223 replies to this topic

[Doctor Shatterhand]

Are you actually advocating that it be edited or removed, spy?

Yes. As I think I've now made fairly clear, I feel it crosses the line from trenchant criticism to unnecessarily mean-spirited put-down, and it doesn't do anyone any favours.

But what do you think, Loomis? You said you thought it should be left 'uncensored', then agreed with me that it would have been removed if anyone else had written it but was probably permitted 'because Jim wrote it'. Do you think Jim should be immune from the principles that apply to everyone else, or not? Or are you the ex-pop star friend of Bridget Jones excited that a fight's taking place in the street? Stop watching the fight and come off the fence. The same could be said for the site's moderators, who seem content for this conversation to continue with no comment on their part, almost as though the article had nothing to do with them. Well, it does. You can put Opinion in all caps all over the place and a disclaimer that it's 'the opinion of one individual and may not represent the views of the owner or other team members of CommanderBond.net' but it does represent the site, and speak to its judgement. So perhaps you could all stop sitting on your thumbs reading each new addition to the thread, and log in and explain your decision. It would be appreciated.

Totally agree with this. I am a big believer in free speech, providing that the one speaking or writing can be civil in his opinion. I chose to pick on Jim's fan fiction for a reason and those who support Jim obviously could care less about Raymond Benson's feelings toward his work. The point is Raymond does frequent the fan sites like anyone else. I am just advocating some civility here and anywhere else it is lacking. Wrong is not right and future articles should be subjected to a committee of moderators before release.

[Doctor Shatterhand]

BTW: For those interested here is a list of reviews of Never Dream Of Dying. You may disagree with the reviewer, but at least you don't have to take a shower afterwards.

"...it’s clear that [Benson] knows his material backward and forward. It’s also clear that he’s an adroit writer, the best of the successors to Bond creator Fleming. Fans of Fleming’s original novels can pick up a Benson adventure and feel right at home, and readers coming to the series without any previous knowledge of 007 (if there are any such readers left in the world) will learn everything they need to know about him from this tight, tough, thrilling yarn."
(Booklist, USA)

"Benson does Fleming credit; his Bond is a worthy replica of the original."
(Publishers Weekly, USA)

"Benson seems to have hit his stride in this, his liveliest and nastiest Bond book yet."
(Kirkus Reviews, USA)

"Raymond Benson’s latest 007 thriller provides the works."
(Midwest Book Review, USA)

" What sets this book apart from its two predecessors in the Union series, however, is not just a better constructed and more gripping plot, but also the humanisation of Bond... he has rediscovered the mood and psyche of the self-assured and, at times, humorous assassin... Bond is human, after all, and Benson has him looking deep within himself."
--THE JOURNAL/NEWCASTLE

[Loomis]

Are you actually advocating that it be edited or removed, spy?

Yes. As I think I've now made fairly clear, I feel it crosses the line from trenchant criticism to unnecessarily mean-spirited put-down, and it doesn't do anyone any favours.

But what do you think, Loomis? You said you thought it should be left 'uncensored', then agreed with me that it would have been removed if anyone else had written it but was probably permitted 'because Jim wrote it'. Do you think Jim should be immune from the principles that apply to everyone else, or not? Or are you the ex-pop star friend of Bridget Jones excited that a fight's taking place in the street? Stop watching the fight and come off the fence.

Fine. I do think it should be left uncensored, despite the apparent double standard (like I say, I do not believe this piece would have been tolerated had it been the work of anyone but Jim), because I think the important thing (which is already happening) is that people are given the means to respond to it. This is hardly the first time that Jim has gone to work on Benson with the proverbial pliers and blowtorch. The wordcount may be gargantuan this time, but it's basically the same old stuff he's been posting here for years.

Do I think Jim should be immune from the principles that apply to everyone else, or not? Probably not, but such would seem to be the way that it is. As a moderator and longtime contributor to this site of what you yourself have praised as material of the highest possible standard (both his Bond fiction and his *ahem* opinion pieces), he draws a lot of water round here. Is that "fair"? Well, no, it probably isn't, but it's the way it is. He's given leeway, I think, on the basis of his generally doing great things for CBn. Lechiffre1979 couldn't come in here and interest the CBn team with something like this - they'd chuck it in the cyberbin. Jim, however, has earned his stripes, worked his way up the ladder (fnarr), and so on. I think you'll find that most sites like this one have their established old guards and elder statesmen. It doesn't mean we should all doff our caps, or that "newbies" should defer to them, but it does seem to me to be the way of the interweb, for better or worse.

Rather than more of my two cents, though, it would seem somewhat more appropriate for this site's moderators to, as you put it, log in and explain their decision.

[Doctor Shatterhand]

Probably not, but such would seem to be the way that it is. As a moderator and longtime contributor to this site of what you yourself have praised as material of the highest possible standard (both his Bond fiction and his *ahem* opinion pieces), he draws a lot of water round here. Is that "fair"? Well, no, it probably isn't, but it's the way it is. He's given leeway, I think, on the basis of his generally doing great things for CBn. Lechiffre1979 couldn't come in here and interest the CBn team with something like this - they'd chuck it in the cyberbin. Jim, however, has earned his stripes, worked his way up the ladder (fnarr), and so on. I think you'll find that most sites like this one have their established old guards and elder statesmen. It doesn't mean we should all doff our caps, or that "newbies" should defer to them, but it does seem to me to be the way of the interweb, for better or worse.

Rather than more of my two cents, though, it would seem somewhat more appropriate for this site's moderators to, as you put it, log in and explain their decision.

Loomis, would you think it appropriate if Raymond Benson were to come here and give a harsh, below-the-belt critique of Jim's fan fiction? After all, Raymond has earned his stripes and worked up the ladder too.

[zencat]

Rather than more of my two cents, though, it would seem somewhat more appropriate for this site's moderators to, as you put it, log in and explain their decision.

Not sure there's anything for them to explain. This is a series Jim has been doing for a few years now. This is part 5. It does carry a disclaimer: "The following article is the opinion of one individual and may not represent the views of the owner or other team members of CommanderBond.net." That's it.

[Trident]

I feel this is less a question of censorship then of consideration and style. While I thought and still think Jim's piece on NDOD to be hilariously funny and remarkably well written, there can also be no question that in parts it's deeply humiliating and more than a little scathing and hurtful.

I suspect that Benson (should he read it) is by now used to some criticism, even and especially of the harsh variant, and is most likely not too much impressed by abrasive reviews. But I may be entirely wrong there and in fact Benson (or Winehouse, Craig or whoever else is handled in such manner) is deeply hurt and angered by it. What do I know? Next to nothing.

Some kind of help might be to consider the objects we're writing about, the people in the limelight and those behind the institutions, as being real and thus having real feelings that can also be violated. And choosing a form for our criticisms that would also be fit for a face-to-face exchange, as Zencat has suggested. Under such pretext I have to admit that, lack of ability aside, I wouldn't have dared to write this piece as I wouldn't have dared to say such things to Benson in person in this very form.

That said I think most of what CBn's content is made of is by no means in danger to cross such imaginary lines.

[Loomis]

Probably not, but such would seem to be the way that it is. As a moderator and longtime contributor to this site of what you yourself have praised as material of the highest possible standard (both his Bond fiction and his *ahem* opinion pieces), he draws a lot of water round here. Is that "fair"? Well, no, it probably isn't, but it's the way it is. He's given leeway, I think, on the basis of his generally doing great things for CBn. Lechiffre1979 couldn't come in here and interest the CBn team with something like this - they'd chuck it in the cyberbin. Jim, however, has earned his stripes, worked his way up the ladder (fnarr), and so on. I think you'll find that most sites like this one have their established old guards and elder statesmen. It doesn't mean we should all doff our caps, or that "newbies" should defer to them, but it does seem to me to be the way of the interweb, for better or worse.

Rather than more of my two cents, though, it would seem somewhat more appropriate for this site's moderators to, as you put it, log in and explain their decision.

Loomis, would you think it appropriate if Raymond Benson were to come here and give a harsh, below-the-belt critique of Jim's fan fiction? After all, Raymond has earned his stripes and worked up the ladder too.

Well, sure, Benson has the "right" to do that, but I think it would be somewhat beneath his dignity.

[marktmurphy]

What a bizarre criticism.

Hmm, did you say the same to Jim's critique on NDOD?

Why would I? They're two different things. That's like me saying that the sky is blue and you questioning if I said the same thing about my cat.
Don't take this the wrong way, but is English your first language? I genuinely don't mean that to sound insulting if it is, but you seem to be making some odd errors of analysis and I want to make sure we're on an even footing.

[spynovelfan]

This is hardly the first time that Jim has gone to work on Benson with the proverbial pliers and blowtorch. The wordcount may be gargantuan this time, but it's basically the same old stuff he's been posting here for years.

But I don't think it is basically the same old stuff. If you read the previous four installments in this series, while there were plenty of verbal fireworks, Jim delineated the strengths and weaknesses of each book he looked at, and concluded in every case that they were worth investigating, or in the case of his harshest review, conceded that others might think so:

On ZERO MINUS TEN:
'Worth Reading? — Yeah, on balance; interesting plot, some fun ideas, but some parts look too mechanical in trying to be literary Bond; works better as a film. As a book, (not insignificant) prose issue aside, with its distractingly redundant bits, it's a bit like Diamonds are Forever; some really interesting ideas, but too much detail of too little consequence and a villain conspicuous by his absence. Abandon hope all ye who expect literary Bond, but as a curious hybrid nearer to the films than the books, worth a shot.'

On THE FACTS OF DEATH:
'Worth reading?: Certainly, but it would be worth seeing more. At its strongest when not struggling with its schizophrenia and finally giving in to its nature as the transcription of a very strong Eon film. It rattles along for the most part without the self-consciousness of Zero Minus Ten and it is precisely when it isn't trying to be 'a James Bond novel' that it's at its most successful. There are serious problems which undermine it as a literary exercise, or as a continuation of the literary series, more in what isn't done than what is. There are some splendid 'visuals' throughout - the car that changes colour (amongst other things) would be a fun film highlight - but it's hard to find much that comfortably sits as a novel. More overwhelmingly whole, and more overwhelmingly Benson than the previous go, and never less than interesting although that's frequently more so because of what it tries to do than what it succeeds in. Still, well worth a summer read.'

On HIGH TIME TO KILL:
'It won't alienate those who are only interested in the films (and on that meagre ambition it must, through gritted teeth, be congratulated on its 'success'. Depends how high one sets one's sights). As an exercise in reading for pleasure however, it's only for completists and the genuinely undemanding. I cannot recommend it as a literary experience. Read it if you must, be disappointed, move on. Fortunately, things would improve. Somewhat.'

On DOUBLESHOT:
'As a balls to the wall commercial espionage thriller story, with a twist, DoubleShot is the best fourth Bond book of any of them. (NB do read that correctly—it’s “best fourth Bond book” rather than “fourth best Bond book”—I haven’t gone completely mad—although it’s definitely in the medals when it comes to the continuations). It won’t let you down as much as the other two and there’s great potential in it for it to be considered actively subversive of the genre. I expected little. I gained a lot. This not only escapes the shadow of “Ian Fleming”; it escapes the shadow of “Raymond Benson”.

Or put it this way; I seriously believe that had this been the only one he had produced, his stock as a continuation novelist would be far higher than it is. Immeasurably. Deservedly.

Is it good or just relatively good? As a stand-alone piece of writing, it is—of course—for the casual reader pretty much impenetrable in both motive for The Union, the nature of Bond at the start of the book and the thickly ladled references. It’s also written in a manner which makes one sweat, and not in a pleasurable way. If you buy the theory, it’s a wonderful, knowing joke. If you don’t buy the theory, it’s more of the same and you’ll have made up your mind whether you like the Bensons or not. Even so, I would stress that you don’t let your prejudices derived from the others blind you to the merits of this one. Give it a go. Seriously. Shame that this is only really going to be picked up by the completists—it deserves a wider audience.

Thought about for more than an atosecond, this is complicated and a rewarding read above and beyond the basic story, which is arguably neither here nor there. So, assuming (however recklessly, however uninterested) that the Star Trek theory is tenable, then if this RB JB IV is sound, that must make number five pretty terrible, yes?

Jamie Cullum.

Spock—chap with the ears, right?'

'Worth a shot.' 'Well worth a summer read.' 'Give it a go.' Even 'I cannot recommend it as a literary experience'. All of these are valid critical opinions. To my mind, much in this piece on NEVER DREAM OF DYING steps well over that mark, particularly the extended 'analysis' of the sex, and the conclusion:

'There are clues that he doesn’t appear to want to write it, I don’t really want to read it (the lengthy digression at the opening of this piffle is evidence enough): reader and writer as one (not physically; I doubt that my orifices could cope). It’s tired. Disappointing. Building up to a climax (fnarr) that on the one hand is credible and on the other is utterly ridiculous, a shocking surprise that is neither, with the rest of it going through on cruise control, this is a go-nowhere of a book. It has some nice passages. As does the Bond girl. Oh God, will the p�rnography never end? Whilst Never Dream of Reading wouldn’t be a fair comment, and there are worse ways to spend a few hours such as being hacked to death or Rugby League, or Rugby station, don’t lose too much sleep deciding whether to re-read. Ultimately, it exists.

Woof.'

I don't think this is 'basically the same old stuff', but something a bit like the same old stuff without the spirit of fair play or investigative energy, and it left a sour taste in my mouth. Being brilliant and funny doesn't make you always right. One of the strengths of internet journalism is that it isn't constrained in many of the ways print journalism is, so you can have much more fun with the language and the form and so on - you wouldn't have much luck finding a home for any of these reviews in print, I expect. But that doesn't mean you should abandon all the principles of decent journalism. In this piece, the care previously taken to at least weigh the strengths and weaknesses in an attempt to fairly consider the worth of the work under discussion, and to entertain as well as educate the visitors of the site with insightful opinions on the literary merit of the novel... this has all gone, replaced by a virtuoso but highly self-indulgent and mean-spirited piss-take of Benson's work. I think it was an error of judgement to run it, but we all make mistakes and another strength of internet journalism is that editing can be done after initial publication. It is still possible to fix it, and move on with heads held a little higher.

I do think it should be left uncensored, despite the apparent double standard (like I say, I do not believe this piece would have been tolerated had it been the work of anyone but Jim), because I think the important thing (which is already happening) is that people are given the means to respond to it.

What a terribly weak argument! By that measure, anything published on the front page would be fine with you - provided there were a discussion thread about it (which would be conspicuously ignored by the moderators). The issue here is the judgement of those who run this site. The fact that the issue has been raised doesn't mean it somehow suddenly ceases to be an issue.

I respect Jim enormously, and think he's exceptionally talented, but that doesn't mean I turn a blind eye when I feel he's overstepped a line, and it shouldn't mean you do, either. I wish you'd stop talking about 'censorship', as though the people running this site are somehow not in control of their own decision-making process. If a brilliant contributor submits an inappropriate article, you discuss it with them and see if they will agree to it being edited, rewritten or re-cast. Your use of the term suggests you feel Jim could write any offensive nonsense he wishes and if anyone declined to publish it on the front page they'd be restricting his freedom of expression. That's not the case.

Not sure there's anything for them to explain. This is a series Jim has been doing for a few years now. This is part 5. It does carry a disclaimer: "The following article is the opinion of one individual and may not represent the views of the owner or other team members of CommanderBond.net." That's it.

Have you read it yet, zen? As I said above, I don't think this piece is in keeping with the spirit of the previous four articles in the series, or the ethos of this site as I know it. The disclaimer doesn't change anything. It is still on this site, and that says to anyone who reads it that the people who run this site felt it appropriate for publication. If a 'review' of your work along these lines were published on a website, would you feel inclined to cooperate or collaborate with the site in future? Would it change your mind if there were a disclaimer at the top labelling it as opinion?

[Doctor Shatterhand]

What a bizarre criticism.

Hmm, did you say the same to Jim's critique on NDOD?

Why would I? They're two different things. That's like me saying that the sky is blue and you questioning if I said the same thing about my cat.
Don't take this the wrong way, but is English your first language? I genuinely don't mean that to sound insulting if it is, but you seem to be making some odd errors of analysis and I want to make sure we're on an even footing.

No they are not two different things. You completely missed my point of what I was getting at with Jim's word "assaulted". Perhaps I can offer you some help in a little know source called a dictionary.

The following is from Dictionary.com

as·sault
n.
1. A violent physical or verbal attack.

2.
a. A military attack, such as one launched against a fortified area or place.
b. The concluding stage of an attack in which close combat occurs with the enemy.
c. An unlawful threat or attempt to do bodily injury to another.
d. The act or an instance of unlawfully threatening or attempting to injure another.
e. Law Sexual assault.
f. The crime of rape.

3. Law
a. An unlawful threat or attempt to do bodily injury to another.
b. The act or an instance of unlawfully threatening or attempting to injure another.

4. Law Sexual assault.
a. The crime of rape.

v. as·sault·ed, as·sault·ing, as·saults

v. tr.

To make an assault upon; attack. See Synonyms at attack.
To rape.
v. intr.
To make an assault.

*******************************

If you noticed the definition does not mention the aggression coming from 'nature' such as rain.

So if I were you my friend, I would wonder if I received a proper education in the English language. Also, I would take a course in physics, the sky is not blue but rather the relective light off of water molecules that changes color throughout the day. Otherwise, we would see a blue sky 24/7. Sorry to hear about your cat.

[Simon]

I think all this is superb.

Conversation has At Last been diverted from, "Bond girl for Bond 26" inanity.

Jim should throw something out there for every Quantum Earnings peak and What Have You Done Today trough.

[Hitch]

Superb? Really? I can't say that I'm enjoying it very much.

Any more articles like this and CBn could find it difficult to get access to anyone associated with the Bond franchise, past or present. Jim is a dream of a fan forum member and moderator who has graced this site with exceptional fan fiction, erudite articles and more laughs than the rest of us put together, yet The Impossible Job feels distinctly out of place. I suddenly feel as though I'm reading just another feverish popular culture website instead of a witty and informative periodical that happens to be available on the shiny screen in front of me.

[zencat]

Have you read it yet, zen? As I said above, I don't think this piece is in keeping with the spirit of the previous four articles in the series, or the ethos of this site as I know it. The disclaimer doesn't change anything. It is still on this site, and that says to anyone who reads it that the people who run this site felt it appropriate for publication. If a 'review' of your work along these lines were published on a website, would you feel inclined to cooperate or collaborate with the site in future? Would it change your mind if there were a disclaimer at the top labelling it as opinion?

Good point. No, I haven't read it. I like Raymond and I like the book. I also like Jim. So...I just haven't read it (but this could have more to do with the fact I have trouble reading off a computer screen -- it needs to be short for me to read it). And, yes, I would certainly have strong feelings if my own work received such a thorough critique. No sure if I would blame the site as much as the reviewer, or just ignore it altogether. Hopefully some day I will have something that is wildly distributed enough to even get reviewed. Then I can cry in my hot tub.

[Doctor Shatterhand]

Not sure if I would blame the site as much as the reviewer, or just ignore it altogether.

I blame both and that is why this site has moderators, to control such mean-spirited opinions. The article is not necessary in its present form. It needs to be edited down for length and content. I would also feel that the moderators should offer an apology to Raymond Benson since he has been a strong supporter of this website for years.

If memory serves me well, Raymond also donated money to the continuation of this website sometime in 2002-03. A case of biting the hand that feeds you.

[marktmurphy]

What a bizarre criticism.

Hmm, did you say the same to Jim's critique on NDOD?

Why would I? They're two different things. That's like me saying that the sky is blue and you questioning if I said the same thing about my cat.
Don't take this the wrong way, but is English your first language? I genuinely don't mean that to sound insulting if it is, but you seem to be making some odd errors of analysis and I want to make sure we're on an even footing.

No they are not two different things. You completely missed my point of what I was getting at with Jim's word "assaulted".

Yes; they are two different things. One was written by Jim and is about NDOD; one was written by you and is about Heart Bleeds Ice. You can tell that they're different things because I used different sets of words to describe them both.
And no; I didn't miss your point- I think you missed my reply. Try reading it again. Authors sometimes use the accepted meanings of words and place them in unorthodox situations where that meaning adds another dimension to what they're saying. Now, given that you now know what 'assaulted' means (try concentrating on the 'violent physical attack' meaning if that helps), what sort of feeling do you think he was trying to convey about the force of the rain? Do you think it was nice gentle rain or heavy unpleasant rain? Have a little think about it, perhaps ask your English teacher, and then get back to me.

[Lazenby880]

Any more articles like this and CBn could find it difficult to get access to anyone associated with the Bond franchise, past or present.

This is a very fair point, I think, Hitch. I should confess that I have not read "Never Dream of Dying", although I have read other Benson novels. I didn't enjoy them. Parts of this review are funny, however it is a dissertation of unremitting hostility that can be uncomfortable to read. An enormous amount of time and energy has clearly been expended on this that would have been better spent focussed on something Jim enjoyed.

Edited by Lazenby880, 07 March 2009 - 11:27 AM.

[Doctor Shatterhand]

Yes; they are two different things. One was written by Jim and is about NDOD; one was written by you and is about Heart Bleeds Ice. You can tell that they're different things because I used different sets of words to describe them both.
And no; I didn't miss your point- I think you missed my reply. Try reading it again. Authors sometimes use the accepted meanings of words and place them in unorthodox situations where that meaning adds another dimension to what they're saying. Now, given that you now know what 'assaulted' means (try concentrating on the 'violent physical attack' meaning if that helps), what sort of feeling do you think he was trying to convey about the force of the rain? Do you think it was nice gentle rain or heavy unpleasant rain? Have a little think about it, perhaps ask your English teacher, and then get back to me.

Again you are wrong, Mark. I never wrote a critique about The Heart Bleeds Ice, I merely pointed out the inaccuracy of the word 'assaulted' and spun that around to explain what Jim and others have been doing to Raymond Benson's Bond novel.

But you continue to support the way the word is used in the opening sentence. If you feel that there is nothing wrong with the usage, fine! The average publisher would roll his/her eyes over it; and if you don't believe me, send a copy to an English teacher or a professional writer/editor.

I have shown the first page of THBI to my co-workers, where many of them write stories every day and several are published authors themselves. Each co-worker complained that Jim's writing was a chore for the reader and agreed with me that "assaulted" was the wrong word but perhaps the word "driven" would be better. Rain cannot rob or sexually rape you since the word "assaulted" means just that. Being creative in the use of the word only emphasizes how illiterate you are to the avarage reader. Perhaps when you have graduated from teeny-bopper paperbacks to more adult novels, you will come to a better understanding.

[Santa]

OK, whatever you may think about Jim's 'review' of NDOD, and whatever else Jim is or isn't, he is most certainly and absolutely obviously NOT illiterate.

[Matt_13]

That was a great read, Jim. I took the time to read your critique of HTTK and I agree with all of your points on that novel, as well. As for those of you choosing to pick not only the article, but (for whatever reason) all of Jim's other work apart just for the sake of making a statement to a stranger that you will never meet in your life outside of the internet, I think it's about time to just let it go. It is what it is, if Mr. Benson is a good sport he'll chuckle his way through Jim's articles (which were intended to be humorous, mind you) and dismiss them almost immediately, simply for the fact that it is the opinion of one person online. To (attempt to) rip into Jim's other work, however, is immature, especially using a word found in the first sentence of a fan fiction story as ammo. As I said, it is what it is. I think you've all made your points well known, it's time to move on.

[Vauxhall]

Each co-worker complained that Jim's writing was a chore for the reader and agreed with me that "assaulted" was the wrong word but perhaps the word "driven" would be better. Rain cannot rob or sexually rape you since the word "assaulted" means just that. Being creative in the use of the word only emphasizes how illiterate you are to the avarage reader.

I find this criticism bizarre. Surely you are citing a simple example of personification - a literary device taught to students (at least, here in the UK) at the age of 10 or 11? If these average readers you are referring to can't grasp the imagery, simple logic would suggest they are the "illiterate" ones.

[Doctor Shatterhand]

That was a great read, Jim. I took the time to read your critique of HTTK and I agree with all of your points on that novel, as well. As for those of you choosing to pick not only the article, but (for whatever reason) all of Jim's other work apart just for the sake of making a statement to a stranger that you will never meet in your life outside of the internet, I think it's about time to just let it go. It is what it is, if Mr. Benson is a good sport he'll chuckle his way through Jim's articles (which were intended to be humorous, mind you) and dismiss them almost immediately, simply for the fact that it is the opinion of one person online. To (attempt to) rip into Jim's other work, however, is immature, especially using a word found in the first sentence of a fan fiction story as ammo. As I said, it is what it is. I think you've all made your points well known, it's time to move on.

No Matt, Raymond Benson is not chuckling his way through Jim's article. Would you if it was your work Jim was critiquing? I would venture no you would not.

[Doctor Shatterhand]

Each co-worker complained that Jim's writing was a chore for the reader and agreed with me that "assaulted" was the wrong word but perhaps the word "driven" would be better. Rain cannot rob or sexually rape you since the word "assaulted" means just that. Being creative in the use of the word only emphasizes how illiterate you are to the avarage reader.

I find this criticism bizarre. Surely you are citing a simple example of personification - a literary device taught to students (at least, here in the UK) at the age of 10 or 11? If these average readers you are referring to can't grasp the imagery, simple logic would suggest they are the "illiterate" ones.

Grasping the imagery is one thing, using the correct adjective is another. But that is not why I chose that word. Jim's article is an "assault" to one of our biggest Bond fans who just happened to be in the right place at the right time when he got 'the dream job'. Whether you love or hate Benson's Bond novels, the mechanics of the critique is just plain mean-spirited and should have been edited to show some respect.

[Loomis]

This is hardly the first time that Jim has gone to work on Benson with the proverbial pliers and blowtorch. The wordcount may be gargantuan this time, but it's basically the same old stuff he's been posting here for years.

But I don't think it is basically the same old stuff. If you read the previous four installments in this series, while there were plenty of verbal fireworks, Jim delineated the strengths and weaknesses of each book he looked at, and concluded in every case that they were worth investigating, or in the case of his harshest review, conceded that others might think so:

On ZERO MINUS TEN:
'Worth Reading? — Yeah, on balance; interesting plot, some fun ideas, but some parts look too mechanical in trying to be literary Bond; works better as a film. As a book, (not insignificant) prose issue aside, with its distractingly redundant bits, it's a bit like Diamonds are Forever; some really interesting ideas, but too much detail of too little consequence and a villain conspicuous by his absence. Abandon hope all ye who expect literary Bond, but as a curious hybrid nearer to the films than the books, worth a shot.'

On THE FACTS OF DEATH:
'Worth reading?: Certainly, but it would be worth seeing more. At its strongest when not struggling with its schizophrenia and finally giving in to its nature as the transcription of a very strong Eon film. It rattles along for the most part without the self-consciousness of Zero Minus Ten and it is precisely when it isn't trying to be 'a James Bond novel' that it's at its most successful. There are serious problems which undermine it as a literary exercise, or as a continuation of the literary series, more in what isn't done than what is. There are some splendid 'visuals' throughout - the car that changes colour (amongst other things) would be a fun film highlight - but it's hard to find much that comfortably sits as a novel. More overwhelmingly whole, and more overwhelmingly Benson than the previous go, and never less than interesting although that's frequently more so because of what it tries to do than what it succeeds in. Still, well worth a summer read.'

On HIGH TIME TO KILL:
'It won't alienate those who are only interested in the films (and on that meagre ambition it must, through gritted teeth, be congratulated on its 'success'. Depends how high one sets one's sights). As an exercise in reading for pleasure however, it's only for completists and the genuinely undemanding. I cannot recommend it as a literary experience. Read it if you must, be disappointed, move on. Fortunately, things would improve. Somewhat.'

On DOUBLESHOT:
'As a balls to the wall commercial espionage thriller story, with a twist, DoubleShot is the best fourth Bond book of any of them. (NB do read that correctly—it’s “best fourth Bond book” rather than “fourth best Bond book”—I haven’t gone completely mad—although it’s definitely in the medals when it comes to the continuations). It won’t let you down as much as the other two and there’s great potential in it for it to be considered actively subversive of the genre. I expected little. I gained a lot. This not only escapes the shadow of “Ian Fleming”; it escapes the shadow of “Raymond Benson”.

Or put it this way; I seriously believe that had this been the only one he had produced, his stock as a continuation novelist would be far higher than it is. Immeasurably. Deservedly.

Is it good or just relatively good? As a stand-alone piece of writing, it is—of course—for the casual reader pretty much impenetrable in both motive for The Union, the nature of Bond at the start of the book and the thickly ladled references. It’s also written in a manner which makes one sweat, and not in a pleasurable way. If you buy the theory, it’s a wonderful, knowing joke. If you don’t buy the theory, it’s more of the same and you’ll have made up your mind whether you like the Bensons or not. Even so, I would stress that you don’t let your prejudices derived from the others blind you to the merits of this one. Give it a go. Seriously. Shame that this is only really going to be picked up by the completists—it deserves a wider audience.

Thought about for more than an atosecond, this is complicated and a rewarding read above and beyond the basic story, which is arguably neither here nor there. So, assuming (however recklessly, however uninterested) that the Star Trek theory is tenable, then if this RB JB IV is sound, that must make number five pretty terrible, yes?

Jamie Cullum.

Spock—chap with the ears, right?'

'Worth a shot.' 'Well worth a summer read.' 'Give it a go.' Even 'I cannot recommend it as a literary experience'. All of these are valid critical opinions. To my mind, much in this piece on NEVER DREAM OF DYING steps well over that mark, particularly the extended 'analysis' of the sex, and the conclusion:

'There are clues that he doesn’t appear to want to write it, I don’t really want to read it (the lengthy digression at the opening of this piffle is evidence enough): reader and writer as one (not physically; I doubt that my orifices could cope). It’s tired. Disappointing. Building up to a climax (fnarr) that on the one hand is credible and on the other is utterly ridiculous, a shocking surprise that is neither, with the rest of it going through on cruise control, this is a go-nowhere of a book. It has some nice passages. As does the Bond girl. Oh God, will the p�rnography never end? Whilst Never Dream of Reading wouldn’t be a fair comment, and there are worse ways to spend a few hours such as being hacked to death or Rugby League, or Rugby station, don’t lose too much sleep deciding whether to re-read. Ultimately, it exists.

Woof.'

I don't think this is 'basically the same old stuff', but something a bit like the same old stuff without the spirit of fair play or investigative energy, and it left a sour taste in my mouth. Being brilliant and funny doesn't make you always right. One of the strengths of internet journalism is that it isn't constrained in many of the ways print journalism is, so you can have much more fun with the language and the form and so on - you wouldn't have much luck finding a home for any of these reviews in print, I expect. But that doesn't mean you should abandon all the principles of decent journalism. In this piece, the care previously taken to at least weigh the strengths and weaknesses in an attempt to fairly consider the worth of the work under discussion, and to entertain as well as educate the visitors of the site with insightful opinions on the literary merit of the novel... this has all gone, replaced by a virtuoso but highly self-indulgent and mean-spirited piss-take of Benson's work. I think it was an error of judgement to run it, but we all make mistakes and another strength of internet journalism is that editing can be done after initial publication. It is still possible to fix it, and move on with heads held a little higher.

I do think it should be left uncensored, despite the apparent double standard (like I say, I do not believe this piece would have been tolerated had it been the work of anyone but Jim), because I think the important thing (which is already happening) is that people are given the means to respond to it.

What a terribly weak argument! By that measure, anything published on the front page would be fine with you - provided there were a discussion thread about it (which would be conspicuously ignored by the moderators). The issue here is the judgement of those who run this site. The fact that the issue has been raised doesn't mean it somehow suddenly ceases to be an issue.

I respect Jim enormously, and think he's exceptionally talented, but that doesn't mean I turn a blind eye when I feel he's overstepped a line, and it shouldn't mean you do, either. I wish you'd stop talking about 'censorship', as though the people running this site are somehow not in control of their own decision-making process. If a brilliant contributor submits an inappropriate article, you discuss it with them and see if they will agree to it being edited, rewritten or re-cast. Your use of the term suggests you feel Jim could write any offensive nonsense he wishes and if anyone declined to publish it on the front page they'd be restricting his freedom of expression. That's not the case.

Oh, well, over to the mods, then, although I guess that if any of them had anything to say about this matter it would have been said by now.

And at the end of the day, this isn't our site, it's their site. I'm not saying you don't contribute an awful lot to CBn, spy, because you do, but it's the mods who stump up moolah and do the behind-the-scenes legwork that allows the likes of yours truly to come on whenever he wishes and waffle about Stallone or whatever. If you do contribute to CBn beyond your posts and fanfic in terms of cash, knowhow or whatever, then I apologise, but the way I see it is that Jim isn't "us" - he's "them". And "they" evidently have no problem at all with the article of his that they're hosting.

[spynovelfan]

Oh, well, over to the mods, then, although I guess that if any of them had anything to say about this matter it would have been said by now.

And at the end of the day, this isn't our site, it's their site. I'm not saying you don't contribute an awful lot to CBn, spy, because you do, but it's the mods who stump up moolah and do the behind-the-scenes legwork that allows the likes of yours truly to come on whenever he wishes and waffle about Stallone or whatever. If you do contribute to CBn beyond your posts and fanfic in terms of cash, knowhow or whatever, then I apologise, but the way I see it is that Jim isn't "us" - he's "them". And "they" evidently have no problem at all with the article of his that they're hosting.

So it would seem. And no, I haven't paid any money toward the running of this site. Of course they're free to publish this sort of thing if they wish, and completely ignore any objections or provide any sort of justification to boot - but some people might decide not to visit the site anymore as a result.

[Santa]

And no, I haven't paid any money toward the running of this site. Of course they're free to publish this sort of thing if they wish, and completely ignore any objections or provide any sort of justification to boot - but some people might decide not to visit the site anymore as a result.

I really hope you're not one of those people. You've made your point very clearly and it's a very valid one and I hope that will be enough for you. Even if the article stands I hope it won't stop you visiting as you are one of the site's most valuable contributors and would be very sorely missed.

[Craig Arthur]

Oh, well, over to the mods, then, although I guess that if any of them had anything to say about this matter it would have been said by now.

And at the end of the day, this isn't our site, it's their site. I'm not saying you don't contribute an awful lot to CBn, spy, because you do, but it's the mods who stump up moolah and do the behind-the-scenes legwork that allows the likes of yours truly to come on whenever he wishes and waffle about Stallone or whatever. If you do contribute to CBn beyond your posts and fanfic in terms of cash, knowhow or whatever, then I apologise, but the way I see it is that Jim isn't "us" - he's "them". And "they" evidently have no problem at all with the article of his that they're hosting.

So it would seem. And no, I haven't paid any money toward the running of this site. Of course they're free to publish this sort of thing if they wish, and completely ignore any objections or provide any sort of justification to boot - but some people might decide not to visit the site anymore as a result.

Yes, but whether the moderators do have a responsibility to the reputation of the site. As Raymond himself has mentioned, the shame about this piece is that it gives the entire community of fans a bad name. And in my opinion anything on the main page should be of a very high standard. I work very hard to ensure that the articles I write for the main page are ground-breaking and well-written. If pieces like Jim's appear then it makes it harder for guest writers like myself to attract readers from, for argument's sake, EON or IFP. (The kind of contacts I would like to make).

Another related point: Jeremy is looking at this from a more enlighened position, that of view of a professional writer. Jim on the other hand understands what an aircraft is like on the drawing board but has little knowledge of actual flight. It so happens that many of the aspects of Raymond's novels that Jim likes to bludgeon him with were forced upon him by IFP. A writer of Bond continuations novels is essentially a hired gun answering to an employer.

Also, the moderators show a terrible irreponsibility to the readers/Benson fans with this article (but which nobody has mentioned) by not placing a spoiler warning before it. I am currently working my way through The Union Trilogy. I do not get much time for recreational reading after long hours in front of my laptop but having a trilogy of unread Bond novels is a nice diversion, even if I am reading it in very small bits. I am almost finished "Doubleshot" and am looking forward to "NDOD". But Jim has gone and given away the plot, villains identity and everything else!

Edited by Craig Arthur, 07 March 2009 - 11:05 PM.

[spynovelfan]

I really hope you're not one of those people. You've made your point very clearly and it's a very valid one and I hope that will be enough for you. Even if the article stands I hope it won't stop you visiting as you are one of the site's most valuable contributors and would be very sorely missed.

Thanks for that, Santa. But I'm mystified why anyone would think making a point would in itself be enough (it's been mentioned by a few people). I'd like the point to be addressed. I'm not saying 'scrub the article or I go'. But I'd at least like an answer as to why it was published, and why it's apparently not okay to be rude to moderators or any members in the forums, and yet perfectly fine to state in a front-page article that 'there’s pleasing speculation to be had and imagery to brainspunk that Mr Benson was forced to emit amateur p�rn at gunpoint and this is the spill, taking the ournal out of journalism'.

The piece is over the top, mean-spirited and presents the website in a very bad light. If the rationale for publishing it in its current form seems reasonable to me, or the piece is edited accordingly, I'm obviously happy to visit the site. If there isn't a reasonable rationale, but it's effectively 'Oh, it's Jim, and we'll do what we like' or 'It's an opinion piece, so we can throw all notions of respectfulness out of the window' or, worse, no response whatsoever - no, I won't be visiting the site anymore, and nor will I be submitting articles to it or collaborating with it. I'll find somewhere more responsible, run by people with editorial principles they can back up, respect for the subject they're tackling and an understanding of how to put that into practice.

So: I think I've made my point and it deserves some sort of an answer.

[Santa]

I'm not saying 'scrub the article or I go'.

It rather sounded like it. I'd be surprised if it is addressed at this point.

[MrKidd]

I’m new here and obviously don’t know the personalities or ‘politics’ of this place – but from what I see this is just an UNofficial fan site – UNofficial being the operative word. Plenty worse has been said about Star Wars, or Indiana Jones or Pierce Brosnan for that matter – fans can be pretty nasty, especially towards the thing they love! So the review is pretty unreadable (I for one stopped at paragraph 3) and seemingly written by someone who has an intensely smug sense of his supposed talent – so what? If you ask me (which you hadn’t), he’s embarrassed himself enough with this piece and his criticisms reflect the insecurities of his own abilities. But isn’t that true of any fan boy who goes off on one?! The ‘them’ and ‘us’ being referred to isn’t between the moderators and the posters. The ‘them’ are the professionals, who get paid to write, produce, act etc in the books, movies, TV shows the ‘us’ love to watch and then criticize from the comfort of our armchair. What have I missed?

Edited by MrKidd, 08 March 2009 - 12:04 AM.

[Loomis]

I'm not saying 'scrub the article or I go'.

It rather sounded like it.

If there isn't a reasonable rationale, but it's effectively 'Oh, it's Jim, and we'll do what we like' or 'It's an opinion piece, so we can throw all notions of respectfulness out of the window' or, worse, no response whatsoever - no, I won't be visiting the site anymore, and nor will I be submitting articles to it or collaborating with it. I'll find somewhere more responsible, run by people with editorial principles they can back up, respect for the subject they're tackling and an understanding of how to put that into practice.

So it's "respond to me, mods, or I go".

I'd be surprised if it is addressed at this point.

Me too. Which isn't to say that I don't think it should be addressed, but, again, that it would seem to be the way things are that it won't be. All non-mods/non-funders are here on sufferance - it's a blunt way of putting it, but it's true. Issuing ultimatums (ultimata?) is whistling in the wind. I'm not defending anyone. While I do know a few of the mods and regulars here in real life, I don't know Jim and have no reason to wish to please him. I'm just pointing out the reality of this site as I see it. Could it do x, y or z better? Sure. But it ain't my site.

Incidentally, if Benson were to see Jim's "review", he'd probably think: this guy probably thinks he's clever, but he's just an internet dork with way too much time on his hands, whereas I'm a published novelist who's given pleasure to a lot of people. Benson doesn't think he's Shakespeare and has coped with a lot of criticism before. You yourself will get bad reviews of your work. Not because your work is bad (indeed, I'm so convinced it's the opposite of bad that I've pre-ordered it), but because it's inevitable. There'll always be some clever-clogs out there who'll anonymously slam things on Amazon or wherever, and it doesn't matter if the author in question is Benson, Martin Amis or Ken Hom. It's not "nice". It's not "fair". But it's just how it is.