15 replies to this topic

[Qwerty]

This review has been on CBn for a few years, but I've decided to give it a sole discussion thread. If you haven't read it yet, here's your chance!

Earnest Flemingway - Raymond Benson's DoubleShot

A review of DoubleShot by Ajay Chowdhury

[Lazenby880]

However, the novel is an entertaining, fun read, written with attention to detail and passion.

Attention to detail; emphatically yes. But passion? I may not have read the entirity of Benson's books - and of DOUBLESHOT in particular I remember little - however passion is not a word I would associate with any of those that I have. I would also question the extent to which Benson really re-breathes life into James Bond, if anything the character is being suffocated. And could Benson's writing style really be described as 'earnest Flemingway'?

A typically provocative piece, and it is a very nicely written little review. Nonetheless, I cannot say that I agree with much of it.

Edited by Lazenby880, 04 March 2006 - 12:19 AM.

[FLEMINGFAN]

However, the novel is an entertaining, fun read, written with attention to detail and passion.

Attention to detail; emphatically yes. But passion? I may not have read the entirity of Benson's books - and of DOUBLESHOT in particular I remember little - however passion is not a word I would associate with any of those that I have. I would also question the extent to which Benson really re-breathes life into James Bond, if anything the character is being suffocated. And could Benson's writing style really be described as 'earnest Flemingway'?

A typically provoking piece, and it is a very nicely written little review. Nonetheless, I cannot say that I agree with much of it.

I would have to agree entirely with you.

The series should have been stopped with Fleming (perhaps allowing John Pearon's 'biography' in for fun). He was an original and created a world, rather than a singular character, to write about. The others all missed that point.

[Lazenby880]

I would have to agree entirely with you.

The series should have been stopped with Fleming (perhaps allowing John Pearon's 'biography' in for fun). He was an original and created a world, rather than a singular character, to write about. The others all missed that point.

I hear what you are saying regarding the 'Bond world' as opposed to James Bond simply as a character, however I would venture to suggest that COLONEL SUN is more than worthwhile, and some of the Gardners are not bad at all (even though they do admittedly pay little heed to Fleming).

In fact, perhaps one of Benson's largest failings (apart from the more obvious; the quality [or lack thereof] his writing) is that he pays too much attention to Fleming's 'Bond world'. Whilst I do accept that it may be necessary to create the Bond environment, Benson went around it all the wrong way, inserting needless Fleming characters and references where they simply jar (despite the fact that the James Bond in his books bares very little resemblance to Mr Fleming's).

[FLEMINGFAN]

[/quote]
I hear what you are saying regarding the 'Bond world' as opposed to James Bond simply as a character, however I would venture to suggest that COLONEL SUN is more than worthwhile, and some of the Gardners are not bad at all (even though they do admittedly pay little heed to Fleming).

True, but at that time, Amis HAD to write like Ian Fleming because the world was still hooked on the books and was well-versed on the writing style and content of Fleming's novels. I remember the reviewers at that time picking COLONEL SUN apart for passages, or even emotions, that were not Fleming-like (i.e. "Bond shuddered.").

That is something that has never happened since. I doubt many reviewers, or readers, really remember the writings of Fleming and just compare all the new muck to what they see in the cinema.

Gardner was too 'technical' with his numerous predictable plot twists; and Benson's writings are just too amateurish (Plopping down 'interesting things' and surrounding them with ramblings is not interesting writing at all, except for the novels in the 'Young Adult' section of the book shop).

Benson as Flemingway? I think not!

[Lazenby880]

True, but at that time, Amis HAD to write like Ian Fleming because the world was still hooked on the books and was well-versed on the writing style and content of Fleming's novels. I remember the reviewers at that time picking COLONEL SUN apart for passages, or even emotions, that were not Fleming-like (i.e. "Bond shuddered.").

Well we will have to agree to disagree on how similar Amis' style was to Fleming's, personally I feel they are radically different (see here).

However, without wishing to seem impolite, I see that you say you remember contemporary reviews of COLONEL SUN. Any more recollections would be most welcome!

Gardner was too 'technical' with his numerous predictable plot twists; and Benson's writings are just too amateurish (Plopping down 'interesting things' and surrounding them with ramblings is not interesting writing at all, except for the novels in the 'Young Adult' section of the book shop).

Benson as Flemingway? I think not!

Gardner was not great by any means, however I do feel that much of his contribution is underrated. Sometimes I would very much agree, he is too technical at times. As for Benson, irritatingly in the novels I have read of his one can discern some potential in there, but most of it is squandered. The writing is amateurish (often characterised by some real grating howlers), robotic and very often akin to having been written by a soulless committee - possibly quite close to the truth.

With regards to your final point, could not agree more.

Edited by Lazenby880, 03 March 2006 - 11:43 PM.

[FLEMINGFAN]

Well, we will have to agree to disagree on how similar Amis' style was to Fleming's. Personally, I feel they are radically different.


I am only just pointing out that Amis had a style that he HAD to try to adher to. He still departed from it, but it was a self-inflicted pressure by him to come up with a Fleming-like book. In structure, he is the closest....but still not right.

(Unlike the later authors that, literally, had the publisher's looking over their shoulder as they typed away and critiqued everything on paper. Not a pleasant working environment!)

--------------------------------

However, without wishing to seem impolite, I see that you say you remember contemporary reviews of COLONEL SUN. Any more recollections would be most welcome!


(Not impolite, at all!) With most of the books, from the Flemings on, I always clipped out the reviews for them in whatever publicatins posted them (which really were not many). I still have them, but have not made up a 'Dossier' for COLONEL SUN at this point in time (A film usually prompted that, and there willnever be a film of that novel, nor any of the continuation books). It may certainly be worth going back to for a refresher, but I do remember nothing really positive. The best was one reviewer (I believe it was the NATIONAL REVIEW) that loved EVERYTHING about the book, but thought it all wrong for a Fleming/Bond book. That was pretty much the concensus back them...only Fleming could be Fleming.

Words of wisdom.

[Lazenby880]

(Unlike the later authors that, literally, had the publisher's looking over their shoulder as they typed away and critiqued everything on paper. Not a pleasant working environment!)

Very true; and perhaps given that I should not be unduly harsh to poor Mr Benson. Although it is he who is credited for the books perhaps many of the problems cannot be attributed to him, and I certainly would not appreciate working in such an environment as it quite evidently produced some pretty substandard material. Hopefully they will have the foresight to allow whomever the new author is some creative freedom, I think there would be a far higher probability of an enjoyable novel!

(Not impolite, at all!) With most of the books, from the Flemings on, I always clipped out the reviews for them in whatever publicatins posted them (which really were not many). I still have them, but have not made up a 'Dossier' for COLONEL SUN at this point in time (A film usually prompted that, and there willnever be a film of that novel, nor any of the continuation books). It may certainly be worth going back to for a refresher, but I do remember nothing really positive. The best was one reviewer (I believe it was the NATIONAL REVIEW) that loved EVERYTHING about the book, but thought it all wrong for a Fleming/Bond book. That was pretty much the concensus back them...only Fleming could be Fleming.

Words of wisdom.

Again very true; only Fleming can be Fleming. Which is why I would dissuade anyone from seeking to ape his style, I do believe that a continuation novel can be a success without such replication. As long as the main character is recognisably James Bond (and not the man the Benson wrote about) with the Bondian elements a very good Bond novel could be written... like COLONEL SUN.

Edited by Lazenby880, 04 March 2006 - 12:17 AM.

[FLEMINGFAN]

[[/quote]
Again very true; only Fleming can be Fleming. Which is why I would dissuade anyone from seeking to ape his style, I do believe that a continuation novel can be a success without such replication. As long as the main character is recognisably James Bond (and not the man the Benson wrote about) with the Bondian elements a very good Bond novel could be written... like COLONEL SUN.
[/quote]

I am in favour of the books going on (I even liked the YOUNG BOND series, though they should all be approached as an "alternate universe"). I just think they should continue the ROBERT MARKHAM series and let each new writer handle their own book, with only limited strings attached (Just a small outline of the basic character's emotions and foibles and some of his surroundings).

At least with that plan, we could get a superior book, now and then (Maybe). Having a 'guest writer' would certainly give a much-needed boost to the literary side of ADULT BOND, and it may be fun for the writers to take a serious crack at the world of 007; something that most of them grew up with. Oddly, with his detailed writing and product placement, I think someone like STEPHEN KING has a very Fleming-like writing style and I would like to see what he would do.

There are, undoubtedly, others.

(By the by, thanks for the chat. Most refreshing and informative.)

[TortillaFactory]

Can't bear Hemingway, so the comparison actually works for me.

Admittedly, I've only read The Old Man...et al., but I actually do see how Benson could be described as Hemingway-esque. His sentences tend to be short, simple, and homogenized, with very few of the passionate, humourous, or erotic bright spots with which Fleming peppered his writing. blah blah blah blah OMG pørn blah doesn't cut it for me.

Okay, I'm still suffering from my reading of NDOD. Forgive me.

Of all the continuation writers, Amis is the most like Fleming. While not quite as skilled, he was decent with a pen. His style is different - less flashy, and perhaps less suited to adventure novels. Some of his dialogue positively clunks. (Say what you will about Fleming, but I've never found that to be the case with him.)

I maintain one could go through Benson and remove all instances of Bond's name along with the sore-thumb references to the past, and Fleming himself could read it without identifying the character. There is nothing of Bond in the guy that Benson writes. I'll admit James is a bit of a greased pig when it comes to literary characters - I write him, I know it's hard. I'm not sure I could come up with a laundry list of his characteristics, but I know them when I miss them.

Poor Raymond - I feel bad. Well...his plots are decent.

[ACE]

Hmmm, just a guess this, but I get the feeling from the date it was written, that the reviewer was not conducting an in-depth analysis of the book but was merely trying to stoke interest in an interesting Bond novel in an interesting spoiler-free "review".

And I do not see any reference to Hemmingway other than the artsy-fartsy title the reviewer has chosen to give the piece. Apart from the reference to bull-fighting and the obvious Fleming/Hemmingway comparisons and overlaps, there is no sense that the book is in the Hemmingway style at all. The review (obviously not very clearly) is trying to say that Raymond, in his heart and soul, wants to write a great Bond novel but will never be Fleming. As Raymond would himself admit. But I love the attempt and the continuation of the literary Bond and HTTK, DS and NDOD are certainly attempts to push the envelope and do something different. Raymond was always very good at plotting and arcing his characters. And, for the first time in a long while, there is a real attempt at an adult relationship in a Bond novel.

I happen to like the fact that Doubleshot humanizes Bond and gives him real physical and psychological challenges. And like that reviewer says, when it comes to continuation Bond novels, mind is like parachute: function best when open.

[Jim]

...the artsy-fartsy title that obviously pretentious and amateur reviewer has chosen to give the piece... The review (obviously not very clearly but then what can you expect with that poor standard of writing)...

Bit harsh, no?

[ACE]

Yeah, maybe. Sorry.

[FLEMINGFAN]

Yeah, maybe. Sorry.

I think it was right on the mark.

[Jim]

Yeah, maybe. Sorry.

I think it was right on the mark.

Maybe so, but without the writer of the piece around to defend himself it may be a touch rough.

[Dunph]

Yeah, ACE, you big tit.