61 replies to this topic

[Felix's lighter]

I have to admit that I've yet to read a Raymond Benson novel all the way through and I haven't read a John Gardner novel for about 12 years. However, there' are reasons for that aside from pure ignorance.

Ian Fleming's literary creation is different in many ways from the film hero. He was not a superhero - he was finite; there was never any insinuation that he would still be a Double-0 Past the age of 40 on the outside chance he would live that long. Moreover, he was a product of the '50s - a World War Two veteran now engaging in the relatively new Cold War. To place the literary Bond in a modern context is absurd and - as far as I'm concerned - disrespectful to Fleming and his work.

From what little I've seen of the Benson novels, it seems that his influence comes primarily from the films - not Fleming's novels. But if he's going to continue the literary Bond he should at least respect Fleming's legacy by sticking to the characterization that Fleming gave his character. We have the movie Bond already - do we really need him in the novels as well?

[Mister Asterix]

While I would admit that Benson's plots are influenced by the films as well as Fleming's work (Benson would admit this too), the character of Bond in the Benson books is pure Fleming. And I see no reason why age should be an issue. It isn't in the films and even Fleming changed Bond's age as his novels went on. Eventually, I think, if the books continue they will need to be set in the past, but Fleming's character of the Fifties still works when set at the beginning of this century. There is no reason to discontinue the books if you ask me.

[Loomis]

Aside from the character of Bond, there's the issue of quality.

Shockingly for a Bond fan, I've only ever read a couple of the Bond novels (Live And Let Die and You Only Twice, both of which I read many years ago, and Colonel Sun).

Deciding to rectify this situation, the other day I bought You Only Live Twice (which I remembered being good) and Zero Minus Ten.

I started with the Benson first (hey, leave the best till last, as I always say), and I'm halfway through it. I must say that I am desperately unimpressed.

The story is okay, and there's plenty of interesting detail on Hong Kong, but the prose is just so lifeless. None of the characters stands out in any way, including Bond. Lest I be accused of Benson-bashing, I'll point out that I respect the man greatly for his The James Bond Bedside Companion. I've also read his DIE ANOTHER DAY novelization, which is a good yarn, although credit for that must go largely to Neal Purvis and Robert Wade.

But if ZMT is anything to go by, Benson writes the Bond novels in a terribly dull he-said-she-said manner, seems afraid that his readers will be unable to cope with long words, and doesn't appear to believe that his characters should have any sort of inner life. His generic villains are disappointing. ZMT sometimes reads more like a treatment than a finished work.

Oh yes, and every would-be surprise is telegraphed well in advance.

Now, I'm fully aware that this isn't meant to be great literature, but **** me if it isn't one-note and boring.

Jim once compared Benson's work to water - sustaining but without flavour. I'd have to agree.

I know that Benson has his defenders. Are you following this thread, zencat? But with the best will in the world - and as a passionate Bond fan who really, really wants to like his efforts - I can't see that Benson is doing anything great for the literary franchise, with the obvious exception of prolonging it (for some fans, that may be enough).

Suffice to say that I can't wait to finish ZMT and enjoy the incalculably greater work of Fleming.

BTW, I don't say that the literary Bond belongs to Fleming alone. I read Colonel Sun recently, and thought it was brilliant. A villain so cruel as to send shivers down the spine, a stupendously sexy companion for Bond, locations atmospherically evoked, horrifying scenes that linger in the memory, and much, much more. There is a three-dimensional ally for 007 in Latsis (Woo in ZMT seems a stereotype, especially with Benson constantly mentioning the fact that he finishes every broken-English sentence with "uh-huh"). Even minor characters like the prostitute who rescues Bond are drawn well. Dammit, there's even some character development. Where is any of this in Benson?

[zencat]

Originally posted by Mister Asterix
While I would admit that Benson's plots are influenced by the films as well as Fleming's work (Benson would admit this too), the character of Bond in the Benson books is pure Fleming. And I see no reason why age should be an issue. It isn't in the films and even Fleming changed Bond's age as his novels went on. Eventually, I think, if the books continue they will need to be set in the past, but Fleming's character of the Fifties still works when set at the beginning of this century. There is no reason to discontinue the books if you ask me.

Yes, I agree with everything Mr. Asterix said above. And that's all I have to say on this topic, believe it or not.

[Felix's lighter]

While perhaps I was a little harsh on Benson for letting the films influence his work (even Fleming's books took on a new tone once the movies started coming out), I must say that my scans through his novels have left me unimpressed. I saw none of the flair of Fleming's style, nor the suspense of early Gardner. Perhaps I shouyld give him more of a chance, but I'm afraid I'll just come away even more disillusioned. And - like I said earlier - I have a very hard time with the continuity issue and whether there should be any new James Bond novels at all, or at least ones that take place in the present.

[Loomis]

Does anyone apart from hardcore Bond fans read Benson's novels? Fleming still sells by the truckload, whereas Benson seems to have little crossover appeal. I wonder whether the ongoing Bond literary franchise is becoming more and more niche. Perhaps Benson has produced too many books in too short a space of time, flooding the market.

[The Girl With The Golden Gun]

Originally posted by Felix's lighter
do we really need him in the novels as well?

i know it seems like i'm missing the point, but the same question could be asked about Bond's transformation from page to screen. this is a silly question, i know - would Bond be the phenomenon he is today without his first film outing in 1962? i think the answer is... no, he wouldn't. the whole idea of Bond is that he's been able to endure, and not just with the help of the occasional product placement. in my view, its like remaking a Hollywood movie, the new novels, as well as taking Bond to new heights and adventures, also generate interest in the original product (as thats what DAD did for me!!)
i certainly think that Gardner and Benson's Bond are both majorly divorced from Fleming's original character; although, i must confess some of the early Gardners are remarkably Fleming-esque. the same goes with the 5 actors who have played Bond on screen - each have revealed a different side to Bond's persona whilst retaining an element of ruthlessness so much a part of Bond's character.

[Felix's lighter]

Another thought just occurred to me, and TGWTGG's comments reflect them somewhat. Benson is kind of like Pierce Brosnan: he has an enthusiasm for the character that causes him to want to hit too many targets without finding his own voice. Gardner never struck me as someone who was particularly enfatuated either with Fleming's novels or the movies - he was mainly interested in creating his own interpretation of Bond. I may not always agree with that interpretation, but I give him credit for having the guts to try it. So, really, I believe that Fleming's and Gardner's Bonds are similiar but distinct characters. Benson just tries to be like everone who came before him and misses the mark.

This is off the subject, but does anyone find the "Master Spy" description that appears on the cover of many of Gardner's novels a little dorky? What, exactly, is a "Master Spy"? Does that set Bond apart from spies who only have their bachelor's degree, lol? Besides, I thought Bond was more a government assassin than a "spy" anyway.

[clinkeroo]

Hmmm. Gardner suspenseful? I guess that's best left to another post, but I would tend to disagree strongly after his first three novels.
What I would agree with is that it is getting to be time for the literary Bond to be returned to the setting of the 50's and 60's. Will this happen: the answer is a simple, "No."
I like to think of this in the same context of the Sherlockian tales. By the 1940's we had the pastiches pitting Holmes against the Nazi's, something that would have been difficult for a man in his late 80's/early 90's. The suspension of disbelief becomes almost unbearable, and certainly impossible.
While time travel or youth serum might be fodder for the outlandish superman world of the cinematic Bond, it would destroy any vestiges left of the literary Fleming.
The only thing I would fear would be a series of novels that over- incorporates actual historic events (ala, Sherlock Holmes meets Jack the Ripper or Oscar Wilde) or fictional crossovers (ala, Sherlock Holmes meets Dracula, The Invisible Man, War of the Worlds, etc.) Yes, I know that Glidrose (or whatever they call themselves these days) holds the copyright, but they, like Eon, tend to do what they feel will make the best profit, not what would be best for the character, or would make the best literature (just look at the silliness caused by introducing some of the film elements into Benson's work, and no, I'm not blaming Raymond.)

Oh well, that's MHO,
clinkeroo

[clinkeroo]

TGWTGG wrote:

>i know it seems like i'm missing the point, but the same question could >be asked about Bond's transformation from page to screen. this is a >silly question, i know - would Bond be the phenomenon he is today >without his first film outing in 1962?

Obviously a valid point, but it also demonstrates a schism in Bond fandom. While the films keep the character in popular culture's eyes, they've also reduced him to a joke. Fleming's literary achievement has been irrevocably tarnished my most of the post-GF films (yes, I make exceptions). I believe without the films of the last 30 years we would view Fleming's James Bond with similar literary respect we give Chandler, Hammet, or E.S. Gardner. And I'd bet the original films would garner the same respect that The Maltese Falcon or The Big Sleep are given today, as opposed to being lumped together with the other generic action fodder.

clinkeroo

[Loomis]

The longevity of the film series has undeniably kept Fleming selling, and I'm not sure that the post-GOLDFINGER films have tended to tarnish his reputation as a writer. And one could make the argument that the increasingly silly scripts, not to mention the efforts of the Bensons of this world, have only made Fleming look better and better.

Similarly, the films of the last 30 years have if anything boosted the reputations of the earliest outings, notably FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and GOLDFINGER. There are indications that they have gained classic status, which is only increased by the fact that they gave birth to a series that is still ongoing.

[clinkeroo]

I did not question that the films have increased sales of the novels.

Most people (i.e. not us rabid Bond fans) do not distinguish the Bond films from the novels. Simple fact. When you walk up to a man on the street and have a conversation involving Bond, they do not reference the books, they reference the movies. Do they make Fleming look better to you or I: there is no doubt that I agree with you. But to 98% of the population they have had the opposite affect.

Are DN, FRWL, and GF classic films? Yes. Much like MASH (Americans will catch this comparison, I apologise to others) was a classic film by Robert Altman, based on a classic novel by Richard Hooker. But the public at large base their perceptions of MASH on the TV series, and although it was quality, it changed what Altman and Hooker had tried to accomplish (altering the politics, the characters, and the plot lines to make it more friendly for mass digestion; sound familiar?) The argument here would be that the TV series sold more books for Hooker (it did), and resulted in more rentals and sales of Altman's movie on tape/dvd (it did), and that it introduced people to the source material that may have never read/viewed it (for a few, it probably did). But it also forever changed the mass public's opinion of the source material. Hawkeye went from being a joking anti-hero, to being a kind-hearted guy who made Phil Donahue look conservative. Bond goes from being a mostly cold-blooded creation of the cold war, to being an omniscient and indestructible superman.

More sales do not equal a better literary legacy when the very reason for those sales are films that tarnish the source material to a vast audience, most of whom will not pick up the novel because they believe it will be the literary equivalent of a comic book (sorry, I like some comics) or a Big Mac.

How about the Rocky films? The original film was a gritty, amazingly urban motion picture that deservedly won the best picture Oscar. Do the later Rocky films make the original look better? If you are inclined to sit and watch them all, you bet they do! But the general population view the Rocky films as a joke (even though they still make money, lotsa, lotsa, money) because they base their opinion on the more recent and visible product and on popular cultural opinion (i.e. what their friends think).

Is this a tragedy? No, but when you love something as much as I love Fleming's work, you wish that others would give it a chance. I run in literary circles, not become I'm some elitist, but because I majored in English Lit and love to read. It just bugs me that when I'm having a literary discussion with a colleague or a student and they ask me my favourite authors, and I list Fleming up there, people make a sour face. I usually follow this by asking if they've read the books. The answer is always, "No," but they have seen the movies. This isn't something that has happened once or twice to me, it's something that has happened dozens, most likely hundreds, of times.

Your point about quality by comparison is correct, but it only works if you have seen, or read, the works being compared. Most have not, and will not, and their opinions of Fleming's work will continue to be based on the movies, mostly the more recent films that receive more cultural attention and are in the forefront of people's minds.

Just my opinion,

clinkeroo

Originally posted by Loomis
The longevity of the film series has undeniably kept Fleming selling, and I'm not sure that the post-GOLDFINGER films have tended to tarnish his reputation as a writer. And one could make the argument that the increasingly silly scripts, not to mention the efforts of the Bensons of this world, have only made Fleming look better and better.

Similarly, the films of the last 30 years have if anything boosted the reputations of the earliest outings, notably FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and GOLDFINGER. There are indications that they have gained classic status, which is only increased by the fact that they gave birth to a series that is still ongoing.

[Felix's lighter]

The M*A*S*H comparison is an interesting one - Hawkeye was actually very right-wing in the novel and by the time the TV series rolled around he was a flaming liberal.

It seems strange the lengths that Hollywood can go in altering its source literary material. One would think a certain amount of responsibility would be written into the rights.

Mind you, one has to admit that - for the most part - EON has never significantly altered the character of James Bond himself, at least on the periphery. Just like in the novels, Bond's a high-stakes gambler. He's a connoseiur of alcohol and food. He's a womanizer. He's cool under pressure, generally. What EON really did was exaggerate all those traits to sometimes ridiculous proportions.

[General Koskov]

I've always felt that keeping a literary franchise that is separate from the films is detrimental to both. Now, I don't know if Gardner/Glidrose intended to produce books for books' sake and leave Messrs Broccoli, Moore, and Dalton to themselves, but I feel that there is a literary injustice being/been done in the world of Bond by keeping the novels and the novelisations/films separate.

By classifying certain Gardners and Bensons as 'novelisations' we allow them to be treated softly and let dreadful writing insult Bond with the pretense that 'it's only a novelisation'. Whereas the 'real' Bond books are considered to be on-par-with-Fleming writing that must be top-notch. (I personally think Gardner lost the top-notchiness in the late '80s, and Benson never had it, but that's another story.)

What I propose is a consolidation of the novels and novelisations. Gardner even made LTK (and GE?) fit in with the literary Bond, like any good author wanting to preserve Bond's integrity would. Therefore, since the novels and novelisations are written by the same people, why not have Benson corroborate with P&W/Feirstein/whomever and thus get a Bond novel that will be eventually turned into a film.

My reason for choosing this corroboration between novelist and screenwriters is a product of my opinion of the 'continuation Bond books': latter-Gardner and Benson's plots leave quite a lot to be desired, while the films have kept coherent, and 'Bondish' plots. But at the same time, I believe that these novelists (Benson is the only one who matters now) can take a solid plot and make something of it.

'But isn't that a novelisation?', you say? True, but I propose a 'safeguard', if you will, that will produce a genuinely different book from the film, akin to James Bond, the Spy who loved Me's relation to the film The Spy Who Loved Me. The safeguard is: Benson will take P&W/Feirstein's screenplay, but eliminate the bits which do not translate onto paper. He'll add in more dia- and mono-logue, add in and take away 'film stunts' and other cinematic moments (like VR jokes...), and generally make his 'novelisation' into a novel that would be on par with Fleming's, or his own.


I do hope that made sense. Went on a bit, but the point is that Benson should concentrate on novel(isation)s of the films rather than his own stories, thus putting more effort into plots more people (cinemagoers) care about.

[clinkeroo]

Agreed. He does seem to be changing more and more with every film, though, becoming less and less Fleming, and more and more politically correct.

[zencat]

Originally posted by Felix's lighter It seems strange the lengths that Hollywood can go in altering its source literary material. One would think a certain amount of responsibility would be written into the rights.[/B]

Okay, I said I wouldn't comment on this thread, but that's never stopped me before.

On this point I want to defend Eon. I think early on Eon did take pains to adapt Fleming "responsibly." DN, FRWL, GF, TB, OHMSS are all good adaptations of the Fleming books. But if you are going to continue to do the Bond films as contemporary, you have to depart Fleming eventually because his books are very much of their time. Also, and I don't know how many times I've written this, the Bond films have developed their own style and I don't think they can, or even should, go go "back to Fleming's Bond" (and I'm not sure they were ever really there in the first place). I don't think the general audience today wants a strict adaptation of say, Casino Royale, or a Bond in the way Dalton played him. Even I don't want that, unless it was done period and on the BBC.

And take it from someone who has adapted books into screenplays. Some books, even very good books, don't always make good movies without considerable help. Goldfinger is a very good example. That would not have been as good a Bond film if they had just adapted the book IMO.

[clinkeroo]

I would just like to clarify that I was agreeing to Felix's Lighter's comments and not General Koskov's.

clinkeroo

[Loomis]

Originally posted by clinkeroo
Most people (i.e. not us rabid Bond fans) do not distinguish the Bond films from the novels. Simple fact. When you walk up to a man on the street and have a conversation involving Bond, they do not reference the books, they reference the movies. Do they make Fleming look better to you or I: there is no doubt that I agree with you. But to 98% of the population they have had the opposite affect.

Yes, but you could argue (snobbishly, perhaps) that the status of a writer - which is what we're discussing here - is totally unimportant to 98% of the population. You suggest that, were it not for the Bond phenomenon of the past three decades, "we would view Fleming's James Bond with similar literary respect we give Chandler, Hammet, or E.S. Gardner." Those are not names that matter much to Joe Blow.

My point is that Fleming's literary reputation is only of interest to those who care about such things, and for those who care about such things, the past 30 years of (substandard?) Bondage will only have enhanced that reputation.

Indeed, where would Fleming's reputation be without all the Bond films from THUNDERBALL onwards (I take it that you believe the films lost their lustre after GOLDFINGER) and the novels penned after his death? Would he be remembered merely as the moderately talented writer of a number of entertaining but shallow and now very dated thrillers that were briefly in vogue during the 1950s and 60s?

The MASH analogy is a red herring. Of course "the public at large base their perceptions of MASH on the TV series" - it was what made the material popular. It was much more successful than the novel and film from which it took its inspiration. Here's a similar example: when Joe Public thinks of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, does he think of a hit TV show starring Sarah Michelle Gellar, or of a not-especially-well-received film released in 1992? However, Bond originally thrived in Fleming's hands. Now, okay, I'm sure that there are some people out there who will believe that Fleming scripted DIE ANOTHER DAY if you tell them so, but that really has nothing to do with - and no impact on - the man's literary stature. Which, I repeat, only matters to those who care about such things.

Originally posted by clinkeroo
[B]More sales do not equal a better literary legacy when the very reason for those sales are films that tarnish the source material to a vast audience, most of whom will not pick up the novel because they believe it will be the literary equivalent of a comic book (sorry, I like some comics) or a Big Mac.
[B]

I disagree. I really don't buy your argument that Fleming's source material is being tarnished by any ongoing Bond projects. For example, the other day I was at a friend's house, reading Zero Minus Ten. My friend asked me what I was reading, and when I showed him the book he derided it as a worthless cash-in effort and said something to the effect that the idea of a Bond novel written by anyone other than Fleming was ridiculous. My friend, by the way, is not a Bond or Fleming fan, and would be hard pushed to name more than five Bond films or identify those carrying Fleming titles. However, he knew that Fleming's is the authentic James Bond.

[Roebuck]

Originally posted by Felix's lighter
It seems strange the lengths that Hollywood can go in altering its source literary material. One would think a certain amount of responsibility would be written into the rights.

The fantasy author David Gemmell has an anecdote about being asked to sell the film rights to his 'Jon Shannow' novels. Looking through the contract he found a clause stating that if he wanted to use the character again he would have to secure the studio's permission. They were also insisting on editorial approval on any future novels featuring the character. On the other hand, the contract would have secured the producer's right to make as many sequels as they cared to without any approval from Gemmell. Not surprisingly, he told them to get stuffed (though I suspect the intended casting of an aged and portly Oliver Reed may also have been a deciding factor).

So, yeah, EON appear to have more consideration for the integrity of the Bond property than is the norm in Hollywood.

[Loomis]

clinkeroo, presumably you would also like the literary Bond to end?

[clinkeroo]

Zencat, I agree with you as well, and would pick the exact same films as good adaptions. I could care less which direction the films take, and I do see them as a seperate entity. My point, and gripe, was that people pre-judge Fleming's literary merit based on the films you didn't list. Although, as you suggested, I would love to see a BBC series done of the original books set as period pieces, but we both know it won't happen until the copyright lapses someday (as they did with SH).

clinkeroo

[clinkeroo]

No, I don't want to see the literary Bond end. Although I sympathize with the reasons Felix's Lighter made the initial post, and agree with his reasoning, if not his conclusion. I don't mind hamburgers; I'd just prefer to have a steak.
As I've stated often in the newsgroup, I enjoy even a glimpse of the character that Fleming created, if just for nostalgia

[Loomis]

Originally posted by clinkeroo

Loomis, I think we should just agree to disagree on this one.

No problem.

I'd like more Benson fans to join in this thread. Not because I wish to shoot them - or him - down (I freely admit that, while I don't like what I've so far read of his fiction, I'm not well enough versed in it to accurately assess his contribution to the world of Bond), but because I'd like to know why others admire his novels. The plots? His handling of the character of Bond? His ability to evoke the works of Fleming? The updating of the Bond universe to the present?

I'm a Bond fan, and I really want to like Benson's books. I'm finding it hard so far, so can anyone give me any information that might cause me to look at them in a different, more sympathetic light?

[kevrichardson]

They should end years ago since Benson a hack. And he has destroyed Literary Bond . Garnder was good in the begining , he stay on way too long . Why 16 books ? To out do Fleming . Now Garnder 's early books are hard to find, most are out of print. Glidrose is just greedy . Robert Markham (Kingsley Amis ) not in print , he did not work out and that book is hard too find used. Close 13 years later Garnder .Whose books are like the EON films , now Benson. I give him credit he "loves Bond and is a true fan". Still nothig can repalce the overwritten prose of Fleming.

[Felix's lighter]

Like I said, I'm open-minded enough to admit that Benson's work may bear future inspection. It may just be a matter of turning my continuity-oriented brain off for a while and just enjoying the blasted book, if there is, indeed, enjoyment to be derived in the first place.

I still think, however, that EON and Glidrose need to get together and decide what exactly is involved in the continuity of James Bond, if only for the sake of good storytelling. That would be silimiar to what George Lucas did a few years ago in deciding which of the endless array of Star Wars-related books and comics were "canon" and which were not. Admittedly, it's kind of difficult when you consider that the creator of that franchise (Lucas) alive and the creator of Bond's is not. There's really no one with an overwhelming power to make such decisions.

[General Koskov]

To Zencat's comments, I must say I half agree, and half disagree.

I agree that the (surprisingly common) ideas of a 'period' Casino Royale, or films of books that stick strictly to the source material (for the same reason that a novelisation which sticks closely to the film is bad) are terrible and are quite unfeasible.

But I think that ('responsibility' clause aside) the films cannot, and are not, stray too far from Fleming's material. The idea that Fleming's plots are irrelevant today is superficial. Take Moonraker, for example: Wood and Eon claimed the plot was totally absurd today. If they are speaking strictly of the nuclear rocket, they are correct. However, if the nuclear rocket were replaced by a space shuttle (which it was), the rest of the plot would work (barring minor changes that all 'faithful' adaptations of Fleming include). (The true reason for filmMoonraker's plot is Star Wars competition, just for the record.)

While altering certain things in plots is favourable, and sometimes necessary, altering the character of Bond (too much) is terrible. To go back to the topic of responsibility: making the Bond films for forty years shows that Eon is very responsible of Bond. What purpose would Eon serve by saying one day, 'let's change Bond into someone totally different and then have him do things that Fleming would abhorr'? No purpose would be served by this. Eon makes the films because they presumably enjoyed the books and wanted to make more entertainment.

[kevrichardson]

Look that's a very good point. With Lucas . "The Star War's" films stopped , the endless series of novels were designed to keep the ideas alive , fresh for the fans. Bond films continued , except for the 6 years between LTK and GE . And there still we had , John Garnder who was faithful too Fleming . certainly in the begining .

[zencat]

Originally posted by Loomis


No problem.

I'd like more Benson fans to join in this thread. Not because I wish to shoot them - or him - down (I freely admit that, while I don't like what I've so far read of his fiction, I'm not well enough versed in it to accurately access his contribution to the world of Bond), but because I'd like to know why others admire his novels. The plots? His handling of the character of Bond? His ability to evoke the works of Fleming? The updating of the Bond universe to the present?

I'm a Bond fan, and I really want to like Benson's books. I'm finding it hard so far, so can anyone give me any information that might cause me to look at them in a different, more sympathetic light?

There have been many threads on CBn that have debated the merits of Benson (and I'm usually in the middle to them). Sorry, I just don't have the energy to engage in the same debate over and over again. But I think you can find what you're looking for here Loomis. I recall this being one of the longest and most passionately argued Benson threads on both sides.

[Loomis]

Thanks, zencat. I'll check out that thread. BTW, I'm still persevering with Zero Minus Ten and it's started to get gripping (Bond's visit to General Wong is very tense and nasty indeed).

I was probably a little harsh on Benson back there. Hold him to enormously high standards and he'll always be found wanting. Anyone who writes Bond will always be in Fleming's shadow. Anyway, I've realised that he's nowhere near as bad a writer as I made out earlier, so I'll keep an open mind.

Thanks again, zencat.

[zencat]

Glad to hear that Loomis. Of all Benson's original books, ZMT is probably my least favorite (although I still really like it), so I would say if you're starting to enjoy that book you will be thrilled with the others. Read on and tell me what you think of the Australian outback sequence. I really love that part of the story.