107 replies to this topic

[JimmyBond]

I'm counting Fleming's short story collection as one, btw.

Anyways, is there any official reason why Benson only ended up doing six? Were his novels not selling well, or maybe they just werent happy with his plotlines? I havent really researched the novel series much (with the exception of Fleming), so I don't know if they've ever come out and said why Benson stopped weriting the books.

Incidentally, I've only read one Benson (Zero Minus Ten) how were his others?

[Qwerty]

You may find the Raymond Benson CBn Interview (Scroll Down) as a solid answer to your question - there are four parts in total, I, II, III, and IV.

[JimmyBond]

Thank you, I'll take a look at it after work

[Qwerty]

Enjoy, it's quite good.

[Lazenby880]

The original question of this thread is just begging for a disparaging remark regarding the quality of Mr Benson's output, but I shall refrain.

As far as I can understand his books sold about five copies each, which is obviously unsustainable. Nonetheless, I gather they did not print many, and promotion was weak (to put it mildly) which were both contributory factors. Go into a bookstore that stocks a Benson (itself a curio nowadays) and you will no doubt find it hidden in the Fleming section - at least that is what I have found. This shows the general lack of interest towards them (although this may have happened in bookshops in the Gardner era, I really do not know).

Even though I am no fan of Benson's books, they are no worse than some of the absolute codswallop that gets printed these days and sells ([cough] Dan Brown [/cough]). So despite the poor quality (which itself was not the issue - IFP were at fault in that department too) it was the general meagre sales (which again can be substantially blamed on IFP) that probably did it.

Edited by Lazenby880, 21 March 2006 - 11:49 PM.

[zencat]

Thank you, I'll take a look at it after work

I think you'll enjoy the interview, but here is Benson's answer to your question.

...I was actually going to ask Glidrose for a year off that summer. John Gardner had two separate instances during his tenure when he had a year off. I needed a break from Bond. I had some things of my own I wanted to write. Before I could ask, though, the new Board at Glidrose, or rather, IFP, had decided to suspend the continuation novels for a while. The Board changed sometime around 2000 or 2001, I can’t remember. Peter Janson-Smith retired and was out of the picture. A lot of Flemings from the banking side of the family came into the organization. I really don’t know and can’t comment upon what their plans were at the time or what they are for the future. I do know they wanted to promote Ian Fleming’s works more during the 50th anniversary year (2003), hence the re-issues by Penguin in the UK and USA. Perhaps the feeling was that any author of the Bond series should write only a few books and then stop. So Tattoo was my last book, by mutual agreement. As Connery says in DR. NO, “You’ve had your six.” Well, I had mine.

[Lazenby880]

[quote name='zencat' post='535259' date='21 March 2006 - 23:33']
I think you'll enjoy the interview, but here is Benson's answer to your question.

[box]...I was actually going to ask Glidrose for a year off that summer. John Gardner had two separate instances during his tenure when he had a year off. I needed a break from Bond. I had some things of my own I wanted to write. Before I could ask, though, the new Board at Glidrose, or rather, IFP, had decided to suspend the continuation novels for a while. The Board changed sometime around 2000 or 2001, I can

[zencat]

The interview is very interesting, and Mr Benson acquits himself well in my opinion (particularly when one takes into account the personally offensive things that he had to put up with). Seems a thoroughly decent chap to me. To be fair, however, he does not really answer the original question; the board changed but apart from that this is just speculation. I still think that the lack of interest generated by the continuation novels (and resultant poor sales) was the major factor.

Well, I think his speculation is bang on. IFP did concentrate on Fleming in the anniversary year of 2003 (with the UK and US reprints) and then they developed the Young Bond concept and hired a new continuation novelist for, yes, only five books (one less than Benson). Maybe RB could see the future...or maybe he knew the future and was telling us exactly what was going to happen.

As for the lack of success of the continuation novels…I think the Higson books have shown that James Bond continuation novels can be very successful, but you need to support them with some serious promotion. Most people didn't even know there were continuation novels when Gardner and Benson were writing them (this is still the case with the Higson books here in the U.S. which do not have the same promotion the books have in the UK).

When you talk of "poor sales", what figures are you looking at exactly? All of Benson's books sold out of their first printings. Of course, they only printed 5000 thousand or so (as compared to the tens of thousands of Flemings and Higson), but you can only sell what you print. The old Glidrose didn't shoot for the stars. They were working on a formula and EVERY book turned a profit. The new IFP wanted to shoot for the starts with a whole new concept (Young Bond), which needed a new author. If IFP considered continuation novels unpopular and money losers, do you think they would have gambled so heavily with a whole new set? Indeed, I think they saw them as a very good idea which hadn't really been exploited by the old Glidrose.

[Lazenby880]

[quote name='zencat' post='535287' date='22 March 2006 - 01:10']
Well, I think his speculation is bang on. IFP did concentrate on Fleming in the anniversary year of 2003 (with the UK and US reprints) and then they developed the Young Bond concept and hired a new continuation novelist for, yes, only five books. Maybe RB could see the future...or maybe he knew the future and was telling us exactly what was going to happen. But, of course, he needed to frame it as speculation.

As for the lack of success of the continuation novels

Edited by Lazenby880, 22 March 2006 - 01:33 AM.

[doublenoughtspy]

The Bensons turned a profit before a single book was sold.

UK hardback rights, UK paperback rights, US Hardback rights, US paperback rights, and especially foreign hardback and paperback rights brought the books into immediate profits.

Fleming changed literary agents because his wasn't doing much for him in the foreign arena. Peter Janson-Smith changed all that - for Fleming and the continuation authors that followed.

[Lazenby880]

The Bensons turned a profit before a single book was sold.

UK hardback rights, UK paperback rights, US Hardback rights, US paperback rights, and especially foreign hardback and paperback rights brought the books into immediate profits.

Fleming changed literary agents because his wasn't doing much for him in the foreign arena. Peter Janson-Smith changed all that - for Fleming and the continuation authors that followed.

Which I guess demonstrates my lack of knowledge of the publishing arena.

I happily stand corrected, although still contend that the books were just not very good.

Edited by Lazenby880, 22 March 2006 - 01:40 AM.

[zencat]

I happily stand corrected, although still contend that the books were just not very good.

Well, I can't argue with opinion, but I personally loved all the Benson books and I only had problems with a few of the Gardners. Even though I really wanted Benson to continue, maybe there's something to the idea that a single author should only do five or six books consecutively.

[Jim]

I happily stand corrected, although still contend that the books were just not very good.

Well, I can't argue with opinion, but I personally loved all the Benson books and I only had problems with a few of the Gardners. Even though I really wanted Benson to continue, maybe there's something to the idea that a single author should only do five or six books consecutively.

You may have something there; although patently only my opinion, Gardner took a definite dip after book six and never rose again.

The Bensons appeared to have had no popular support; whether this is because so few were available, or whether it is because of poor promotion or whether it is because they were poorly written/edited/conceived is unclear and open only to conjecture. On the whole, and again this is only guesswork, with a low print run, the proportion of (cough) "Bond fans" within the buying public would be higher than if 1,000,000 had been printed and, on the whole (again this is a very general statement) amongst those "Bond fans" the prevailing view is towards the negative. I'm certainly not saying that's true of everyone and doubtless many, many very positive voices can be heard. That's just my impression.

Perhaps if they had gone bigger at the release stage, these would still be going, because faced with a negative vibe from "the people who by law should like this", the old board arguably lost their nerve. It's possible. It's conjecture.

IFP's new board, who may have been bankers (no pun intended) and not artistes, took the right decision in pulling the plug, totally (and wonderfully brazenly) ignored the "fans" (self included) who decried "Young Bond", ploughed on regardless not needing the handful of "Bond fans" rather than seeking to pander to them, and juggernauted two very fine books into production - they have taken a number of good decisions. Can't think of a bad one, yet.

[Double-Oh Agent]

I happily stand corrected, although still contend that the books were just not very good.

Well, I can't argue with opinion, but I personally loved all the Benson books and I only had problems with a few of the Gardners. Even though I really wanted Benson to continue, maybe there's something to the idea that a single author should only do five or six books consecutively.

I enjoyed both the Gardner Bonds and the Benson Bonds and I too would have preferred Benson to continue with the series. Now I just have to look forward to the next author in two years.

As for your point of the new continuation author doing signficantly less than Fleming and Gardner, I suppose I have no big problem with that. But my suggestion would be to have them stop at (00)7 novels. Benson did six and, if you count his short stories (including The Heart Of Erzulie) which could be put into a collection novel a la For Your Eyes Only and Octopussy, then he would have seven as well--a perfect Bond number and half of Fleming's and Gardner's output. (A little too pat perhaps, but it's kind of neat to do it that way.)

[icecold]

IDK why it stopped, but I know I don't like it. I LOVED Benson's novels. Miles ahead of anything I read from Gardner (I've only read 4 of his but 4 stinkers in a row doesn't give me much incentive to keep reading) and they're just as good as Fleming's only in diffrent ways. Fleming's have better characterization, plot, details in general but are slower and therefore sometimes harder to read by someone with my attention span , wheras Benson's have more action and are faster paced at the expense of the more memorable characters and fantastic plot points of I.F. They're different, but equally entertaining, I just hope we get another Benson instead of another Gardner if/when they do another adult Bond novel.

[Robert Watts]

The original question of this thread is just begging for a disparaging remark regarding the quality of Mr Benson's output, but I shall refrain.

As far as I can understand his books sold about five copies each, which is obviously unsustainable. Nonetheless, I gather they did not print many, and promotion was weak (to put it mildly) which were both contributory factors. Go into a bookstore that stocks a Benson (itself a curio nowadays) and you will no doubt find it hidden in the Fleming section - at least that is what I have found. This shows the general lack of interest towards them (although this may have happened in bookshops in the Gardner era, I really do not know).

Even though I am no fan of Benson's books, they are no worse than some of the absolute codswallop that gets printed these days and sells ([cough] Dan Brown [/cough]). So despite the poor quality (which itself was not the issue - IFP were at fault in that department too) it was the general meagre sales (which again can be substantially blamed on IFP) that probably did it.

Ah, someone in this section of the board who makes sense! (I have an issue with Benson, and similar writers [need I cough?] though admittedly I am a bit harsh) The thing I don't like about writers of "commercial fiction" is they lack flare and spark (IMO) that Fleming and a few others had (and a few still do) while they say their stories are fast paced, and I suppose they are, but they don't feel fast paced.

My second problem with Benson was mainly a combination of the lackluster "commercial thriller" style and (after reading a blurb of his new book) his sex scene fettish. Benson is right in saying that if Fleming was around today he probably would be writing fairly graphic novels in both the violence and sex area, but with Fleming it would work, and while it would be graphic it would still feel exciting to read. It would tingle the senses and be sensual, instead of what we got from Benson which was basically run of the mill descriptions and a he did while she did exchange so he could get a quick fix while writing.

(Did I say I overuse commas)

[David Schofield]

I suppose IFP went for Benson as the best they could get at the right price. Sadly, it seems the books were not good enough for them to promote heavily and correctly and they called it quits after six. Why let Benson get as far as six? Why they go down the Higson route AND promote heavily?

[DLibrasnow]

I was initially very critical of Benson's work and then, I had a change of heart and became a supporter of his novels. I think Benson worked very hard to capture the essence of Fleming and I respect him for that.
I think in addition to not promoting the Benson books properly that IFP did another disservice to Benson's work by not providing him with a decent editor. I would never even consider publishing something without having one of my colleagues look it over first. That's just asking for trouble.

[Lazenby880]

Ah, someone in this section of the board who makes sense! (I have an issue with Benson, and similar writers [need I cough?] though admittedly I am a bit harsh) The thing I don't like about writers of "commercial fiction" is they lack flare and spark (IMO) that Fleming and a few others had (and a few still do) while they say their stories are fast paced, and I suppose they are, but they don't feel fast paced.

Absolutely Mr Watts! 'Commercial fiction' really is, to paraphrase the wonderful Catherine Tate, "a load of old ". Unfortunately (in my opinion) Mr Benson takes Bond into that cul de sac. There are some good books being published, some very good indeed, however they do not tend to be in the thriller genre (particularly in the general espionage arena*).

My second problem with Benson was mainly a combination of the lackluster "commercial thriller" style and (after reading a blurb of his new book) his sex scene fettish. Benson is right in saying that if Fleming was around today he probably would be writing fairly graphic novels in both the violence and sex area, but with Fleming it would work, and while it would be graphic it would still feel exciting to read. It would tingle the senses and be sensual, instead of what we got from Benson which was basically run of the mill descriptions and a he did while she did exchange so he could get a quick fix while writing.

(Did I say I overuse commas)

Yes, Benson's writing of sex truly is some of the most dire claptrap that I have had the misfortune of reading. Absolutely devoid of anything even approaching sensualism or exoticism, Benson's stuff reads like a poorly conceived manual on the subject; and it hurts to read it. It is emblematic of Benson overall; the lack of flair, sophistication or panache. Quite how they got away with printing this stuff remains something of a mystery to me, although to be fair (and as I previously said) the same could be said for much of that which passes for 'writing' nowadays.

* I should add the proviso that there are some good spy novels being published contemporarily, such as Charles Cumming. It is unfortunate that these are outnumbered by the multitude of drivel. Moreover, 'spy novel' is not a particularly useful term for Fleming/Bond as the original books were more adventureish (forgive me for making up words now) and pulpy than traditional espionage stories, however I have used it in the context for convenience.

Edited by Lazenby880, 26 March 2006 - 05:52 PM.

[Robert Watts]

Yes, it isn't really fair to call the Bond novels 'spy stories' (mainly because people like Le Carre would throw a fit at it) And there are still some good espionage thriller writers out there (whether the use of espionage is the fantastical style or the real life style [or a blend of both])

Forsyth still has it as of 2003 IMO, Avenger was engrossing and well written. (And I was in the wars today and I will have to leave it at that before my leg falls off

Edited by Robert Watts, 29 March 2006 - 07:23 AM.

[Gabriel]

Benson's books were ok reads. They weren't spectacular, but helped smooth along some very dull railway journeys and the like.

IFP's promotion of them was terrible though. The promotion of the continuation novels seemed to slide in the late Gardner era and die in Benson's time. If I went looking for a Gardner book, I could often find them on a shelf in a bookstore (usually next to books by someone called Jane Gardam IIRC!) Benson's were lumped in with the Flemings, in the unlikely event any were in stock.

The other issue was the titles, which IFP decided on. Zero Minus Ten was an awful title (Benson wanted No Tears for Hong Kong), The Facts of Death is worse still (although Benson liked it!) and High Time to Kill sounds like a bad pun in a tabloid newspaper (Benson's title: A Better Way to Die was an improvement of sorts!) I could live with Doubleshot and The Man With the Red Tattoo.

I never read the latter book, the reason being that, while they were entertaining enough books, there was no way I was going to spend 8 quid on a Bond continuation novel: they broke a price barrier for me with that last book. In fact

[TortillaFactory]

There's definitely something to the "promotion" aspect. Nobody outside of our cozy Bond circle has heard of Gardner, let alone Benson. No, he's not a great writer, but he's no worse than most. There is no good reason why he couldn't have been spectacularly famous in a literary world ruled by the likes of Tom Clancy and Stephen King.

That said, yes, his "sex scenes" are rather sickening. I've said so before and I'll say it again. When he mentioned in the interview that people called him a pørnographer, all I could think was: no, it wasn't even that good.

[Robert Watts]

Ha!

He could've been more suggestive as opposed to being so... direct.

Why say clitorus when you can say something like 'the warm insides of her body' (okay that wasn't great but you get my gist) not only does it raise your word count by five words but it also is more descriptive whilst leaving us with a less science textbook approach to the whole concept.

[TortillaFactory]

Allow me to paraphrase a post I made several months ago: Benson's much-touted sex scene in NDOD was about as titillating as a textbook. It's like, blah blah blah blah blah blah GYNECOLOGY!!! blah blah blah. Somehow Fleming always managed to be erotic within the confines of 1950s and 60s censors; to quote Sabrina, more isn't always better. Sometimes it's just more.

[Jim]

Allow me to paraphrase a post I made several months ago: Benson's much-touted sex scene in NDOD was about as titillating as a textbook. It's like, blah blah blah blah blah blah GYNECOLOGY!!! blah blah blah. Somehow Fleming always managed to be erotic within the confines of 1950s and 60s censors; to quote Sabrina, more isn't always better. Sometimes it's just more.

I know what you mean, but from memory GCSE Biology was never like this:

Finally, he took a breast in his hand and used his thumb and forefinger to stimulate the nipple. When it was erect, he slowly and gently twisted it, pulled it, twisted it, pulled it...Tylyn squirmed under him as he alternated between the two breasts. Then, keeping his left hand on one breast and continuing the nipple stimulation, he slid his right hand down to the mound between her legs. Her hair was soft and thin there. She was wet, and his second and third fingers slid inside easily. Tylyn moaned loudly and arched her back as he used his thumb to circle the erogenous zone at the top of her vulva. He kept up this rhythm for several minutes, using her natural lubrication to slide his thumb up and down and around her clitoris, while keeping his two fingers deep within her.

But it isn't very erotic. Very silly, perhaps. But not very erotic.

Although I do like the phrase "...continuing the nipple stimulation..."; it's so, I dunno, offhand (for want of a better expression), so casual, so bored, so "What are you doing, darling?" / "Oh, just continuing the nipple stimulation".

His latest book is about the sex industry.

[spynovelfan]

He kept up this rhythm for several minutes, using her natural lubrication to slide his thumb up and down and around her clitoris, while keeping his two fingers deep within her.

Presumably you added this sentence for your own amusement? There is *not* a James Bond novel where we learn he puts two fingers inside a woman, is there? Please tell me there's not!

[Jim]

He kept up this rhythm for several minutes, using her natural lubrication to slide his thumb up and down and around her clitoris, while keeping his two fingers deep within her.

Presumably you added this sentence for your own amusement? There is *not* a James Bond novel where we learn he puts two fingers inside a woman, is there? Please tell me there's not!

I can conceive of more amusement than that.

Sorry to disappoint, but it's there.

[spynovelfan]

Could you tell me some of the amusements you can think of just so I get this out of my head?

(Don't go into too much detail, though.)

[Trident]

He kept up this rhythm for several minutes, using her natural lubrication to slide his thumb up and down and around her clitoris, while keeping his two fingers deep within her.

Presumably you added this sentence for your own amusement? There is *not* a James Bond novel where we learn he puts two fingers inside a woman, is there? Please tell me there's not!

I can conceive of more amusement than that.

Sorry to disappoint, but it's there.

I just looked it up. Jim is right. Page 192, second paragraph. It's there.

[Jim]

He kept up this rhythm for several minutes, using her natural lubrication to slide his thumb up and down and around her clitoris, while keeping his two fingers deep within her.

Presumably you added this sentence for your own amusement? There is *not* a James Bond novel where we learn he puts two fingers inside a woman, is there? Please tell me there's not!

I can conceive of more amusement than that.

Sorry to disappoint, but it's there.

I just looked it up. Jim is right. Page 192, second paragraph. It's there.

Easier to find than the clitoris itself.





OK, that was really unpleasant.