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?