108 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

Some great points, spy, but why would it be necessary to "2. Have lots of them written"? Why flood the market? What's the point of "dozens of novels"? Why not just release one (really decent one) every couple of years?

[Triton]

I don't understand the marketing incompetence of Ian Fleming Publications, GP Putnam & Sons, and Hodder & Stoughton Ltd.

I can walk into any warehouse store, such as Costco or Walmart, and see the deluge of James Bond DVDs, videos, and the Electronic Arts licenced games like Agent Under Fire, Nightfire, Everything or Nothing, or Rogue Agent.

I don't understand why Ian Fleming Publications didn't license the 007 logo and Pierce Brosnan's image to place on the cover to take advantage of the MGM/UA and Eon Productions James Bond brand.

Perhaps we can condemn Raymond Benson as a hack, writing fan fiction, who can't hold a torch to Ian Fleming. But isn't that irrelavant? He is no worse than any other best selling author who you find on the New York Times best seller lists or on the shelves of the warehouse stores.

What about the horrible Star Trek and Star Wars continuation novels? Slap the Star Trek or Star Wars logos on these turkeys and thousands of copies are sold to Costco or Walmart.

Why the flacid marketing for the Raymond Benson continuation novels? Couldn't IFP had a promotional tie-in with Die Another Day or Electronic Arts?

[Loomis]

Couldn't IFP had a promotional tie-in with Die Another Day or Electronic Arts?

I think this may tie in with spynovelfan's point about IFP being "precious and pretentious about Fleming". I get the impression of a snobbish lot who'd feel getting involved with computer games (and even the film series) a bit beneath them - "we're the guardians of the one and only true James Bond, the literary Bond", that sort of thing. (Reminds me of something I read in The Daily Telegraph around the time of the release of DIE ANOTHER DAY, the gist of which was that a group of members of the Fleming family had been invited to a special screening, and had afterwards slated the film with remarks like: "Ian never wrote juvenile action movies for teenagers." I wish could quote the Telegraph piece exactly, but I can't - I didn't keep hold of it, and I doubt it's online anywhere.)

From a post by spynovelfan, on the thread http://debrief.comma...32:

I don't think IFP are interested in being taken seriously, or they'd never have let Gardner get away with half the stuff he did. And I actually don't think they even care too much about making too much of a profit. I get the sense it's an old boy's club, and as long as things are ticking along nicely and they can have long lunches and tell stories about Kingsley Amis or whatever, they're delighted. Caring too much about making money's awfully common, you know.

[spynovelfan]

Some great points, spy, but why would it be necessary to "2. Have lots of them written"? Why flood the market? What's the point of "dozens of novels"? Why not just release one (really decent one) every couple of years?

Flood the market? One good novel every two years? Benson's writing two Splinter Cell novels in one year, and that brand - Clancy - will have about ten books out this year. Since Robert Ludlum's death in 2001, the following novels have appeared that he apparently wrote:

The Prometheus Deception (2001)
The Sigma Protocol (2001)
The Janson Directive (2002)
The Tristan Betrayal (2003)

Then there are the novels that are 'from his ideas'. Just since his death, still:

The Cassandra Compact (2001) (with Philip Shelby)
The Paris Option (2002) (with Gayle Lynds)
The Altman Code (2003) (with Gayle Lynds)
The Lazarus Vendetta (2004) (with Patrick Larkin)

October sees the publication of The Ambler Warning - I'm not sure if Mr Ludlum's meant to have written that one on his death bed, too, or just outlined the plot for someone else to write. Ludlum, incidentally, is estimated to have sold over 200 million books.

Clive Cussler is also in on the branding act:

Clive Cussler's NUMA Files
1. Serpent (1999) (with Paul Kemprecos)
2. Blue Gold (2000) (with Paul Kemprecos)
3. Fire Ice (2002) (with Paul Kemprecos)
The Numa Files Collection (omnibus) (2002)
4. White Death (2003) (with Paul Kemprecos)
5. Lost City (2004) (with Paul Kemprecos)

Clive Cussler's Oregon Chronicles
1. Golden Buddha (2003) (with Craig Dirgo)
2. Sacred Stone (2004)

As is Dale Brown:

Dale Brown's Dreamland (with Jim DeFelice)
1. Dreamland (2001)
2. Nerve Center (2002)
3. Razor's Edge (2002)
4. Piranha (2003)
5. Strike Zone (2004)
6. Armageddon (2004)

That's six books in three years. This isn't counting some of the harder action stuff, like the Mack Bolan/Executioner series, which has has anonymous writers churning them out since 1972. There are three series now: Executioner, Stony Man and SuperBolan. Since *last year*, there have been:

290. Pursued (2003) (by Mike Newton)
291. Blood Trade (2003) (by Douglas P Wojtowicz)
292. Savage Game (2003) (by Chuck Rogers)
293. Death Merchants (2003) (by Tim Tresslar)
294. Scorpion Rising (2003) (by David Robbins)
295. Hostile Alliance (2003) (by Jerry Van Cook)
296. Nuclear Game: Moon Shadow Trilogy I (2003) (by Mel Odom)
297. Deadly Pursuit: Moon Shadow Trilogy II (2003) (by Mel Odom)
298. Final Play: Moon Shadow Trilogy III (2003) (by Mel Odom)
299. Dangerous Encounter (2003) (by Andy Boot)
300. Warrior's Requiem (2003) (by Mike Newton)
301. Blast Radius (2003) (by Chuck Rogers)
302. Shadow Search (2004) (by Mike Linaker)
303. Sea of Terror (2004) (by Mike Newton)
304. Soviet Specter (2004) (by Unknown)
305. Point Position (2004) (by Unknown)
307. Hard Pursuit (2004) (by Unknown)
308. Into the Fire (2004) (by Unknown)
309. Flames of Fury (2004) (by Unknown)

in the first,

63. Freedom Watch (2003) (by Michael Kasner)
64. Roots of Terror (2003) (by Ron Renauld)
65. The Third Protocol (2003) (by Unknown)
66. Axis of Conflict: The Terror File I (2003) (by Unknown)
67. Echoes Of War: The Terror Files II (2003) (by Unknown)
68. Outbreak (2003) (by Unknown)
69. Day of Decision (2004) (by Mike Linaker)
70. Ramrod Intercept (2004) (by Dan Schmidt)
71. Terms of Control (2004) (by Unknown)
72. Rolling Thunder (2004) (by Unknown)
74. The Chameleon Factor (2004) (by Nick Pollotta)

in the second, and

88. Sleepers (2003) (by Mike Newton)
89. Strike and Retrieve (2003) (by Ron Renauld)
90. Age of War (2003) (by David Robbins)
91. Line of Control (2003) (by Jon Guenther)
92. Breached (2003) (by Jon Guenther)
93. Retaliation (2003) (by Mike Newton)
94. Pressure Point (2004) (by Ron Renauld)
95. Silent Running (2004) (by Michael Kasner)
96. Stolen Arrows (2004) (by Nick Pollotta)
97. Zero Option (2004) (by Unknown)

Think these are really shoddy looking? Check out this cover:



Competes with Benson's Bond, surely. Still think I'm flooding the market with three or four a year? I don't think this market *can* be flooded. I haven't even mentioned the films and the video games. The two Splinter Cell games have sold 9.7 million copies.

I'm not advocating anything like the rate these guys are going at. Say four a year, tops. Make them a little classier. It's not just a good idea so you can make more money - it's a good idea because if you only have one product every year or two, it's under the microscope and comes off badly, because it looks like they're competing with Fleming. Oversell them like that, and you lose. Undersell them, and you might have articles saying: 'Well, they seem to come out every five minutes and they're obviously doing it for the money, but I must say I was pleasantly surprised by the 003 adventure No Half Measures: it wasn't Fleming, of course, but it was a taut little thriller that had dashes of his spirit and verve. And it was a damn sight more exciting than the recent film efforts - good on Ian Fleming Publications for having the nerve and imagination to take on their pretenders and win'. No? I think the Gardner/Benson continuation novelist idea is vain, and backfires. If I were offered to write an anoymous Bond novel in three months for a set fee of 30 grand, I'd be happy to take it. Take a year and have my name on it for 50 grand? No thanks. In the first instance, if it gets praise, it's a bonus and I'll claim it later on. In the second, it's never going to get praise, and probably not sales, either. And there's a good chance I'll be battling it off my CV for years to come. Benson got lucky and had the chance to do precisely what I'm talking about - Gardner's still living with his mistake. As it stands now, the Bond continuations are a poisoned chalice for any decent writer - as the Fleming estate seems determined to promote the books as by decent writers, that seems like shooting oneself in the foot, repeatedly.

Edited by spynovelfan, 17 January 2005 - 08:37 PM.

[spynovelfan]

I think this may tie in with spynovelfan's point about IFP being "precious and pretentious about Fleming". I get the impression of a snobbish lot who'd feel getting involved with computer games (and even the film series) a bit beneath them - "we're the guardians of the one and only true James Bond, the literary Bond", that sort of thing.

As you have pointed out, it seems rather contradictory. On the one hand, they're very precious. Any continuation writer has to submit synopses, have the titles vetoed, and so on. They have their name on the book and are the one and only writer of the Bond novels, officially sanctioned by Ian Fleming's estate. The books are sent out to broadsheets to review. The writer has a year to research or whatever it is, and travels the world giving interviews, which concentrate on their being the officially sanctioned one and only etc. On the other hand, the synopses submitted can seemingly be written in dreadful English, totally with the formula (let's get rid of his signature weapon; let's disband the Double 0 section, etc) and be utterly commercial and still get approved; titles like The World Is Not Enough are vetoed and ones like Oh, No, Mr Bond! suggested.

These guys don't have a clue. Sorry, but they don't. I interviewed Peter Janson-Smith, Ian Fleming's literary agent and then on the board of what was then Glidrose, on the phone a couple of years ago. I asked him how they had chosen Gardner. Um, well, er, his name was floated about and, um, we decided to approach him, and well, yes, he rather liked the idea and we voted on it and, well. Yes. Okay, but why did you pick him? Well, gosh, yes, I'm not quite sure, can't remember who first, he was, well, just, you know, his name, it... well. It came up. Was it, I said, because of the Boysie Oakes books? Was that it - he could do the Bond-style stuff? Oh, no, hah, no, I thought they were rather poor, actually. Oh, I said. Right. The Moriarty books he wrote, showing he could do a continuation? No, no, hmm, don't think so, no. The Herbie Kruger series? Ah, no, well, not as far as I know, never read them. So why, then? Oh, well, um, we couldn't have someone like Kingsley again, of course, because, well, we wanted someone to write a lot...

What he wanted to say was 'He was the first British hack thriller writer who accepted the job. Yes, he was a bit crap, but we thought we might make some money. Did we bother reading his books? No, not really. We had a vote one Saturday lunch at the club and said we'd have quality control - we'd have final say on the titles, and he'd have to submit synopses to make sure he didn't bugger around too much with the thing, you know, like delete the entire double 0 section or get rid of Q or write thrillers with a chap called James Boldman or something in them... that kind of thing.'

Sorry, but that's the way I see it.

[Triton]

I was hoping that the Ian Fleming Publications-sponsored Steel Dagger Award of the British Crime Writers' Association would have been an audition for promising thriller writers to assume the Fleming mantle and continue the James Bond literary series after Raymond Benson.

[Triton]

I think this may tie in with spynovelfan's point about IFP being "precious and pretentious about Fleming". I get the impression of a snobbish lot who'd feel getting involved with computer games (and even the film series) a bit beneath them - "we're the guardians of the one and only true James Bond, the literary Bond", that sort of thing.

As you have pointed out, it seems rather contradictory. On the one hand, they're very precious. Any continuation writer has to submit synopses, have the titles vetoed, and so on. They have their name on the book and are the one and only writer of the Bond novels, officially sanctioned by Ian Fleming's estate. The books are sent out to broadsheets to review. The writer has a year to research or whatever it is, and travels the world giving interviews, which concentrate on their being the officially sanctioned one and only etc. On the other hand, the synopses submitted can seemingly be written in dreadful English, totally with the formula (let's get rid of his signature weapon; let's disband the Double 0 section, etc) and be utterly commercial and still get approved; titles like The World Is Not Enough are vetoed and ones like Oh, No, Mr Bond! suggested.

These guys don't have a clue. Sorry, but they don't. I interviewed Peter Janson-Smith, Ian Fleming's literary agent and then on the board of what was then Glidrose, on the phone a couple of years ago. I asked him how they had chosen Gardner. Um, well, er, his name was floated about and, um, we decided to approach him, and well, yes, he rather liked the idea and we voted on it and, well. Yes. Okay, but why did you pick him? Well, gosh, yes, I'm not quite sure, can't remember who first, he was, well, just, you know, his name, it... well. It came up. Was it, I said, because of the Boysie Oakes books? Was that it - he could do the Bond-style stuff? Oh, no, hah, no, I thought they were rather poor, actually. Oh, I said. Right. The Moriarty books he wrote, showing he could do a continuation? No, no, hmm, don't think so, no. The Herbie Kruger series? Ah, no, well, not as far as I know, never read them. So why, then? Oh, well, um, we couldn't have someone like Kingsley again, of course, because, well, we wanted someone to write a lot...

What he wanted to say was 'He was the first British hack thriller writer who accepted the job. Yes, he was a bit crap, but we thought we might make some money. Did we bother reading his books? No, not really. We had a vote one Saturday lunch at the club and said we'd have quality control - we'd have final say on the titles, and he'd have to submit synopses to make sure he didn't bugger around too much with the thing, you know, like delete the entire double 0 section or get rid of Q or write thrillers with a chap called James Boldman or something in them... that kind of thing.'

Sorry, but that's the way I see it.

I presume though that this is a much better answer than the truth--That the preferred choices to assume the Ian Fleming literary mantle were not interested in being compared to Ian Fleming or were more interested in telling their own stories than to submit to the creative scrutiny of Ian Fleming Publications.

Perhaps John Gardner was the only candidate for the job after other more competent and popular thriller writers told Ian Fleming Publications to get stuffed, knowing that for the most part it would be a thankless job and the unbearable scrutiny of Ian Fleming Publications.

[Loomis]

Think these are really shoddy looking?

Well, frankly, yes, I do. Sure, it's no tackier than the cover of, say, "Never Dream of Dying" (which it vaguely resembles), but then you won't find me defending the Benson covers as things that scream "quality". And, to me, quantity very definitely does not suggest quality, which is why I instinctively recoil at the idea of dozens of books in a series hitting shelves within the space of a few months, and written by "Anonymous" to boot. If I clapped eyes on that "Silent Running" book in a shop, my first assumption would be that it wasn't worth the paper it was printed on.... but that may well say more about me and my assumptions than anything else ("Never judge a book by its...."). BTW, I have the horrible feeling that you're about to reveal that you've been commissioned or approached to write series novels like these, spy.

I guess we should call it what it is: snobbery. Or, to put it less harshly, the idea of, as you put it "the officially sanctioned one and only" - I cherish the romantic notion of a worthy successor to Fleming trotting the globe and putting quality back into the literary series, becoming the Moore to Fleming's Connery and proving to an intially sceptical and then surprised and delighted world that more than one man is capable of doing Bond and being hugely successful in the marketplace and putting his own stamp on it (paving the way, natch, for others to do the same thing for many years to come).

It'll never happen, of course, and you've done a great job of outlining some of the reasons why in this thread.

I'm not advocating anything like the rate these guys are going at. Say four a year, tops. Make them a little classier. It's not just a good idea so you can make more money - it's a good idea because if you only have one product every year or two, it's under the microscope and comes off badly, because it looks like they're competing with Fleming. Oversell them like that, and you lose. Undersell them, and you might have articles saying: 'Well, they seem to come out every five minutes and they're obviously doing it for the money, but I must say I was pleasantly surprised by the 003 adventure No Half Measures: it wasn't Fleming, of course, but it was a taut little thriller that had dashes of his spirit and verve. And it was a damn sight more exciting than the recent film efforts - good on Ian Fleming Publications for having the nerve and imagination to take on their pretenders and win'. No? I think the Gardner/Benson continuation novelist idea is vain, and backfires. If I were offered to write an anoymous Bond novel in three months for a set fee of 30 grand, I'd be happy to take it. Take a year and have my name on it for 50 grand? No thanks. In the first instance, if it gets praise, it's a bonus and I'll claim it later on. In the second, it's never going to get praise, and probably not sales, either. And there's a good chance I'll be battling it off my CV for years to come. Benson got lucky and had the chance to do precisely what I'm talking about - Gardner's still living with his mistake. As it stands now, the Bond continuations are a poisoned chalice for any decent writer - as the Fleming estate seems determined to promote the books as by decent writers, that seems like shooting oneself in the foot, repeatedly.

I've got to hand it to you, spynovelfan, you have some very interesting ideas. I've never read posts by anyone on CBn (and there are some extremely knowledgeable and smart people here, as I'm sure you've noticed) looking at the literary Bond from the angle you seem to be viewing it from. You're doing a very fine job of shattering this "get an officially sanctioned one and only and all will be rosy in the world of the Bond books (assuming reasonably large print runs and decent marketing)" illusion, curse you.

What he wanted to say was 'He was the first British hack thriller writer who accepted the job. Yes, he was a bit crap, but we thought we might make some money. Did we bother reading his books? No, not really. We had a vote one Saturday lunch at the club and said we'd have quality control - we'd have final say on the titles, and he'd have to submit synopses to make sure he didn't bugger around too much with the thing, you know, like delete the entire double 0 section or get rid of Q or write thrillers with a chap called James Boldman or something in them... that kind of thing.'

LOL! Classic.

[Hitch]

This thread is opening up a new world for me. I had no idea that so many publishers churned out so many thriller titles using the names of dead or dried-up authors. These books really are commodities, aren't they? So much for worshipping at the altar of Art. Not that I wouldn't say no if a publishing house knocked on my door. Perhaps I should make an offer they can't refuse: "I can write rubbish for half the price!" Spynovelfan, do you have sales figures for any of these books?

And as for the book titles...phew! Have done with it and call the next thriller The Contractual Obligation or The Marketing Format or even The Generic Title. Say what you like about Fleming's writing ability (go and stand in the corner, Spynovelfan ) but he was a wizard with book titles.

I still take my hat off to anyone who manages to write a book, no matter how corny. It seems like black magic to me. It's pleasing to see that Raymond Benson is having a successful time with the Splinter Cell series. Here's hoping that one day he'll have a big success under his own name - maybe he'll call it The Benson Dilemma.

So, there's a choice to be made: one occasional "authentic" and "literary" 007 continuation book (which will stand or fall on the inherent quality of its star writer); lots of uneven 007 books (success depending on variable talent of ghost authors and marketing dept); or, as spynovelfan suggests, opening up the Double-O Section to all-comers. If you like the last option, have a look at Off Balance by CBn's very own Joyce Carrington for an example.

Now I'm thoroughly confused. All I do know is that I would like to read some high quality Bond fiction.

[Catspaw]

I'm new here, and I've read through a chunk of the posts in this section, and here are some thoughts.

Continuations are always tough. Fleming wrote his novels in relative privacy, passing away just before Bondmania became huge, and before our time of instant communication through a wide information stream.

Given that Bond is now a franchise, generating millions of dollars, and millions of people will see the films or buy other product, any writer coming in will not have the relative freedom Fleming enjoyed as the character's creator. Fleming really was focussed on the writing. Any continuation author is an employee supplying a product and works under very different (more stressful) conditions.

Now it's about maintaining the franchise, not rocking the boat, not taking chances. You deliver a consistent level of quality, because that's how you maintain the brand.

It doesn't make for the most exciting storytelling, because the premise behind the writing has changed. If it's just you writing your character and you flop, well the consequences are relatively contained. Flop on a franchise and the people who hired you look bad, stockholders lose confidence and so on. In many ways it's a patronising system that is very much not about the creative process.

As Bond fans, and yes I own copies of all the novels to date, we'll buy a new Bond book regardless of who wrote it. Some of us will love it, some of us will loathe it, but we'll be happy we have it to read. I loved Fleming, was okay with Gardner, thought Benson approached Fleming in a couple of places, and I've mostly forgotten Colonel Sun and Pearson's bio novel because I read them years ago. I don't think I'll pick up the new juvie Bond.

One post caught my eye. Regarding making Bond books even more of a franchise with Tom Clancy-like branding, I would have to disagree. As a creative person myself (designer and illustrator), we've made many strides to be recognised for our work and I wouldn't want a pseudonym on the cover in place of my name. I would hope that the author savvy enough to get hired, brave enough to put themselves in a position of accountability to IFP, two publishers, a film company, and thousands of rabid fans ready to tear their throat out for the slightest misstep, would have the stones, and the pride, to put their name front and centre. And they should demand it if someone tried to take it away from them.

[zencat]

Well said, Catspaw. Welcome to CBn.

I would recommend re-reading Colonel Sun and especially Pearson's James Bond The Authorized Bio of 007. I recently rediscovered this book and was VERY impressed with the quality of the writing and all it had to offer. In fact, at the moment, it's my favorite "continuation novel" (but I'm very fickle).

Again...welcome.

[David Schofield]

Sadly, spynovelfan, you have suscinctly and brilliantly summed up my suspicions about the whole IFP situation.

As most Bond fans, I have waited eagerly since Licence Renewed in the hope that each new novel would be the breakthrough, the one that compares with Fleming. I was delighted when Benson took over (his apparent knowledge of Bond), though a little dubious about his lack of writing experience - all this was soon shattered withing pages when Bond performed a parachute jump to get home (where had he been?), had a fight as part of a training course on his own beach and then got shagged by a redheaded nympho in his shower.

Of course, to publish such tripe IFP cannot really give a stuff about what appears. Gardner got quickly out of control and Benson has always written rubbish. And yet, both complained in interviews how IFP has censored some of their work because they didn't approve! How bad could THAT have been?

Obviously, though the executors of Fleming at IFP must have nice little incomes from literary rights - makes you wonder why they need the continuation novels if they don't make them that much - they seem not to sell in great numbers.

As far as they being guardians of true Bond is concerned, I'm not sure they really are that precious about it. After all, they wouldn't have let this situation happen if they'd really CARED at all lately. Didn't Glidrose veto the second Markham book Per Fine Ounce in the late 60s/early 70s due to quality?

[spynovelfan]

Welcome to CBN, Catspaw. I'm a newbie, too (kind of).

One of the problems with internet boards is that it takes a long time to have a conversation. If we were all seated round a pub, we could have been chatting away for ten minutes and it would have been clearer where we were all coming from.

You wrote:

'I would hope that the author savvy enough to get hired, brave enough to put themselves in a position of accountability to IFP, two publishers, a film company, and thousands of rabid fans ready to tear their throat out for the slightest misstep, would have the stones, and the pride, to put their name front and centre. And they should demand it if someone tried to take it away from them.'

The problem with that idea, I think, is that it has already been done, twice, and didn't work either time. And Kinglsey Amis was happy to take an assumed name, remember - partially for the same reason that Benson has now taken the name 'David Michaels' for the Splinter Cell book, and the same reason I'm advocating. You could also bring back the Markham name - I just think it's confusing having so many names on the cover.

It's a very admirable picture of a thriller writer you've presented, but where are these noble specimens? Raymond Benson had experience in theatre and computer games and had published a highly respected non-fiction work on Bond, but he was unpublished as a thriller writer. Of course he was prepared to have the stones to put his name front and centre - it was a huge step up for him. For Gardner, I think a number of factors came in: it looked like a big gig, prestigious because Amis had done it, long-lasting potentially, he'd already done something similar with Conan Doyle, his career wasn't looking like taking off a la le Carr

Edited by spynovelfan, 18 January 2005 - 09:29 AM.

[spynovelfan]

Perhaps John Gardner was the only candidate for the job after other more competent and popular thriller writers told Ian Fleming Publications to get stuffed, knowing that for the most part it would be a thankless job and the unbearable scrutiny of Ian Fleming Publications.

Yes, I think that was the case. Janson-Smith admitted to me that Glidrose had drawn up a shortlist of potential continuation writers, but declined, unsurprisingly, to name them 'because it would be unfair to John'. I suspect they started at the top - the likes of Alistair Maclean, Jack Higgins and Desmond Bagley, all of whom said 'Are you mad? Why would I spend a year writing a book that might not sell and might damage my reputation, for very little money, when my last five books have sold millions?' So they went down the list - perhaps people like Colin Forbes - until, at some stage, either later or sooner, they reached Gardner. Who said no, then thought about it a bit more, and said yes.

Part of the reason Gardner said yes would have been the prestige of being Fleming's successor. But the result of choosing Gardner and Benson means that a lot of that prestige has now gone. Any new writer will be the fourth (or more, if you count Wood and Pearson) successor to Fleming, and the public is utterly unaware that the continuations even exist. The publications of Colonel Sun and Licence Renewed were both events.

So in 1980, Ian Fleming's estate did not have enough money or prestige or pulling power or strategy to get a really decent writer in to do the continuations (as they had done in 1968). If they couldn't do it then, why - with poor-selling, poorly received (and, in some cases, pretty poorly written) continuations as an added 'bonus' - would they be able to attract one now?

Edited by spynovelfan, 18 January 2005 - 11:47 AM.

[MattofSteel]

Just getting back to the original topic of the thread, I must say I've found Benson to do an incredible job with his Bond novels. As someone who only really got into Bond in late 90s, I of course was introduced through the films and the videogames. So when I read a Benson novel, even if it feels like a film screenplay, it very much speaks to the version of Bond I was originally exposed to.

But on the other hand....

As an avid reader, when I realized my interest in 007 was...I guess I can admit consuming...I went back and reread the Fleming novels (and with my busy life it took a couple years, I started in 2000 and just read TMWTGG a few months ago!). Turns out I love those novels, and of course immediately began comparing them to Benson's, which I have also read start to finish.

The tone of the books are quite similar across the time bridge. I find Benson to write Bond's character very acrruately, perhaps never more so than in High Time To Kill. My staple method of determining whether or not Bond writing is 'good' is whether or not the reader can forget (even for a few seconds) that they AREN'T reading Fleming. And that happened to me.

So, my point is, Benson did a good job. I'm sorry to see him go. I wouldn't mind him consulting on a screenplay or two, though.

Matt

[Simon]

Looks to me like the film series, financially successful though it is, is generally held in low regard by people whose careers are going places, just like the flop literary series.

Really?

Totally understand from where you are coming, but I'm sure the series for a decent director is absolutely mouthwatering. The prospects for an A-list director to make a definitve Bond are just all too possible for words. But the reasons they turn it down/aren't approached is because of the 31 other factions all pulling this way and that, leaving said director with minimal and less than meaningful control. These being the legacy, the studio, Eon, the formula, the catalogue of cross promotional tie-in companies.

If Eon had the ability, contractually or balls-wise, to do something different, they will have to see that all the above goes to the wall and they really do start with a clean sheet. And at that point, a decent director becomes interested and indeed necessary.

[Loomis]

Looks to me like the film series, financially successful though it is, is generally held in low regard by people whose careers are going places, just like the flop literary series.

Really?

Totally understand from where you are coming, but I'm sure the series for a decent director is absolutely mouthwatering. The prospects for an A-list director to make a definitve Bond are just all too possible for words. But the reasons they turn it down/aren't approached is because of the 31 other factions all pulling this way and that, leaving said director with minimal and less than meaningful control. These being the legacy, the studio, Eon, the formula, the catalogue of cross promotional tie-in companies.

If Eon had the ability, contractually or balls-wise, to do something different, they will have to see that all the above goes to the wall and they really do start with a clean sheet. And at that point, a decent director becomes interested and indeed necessary.

Seems to me that both Eon and IFP could be doing all manner of exciting things with James Bond, but that both organisations are straightjacketed by, as Mr Blair might put it, the forces of conservatism.

Could it be that the only avenues through which really cool ideas about Bond get much of an airing are discussion fora like this one? Depressing thought.

[J.C.D'Arc]

I don't really have anything substantial to add to any of the arguments or ideas presented here. That's partly because I haven't read all of the continuation novels, and partly because others have already brought up points that I would have. I just wanted to say that this is the best thread I've read on this board so far. It's one of the best threads I've read on any board. You folk have managed to make me think, and I thank you for it.

(Now I'm off to write my own fan-fic short story. I think maybe the title will be The Contractual Obligation.)

[spynovelfan]

In reply to the comment about fans ripping apart continuations, I was amazed to read the following review of Benson's Splinter Cell on Amazon. It seems that game fans can be just as unforgiving. My take, of course, is that this doesn't really matter - Benson will produce another one shortly, and then either another one or hand over, all the time using the Michaels name a la IFP's original Robert Markham idea. The books will continue to sell hundreds of thousands of copies. The games will continue to sell millions. Etc. It looks like Benson has written a Bond continuation and made numerous changes to it to make it read like it's a Splinter Cell novel. No reason why IFP couldn't get any of the Clancy/Ludlum/Cussler writers to do the same, changing their thrillers into Bond books and branding it the other way round. The argument that the quality will be poorer if you have several authors doesn't make sense, because Benson was the only continuation author for Bond, and is now doing this.

'I was not expecting much from this book, though with the quality of the Halo books, I was certainly hoping for an interesting read, based in the world of Sam Fisher.

What I got instead was a poorly adapted Bond-type character who acted nothing like Sam Fisher is presented in the games, running around in some sort of power fantasy in the modern-day Middle-East.

First of, I would like to note that the Splinter Cell games take place in an alternate reality from ours, as does everything else related to Clancy. In the Ryanverse, we did not invade Iraq, George W. Bush is not President, and most importantly, in the continuity of Splinter Cell, Sam's first mission in Georgia (the first game) takes place at the same time this book is supposed to. Third Echelon was just getting started, yet according to this book, it has been operating for years and years. Furthermore, Sam Fisher was a Navy SEAL during Desert Storm, not a CIA agent.

The list goes on. The FN in the FN 5.7mm pistol stands for Fabrique Nationale, a Belgian weapon manufacturer, not Five-seveN (more forgivable, since in Pandora Tomorrow they make the same mistake, but still). It is, in fact, designed to easily penetrate modern body armor (especially Type IIA vests), which is something the author clearly did not understand.

No mention is made of Grimsdotter, or of Cohen (much less Sam's first handler). The "Osprey" backpack was also worthy of a groan. The Osprey is a VTOL aircraft which ferries Sam around the world to where he needs to go, not some sort of trail pack.

Sam himself is portrayed so badly that it makes me want to cry. The character as voiced by Michael Ironside in the games is a wonderfully realized character. He is very controlled, very capable, and somewhat opinionated. He does not loosely use harsh language. The way he is depicted in this book is just awful. The S- and F- Word are bandied about like Sam were a fresh squiddie on his first tour at sea. Additionally, his operating procedures (and in fact, those of Third Echelon as a whole) are abominable for any agency claiming to work in any form of intelligence.

Clearly the author has done no research into the following:
-Military Technology
-Espionage Techniques
-Tom Clancy's own Universe
-The Splinter Cell series as a whole
-How to write a compelling story

I was honestly hoping to get a little more insight into the world of Splinter Cell with this book. Extrapolation on Douglas Shetland, ARGUS, SHADOWNET, the aftermath of the Georgian Information Crisis and Sudahi Sadono, and perhaps a peek in what would be coming this March with Splinter Cell 3: Chaos Theory. Instead I got a poorly-written Bond knockoff yarn haphazardly disguised as a story I might actually be interested in. Perhaps the only saving grace of this book is that the third-person segments are at least reasonably well-written and interesting, but that only makes up roughly half the book, if that.

If you really want to read a story where a man takes things into his own hands, go and read "Without Remorse" by Tom Clancy. It's easily twice as long as this book, and infinitely better on just about every aspect.'

[Jim]

Oh dear

[spynovelfan]

Is it any worse than he and Gardner got from Bond fans, though?

[Jim]

No it's not.

I do like the phrase "No mention is made of Grimsdotter". Raymond Benson, you Non-Mentioner of Grimsdotter, you. Tsk!

[spynovelfan]

Yeah, that is a dreadful faux pas by Benson. A Grimsdotterless Splinter Cell novel can't really be taken seriously.

Wonder how long it took him - and how much he was paid. I'm betting less time than it took for the Bonds, and more money.

[Loomis]

Whoever or whatever this Grimsdotter is, it's obviously important to the fans, so I wonder why Benson wasn't contractually obliged to mention it? I gather that (although this may be a Bond fans' urban myth for all I know) the Bond continuation novelists had to follow a long list of detailed Glidrose/IFP rules regarding what they could and couldn't do with Bond, other characters, and the whole Bond universe, and stipulating that so-and-so and such-and-such had to appear every time out.

[spynovelfan]

Yeah, seems they were pretty lax. The Nick Carters all had guidelines and rules. The Executioner books have very rigid rules for the writers. I wonder what IFP's rules could have been, though, considering some of the stuff Gardner pulled off. Isn't it the case with several of the Gardner Bond novels that you could change a few details and the main character's name, and you could have something that would fit into a Ludlum or Clancy or other franchise? At least Benson knew his Fleming, was passionate about the character, and went to some effort to be true to it.

But I tihnk this all comes under 'preciousness'. If you have a lot of books in the market, this stuff tends to get left behind very quickly. The next one's around the corner. How do you reconcile your concern for having a lot of novels be poor quality when the same guy who was the one Bond continuation writer is doing this for a rival thriller brand, Loomis?

Anyway, this seems to be quite common. Check this review of The Bourne Legacy, again from Amazon. It has spoilers, if you are into the book series (the films are very different, and this won't spoil anything there).

'Ive been a fan of Lustbader since i read the Ninja series a long time ago, and ive been a fan of Ludlum longer so i thought this amalgamation had serious potential.

Unfortunately its flawed from the outset, it appears that Lustbader hasnt read the original novels properly. From day one the Bourne novels have been about 2 people - David/Jason and Marie, from book 2 Panov and Conklin were given a major part of the storyline so to ignore marie and kill panov and conklin was a major disapointment to me.

The story itslef is also deeply flawed, bits from previous novels are ignored, and some parts are ridiculous. David Webb buying and registering a gun in his own name ?????? In the other books its made clear he has a stash of weapons available to him at home, and that he knows how to get a "clean" weapon etc.

I for one was so looking forward to this book, and i felt the series had potential to continue, however i suggest that should the Ludlum family decide to allow another book they DONT use Lustbader and they ignore the happenings in this poor book and allow the interesting characters developed by RL to shine.

In case you havent already guessed i would not reccommend this novel to any true Bourne fan.'

There are several other reviews in the same vein - and several others saying it was great. As the first print run was 750,000, I suspect it doesn't matter. However, the Ludlum people do run the risk, if they don't keep a tight rein on things, of pissing off enough fans that, long-term, the series does not work. So do the people behind Splinter Cell.

That wouldn't be nearly so much of a problem with books about 002 and 008, would it?

Have I not convicned any of you, then?

Edited by spynovelfan, 19 January 2005 - 04:59 PM.

[Loomis]

Isn't it the case with several of the Gardner Bond novels that you could change a few details and the main character's name, and you could have something that would fit into a Ludlum or Clancy or other franchise? At least Benson knew his Fleming, was passionate about the character, and went to some effort to be true to it.

That's why I prefer Benson to Gardner.

BTW, I was just thinking how rotten some of the Gardner and Benson titles are: "Role of Honour" (groan), "Cold"/"Cold Fall", "Never Dream of Dying" ("Remember, James, never dream of dying"/"Oh, thanks, good advice there, I'll keep that in mind").... OTOH, wouldn't "Oh, No, Mr Bond!" have been just too pricelessly funny for words? I wish they'd used it.

[spynovelfan]

'No Deals, Mr Bond' has to be up there. It's appalling.

As I say, whatever rules and stipulations Glidrose/IFP had, they were the wrong ones. Calling the novels things like No Deals, Mr Bond and Never Dream of Dying is just one of the things that would have put people off buying the series, and damaged what was left of the continuation brand.

I'd call them amateurs, but I'd be doing amateurs a grave disservice.

[J.C.D'Arc]

Well, how does this sound, then? You get all your hack writers together and give them all other Double-O's to write about, and you publish them all. It's up to them whether they use their own names or not. (Inside the cover, of course.) Whoever comes up with the best one gets to spend two years globe-trotting and doing "research" and writing the next James Bond 007 book.

Edited by J.C.D'Arc, 19 January 2005 - 09:01 PM.

[zencat]

Man, there is a lot to respond to in this thread. I checked a few facts with Raymond, and here's a few important points of clarification...

1.

[Jim]

It was all going so well, and you have to bring number 7 into it