Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
In this Discussion
Do the UK and US versions of Benson's Bond novels contain differences?
Dragonpol
https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
I've been wondering lately if any of the members here ever noticed any changes in the UK and US editions of the Raymond Benson James Bond novels and short stories released between 1997 and 2002. This is the thread in which to discuss this topic. I'm interested in knowing the answer to this as I've got the US Pegasus editions of Choice of Weapons and The Union Trilogy and I was wondering if any differences existed between the two. I don't think that this topic has ever been discussed here on MI6 Comm so I thought that it was high time (if you'll pardon the pun) that we discussed it.
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I would be very surprised if there would have been very large differences as Benson is an American and will probably far less in control of British slang as any Brit writer would be.
IFP should face charges of offences against literature for commissioning this lot. Sacre bleu!
IFP did alright in commissioning Benson, as 007 was a less than hot property and he was very willing. I remember reading them all five and at least three were fun, one poor and the other one had its moments. Great literature, heck no nut as Bond books they delivered well.
The villifying of Raymond Benson is kind of sad as the 007 books were never meant to be literary brilliant they are meant as entertainment and should be either enjoyed as such or ignored.
Charges of literary offences against literature should be frowned upon as they are of a rather elitist attitude. I am always pleased seeing a person read instead of being entertianed by computergames and such. And what he/she reads is her taste.
Well said as always, saint mark. Thank you for restoring my faith in humankind.
You underestimate completely the literary prowess of the late Ian Fleming.
At the time he was writing, critics were divided, but that was more to do with his style being influenced by his newspaper background than anything else. In the round he was viewed as a significant literary talent by serious critics. Furthermore, being both literate and entertaining should not be mutually exclusive!
The two authors that initially succeeded him as custodians of Bond were also regarded as seriously talented.
I have nothing against Mr.Benson, I'm sure he is a very nice man and that his mother loves him.
Unfortunately, his books are rubbish and IFP owe a debt to Fleming's memory and to his millions of fans to ensure that authors commissioned are at the correct level and that they deliver. Otherwise, what are they there for?
Failing that we will have the law of diminishing returns and will be left purely with a film franchise. That's my one and only point.
What a rubbish IFP owes nobody a thing, least of all Fleming who admitted himself that 007's adventures were meant to give him the lifestyle he yearned for and it did give him just that. He was getting tired of his own creation as many writers do.
Benson is also a bread writer, and as such he did alright in continuing the adventures, and the books are by no means great literary works, neither are the movies or Flemings books. Even if I easily admit liking Flemings style and prose easily the best.
And as to paid critics, they'd be damned the pretentious fools.
It's interesting to hear the likes of Kingsley Amis, Anthony Burgess,Eric Ambler and Raymond Chandler described as pretentious fools. Many, less knowledgable than your goodself, consider them to be extremely talented writers and I seriously doubt that money ever changed hands for their opinions on Fleming's novels.
Furthermore, if you don't think IFP's role is to extend the Bond franchise in a qualitative and quantatif manner, what is their mission?
True and well said. With friends like those literary luminaries, who need's enemies? Not Ian Fleming, for sure.
While I do like the work of the authors you mention in your comment their opinion is just like anybody's an opinion. When Faulks a fairly competent writer said something nasty about SF he got attacked and called stupid and worse. And while SF had the makings of a great story Mendes decided on a character based tale with some great jumps in logical development. Benson might write not as good as any of the other continuation writers but his books make more sense to me.
I never said that Benson is a great writer but he writes entertainment and perhaps at that time IFP needed more entertainment than a big name. IFP did what they could to keep the literary 007 afloat, Benson suited the purpose. With his brilliant bedside companion he seemed like a very good choice, and he did fairly well.
The Faulks ( a decent writer on his own merits) & Deaver (for a long time a blind buy in books for me) did write books that felt less Bondian to me than some of Bensons attempts but that is just my opinion.
And for the record I do rate Flemings Bondnovels the highest, and do return regular to them as enjoyable read while traveling. But at the end of the day his writing belongs more or less in the pulp departement which is no shame as Edgar Rice Burroughs, Robert E Howard, leslie Charteris belong there as well. And I do enjoy reading their work still after all those decennnia of their deaths.
Raymond Benson might not be a great writer but he did a decent enough job especiaaly looking at the last two released 007 books.
I do look forward to the next continuation novelist and his product, and the next, etc.
Benson's rubbish is fare from commercially successful. By the time he finished sales were abysmal.
As for describing Fleming as 'Pulp' shows that you don't understand the definition. It simply isn't possible to describe an author sold by Penguin as 'Modern Classics' and who is still selling in the millions some 60 years after first publication as 'Pulp'.
Benson, on the other hand was probably pulped some weeks after publication!
I feel you misread my comparison with pulps as the writers I compared him with are still selling very well too and are comparable as well as their characters are still lager than live and very well known.
I agree with you on the Young Bond and Moneypenny spin-offs they are in my opinion easily the best since the 2 Christopher Wood novelisations.
Benson must have done reasonable well as he got to write 5 books that have been reprinted since then as well.
But we have NO discussion if Fleming was the better writer, which you seem to want to prove. I knew that from the start. But I wonder if Ian Fleming would be as "great" without the movies that keep his name alive? Better writers seem to be lost to history than Fleming.
Physically the books are different. I have an UK edition of a couple of them and the remainder.
The UK edition is slightly small and has rough paper cover as opposed to a slightly larger US edition with a slick, finished paper cover.