thing, but ripping someone to shreds just for the "fun" of it is another. And I'm sorry, but disappointingly the second is what I see relentlessly going on in this forum.

And I'm sorry, but I think that's lame, Athena. I think you see it that way for one reason: because you know Benson. Show me where anyone's ripped Benson to shreds in this thread. Then go and read Jim's review.

You like Benson - we get it. Why not join the discussion and tell us why? Or don't. But accusing other posters of ripping him to shreds for kicks isn't a convincing defence - it's also pretty insulting, which I thought was what you were so concerned about regarding people's posts about Benson. Oh, we don't count. Sorry. Forgot.

Edited by spynovelfan, 04 May 2005 - 08:34 AM.

[Athena007]

spynovelfan, I wasn't speaking specifically about this thread... I was speaking about the Benson forum in general -- and I am fully aware of Jim's review. It's not that you or your opinions don't count... it's just that negativity can be overbearing (and personally, I'm one of those people who try to focus on the positive in things and not the negative). First a side note... honestly, I'm way more into the movies than the novels so the fact that I know Benson or like Benson really isn't swaying my thought on any of this. But I think what I was trying to say without blabber on was that I've been seeing so much negativity towards this man [Benson] who is himself a Bond fan and only was trying to add something positive to the Bond world by spending years of his life writing 007 Novels for who? For other fans like himself -- fans like you -- who were asking for more novels.

I mean it's almost like, ok we [I] get the point you guys really don't like Benson's Novels this is the umpteenth-hundred time I've heard it (just like you obviously get the point that I'm very defensive about this). But this very well could be deriving from the fact that I've been seeing all of this Benson "shredding" (as I called it -- which wasn't said in defense, only a statement of my observations -- perhaps the incorrect word to use) over the period of time that I've been here on CBn, which amplifies the current negative posts -- whereas if I had just joined this forum and hadn

[David Schofield]

[quote name='Athena007' date='4 May 2005 - 08:59']spynovelfan, I wasn't speaking specifically about this thread... I was speaking about the Benson forum in general -- and I am fully aware of Jim's review. It's not that you or your opinions don't count... it's just that negativity can be overbearing (and personally, I'm one of those people who try to focus on the positive in things and not the negative). First a side note... honestly, I'm way more into the movies than the novels so the fact that I know Benson or like Benson really isn't swaying my thought on any of this. But I think what I was trying to say without blabber on was that I've been seeing so much negativity towards this man [Benson] who is himself a Bond fan and only was trying to add something positive to the Bond world by spending years of his life writing 007 Novels for who? For other fans like himself -- fans like you -- who were asking for more novels.

I mean it's almost like, ok we [I] get the point you guys really don't like Benson's Novels this is the umpteenth-hundred time I've heard it (just like you obviously get the point that I'm very defensive about this). But this very well could be deriving from the fact that I've been seeing all of this Benson "shredding" (as I called it -- which wasn't said in defense, only a statement of my observations -- perhaps the incorrect word to use) over the period of time that I've been here on CBn, which amplifies the current negative posts -- whereas if I had just joined this forum and hadn

[spynovelfan]

Of course I can see where you're coming from, Athena - and thanks for bothering to write that. But be honest - look at the tone of what you've just written, and the tone of your previous note. Which is fairer? And which was a knee-jerk reaction at seeing 'yet more criticism' of Benson?

I know Benson's had a hard time of it from fans, here and elsewhere. And I appreciate that that can be wearing. I also appreciate that perhaps we went off on a bit of one. Only a bit, mind. I really don't think we went on for four pages saying the same thing, or that we were relentlessly bashing him, or that there wasn't useful stuff said in what we were posting. I don't, frankly, think that was written here deserved the reaction it got. But I can understand why it did, sure. I'd just say can we not jump down everyone's throat every time they criticise Benson. If you really like something or really dislike it, you tend to go on about it, get carried away, and so on. Some people do about Clive Owen. Others do about Pierce Brosnan. If DIE ANOTHER DAY was an acquaintance of mine, I'd be livid! But I don't think a site like this can realistically have one rule fo Raymond Benson and another for DAD. Nobody's slagging Benson personally off. This is about his novels. Unfortunately, I think it's just going to be the case that people continue to criticise him - sometimes in ways you and others don't like. I've only been posting here a few months. Others will come along in a few months from now and post 'I found Benson's work to be mediocre and poorly edited'; others will join and post that they found them very entertaining and the best since COLONEL SUN. Or whatever. My advice is to just ignore the Benson forum, if you don't want to get annoyed by that kind of thing. Because people will have these kinds of views. I think even when things get a bit silly - a bit, not insulting or abusive - it can be hard to see the point. But even when people might seem to you to be repeating themselves ad infinitum 'Benson's crap Benson's crap Benson's crap', there's usually some other stuff that's coming out of that, too. Like, for instance, a discussion of the editing process at IFP. I think that's pretty interesting, and it came out of this thread, and I'd like to discuss it. Sure, it came at the expense of some criticism of Benson that was said in tones that he probably wouldn't want to hear. I doubt Roger Moore would want to read a lot of what's said here, either. Or Babs. Or a lot of people.

I'm posting what I think, and in doing so trying to have some fun, avoid work - and learn more about James Bond, thrillers, and other stuff. I'm not interested in bashing Benson for kicks, and I posted in response to you because I thought that was a bit of a cheap shot. Unlike Benson, I can reply to cheap shots. I know that seems unfair - he can't reply, so we can write whatever. But this is a forum to discuss all things James Bond, and there are plenty of people who can't reply. As long as things aren't abusive, needlessly insulting or libellous, I think there should be a pretty flexible lead given on this kind of stuff (as in Jim's latest piece). If it grates you, maybe the best option is just to avoid the discussion? I'm sure Gardner/Moore/Adrian Paul fans do the same. 'Oh God - here we go again!' And they read something else. There are plenty of ideas and opinions that repeatedly come up here - I think it's easy to ascribe underhand motives too fast.

Hoping some of this isn't too objectionable. Just trying to be honest.

[Bondian]

If Benson has written some drivel, so has Fleming and any other Author.

[David Schofield]

If Benson has written some drivel, so has Fleming and any other Author.

I assume you're not suggesting by that that Ian Fleming and Raymond Benson are of equal quality, are you?

I'd struggle to find any Fleming which equalled Benson's poor prose, characterisation and plotting.

[Bondian]

I assume you're not suggesting by that that Ian Fleming and Raymond Benson are of equal quality, are you?

I'd struggle to find any Fleming which equalled Benson's poor prose, characterisation and plotting.

I'm not suggesting anything. What I'm saying is that EVERY Author/Composer/Writer/Screenwriter etc WILL sometime write inferior work.

[David Schofield]

I assume you're not suggesting by that that Ian Fleming and Raymond Benson are of equal quality, are you?

I'd struggle to find any Fleming which equalled Benson's poor prose, characterisation and plotting.

I'm not suggesting anything. What I'm saying is that EVERY Author/Composer/Writer/Screenwriter etc WILL sometime write inferior work.

Ok, I agree that some of Benson's writing is bearable, but the vast majority of it not up to the required standard.

Because the volume of his output is poor is where Benson is judged.