107 replies to this topic

[Joyce Carrington]

How's that for kink?

Reminds me... Niki Mirakos working out the... 'kinkies'. I'm sure there must be less lame ways of slipping in word jokes that lead in to sex scenes. Dunno, always had me rolling my eyes.

[Trident]

Oh, Hope Kendall. I had forgotten about her. One thing that came to my mind when you mentioned her, wasn't her swingin both ways, but her exam of Bond's prostate. And Benson mentioning that "She wasn't very gentle with that exam, either." How's that for kink?

All fingers and thumbs, isn't he?

Sure! Fingers and thumbs. There was the line where Hope "...put on a rubber glove."

But, come to think of it, maybe this goes a little bit far into the topic, doesn't it?

[spynovelfan]

Benson was basing all that on Fleming, though. In 1962 he famously wrote a book called PROSTATE OF EXCITEMENT.

I'm here all week.

[Jim]

Benson was basing all that on Fleming, though. In 1962 he famously wrote a book called PROSTATE OF EXCITEMENT.

I'm here all week.

Oh good.

[spynovelfan]

Benson was basing all that on Fleming, though. In 1962 he famously wrote a book called PROSTATE OF EXCITEMENT.

I'm here all week.

Oh good.

Sarcy!

Does this mean you don't want to hear about Benson's unpublished short story, THE PRIVATE PARTS OF ERZULIE?

[killkenny kid]

Benson was basing all that on Fleming, though. In 1962 he famously wrote a book called PROSTATE OF EXCITEMENT.

I'm here all week.

Oh good.

Sarcy!

Does this mean you don't want to hear about Benson's unpublished short story, THE PRIVATE PARTS OF ERZULIE?

"Er..zulie!"



is the sound made by the recipient of a particularly thorough fisting.





Don't tell me that this wasn't going to happen next.

[Lazenby880]

"Er..zulie!" is the sound made by the recipient of a particularly thorough fisting.

Don't tell me that this wasn't going to happen next.

This would be from personal experience, would it?

The depths to which this thread has fallen... I think it has succeeded in being smuttier than even Benson.

[spynovelfan]

"Er..zulie!" is the sound made by the recipient of a particularly thorough fisting.

Don't tell me that this wasn't going to happen next.

You're right - someone was bound to bring it up after the whole glove thing. Plus the fact that Higson had wanted to call SILVERFIN SILVERFIST (that is actually true!).

OCTOFISTY was also Fleming's original title. In the first draft, Dexter Smythe's death was much more horrific.

[Jim]

"Er..zulie!" is the sound made by the recipient of a particularly thorough fisting.

Don't tell me that this wasn't going to happen next.

This would be from personal experience, would it?

Public schoolboy...

Draw your own conclusions.

The depths to which this thread has fallen... I think it has succeeded in being smuttier than even Benson

Every day needs its own little achievement, don't you think? He set the bar pretty high, admittedly.

[Lazenby880]

Public schoolboy...

Draw your own conclusions.

Ah, that explains a great deal.

You have my sympathy.

Every day needs its own little achievement, don't you think? He set the bar pretty high, admittedly.

Very true.

5th April 2006: CBn was smuttier than Raymond Benson.

You know that could be a literary award of some sort. Imagine Judy Finnegan reading out the winning excerpt at the British Book Awards and presenting the winner with his/her 'Smuttier than the Raymond Benson Bond novels Award'. I'd pay good money to see it.

[spynovelfan]

This would be from personal experience, would it?

Public schoolboy...

Draw your own conclusions.

Did you know (you probably didn't) that Fleming had originally planned for Tiger Tanaka to be an old Harrovian? In the first draft of YOLT, the character inadvertently committed suicide by placing a Chinese gooseberry up his anus. Perhaps wisely, Fleming decided to ditch all his notes for HARROW-KIWI and started again.

All week.

[Jim]

You know that could be a literary award of some sort. Imagine Judy Finnegan reading out the winning excerpt at the British Book Awards and presenting the winner with his/her 'Smuttier than the Raymond Benson Bond novels Award'. I'd pay good money to see it.

Judy Finnegan enunciating borderline pørn on daytime t.v.

You've just wandered into my daydream. There's something wrong with me trizers. There's something wrong with me, obviously, but... I suspect I'm not alone.

This would be from personal experience, would it?

Public schoolboy...

Draw your own conclusions.

Did you know (you probably didn't) that Fleming had originally planned for Tiger Tanaka to be an old Harrovian? In the first draft of YOLT, the character inadvertently committed suicide by placing a Chinese gooseberry up his anus. Perhaps wisely, Fleming decided to ditch all his notes for HARROW-KIWI and started again.

All week.

A week is a long time in pørnography.

The rumour that he originally called Tiger Tanaka "Boshidu Bukkake" isn't true?

How very disappointing.

[spynovelfan]

A week is a long time in pørnography.

Says the man who started a 28-month thread about the weaknesses of DIE ANOTHER DAY (the original title of which, incidentally, was BUGGERED TO BITS IN A NORTH KOREAN JAIL - Michael Wilson said it didn't quite have a Bond ring to it)!

The rumour that he originally called Tiger Tanaka "Boshidu Bukkake" isn't true?

[david brent] Ah, now that's racist. [/david brent]

[Trident]

But to do Mr. Benson justice, he was trying something that is damn near impossible. He wanted to create scenes that would stir the reader of today in a similar way Fleming did in his time. Benson claimed, today Fleming would write far more graphic and explict scenes, concerning both action and sex scenes (and I do agree with him on this topic). But we live in a world that has seen a far greater deal of action, of brutality, of rape and so on, than anything in the Fleming novels even vaguely described (with the remarkable exception of "Casino Royale" maybe). To achieve the same amount of impact on readers, as Fleming did, Benson would have needed to come up with something like "American Psycho" (and even that is from 1991; would it have that same effect now?) or "Cockpit" from Kosinski. And lets face it: that is just not Bensons league.


On the other hand, Benson still had to keep within certain boundaries, as he was writing for one of the arguably most famous franchises. Benson couldn't just come up with a pørn-and-massacre-novel, even if he had wished to write something in that mood (which I believe, he didn't).

So here he found himself in a no-win situation: he wanted to go to new and previously undiscovered regions, writing stuff that was aiming to reestablish the rank of the literary Bond as being avantgarde, on the forefront of peoples expectations as far as suspense, thrill and, yes, sex are concerned.
Yet, within the restrictions the franchise has, there simply seems to be no more room for doing this.

And one has to keep in mind that the task Benson has chosen, is an extremely difficult one in itself: writing an erotic, descriptive (yet not overly so) and maybe even suggestive scene that doesn't come across as awkward is pretty close to art in my opinion. If one isn't "one of the chosen few" amongst writers, its nearly impossible. If you try it all the same, you're bound to come up with those explicit, yet unerotic and strangely unemotional paragraphs. And maybe you realize only when the book is published that you forgot to mention the smell of freshly mown hay and sweet pepper and the faint taste of vanilla on her lips and gusto with witch Bond feels her skin and all the other things you wanted to include. Instead you came up with
...Finally, he took a breast in his hand and used his thumb and forefinger to stimulate the nipple. and ...continuing the nipple stimulation... .

Maybe it just couldn't work.

[spynovelfan]

Good points, Trident.

Where has the idea that Fleming was seen as shocking regarding his *descriptions* of sex come from, I wonder. Paul Johnson's article in The New Statesman on Bond's 'sex, snobbery and sadism' didn't appear until 1958, five books into the series, and while he did attack Fleming for having the 'mechanical two-dimensional sex-longings of a suburban adult', his and most criticism was more concerned with the fact that the character was having lots of premarital sex with different women.

Benson certainly pushed the envelope, though. I can't think of a single mainstream thriller that has anything as explicit in it as the passage Jim quoted. Even those scenes in Jeffrey Archer's KANE AND ABEL and Ken Follett's LIE DOWN WITH LIONS (books which for some reason always seemed to open on those pages when I was a boy).

[Trident]

Where has the idea that Fleming was seen as shocking regarding his *descriptions* of sex come from, I wonder. Paul Johnson's article in The New Statesman on Bond's 'sex, snobbery and sadism' didn't appear until 1958, five books into the series, and while he did attack Fleming for having the 'mechanical two-dimensional sex-longings of a suburban adult', his and most criticism was more concerned with the fact that the character was having lots of premartial sex with different women.

I always had the impression, the accusement of "pørnography" mostly refered to the scenes of violence, in a strange kind misjudging them as being sadistic pørnography. I doubt whether they fulfill the hopes of any S/M-fans even back in the 50's and 60's. Nowadays this seems pretty farfeched. Possibly this judgement chiefly was based on "Casino Royale" and the famous torture scene. Somewhere I've read that Fleming had to defend that scene, claiming that in war there had been many worse tortures and that spys captured by the Gestapo or the Kempai had to endure far more.

Benson certainly pushed the envelope, though. I can't think of a single mainstream thriller that has anything as explicit in it as the passage Jim quoted. Even those scenes in Jeffrey Archer's KANE AND ABEL and Ken Follett's LIE DOWN WITH LIONS (books which for some reason always seemed to open on those pages when I was a boy).

Well, I remenber Follet's "Eye of the Needle" and one or two Lustbader novels. They had one or two scenes that stopped just a hair's breadth short of the paragraph in question. But today there is so much more sex available (particularly via the net) that the mere thaught of these passages as being pørnography strikes me as extremely odd.

Maybe erotic scenes need the same amount of hinting/suggesting/indicating as do horror scenes. Once the slightly ajar door is opened and we get to see the origin of the strange and uncanny noises, we lose a certain degree of the fear we endured just a moment ago. We lose the fear of the unknown, that for most of us is the worst fear.

Once everthing in an erotic scene is described in detail, we lose a certain degree of sexual tension that results from the room we give our phantasy in the scene.

Edited by Trident, 05 April 2006 - 03:23 PM.

[Jim]

But to do Mr. Benson justice, he was trying something that is damn near impossible. He wanted to create scenes that would stir the reader of today in a similar way Fleming did in his time. Benson claimed, today Fleming would write far more graphic and explict scenes, concerning both action and sex scenes (and I do agree with him on this topic). But we live in a world that has seen a far greater deal of action, of brutality, of rape and so on, than anything in the Fleming novels even vaguely described (with the remarkable exception of "Casino Royale" maybe). To achieve the same amount of impact on readers, as Fleming did, Benson would have needed to come up with something like "American Psycho" (and even that is from 1991; would it have that same effect now?) or "Cockpit" from Kosinski. And lets face it: that is just not Bensons league.

OK, but for Mr Benson to speculate on what Fleming would have done is as sterile as people round here speuclating on whether Cubby Broccoli would like the film series rebooted or, for that matter, whether he would like custard.

The impression I have is that Ian Fleming feared women; instant Freud here but his relationships with women suggest a desire ill-met by the reality of "having"; the thrill, the challenge being in the chase, in the strip tease, in the "not having" rather than the "having", the fantasy rather than the reality, not in the capture, not in the "possession". The thrill of Anne Fleming was when she was married to someone else; not when he was married to the horrible old ratbag.

So unless he had developed a different attitude to women, I suspect he would still be strip-teasing. It's not as if the times would not have sustained it - Henry Miller and Aleister Crowley (supposedly an influence) spring to mind.

Benson is his own man; the comparisons are pretty futile. Mr Benson does appear to dip in and out, when it suits him, of inviting comparison to Fleming (by, perhaps, suggesting that Fleming would be writing this level of explicitness in the current age) and telling us not to compare him to his predecessor. The argument is not whether Fleming would have done it had he been writing in the 1990s. The issue is whether, as it stands, what is written is worth reading, the "Fleming-would-have-done-it" security blanket taken away. Is it competent to be read, all excuses laid bare?

So here he found himself in a no-win situation: he wanted to go to new and previously undiscovered regions, writing stuff that was aiming to reestablish the rank of the literary Bond as being avantgarde, on the forefront of peoples expectations as far as suspense, thrill and, yes, sex are concerned.
Yet, within the restrictions the franchise has, there simply seems to be no more room for doing this.

There's a double-entendre in "undiscovered regions"; there must be. Are the Bond books sexy? Or are they sensual and erotic and highly suggestive, teasing, without going that far?

And one has to keep in mind that the task Benson has chosen, is an extremely difficult one in itself: writing an erotic, descriptive (yet not overly so) and maybe even suggestive scene that doesn't come across as awkward is pretty close to art in my opinion. If one isn't "one of the chosen few" amongst writers, its nearly impossible. If you try it all the same, you're bound to come up with those explicit, yet unerotic and strangely unemotional paragraphs. And maybe you realize only when the book is published that you forgot to mention the smell of freshly mown hay and sweet pepper and the faint taste of vanilla on her lips and gusto with witch Bond feels her skin and all the other things you wanted to include. Instead you came up with
...Finally, he took a breast in his hand and used his thumb and forefinger to stimulate the nipple. and ...continuing the nipple stimulation... .

Maybe it just couldn't work.

Probably true. Did it need to be done?

[Trident]

Probably true. Did it need to be done?

No. In my opinion definitely not. Sensual and erotic and highly suggestive, teasing books seem by far the better deal in the Bond vein. Benson would have been better of had he not tried to accomplish an unnecessary updating in the sex department.

[TortillaFactory]

Benson would have been better of had he not tried to accomplish an unnecessary updating in the sex department.

Good points all.

But I don't quite accept that Benson was somehow backed into a literary corner. It is quite possible to push the envelope without being yucky, which he is, or mundane, which he also is. I've done it, and I'm not a very good writer at all. You can imply without crassness, and excite the modern audience - the trick is to imply racier things. Fleming was risqu

[Loomis]

Benson certainly pushed the envelope, though. I can't think of a single mainstream thriller that has anything as explicit in it as the passage Jim quoted. Even those scenes in Jeffrey Archer's KANE AND ABEL and Ken Follett's LIE DOWN WITH LIONS (books which for some reason always seemed to open on those pages when I was a boy).

Actually, I think that bit in "Lie Down With Lions" is far more explicit than this notorious passage in "Never Dream of Dying", and goes way beyond anything you'd expect to read in any Bond novel by anyone. If it did get into a Bond book, it would indicate 007 to be a man of, shall we say, highly specıalısed tastes, and Bond is too much "the legendary superspy hero we all know and love" for that.

I think the chief problem with Benson's "explicit stuff" is not that it's particularly outrageous or horribly-written (it's neither of those things), but that his books are not otherwise "adult", and it seems jarring and out-of-place for that reason.

[zencat]

And Daniel Craig isn't good looking enough to be James Bond.

How many times can you guys make the same [censored]ing point?

[Trident]

The impression I have is that Ian Fleming feared women; instant Freud here but his relationships with women suggest a desire ill-met by the reality of "having"; the thrill, the challenge being in the chase, in the strip tease, in the "not having" rather than the "having", the fantasy rather than the reality, not in the capture, not in the "possession". The thrill of Anne Fleming was when she was married to someone else; not when he was married to the horrible old ratbag.

Yes, I got the same impression after reading the Chancellor book. Fleming seemed to enjoy the hunt far more than the prey itself. And I doubt, whether he would have married, had Ann not become pregnant.

So unless he had developed a different attitude to women, I suspect he would still be strip-teasing. It's not as if the times would not have sustained it - Henry Miller and Aleister Crowley (supposedly an influence) spring to mind.

In "007 in New York" Bond is musing about blue movies one could see in certain spots in NY and what they would do to ones sex life. In much the same manner a schoolboy would. And when I read that passage I always get the feeling, Fleming wouldn't be very fond of the pørn industry as it leaves nothing to imagination. And in some interview he stated the most erotic part of womens anatomy to be, in his opinion, the belly (Or was that the navel? Sorry, can't remember for sure.). I think that says very much about his attitude towards the matter.

[Loomis]

And Daniel Craig isn't good looking enough to be James Bond.

How many times can you guys make the same [censored]ing point?

A tad harsh, surely?

(Personally, I praise what I like about Benson a lot. But I can't talk about what I don't think works so well in his work? )

You won't get any anti-Craig stuff from me, though.

[zencat]

And Daniel Craig isn't good looking enough to be James Bond.

How many times can you guys make the same [censored]ing point?

A tad harsh, surely?

(Personally, I praise what I like about Benson a lot. But I can't talk about what I don't think works so well in his work? )

You won't get any anti-Craig stuff from me, though.

Sorry, I wasn't aiming at you specifically, Loomy. I was aiming at this thread in general. How maybe posts here have started "I already said this in an earlier post, but..." I'm seeing the same point made over and over by the same members and, frankly (and here's your Raymond Benson-like "vulgarity"), I think it's turned into one big circle jerk.

[Loomis]

I'm seeing the same point made over and over

Well, I see where you're coming from.

I think it's turned into one big circle jerk.

LOL!

[TortillaFactory]

How many times can you guys make the same [censored]ing point? mad.gif

Hey, chill. I think some good/interesting points are being made about Bond, and not just Benson's Bond, all 'round. If you feel the thread is inappropriate, by all means close it, but it's hardly on the same intellectual level as "OMG DANIAL CREGG IS SOOOOO UGLY."

[Lazenby880]

And Daniel Craig isn't good looking enough to be James Bond.

How many times can you guys make the same [censored]ing point?

Oh, why spoil the fun?

If I remember correctly, I think you are a personal friend of Mr Benson's. If so, your annoyance at the tone of this thread is understandable. Nonetheless, Mr Benson wrote the books, they were published, and many people here spent their hard-earned money on them. Surely, then, they are fully justified in criticising, airing their opinion, and having some fun with what they perceive as the rather more ridiculous aspects of his oeuvre? No-one is making any personal dig at Mr Benson, are they? There doesn't seem anything to get especially annoyed over.

And anyway, surely your point about people making the same argument could be made about any number of threads/posts? I am a fan of lots of things many people do not like - COLONEL SUN, George Lazenby as Bond, Whitesnake, the Conservative party... Doesn't mean I huff when others poke fun, though.

It's just a bit of fun. Treat it as such.

Edited by Lazenby880, 06 April 2006 - 12:03 AM.

[Righty007]

The first James Bond book I ever read was either Mr. Benson's Tomorrow Never Dies or Never Dream Of Dying. I also read The Facts Of Death and The Man With The Red Tattoo. I loved them all! I enjoy reading his Bond novels more than Fleming. I think that's because people my age understand modern novels better. I wish IFP had kept him but I think they wanted to go in a different direction a la the firing of Pierce Brosnan. Also, the advertising for his novels was weak and I think that's why his run was cut short.

[dunmall]

the first Benson i read was Facts of Death and it turned me off initially because it was too much like the films, his other books are much much better.

but they were fun, i'm kind of glad that IFP choose to move on and try some different things.

But the books were notoriously hard to find in australia (unless it was the film tie in), i'm not having that problem with the Young Bonds.

[Robert Watts]

Bond books besides Higson have always been hard to find here, (especially in Canberra) I had to order my Fleming's from Dymocks to get anything post-FRWL.

As for the female anatomy, I agree that the abdomen is the most erotic part of the body, it subtley gives impressions of the other parts of the body, but at the same time is very attractive itself.