28 replies to this topic

[Jim]

There's a comment in Raymond Benson's "The James Bond Bedside Companion" that, in comparing the Fleming and Gardner books, Fleming's would be savoured at Sardi's and Gardner's munched at McDonalds. The metaphor, albeit a crassly alliterative one, begs the query: where into this grand scheme of comestibles fall Mr Benson's own delicacies?

With THE MAN WITH THE RED TATTOO Raymond Benson has produced a competent book, which may or may not be as successful or unsuccessful as his other five original James Bond stories. The plot, the usual hysterical twaddle about a terrorist event at a world event, fast becoming a Benson tattoo itself, is neither here nor there. It services 290-odd pages of an entertainment, which rumble along pleasantly and then end. Requisite shoot-outs happen along the way and the girls are respectively a secret service agent and a well-spoken and naturally charming prostitute, both again recognisably indelible in Mr Benson's output. The eponymous villain is suitably dastardly, with the requisite cohort of crazed killers and physical freaks at his disposal. All present and correct, all well and good.

Perhaps.

The decision to set this book in Japan is a revealing, and ultimately exposing, one. It will inevitably draw comparison with YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, perhaps Fleming's most thematically rich novel, if not his most narratively arresting. Mr Benson seems to intend to invite the comparison. Rather than avoid the ghosts of the past, he beckons them enter, making central to the early parts of the book Fleming's character of Tiger Tanaka, and inviting the casual reader to cast their mind back to Vesper Lynd, Tracy Bond and Kissy Suzuki, and the fight in Blofeld's garden of death. At which point, the casual reader may well wonder whether (s)he's been invited to this party at all.

For this adoration of the dead characters of a dead man is the rotten core at the soul of this exercise in futile necrophilia. It is a gutless performance to rely on another's characters to flesh out a tale. It is also extremely risky, and counter-productive. "Bond fans", we happy few, will recognise the character from the earlier work, and thus the character is fully formed and needs no further backstory. How pleased we are to see them return. How easy that must be to write. How horrifically that exposes the one-dimensional nature of the writer's own new characters. Propping up new characters no thicker than a paper wall with old hands only serves to undermine them. A problem: Fleming's character will still outshine all. Where is the confidence to ditch the past? Where is the confidence to create something new? Where is the confidence in one's own creation?

Where are the memorable Benson characters? The easiest answer is to remind the writer of Le Gerant, erstwhile head of The Union in the preceding three books. A point noted, but not taken, for Le Gerant was thrown away in his final appearance in favour of the resuscitation of a Fleming character, whose appearance can have meant little or nothing to those whose first Bond book by any writer NEVER DREAM OF DYING will have been. Blown away was Le Gerant, for an in-reference.

And this is why it is so counter-productive. If one writes for the "fans", one is in danger of disappearing down an ever decreasing circle straight to hell. Who will read a book that alienates them by chucking in a reference every few pages, and not just a reference, but a reference the author wishes to invest with some significance? One wonders how ruthlessly commercial that is. One wonders if it is simply playing to a core captive audience, but never breaking out to the wider mainstream, because of never changing the material.

It's just to easy to hang onto the past. Another Benson tattoo. One wonders, if Mr Benson delivers unto us a "Jamaica" book, it will be revealed to us that Quarrel was only mildly singed, or Strangways and Mary Trueblood did have that affair after all, or Ross just went for a swim, or Mary Goodnight is still out there, spending weekends at the Thunderbird Hotel? Wouldn't that just give all us "fans" a warm tickly feeling inside, that the author is showing off his Bond knowledge (an entirely justifiable way to spend one's life, I'm sure) rather than telling us something new? If you don't get all the above references, you may appreciate my point.

Or would it, should it, make us fear that this relentless pursuit of Bond lore will be left on the shelves, ignored by the wider public and dismissed into fandom? Too much introspection will lead to destruction.

And THE MAN WITH THE RED TATTOO is ringing that death knell loud. Having read it twice in forty-eight hours, I remain mystified to whom this will appeal apart from those "in the know", those whose "knowledge" of this utterly trivial thing, can be taken for granted, those who simply will accept a new Bond book, because it is a new Bond book. Where it appeals to those who may just want to give Bond " a look", may just want to see what it's like in print rather than on screen, I do not know. I think this route commercially unsound. I think it is potentially suicidal and, unlike the Japanese methods, entirely without honour.

I could not dismiss this concern if the writing was better, but it might be dulled. However, once more, Raymond Benson has produced a story, and an engaging story while it's there, but without a text. The narrative is incredibly bland. There is no craft at work here, no attempt to explore the written art. It is narrative. It is reportage. It gets the job done, although his fondness for the redundant phrase still needs to be tempered by his editor. The overwhleming stench of "will this do?" pervades the book, and engenders the impression that it is written without love for, or interest in, the skill of writing.

This intrinsic nothingness of style is heightened in this sixth book, structurally (and narratively) closest to THE FACTS OF DEATH but more exposed in this book than its forebear. A second novel might be forgiven a fledgling style; a sixth, infused by the same empty phraseology and leaden, serviceable prose, is considerably harder to forgive. The effect is someone reporting something they have seen without much imagination, or interest. Consider the sound loops many cinemas have for their deaf or blind patrons.

We have seen Mr Benson be more structurally inventive than his new book: HIGH TIME TO KILL and DOUBLESHOT were new constructs, so far as the Bond novels go, and their flaw is not in that they were done that way, but in the manner of their execution. If the writing were stronger, more involving, if there were an authorial voice of any description, there would be much to enjoy in those books and their experimental natures. As they stand, the writing is too weak to hang onto those bones, and they are rendered skeltons of novels, rather than fleshed out.

In THE MAN WITH THE RED TATTOO we proceed without a construct, we chug through in a linear manner that propels the book to its conclusion without engaging the reader sufficiently to admire the manner in which one reaches it. Although doubtless influenced by this latest work, it would still be immensely crass for me to throw in a YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE reference here, so ignore the next comment if you want to avoid solid gold hypocrisy: it is better to travel hopefully than to arrive. Stylistically, Mr Benson is perfectly competent at arriving, but doesn't appear very interested in how he gets there.

And that's a surprise, because strengths of Raymond Benson's books are his travelogue, his research and his sense of place. This was effective in HIGH TIME TO KILL and NEVER DREAM OF DYING and indeed so here. A far more wide-ranging (geographically, if not stylistically) book than YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, THE MAN WITH THE RED TATTOO takes in several Japanese cities and islands, and the differences between them are competently presented to us. Regrettably, the absence of style unfortunately renders these descriptions as colossal info-dumps. The effort to weave the detail into the text is at best, clumsy, and at worst, distracting. However, any book that starts with two pages of thanks (including thanks to the two main actresses in You Only Live Twice) can't be dismissed as lazy in preparation, just in execution. The relentless pursuit of barraging the reader over the head with as much information as possible in one paragraph renders the book an effective guide book, but if it was a guide book I wanted, a guide book is what I would have bought. The overwhelming detail cannot compensate for the underwhelming presentation.

Comparisons are death; I am striving not to compare Mr Benson to Mr Fleming or Mr Gardner. All have their weaknesses. Fleming was patently a colossally egotistical bigot. It was always amusing to see how plainly John Gardner's boredom with the character of James Bond would shine through. But where Fleming was a self-made man in love with his own creator and creation, whose style was (at its least showy) extravagant, and Gardner was technically adept and intrigued in manipulating the Bond character out of his Fleming candyfloss world into something more espionagey (probably not a word), I fear that Mr Benson is in love with someone else's character. You always hurt the one you love, the one you shouldn't hurt at all. Comparisons are invidious; Mr Benson is coming up with basic plots that are the measure of Fleming and Gardner, even if he does retain Gardner's fondness for public events and including real people. Apparently James Bond is Tony Blair's best pal. On a plot for plot basis THE MAN WITH THE RED TATTOO is the equal of MOONRAKER or DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER or THUNDERBALL. But it ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it, that's what gets results.

So where are we now, and where do we go from here? I cannot see what THE MAN WITH THE RED TATTOO has added to James Bond. It is insufficiently dramatic to signal a new direction, it is thematically immature and obvious (the constant references to Mishima give away the ending) and it is navel-gazing in the extreme. Accordingly, we are where we were before it was published. Where do we go? On a commercial level, I want the book to be a success, and have wide public recognition, because otherwise the commercial future of the written Bond, if what is written is of this standard, is bleak. I fear it will not sell well in the UK. The branch of Waterstones in Oxford at which I bought it had only one copy. The chap on the till expressed surprise that "anyone was still writing those". On a practical level, I could live without a Bond book for more than a year if in that time, Raymond Benson has a really long think about his next book. Perhaps the structure of his contract will not let him do this, but that structure is a mistake. He needs to spend a great deal more time and attention to how he is writing, as much as to what he is writing. If a pause means he can refresh and generate something really enervating, that will be time well spent. On a faecetious level, buying a thesaurus would be an idea. If, however, it is a book a year for fourteen original books and there are eight more of these to sit through, I fear my interest waning. There is a danger of a dead horse being flogged here. There is also a danger of Mr Benson's talents being overfaced.

Which brings us back to the culinary analogies. Neither savoured at Sardi's nor munched at McDonalds (the latter's popular appeal is not to be mocked. surely?), THE MAN WITH THE RED TATTOO is a glass of water. It is sustenance, but that alone, and no more memorable. Presently, the water is still relatively fresh, but as we're told throughout THE MAN WITH THE RED TATTOO, don't let it go stagnant; that breeds death.

[General Koskov]

Jim (10 May, 2002 07:48 a.m.):
Tanaka serves no narrative purpose in Red Tattoo and if he's meant to be the same man, the man who trained as kamikaze and spied for Japan in WWII, he'd be very very old now. Nothing is mentioned of that, tripping Mr Benson over his own in-reference.

Well, to be fair to Benson (listen up! I don't do this often) Tanaka does have a heart-attack. And to re-iterate the excruciatingly obvious: Bond is meant to be the same man who trained as a commando in WWII, he too, should be very old by now.

But you're right, Tanaka is rather useless. However considering he's a top man in the Koyan Cho Kosu (frankly I don't give a damn if I spelt it wrongly, TMWTRT is not beside me...) and Bond is a top man in SIS, it would be a strange book if they didn't meet.

[rafterman]

Benson isn't a great writer, but he does tell good Bond stories and there is nothing wrong with his resurrecting and referencing Fleming bits, so long as they make sense...nothing in his books has struck me as too out of place, too off the wall that would make the reader scratch their head....many novels have scenes of characters thinking of past events and people who we have not met, this reflection often lends depth...in Bond we get reflection on his wife and his time in Japan....it's the same world, without it there would be something wrong...these bits let us know there's more to this character, these bits become the character development of Bond, someone who doesn't change much...

[zencat]

Jacques Nexus (01 May, 2002 02:39 p.m.):
First of all Benson is an engaging story teller who weaves interesting dramatic stories. Jim's notion about Benson's "bland" narrative perhaps revives my favourite chestnut: a good writer (in terms of prose style) versus a good story teller; there's a hell of a difference between the two. While I do wish Benson would try to improve his skills as a wordsmith (ie, a "writer"), that is in my view secondary to the most important task of delivering an exciting story (ie, as a "story teller"). In my book he never fails to deliver on that score.

Very well put, Nexus. I think you nailed the bottom line here. Is Benson a masterful writer like Fleming? No. Does he know how to tell a James Bond story? You bet he does. In fact, I think Benson's narrative skills are superior to ALL the post Fleming writers and even Fleming is some cases. Jim's review is very intelligent and well written, but I do feel like it's a referendum on Benson's writing style instead of a review of the book.

[Blofeld's Cat]

zencat (27 Apr, 2002 11:59 p.m.):

Blofeld's Cat (27 Apr, 2002 02:51 a.m.):
I'm going to take Blue Eyes' advice and read the Tomorrow Never Dies novelisation to get another "view" of Benson's writing. See how he handles the back story.

I would also encourage you to read NEVER DREAM OF DYING, Cat. I really feel this is Benson's best.

Thanks for the advice, Zencat. I'll take you up on that suggestion too.

[Mister Asterix]

I think Benson shouldn't be afraid of using any of Fleming's (Or Amis' or Gardner's) characters at any time the need or want should arise. On the other hand, he shouldn't be afraid of not using the characters either. One of the reasons I feel HIGH TIME TO KILL is Benson's best is that it built on the strengths of some of Benson's strongest original characters. So while I don't agree with you, Jim, I do.

(At the time of writing at 2:40am this makes sense to me. We will see if I understand it some time later when my mind doesn't have a heavy fog set upon it.)

[General Koskov]

And don't forget Auric's twin when Bond 'just happens' to pass through Ft. Knox: 'He always was a bit retarded.' What a [cuss]ing stupid line!

[Jim]

I fear you're right. Time for him to resist temptation.

[Simon]

Also the point is that if anyone knows where the next book is going to be set, we will be able to foresee 2/3 of the book's characters. To wit;

Bahamas - the opportunity would be too good to pass up Largo's grandson.
Jamaica - would it be Quarrel junior (ignoring LALD the film) or Quarrel junior junior (referencing the film)
Toronto - maybe Vivienne could pop up with another problem to sort out.
Switzerland - we will have the ghost of Tracy - without doubt.

...and so on and so blah blah forth.

[Jim]

Noted.

I don't argue that he shouldn't do it, albeit that the age of Tanaka makes it odd. It's that resurrecting older characters is lazy, because he doesn't have to write them any background, and detrimental when they still remain stronger than his own new characters regardless. If his own characters were as strong, the effect would be less pronounced

[Jim]

Immense hubris for me to post anything else here, particularly in response to points raised about my review (that way leads censorship, not good), but in an Jacques to Jacques moment, I'm not convinced that there is a chestnut, aged or not, about a good writer versus a good story teller. I don't think there is a "versus"; the two are not mutually exclusive. Dickens, Austen, Trollope, Hardy et cetera and at a less literary level, Fleming, Conan Doyle. I have no qualms about Benson's stories per se. The way he tells those stories is his downfall.

Looking back to the past is fine if it's not at the expense of the present. The impression created is that Benson is far more interested in Fleming's characters than his own. Fleming's characters are already fleshed out for him. They make his own characters look utterly undernourished, and damage them. Furthermore, on occasion, it is bringing back those characters for the hell of it: Tanaka serves no narrative purpose in Red Tattoo and if he's meant to be the same man, the man who trained as kamikaze and spied for Japan in WWII, he'd be very very old now. Nothing is mentioned of that, tripping Mr Benson over his own in-reference.

The analogy with the Star Trek and Star Wars continuation novels is an apt one. Apparently the bestselling hardback in the UK last week was the novelisation of "Attack of the Clones"; although little doubt that that is due to the upcoming film. Without a film, it'd be nowhere. Having worked in publishing for five years now, with such little authority as I have, I can say that the sales figures for the other Star Wars novels are nothing to zero, and Star Trek isn't registerable. They are regarded as "intra-niche"; science fiction a niche unto itself, and with their relentless in-references which make them impossible to market to the casual purchaser, a specıalısed niche within that niche.

That's what I fear for Bond; in the relentless and inexplicable drive for continuity, it's becoming a specıalısed, introspective act largely ignored by the fiction-buying public.

I note the point about the films damaging the books and it's an interesting one. The flip side is that, on the whole (Die Another Day aside, it would seem) the films can be watched individually. There are a few, but ultimately only a few, continuity references. I'm not sold on the argument that EON has damaged Bond. With the hoopla to surround the 40th anniversary/20th film, Gildrose had a prime opportunity to market Red Tattoo. The book's commercial failure (the lists available to me establish that it's just not selling in the UK) may be a result of poor marketing but I fear the product just isn't strong enough in its own intra-niche, never mind the real world.

[Jacques Nexus]

I do believe Jim's review or "tirade" against THE RED TATTOO and Benson in general is way too harsh to go unanswered.

First of all Benson is an engaging story teller who weaves interesting dramatic stories. Jim's notion about Benson's "bland" narrative perhaps revives my favourite chestnut: a good writer (in terms of prose style) versus a good story teller; there's a hell of a difference between the two. While I do wish Benson would try to improve his skills as a wordsmith (ie, a "writer"), that is in my view secondary to the most important task of delivering an exciting story (ie, as a "story teller"). In my book he never fails to deliver on that score.

What's wrong with revisiting the past ?. As long as it serves a clever purpose like it did in NDOD, then I approve. Other genres like Star wars & Trek delve into the past, and considering how successful their novels are, your notion, Jim, that Benson should always look forward and never back doesn't stack up.

No...the real reason why Bond doesn't figure much on the best seller lists these days is NOT because of Benson (or Gardner as the case may have been). The culprit is purely EON and nothing else !.

In 1965 EON's THUNDERBALL began the process of turning our hero into a light weight action man/ cartoon character. Because of that, the general public have been brainwashed to believe the same notion. Why should they take the literary 007 seriously when it's cheaper to see the stunts on screen than buy the novels.

Starting in the 80's EON has valiantly tried to regain 007's former stature...but I fear to no avail as far as the general public is concerned. To them he is still a cartoon character; they still want to see the movies but why bother reading the books ?. Hell...they don't even know they exist (Where the hell is Glidrose's publicity machine ?). In their minds aren't books for more serious characters with greater substance than 007 ?. In my view TWINE showed their is plenty of substance to 007, but I wonder whether the general public came away from that film thinking the same ?. I think not. To them it's just another 007 movie.

For the general public, at the end of the day it doesn't matter who writes the literary 007. Each author faces a near impossible uphill battle against the image of 007 cultivated by EON from 1965 to 1979.

That legacy, for better or worse, may remain forever in the hearts and minds of the cinema audiences.

[DavidFries]

Jacques Stewart, eh? Funny, I always thought your name was Jim....

How silly of me! ;D

[Simon]

Another cast iron piece of writing and, I daresay, I will agree with every last word you have said when I bother to pick up a paperback copy in the next 8-12 months.

The point is that the copyright holders of both the films and the novels have a firm grip on the rulebook for the filmic and literary character of where Bond can go. Not wishing to retread copious other threads in these forums, this ultimately stifles any true creativity and to prove the point, we get an unproven author and (dare I say it?) Yes-men directors. This isn't to give Benson an excuse as the filmic character will forever continue to outshine the literary one in both execution and profitable returns.

But what of the future? Benson, we know, will forever resurect the Fleming connections because of his own lack of execution. We will have the Nods and Winks every single year of his output reign (and indeed, this year in the filmic capacity too) and the Bond fans will continue to adore it and everyone else ignores it / doesn't get it / is confused by it. Benson undoubtedly recognises his own shortcomings, hence the references, but if he continues to satisfy his publishers and he continues to sell to his market - albeit a fantastically narrow one - then what the hell? Bond is not a world to find invention and inspiration - and we both know it.

Which begs the question. I have agreed with everything you've said about the Benson novels. I have stated likewise in other posts and I have already stated that I will probably continue to agree once I've experienced the latest novel in October - so why do I (you) continue to subject ourselves to this drivel when in every single other circumstance, we would exercise better judgement and leave well alone?

I've noticed you've disseminated the films in a similar style. For some reason, I am a little more forgiving about the films (TWINE not included) and so cannot join in on the shredding journey there.

I will probably find the Red Tattoo novel an exercise in crass - but I will probably add it to the others.

I will probably enjoy the DAD film (I can't imagine they will do another TWINE) and will be happy to state as such.

Jim, tell us what you actually like about the Bond world? And tell me why you or we continue to buy books that we know we are going to be disppointed by.

[Blofeld's Cat]

We really needed this review from Jim!

It's healthy to have a review that is counterpoint to Zencat's more positive one. Reviews are so personally subjective so neither is correct or incorrect.

I have only read one Benson so far, and I know it's unfair to compare one book to reviews of another, but after reading High Time To Kill I felt more in tune with Jim's sentiments (maybe not as strident) than with Zencat's.

I'm going to take Blue Eyes' advice and read the Tomorrow Never Dies novelisation to get another "view" of Benson's writing. See how he handles the back story.

[RossMan]

Blofeld's Cat (27 Apr, 2002 02:51 a.m.):
I'm going to take Blue Eyes' advice and read the Tomorrow Never Dies novelisation to get another "view" of Benson's writing. See how he handles the back story.

You haven't read any Gardner have you, BC?

Don't believe everything you hear about his books. (just look at my sig )


I'm expecting my copy Red Tatto anyday now so I can't say if I'm with zencat's or Jim's review. Of the past Benson books, I'm somewhere between their opinions, where I don't think his books are the best non-Fleming, I don't dislike them either.

[Blofeld's Cat]

RossMan (27 Apr, 2002 04:03 a.m.):

Blofeld's Cat (27 Apr, 2002 02:51 a.m.):
I'm going to take Blue Eyes' advice and read the Tomorrow Never Dies novelisation to get another "view" of Benson's writing. See how he handles the back story.

You haven't read any Gardner have you, BC?

No I haven't yet, RossMan. I don't know why but I don't seem to have the urge to either. It maybe all the negative comments I keep reading.

[RossMan]

With all the problems and disagreement over a suitable post Fleming Bond author, I often wonder if perhaps the books should just follow with the movies and leave Fleming's books alone as it's own series. Maybe even different authors so that if someone does not care for one's writing, they can just wait to the next one. Like with the line of Stark Trek books or, if I'm not mistaken, Indiana Jones books are done similiary.

I don't personally like prefer this idea but it seems to me it might be more successful.

Sorry to stray off topic of Jim's interesting review.

[RossMan]

Jim (26 Apr, 2002 07:04 p.m.):
For this adoration of the dead characters of a dead man is the rotten core at the soul of this exercise in futile necrophilia. It is a gutless performance to rely on another's characters to flesh out a tale. It is also extremely risky, and counter-productive. "Bond fans", we happy few, will recognise the character from the earlier work, and thus the character is fully formed and needs no further backstory. How pleased we are to see them return. How easy that must be to write. How horrifically that exposes the one-dimensional nature of the writer's own new characters. Propping up new characters no thicker than a paper wall with old hands only serves to undermine them. A problem: Fleming's character will still outshine all. Where is the confidence to ditch the past? Where is the confidence to create something new? Where is the confidence in one's own creation?

I don't mind seeing Fleming's characters return in books. It's all one series so why shouldn't characteres return? I enjoyed seeing the return of my fav. Fleming character Rene Mathis in NDOD, and I look forward to seeing Tiger Tanaka return. Felix Leiter is always expected to show up now and again so I think Mathis or someone else could too.

[zencat]

Blofeld's Cat (27 Apr, 2002 02:51 a.m.):
I'm going to take Blue Eyes' advice and read the Tomorrow Never Dies novelisation to get another "view" of Benson's writing. See how he handles the back story.

I would also encourage you to read NEVER DREAM OF DYING, Cat. I really feel this is Benson's best.

[Joyce Carrington]

I have to say TMWTRT was a bit dissapointing... I don't know exactly why, but I just couln't get 'into' the story, as I did with for instance Doubleshot, which was excellent. I still love Benson's novels though, and I hope the next one - if there's gonna be one - will be better. I do not have any suggestions for writing a good Bond novel...

[zencat]

Glad to hear you liked DOUBLESHOT, JoyceCarrington. That book got knocked pretty hard by the fans when it first came out, but I think it's now getting the credit it deserves for being a very interesting, and daring, experiment. Just the other day I was talking to someone about books of popular series (we were talking about Star Trek books actually) and I mentioned how RB did a "James Bond goes crazy" book and she said, Coooool!

Sorry you didn't care for TMWTRT.

Welcome for CBN, by the way.

[General Koskov]

I have to say that I liked the 'James Bond goes crazy' plot. But it was much to 'my government is against me, and I must go freelance' in some parts. Also was Sir James treating Bond, and I don't think so. So why not? Or was it his secretary who switched the pills? Anyway, it wasn't very nice of her.

[IndyJones]

Rossman you are wrong. I have read all 12 Indiana Jones novels. A new Indy book has not been written since 1999 and they only have one author at a time writing Indiana Jones novels. It would be nice to have more than one Indy authors so more than one Indy book can be released a year. Years ago ome Indy novels were released in one year but they were by the same author. I love Indy and would like more than one author at a time so I can have fun reading more than one original Indy story a year. They should have Benson and at least one other different author writing different Bond novels so more than one original 007 novel is released in one year.

[Blofeld's Cat]

Not too sure what you are getting at IndyJones.

I know there have been more than one author that have written the Indiana Jones novels, but I think what Rossman is suggesting is that more than one author could be commissioned to write Bond novels on a yearly basis (not necessarily at the same time).

One Bond novel a year is OK with me, but having just the one author punch out a series of books could stop people from reading them all, especially if someone read one and didn't like the author's style. Whereas, if different authors are used each year, it may attract more readership.

BTW, I've only read two Indy novels, "Indiana Jones and the Sky Pirates" and "Indiana Jones and the White Witch." Only because they were written by one of my favourite authors, Martin Caidin.

[zencat]

What ever happened to those Indy books? I really enjoyed them (and I loved the cover art).

For that matter, what ever happened to the rest of the Young Indy episodes on VHS? I love these!

For that matter, what ever happened to Indy 4? (I know, I know...they say they're going to make it next year. I'll believe it when I see it!)

And what ever happened to then point of this thread.

[Blofeld's Cat]

Originally posted by zencat
And what ever happened to then point of this thread.

We've all being waiting for Jim's critique of our critique of his critique of TMWTRT.

[Jim]

Originally posted by Blofeld's Cat

We've all being waiting for Jim's critique of our critique of his critique of TMWTRT.

The thread went critiqual as soon as that grotty charlatan I*d*a*a J***s was mentioned.

As it's some time since I read Red Tat, it wouldn't be justifiable for me to contribute anything more. I read it twice and twice was enough.

[Blofeld's Cat]

Originally posted by Jim


The thread went critiqual as soon as that grotty charlatan I*d*a*a J***s was mentioned.

As it's some time since I read Red Tat, it wouldn't be justifiable for me to contribute anything more. I read it twice and twice was enough.

You only read twice.