Did you ever profess to have experienced a book that you have not actually read?

Come on. Not even once? It is so easy to simply nod your head and go along with the people who have when it is being discussed. Whether it is Homer or Bob Woodward or Nora Roberts, you do not want to seem beneath the crowd, whether a group of co-workers or your gang of friends.

And is it easy to feign knowledge of a book? Certainly simpler that pretending to have seen a film. In fact, few people have a problem admitting they have yet to see a movie when asked. (Though almost suggest they intend to, whether that be true or not.)

So why the need to cloak your reading habits in secrecy? Perhaps embarrassment of being viewed as uneducated or unconcerned, or having the other person try to impress you with facts you cannot verify, or just because you do not like being one-upped.

With that in mind we now make our way toward the current Bond phenomena. Raymond Benson's latest original novel, "The Man With The Rd Tattoo," is in current release. While discussing Benson's tenure is an entire issue unto itself, you should now answer aloud the next question.

Where should Bond novels be today?

That particular question is somewhat open ended. Did you try to answer it in comparison to Ian Fleming and John Gardner? How about John Grisham and Scott Turow?

Fact is, James Bond novels are still capable of providing thrills and suspense. Even Benson's most ardent detractors give that his expertise on Bond is unquestionable. He cannot be an English World War II veteran and reporter turned writer and should not try to. It is no detriment to say Benson is not Ian Fleming. Yet it seems to be a common complaint among Benson's critics.

My reaction to that is simple, if pointedly direct. What the hell would make you happy? Because try as you might, there are no hidden writings tucked away in a hope chest at the Goldeneye retreat that will be seeing the light of day. Fleming's work is passed. The mere fact that we still adore and devour it keeps it present, and not past. So if you would only be happy if Fleming were still sitting in front of that golden typewriter, you need not keep reading sites like this one. I do not know if there is a www.Fleming.Nostalga.com but perhaps you will find it.

The Bond novels were dead for over a decade until John Gardner had the sanction to revive them. If he had tried writing period pieces then we would be doing a Nostalgia piece. Bond is only going to continue by being in the present day. The success of the film series and the simple competition in stores by other authors today mandate it.

But it leaves a quandary unlike most, if any, other novelists. The books are, unfortunately, in the shadow of EON films. They probably always will be. The films have shown Bond being recreated time and again. Smartly, the films keep some measure of continuity but allow room for change.

With the novels that is certainly a stickier point. Fleming himself made a few continuity errors and corrections after the fact. (Bond's age in "Moonraker" to "You Only Live Twice" being but one.) But he still wrote a single storyline over time. Gardner did the same. If anything, Gardner's largest error was forcing some characters who were at best clich s (Q'ute) and at worst stupidly unrealistic and retreads (Leiter's daughter). He was restricted in some of the things he could use. He had no access to mentioning Bond's child alluded to in "You Only Live Twice," for instance. However, he was allowed to create his own SPECTRE (with another insipid offspring character) and mention Felix Leiter. By trying to use offspring he called undue attention on the nagging question of Bond's age.

As stated, I feel Bond has to be in contemporary time to remain vibrant. Raymond Benson was given that edict, and I speculate that even without it he would have indeed kept Bond as an experienced agent, graying at the temples, with a history intact.

Benson had said often that he is using Fleming's character in tone for his work. That does not suggest he would emulate Fleming's style, merely that the facets inherent in Fleming's character are the driving force behind Benson's tack.

Benson was given full reign by EON to use or disregard anything by Gardner, Kingsley Amis, and even John Pearson. His references to earlier works are in face a nod to the character he now creates. He has made at least one serious misstep, mentioning Hugo Drax. The famous term in describing Bond novels applies here. It is one thing to reach a plausible "Suspension of Disbelief" and another go beyond it.

Mentioning Tracy and Flicka together is not a problem, as both names are singularly abstracts. No one mission comes to mind as much as their characters. Using Marc-Ange Draco in "Never Dream Of Dying" is much the same, as you are pulled by his relationship with Bond. Drax, however, poses a problem. While his character is extremely memorable you cannot even consider his appearance without harkening to how he came to be scarred, thus necessarily putting his story circa 1955 and making Bond's age come to too strong a light.

That is just one cumbersome problem Benson faces. While he has a rich history to draw upon, he also has a history that showed both Fleming and Gardner creating their own series. Benson should rightly do the same. But that leads to a perception problem on two fronts. It first invited comparison to the previous series. I am one who feels he matches up well.

But that fact can be perceived as a hindrance when competing for shelf space at Borders with the likes of Tom Clancy and insert-a-novelist-here. James Bond cannot be new. Even though Benson does a marvelous job is keeping his adventures fresh, those who do not know Benson from Fleming will only think of Bond as a film creature and likely pass on the chance to read about him. They will be the ones nodding their heads when you bring up the Bond books to them.

To be fair, Raymond Benson has never been particularly well promoted, certainly in the United States at least. Bond needs to strike a deal with some rackjobbers in the worst way. But would that be a good thing? Fleming 's novels were never graded on their position on the best-seller lists as a be-all-end-all. Fleming wanted to be successful, but he seemed to view that in personal terms of growth. It was never about outselling Raymond Chandler.

So here's a third question.

Should Raymond Benson be better suited to fight the ghost of Ian Fleming or the specter of Grisham/Turow/Clancy/et al.?

That may seem like a yes or no question. We have already discussed the ghost of Ian Fleming. The specter of competition between today's hotshot writers is also a lose situation. But not because of any flaw with Benson.

Put anyone you like in his shoes. Would it be possible to write Bond stories meant to compete with Clive Cussler and Hunter Thompson without losing the very heart of the character inherent to Ian Fleming? Hardly. Forget the complaints of the style not being the same as Fleming's; you would soon have the very negative reaction, akin to Gardner, that the character is utterly devoid of the established character of James Bond. Bond as he is best is not going to make the top of the bestseller list for long. Despite the many faulty heroes written today Bond's quirks are too off base. Picky eating makes him more of a prudish snob than a cool hero, but it also makes him uniquely James Bond. Is it worth losing that merely to try to pick up advanced copy sales?

My conclusion to the question of fighting the ghost or the specter is simple; do neither. Benson will influence more people and end up more appreciated by sticking to his own muse and keeping his Bond character balanced between current placement and traditional approach. To emulate Fleming's prose is akin to rewriting Hamlet, producing something not recognizable to the reader and appearing as a pretender or a fraud. To go to battle for the best seller list is akin to putting Romeo and Juliet in a modern setting, producing something that looks, smells and acts like a poor mimic of a bygone era and making the modern setting push the character into an anachronism.

I have no real end to this article. I would ask instead for you to add your own comments add forward them to me at reed@hmss.com . The point is not critiquing Benson as a writer. It is defining how you would approach trying to continue the sage of James Bond in novel form. Some of the responses may be disseminated in future editions of Her Majesty's Secret Servant.

So it is your call.

Ghost, Specter or Modernized?

Copyright © 2002 Michael Reed