Originally posted by rafterman
if you don't buy it then Glidrose will stop making the stuff and you will NEVER get another Bond book by anybody
The argument here seems to be that bad Bond is better than no Bond at all; I disagree. Bad Bond drives the series down - it reduces the affection and loyalty of readers and ultimately results in there not being another generation of readers to continue the Bond legacy. And when there are no Bond fans left, who will be reading them? A dozen bad novels are the equivalent of one-night stands - great at the time, but no-one will remember them twenty years later. A good novel can be returned to years later and though the experience of reading and interpretation may be different, the essential sweetness of the first time is retained.
The Benson novels are like the new Star Wars films. People are consuming them, giving them the benefit of the doubt because of their heritage, but no-one really believes that they can hold a candle to the originals. Some things are better left without sequels or continuations. Perhaps if there was no Benson, then hungry Bond fans - fuelled by a huge film franchise - would seek out the original novels, and read and appreciate those. Someone who seeks and ultimately finds a book like The Facts of Death will feel cheated, unrewarded, and disinclined to look at another Bond book - even if the next one on the shelf is From Russia With Love or OHMSS. Would that be a good thing? I just don't feel that the presence of a character named James Bond - but not necessarily a character who
is Bond - should be worthy of my patronage. The Man With The Golden Gun is my least favourite Bond film. If there were another half-dozen films right after that one that were just as bad, I don't think I'd be the only one on this site who would have washed my hands of the whole Bond film series. Why should I be expected to put up with bad novels?
