130 replies to this topic

[Bondian]

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.

It's made him a healthy living though.

[spynovelfan]

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.

It's made him a healthy living though.

Same as he would have made at a nine-to-five job, according to hi interview on this site. And..? Robert Ludlum made a fortune from his books, but he was still a poor writer. We're not going that route, surely.

Someone mentioned the 'too many cooks' thing. I think that's quite possibly the case. It would be interesting to see how Fleming, Amis, Wood, Gardner and Benson were edited - to what extent, and in what ways. I suspect IFP did ask for changes to be made to some of the others' submitted synopses and finished products, but I doubt they extended the editing to individual sentences - which would effect the quality of the prose, which is what is under discussion. Gardner wasn't all that hot on grammar either, incidentally - a lot of his sentences are very clumsy, usually because they start with the wrong word: 'Particularly, Bond felt that...' - that sort of thing's all over his books.

There's an obvious difference in prose style between Amis, Gardner and Benson, which makes me think there was little or no line editing done on any of them. And some of the stuff you simply can't lay at IFP's door. It's the writer's job to do the location research, and if he gets stuff wrong, they can't be expected to know. If mistakes get through, some of the blame may lie with the editors - but the writer still made the mistake.

I'd agree, though, that it has to be pretty tough having to please everyone, as Benson did: film-lovers, book-lovers, casual fans and purists alike. The job is a poisoned chalice. Still, might have been interesting to see what would have happened had Benson been allowed to set his books in the 50s and 60s, as he discussed with IFP.

[Loomis]

[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 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

[Jim]

For the avoidance of doubt, unless I were to make it absolutely explicit that I was launching into Mr Benson qua Mr Benson, any time I intend to refer or indeed have referred to weaknesses "of Mr Benson" these are not personal weaknesses (don't know the chap) but in what he writes. It's a shorthand but I apologise if it has confused and led some to the conclusion that these are personal.

Nor is it intended to be any slight on those who do know him.

Apologies if this has led to any misunderstanding.

[Simon]

.................but I'd just like to state that I, too, am one of those people who try to focus on the positive in things and not the negative.

And your thoughts on Owen's appropriateness to the Bond role is testament to that alone. I congratulate you.

(And in the spirit of understanding of the current mood of this thread, I'd just like to hereby announce this was a joke. No disrespect to Loomers, his family, Owen or last named followers)

[Loomis]

.................but I'd just like to state that I, too, am one of those people who try to focus on the positive in things and not the negative.

And your thoughts on Owen's appropriateness to the Bond role is testament to that alone. I congratulate you.

LOL! Quite. And, swipe me, but anyone as absurdly, pathetically enthusiastic as I am about THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, of all bloomin' things, surely deserves some kind of Above and Beyond the Call of Duty Bond geek award! (And if memory serves, Benson crucifies that film, along with MOONRAKER, in his "Bedside Companion", although it's presumably okay for him to make harsh criticisms of things.)

[David Schofield]

Shame, though - Loomis, Spy, Jim - WE have to apolgise for having an opinion and criticising someone.

[Loomis]

Shame, though - Loomis, Spy, Jim - WE have to apolgise for having an opinion and criticising someone.

No we don't. Some of us have tried to clarify our position, but I have nothing to apologise for on this thread; neither, as far as I can see, have you, neither has DLibrasnow, Jim, spynovelfan....

(To be fair to "the other side", though, no one's actually demanded an apology from anyone, so....)

[David Schofield]

Shame, though - Loomis, Spy, Jim - WE have to apolgise for having an opinion and criticising someone.

No we don't. Some of us have tried to clarify our position, but I have nothing to apologise for on this thread; neither, as far as I can see, have you, neither has DLibrasnow, Jim, spynovelfan....

(To be fair to "the other side", though, no one's actually demanded an apology from anyone, so....)

Ok, we perhaps have been requested not to continue criticsing Benson for fear of the upset it might cause/because its boringly repetitive by his friends.

So we say, sorry to offend, there are redeaming qualities in Benson's work (as in, it could have been worse) and yes, it can be a bit repetitively boring so we'll stop.

This notion of being criticised for having an opinion annoys me more than Benson's bloody work, that's all.

[Athena007]

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.

Now that, the IFP editing process was, I admit, interesting.

If it grates you, maybe the best option is just to avoid the discussion?

That would be the "smart" thing to do. Though can a fan really stop reading?

[DLibrasnow]

No we don't. Some of us have tried to clarify our position, but I have nothing to apologise for on this thread; neither, as far as I can see, have you, neither has DLibrasnow, Jim, spynovelfan...

My review of HTTK speaks for itself and until I've read another Benson book I have nothing really to add to a discussion on his writing.