RIP Peter Benchley

cthulhu77 said:
Hmmm. Really?
Actually, because he wrote one hell of a good book about a single shark, thousands of people decided that it would be a good idea to wipe out the larger sharks from the ocean.
Cash is king, I suppose. The book should never have been published, nor the the movie ever made. But what the heck, I guess more $$$ in your pocket, and your conscience means nothing, right? It's always someone else's fault...seems to be the prevailing opinion of the times.

I take great offense at this. I do not think it is at all reasonable to hold Peter Benchley accountable, especially given that he has spent so much time and money since trying to change perceptions and stereotypes.

I think it is akin to holding Melville responsible for every whale killed since 1850. Why should we stop at Benchley? Is Steven Spielberg responsible for shark killings? Is Roy Scheider going to hell? How about Robert Shaw, is he already there for playing a shark-killer in a movie? Is he personally responsible for all the sharks that died?

I think what's most disturbing is you seem to be advocating censorship.

Dan
 
Very well put Dan I agree completly. From what I could see Peter Benchley felt very badly about what happened to the sharks. He truely meant it as a good horror story. From the other book of his I read you could tell he had a great respect for sharks.

Ben

P.s Anyone who's interested "Shark Life" by Benchley is a great book
 
In a sense, I am advocating censorship. Censorship by the creator of the prose, not by the public or the publisher.
Learning what can cause harm is a responsibility. He missed the boat on that one ,no matter how much you all seem to want to cast bread out into the water and say "it's not my fault".
Perhaps I don't care much for Spielberg or Melville too...like stated before, cash seems to be king.

g
 
cthulhu77 said:
In a sense, I am advocating censorship. Censorship by the creator of the prose, not by the public or the publisher.
Learning what can cause harm is a responsibility. He missed the boat on that one ,no matter how much you all seem to want to cast bread out into the water and say "it's not my fault".
Perhaps I don't care much for Spielberg or Melville too...like stated before, cash seems to be king.

If Benchley thought cash was king, he wouldn't have spent his own money on shark conservation. Your thesis throughout this argument is that he's shirking responsibility, he's saying "it's not my fault," which is demonstrably false.

The rest of us are the ones arguing that he's not responsible. Is Salinger responsible for the murder of John Lennon? Jaws was not a call to arms any more than the Catcher in the Rye, and I don't think its fair to hold the author accountable for the acts of the mentally deranged.

Dan
 
Still Benchley has the right to make the book whether for the money or not. Many factors went into the worldwide shark endangerment. Shark finning for instance has been going on for years in Asia. "Jaws" most certainly didnt have anything to do with that. "Jaws" may have caused people to kill sharks but that does not mean Benchley should be "chewed up and swallowed" by sharks. And just like Dan said he put money into helping sharks and he had a great deal of respect for them. In my opinion Greg, you are being completly unfair.

Ben
 
I don't recall stating that I was in any way, shape, or form..."fair".

I do not care for his writings, I do not care for the person he was. You may, which is certainly your right.
If Eichmann donated money to the jewish relief fund, would that be a good excuse too? It seems to never be anyone's fault.
"Jaws" is a wonderful rip-off of Moby Dick, and very well done, to be sure. I have a copy that was given to me in 1977.
What happened afterwards was horrible, and although he may not have gone out and killed the sharks himself, he created a state of panic, somewhat like a person screaming "fire!" in a crowded theatre.
 
The last thing I'm going to say is that the analogy with Eichmann is very different as Benchley wasn't trying to hurt the sharks. As far as the "fire!" crowded theatre, well isn't that the basis of all good horror films/books? As far as I can tell thats all he can be blamed for. Everything else with the Sharks was not his fault.
 
Well, shame on society for not seeing the movie for what it was: entertainment, not documentary. Of course it's not Benchley's fault.

Should we blame Alfred Hitchcock for the fact that America banned the creation of showers in the 1960's, relegating everyone to baths only? (Oh, that didn't happen did it...)

Well anyway, I'm glad Greg readily acknowledges his lack of fairness on this issue! :smile:
 
Laugh...yes, I know, I can be a real stick-in-the-mud sometimes...I just can't stand his writings, and can not find it in my heart to feel bad about his demise.
 
cthulhu77 said:
I don't recall stating that I was in any way, shape, or form..."fair".

I do not care for his writings, I do not care for the person he was. You may, which is certainly your right.
If Eichmann donated money to the jewish relief fund, would that be a good excuse too? It seems to never be anyone's fault.
"Jaws" is a wonderful rip-off of Moby Dick, and very well done, to be sure. I have a copy that was given to me in 1977.
What happened afterwards was horrible, and although he may not have gone out and killed the sharks himself, he created a state of panic, somewhat like a person screaming "fire!" in a crowded theatre.

To be honest, I'm not particularly fond of his books, either, although I do like the film very much (probably because it really bears little resemblance!). I've just stepped up to the plate because I believe you're giving the fellow a raw deal.

I don't think your analogy of the crowded theatre is applicable. In that instance people are generally assumed to give up rational thought because any momentary hesitation to do so may lessen the chance of survival. It is also a deliberate act of malevolence, or mischief at the very least. Neither of these apply to Benchley. Rednecks-in-boats made concerted, deliberate decisions to act irresponsibly, after seeing a Hollywood movie. I think this is absurd--akin to blaming Paul Thomas Anderson for a kid's cocaine habit because he happened to see Boogie Nights.

Finally, 30 years following the release of the movie, I think there has been a net benefit. The layperson is interested in learning about the biology and the behavior of sharks. The Discovery Channel gets its best ratings during its "Shark Week." Shark conservation efforts depend on public support and awareness, and I think Benchley's work is responsible for that, albeit in an unexpected and roundabout way.

By the way, I believe your analogy to Eichmann is unfair and inappropriate. Apples to orangutans. You're comparing him to a man who's actions were undeniably premeditated and malevolent, and I believe you do your argument a disservice by invoking him for shock value.

Dan
 
Oh, there was no tension on my part at all...I just don't think much of him as a writer, and he sure as hell was no conservationist. People take cash for any reason these days, without thinking about why they are getting paid so much.
That said, the book is actually a very good read, although full of misinformation. The only part he got totally correct was the infidelity of Brody's wife !

The connection to Eichmann was intentional, that sonofagun stated the same thing :
"that's not what I meant to do"

I happen to feel more for sharks than I do for most humans, so while it is inappropriate for most of you, it is totally correct for me.
 
cthulhu77 said:
Oh, there was no tension on my part at all...I just don't think much of him as a writer, and he sure as hell was no conservationist. People take cash for any reason these days, without thinking about why they are getting paid so much.
That said, the book is actually a very good read, although full of misinformation. The only part he got totally correct was the infidelity of Brody's wife !

The connection to Eichmann was intentional, that sonofagun stated the same thing :
"that's not what I meant to do"

I happen to feel more for sharks than I do for most humans, so while it is inappropriate for most of you, it is totally correct for me.

Time and again you state that you don't think Peter Benchley was much of a writer, yet you then go on to say (a couple of times) that Jaws was a very good read. Just out of curiosity, what other Peter Benchley books have you read (apart from Jaws and The Beast)?
 
From cover to cover? Only those two. Beast was tossed into the circular recycling bin. I did almost make it through Shark Trouble, or whatever it was named...
Lots of hack writers make quite good reading...William Murphy, Stephen King, etc. make up a large percentage of my library, and I enjoy opening the books over and over again. Jaws certainly falls into that category, as it is entertaining, if not a thinly veiled attempt at ripping off Moby Dick. Beast was utter garbage. The only book worse than that was a monstrosity called Meg that came out a few years back...uggh. Horriffic ! (don't know who wrote that one, but it was truly awful )
 

Shop Amazon

Shop Amazon
Shop Amazon; support TONMO!
Shop Amazon
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon and affiliated sites.
Back
Top