Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

The Impossible Job: Never Dream of Dying


223 replies to this topic

#91 spynovelfan

spynovelfan

    Commander CMG

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5855 posts

Posted 08 March 2009 - 01:49 AM

How frustating this has been!

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?


Welcome to CBn, MrKidd.

The first thing you've missed is reading the whole article and drawing your conclusions from that rather than the first three paragraphs. :) In my view, it goes well beyond typical fan criticism and veers into bullying. But I suggest making up your mind from the whole picture before weighing in.

I think you're right that a lot of fans can be very nasty about things they love, especially online, and there are plenty of sites likes that to visit. I choose not to visit sites like that, and this isn't usually one of them.

The second thing you've missed is the effect the article might have on the author whose work it is supposedly 'reviewing' but is in fact largely insulting. Why do the terms of use of this site say I can't insult you in these forums, and yet it's fine for those who run the site to give Raymond Benson a vicious kicking? Try not to give the knee-jerk reaction that says you can say what you want about 'famous people', and think it through - if someone reacted to your work this way, how would you feel? Deeply hurt if you're an amateur - but not too bothered if you're a professional? I can't see it. Other fans being vicious doesn't excuse being the same, and nor does being unofficial.

The third thing you've missed (sorry!) is that, while this site is indeed unofficial, Raymond Benson, Charlie Higson, Samantha Weinberg (a member of the forums at one point) and many other people connected with the official world of Bond have given their valuable time to it and agreed to be interviewed by it. Which is a great asset, and a great reason to visit it.

So I think it's really about what sort of website this place wants to be. If it wants to be somewhere that publishes mean-spirited piss-takes of Bond authors, so be it - I won't be visiting any longer and I suspect it might even be harder to get access to such people. (I could well be wrong on the last point, though.)

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


No. I think 'Please offer some sort of reasonable response to the several long-standing members of the site who have expressed their objections to this' would be more accurate.

You seem to be refusing to take any sort of stand on this - sure, it's wrong, but then that's just life, hey ho! - but at the same time putting forward several arguments that could retro-actively be seized on as the real reason I left ('Oh, yeah, spynovelfan, well, he had a fit because the mods wouldn't reply to him', 'he didn't understand that writers get bad reviews all the time - must be the publishing deal that went to his head', 'he started referring to himself in the third person in posts', etc). If it pleases you to think of it that way I can't stop you, of course, but I think the truth is that far from this being a case of my having some sort of petulant fit, as your phrasing suggests, I've expressed my objections to this piece very reasonably, and several other people clearly feel the same way. If I don't like the response I've received (none so far!), naturally I'll get the message that my opinions don't count for much and act accordingly.

Issuing ultimatums (ultimata?) is whistling in the wind.


It's not an ultimatum. I object to the article and have said why. In response to you pointing out that the owners of the site can do what they like with it, I simply pointed out that I can also choose not to visit it. That's how all websites work.

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.


Jim's article is more offensive than any review of the novel on Amazon by a long margin, and as I've said several times before this is not a harsh critique but a piss-take - they're not the same thing. Your equation of this site with anywhere else out on the net doesn't say much for the goals of the site, which I would hope are a little higher. Someone called "nick9155" gives NEVER DREAM OF DYING a scathing review on Amazon, saying it's 'incredibly disappointing and downright silly at times', and a whole lot more besides. However, I don't have any expectations of nick9155 - he's someone reviewing the book on Amazon, not on a well-respected James Bond fan site. I prefer to visit sites whose editorial content I appreciate. This site has terms and conditions attached (to the forums, anyway), and it has moderators. It is trying to attract people to Jim's review rather more than nick9155 is to his own. Nick9155 probably isn't going to get an interview with Raymond Benson any time soon - and neither is this site, I expect, now.

Your assumption that Raymond Benson 'probably' wouldn't be offended by this article if he read it is just that, an assumption: it's based on nothing but your desire to excuse the article at any cost ('It's just Jim', 'He's been here a while', 'They pay for it - if you don't like it you can shove off' 'Oh, you're shoving off? Ultimata are whistling in the wind' etc). I also strongly suspect you're wrong, for various reasons I won't go into, but it doesn't matter either way. It's still an over-the-top article in bad taste. I'm afraid guessing how offended the target might be isn't an editorial principle I approve of.

I'm sure you're right that I'll get bad reviews for my novel. I'm also sure I'll read every one, and I'm sure I'll dismiss the very negative ones as being the work of cranks, especially if they've made any spelling mistakes. :( However, if I ever reach the level of success where there are fan sites devoted to my work, I wouldn't collaborate with any that treated it like this.

#92 Mr. Blofeld

Mr. Blofeld

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9173 posts
  • Location:North Smithfield, RI, USA

Posted 08 March 2009 - 02:11 AM

I think this discussion has gone on for far too long without any response from the mods. They ought to provide their rationale for why Jim's article was put up in the first place. I understand that we are only here because they allow it to be so and I thank them for creating this website in the first place, but my opinion on this article has taken a major U-turn from when I first read it.

There's a real quality of geniality to this site that I'm not sure I could find anywhere else, so it feels a little off-putting to have up a scathing review that feels less CB.n and more the agony booth. :(

#93 MkB

MkB

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3864 posts

Posted 08 March 2009 - 02:36 AM

Actually, this thread made me review my opinion regarding the way authors' works should be treated. Thanks for that to all those who contributed!

First, I have to say that I am not a fan of Raymond Benson, and have read very few of him. Normally I wouldn't really care about the review of a book I haven't read, and I read Jim's review until the last bit only because it had provoked so many reactions.

My initial point of view was that if one should be kind to "RacingBentley", the fictional (?) 15 year-old fanfic writer from Norway, the same standard doesn't apply to a published author. Not for the sadistic pleasure of bashing "famous people", but because being sometimes harshly criticized comes with the commecial pressure put on the media to praise the published works; it's a matter of balance, so freedom of speech from a reviewer is a good thing to me. I understand that some in the CBn team have personal links to Raymond Benson, and I salute them for not interfering on the principle of a negative review of his work, for the sake of the freedom of speech.

That said, I am nevertheless not comfortable with Jim's review, because it is a big joke that makes fun of a book rather than analyses its flaws / qualities (maybe it does both, but it's the "makes fun" part that is the most visible). As Jim himself pointed out, a review is maybe more about the reviewer than the work reviewed, and in this case his piece functions as a creation in itself, thought out as a funny piece of writing. A funny piece of writing is very fine to me, but then does it have to use a real-life person and his work to be funny? I don't think so.

Many members of this forum have wreaked havoc on "real life" people (Pierce Brosnan is certainly the most common and consensual victim lately, but each actor has had its fair share). I don't have a problem with that, on a forum we can talk without anything getting too "official". If Jim's review was posted on a forum thread rather than as a front page article, I really believe that it would be more appropriate. Besides, the disclaimer in front of the article seems to me rather lame: instead of "may not represent", why not write that the article "does not represent the views of the owner or other team members of CommanderBond.net"? There's no degree of uncertainty there, and this applies to any review, not only Jim's one.

I really hope some more members of the CBn team will step out and react to this long and often thoroughly argumented discussion.

#94 MrKidd

MrKidd

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 328 posts
  • Location:New York

Posted 08 March 2009 - 03:25 AM

Thanks for the welcome, Spy.

I appreciate that you want this site to set a higher standard, but are you being wishful in your thinking? From the few threads I've contributed to since I joined, it seems to me that plenty of posters are quick to insult others - it gets pretty heated at the best of times.

As for Benson being overly insulted I honestly think he'd shrug it off. I've now read more of the review - it's an absurdly self-satisfied piece of writing that would be mocked by anyone with a shred of success to their name. The Reviewer obviously sees himself as a witty craftsman with his pen. Mmmmm, riiigghhhttt. What exactly has he had published lately? Anyhow, if it is true that official Bond-people have contributed to this site in the past then I would agree that they are less likely to if it's associated with this kind of amateur drivel.

#95 Greene Planet

Greene Planet

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 316 posts
  • Location:My house

Posted 08 March 2009 - 03:58 AM

Thanks for the welcome, Spy.

I appreciate that you want this site to set a higher standard, but are you being wishful in your thinking? From the few threads I've contributed to since I joined, it seems to me that plenty of posters are quick to insult others - it gets pretty heated at the best of times.

As for Benson being overly insulted I honestly think he'd shrug it off. I've now read more of the review - it's an absurdly self-satisfied piece of writing that would be mocked by anyone with a shred of success to their name. The Reviewer obviously sees himself as a witty craftsman with his pen. Mmmmm, riiigghhhttt. What exactly has he had published lately? Anyhow, if it is true that official Bond-people have contributed to this site in the past then I would agree that they are less likely to if it's associated with this kind of amateur drivel.


I agree wit you. I mean, Benson should really be insulted, its just Jim's own personal opinion, nothing else. Its not like he's out to get Benson.

#96 Vauxhall

Vauxhall

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10744 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 08 March 2009 - 04:11 AM

From the few threads I've contributed to since I joined, it seems to me that plenty of posters are quick to insult others - it gets pretty heated at the best of times.

For what it's worth, this is generally the most civil and friendly forum I have come across on the net. Any rudeness tends to be the exception rather than the rule.

#97 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 08 March 2009 - 12:06 PM

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


No. I think 'Please offer some sort of reasonable response to the several long-standing members of the site who have expressed their objections to this' would be more accurate.


I was responding to what you wrote.

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.

I'm not jumping to conclusions. I'm not seeking to invent reasons to retroactively "explain" why you left CBn (which hasn't even happened yet!). I'm not flashforwarding to your exit from this site and attempting to "retcon" history. I'm merely going by your own words. If I'm misunderstanding them, spell out why and I'll apologise to you, but you appeared to be stating that you'll quit CBn in the event that the mods don't give you "a reasonable rationale", or in the event that the mods do not even bother to respond to you. Hence my observation: "So it's 'respond to me, mods, or I go'."

You seem to be refusing to take any sort of stand on this - sure, it's wrong, but then that's just life, hey ho! - but at the same time putting forward several arguments that could retro-actively be seized on as the real reason I left ('Oh, yeah, spynovelfan, well, he had a fit because the mods wouldn't reply to him', 'he didn't understand that writers get bad reviews all the time - must be the publishing deal that went to his head', 'he started referring to himself in the third person in posts', etc). If it pleases you to think of it that way I can't stop you, of course, but I think the truth is that far from this being a case of my having some sort of petulant fit, as your phrasing suggests, I've expressed my objections to this piece very reasonably, and several other people clearly feel the same way.


Firstly, I have taken a stand on this (re-read my posts), not that taking a stand is obligatory. You may not like my stand. You may find it woolly, fence-sitting and poorly-thought-out, but it's still a stand. It just isn't the same as yours. Secondly, you are one of the most reasonable and least petulant people on this site, and I would never make remarks (either on these boards or in the real world) to the effect that you were petulant or that I thought your "publishing deal" (an expression that somehow implies you twisted people's arms into publishing your book rather than that they published it because they thought your work was good - you're not a charity) had gone to your head. That would be rude, assumption-strewn and bitchy, and that's just not me, although I appreciate that you probably don't know me well enough to know that. And, yes, you're correct that you've expressed your objections to this piece very reasonably, and several other people clearly feel the same way.

However, I'm reminded of something, and I'll underline it. Here goes:

I believe that Raymond Benson has contributed financially to CBn in the past.

Now, I don't have any hard fact to hand to back that up, but I seem to recall that CBn once had a list of donors (perhaps it's still available to read if one looks around), and that Benson's name was on it. Again, if I'm wrong, I'll apologise, but I don't think I am. Indeed, his was the only name from The Bond World™, if memory serves. Barbara Broccoli hasn't contributed cash to CBn. Neither have Pierce Brosnan or Daniel Craig. But Benson gave generously. Interesting, eh? Let me repeat:

I believe that Raymond Benson has contributed financially to CBn in the past.

I'd have mentioned that before, but I've only just remembered it. Now, let's rearrange the words "that", "hand", "you", "don't", "the", "bite" and "feeds".

#98 David Schofield

David Schofield

    Commander

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3026 posts

Posted 08 March 2009 - 12:47 PM

I wouldn't want to be a member of any website that censored personal opinion.

Particlarly not in the vain hope that it might encourage the Bond celebrity de jour - be it Benson, Craig, Higson, Weinberg and the rest - to contribute to the site.

Indeed, I'd hope the Bond celebrity would have far more self-respect than to merely be prepared to contribute to any site that told them they were the greatest gift to Bond and sucked up to them accordingly.

#99 Lazenby880

Lazenby880

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 937 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 08 March 2009 - 01:18 PM

I wouldn't want to be a member of any website that censored personal opinion.

I see your point David, but doesn't every forum censor personal opinion to some extent? Surely the problem with this is not the set of opinions which Jim shares, but rather the manner in which he has chosen to share them? I'm sure many of us laughed at several points. However it is very unfortunate that such evident talent is wasted on an extended and self-indulgent venting of what seems like personal bitterness. CBn is a place where one can have the most in-depth discussions about all sorts of issues related to Bond. The fact that many of those discussions are of a very high calibre, *especially* in relation to the literary side of Bond, is oneof the strong points about this website. To have a front page article which is effectively one long and winding diatribe detracts from this.

Perhaps the point of such an article was to be read. If so, it has succeeded. Perhaps the point was to provoke a reaction. Again, it is a success on those terms. Many of us will have been on the receiving end of Jim's acerbity and sometimes it is necessary to simply get over it, post less or simply not post at all. It is also true that this is part of a series of reviews. Yet if you look at the previous reviews I believe spynovelfan is correct. Those were of a different tone, despite still being negative overall. The review under discussion is, unfortunately, extremely nasty. As has been pointed out, it clearly violates CBn's code of conduct, a code of conduct which moderators ostensibly uphold.

We will all have written things in the past that, in retrospect, we regret. The mature response is to learn from those errors of judgement. However, the reviewer doesn't appear to feel there are any errors of judgement in the review. Experience would suggest that the moderators will not get involved - I'm not sure that they will have read the review in any event. Therefore those who are uncomfortable with this sort of thing will have to decide whether to simply get over it, post less or simply not post at all. It is a shame such a choice has to be made on an otherwise quality website.

Edited by Lazenby880, 08 March 2009 - 01:20 PM.


#100 David Schofield

David Schofield

    Commander

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3026 posts

Posted 08 March 2009 - 01:24 PM

I wouldn't want to be a member of any website that censored personal opinion.

I see your point David, but doesn't every forum censor personal opinion to some extent? Surely the problem with this is not the set of opinions which Jim shares, but rather the manner in which he has chosen to share them?


Sorry, Lazenby 880 (and others), I just don't see any problem with what Jim wtote, that's the thing. Surely, it was agressive (in Jim's unique way) but it was an attack on Benson's writing, NOT on Benson personally. And Benson chose to present NDOD to us.

PS - good to see you back here, Lazenby 880, and ironically supporting Mr B. when I understand part of your reason for dropping out in the past was the very hardline support for Benson some on CBN advocate... B)

#101 Hitch

Hitch

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1219 posts

Posted 08 March 2009 - 01:25 PM

My head hurts.

#102 Joyce Carrington

Joyce Carrington

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4631 posts
  • Location:Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Posted 08 March 2009 - 01:27 PM

I don't have a problem with Jim's article at all, and I'm starting to feel like maybe I'm just stupid? As a lot of intelligent members I respect a great deal here on CBn seem to disagree with it.

I found Jim's piece hilarious. Because I didn't take it too seriously. I mean, I take it seriously that Jim didn't like NDOD, but it's the way the article was written that I don't take too seriously. I don't view it as bullying. I don't think Jim has anything personal against Mr. Benson. I even think he respects him as a writer, it's just that Mr. Benson's work mostly isn't Jim's cup of tea. Fair enough. I just don't see the bullying, I'm afraid.

But as I said, this thread is making me question myself. Should I be taking the way it was written seriously?

Anyway, I think I do have to agree with David Schofield on freedom of speech. I view myself as a writer so I can understand that Mr. Benson may be bothered or even hurt by the article, but at the end of the day, Jim should write whatever the hell he wants to. Whether Mr. Benson contributed to this site or not.

#103 Hitch

Hitch

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1219 posts

Posted 08 March 2009 - 01:31 PM

Now it really hurts. B)

#104 spynovelfan

spynovelfan

    Commander CMG

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5855 posts

Posted 08 March 2009 - 02:05 PM

For the sake of clarity, Loomis, I've not made any ultimatum. You said the owners of this site can publish what they like and I pointed out the obvious flip-side to that, which is that their decisions don't exist in a vacuum because if people don't like the way they run the site they might choose not to visit it. Several longstanding members of these forums - Hitch, Lazenby880, Craig Arthur, Dr Shatterhand, Mr.Blofeld and a few others if you read between the lines - have expressed concerns with the article in this thread, but the moderators have so far chosen to ignore all of them. I don't think that gives a good impression, especially as most of the concerns have been expressed very reasonably. So it's not an ultimatum, but 'Please could you at least address some of the concerns several of your longstanding visitors have?'

David and Joyce, I don't agree with your equation of this to freedom of speech. If I submitted an offensive rant to the site and they chose not to publish it, they wouldn't be impinging on my freedom of speech or censoring me. They would be exercising their editorial judgement, as newspapers, magazines and websites do every day of the week.

These forums have terms of use. It's true that Raymond Benson put NDOD out there, but as I've said before, people's work is personal, and there are limits to how offensive one should be about it, and editorial judgement comes into play there. Joyce, if someone wrote a response to one of your pieces of fiction in which, at great length and with much glee, they mocked it, called it awful, and speculated that you might have been forced to have written amateur p�rn at gunpoint, I very much doubt you'd have seen the joke or thought they respected you as a writer, especially if it had been published on the main page of a very widely read website. I think it's easy to say you wouldn't mind, especially when there seems to be an inbuilt idea that it's fine to do it to someone who's a professional but not if they're an amateur, but I'd urge you to think how you'd really react to such treatment, and then consider why it is that something along those lines wouldn't be allowed in the fan fiction forum of this site, but is allowed on the front page. Raymond Benson, like you, is a writer, and I think he deserves some respect. I do think there's a difference between funny and harsh criticism - the previous articles in this series - and a mean-spirited piss-take that abandons a basic level of respect for the writer, which is what this is. (The idea that I'm advocating slavish devotion to Bond figures suggests you haven't read my other posts here, David. Oh well - it appears few others have either!)

#105 Joyce Carrington

Joyce Carrington

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4631 posts
  • Location:Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Posted 08 March 2009 - 02:31 PM

Joyce, if someone wrote a response to one of your pieces of fiction in which, at great length and with much glee, they mocked it, called it awful [...] I think it's easy to say you wouldn't mind...


Oh, I would mind. I would crawl into the foetal position and feel depressed for weeks, but I wouldn't feel the website should remove the article. The reviewer would be allowed to speak his mind.

Anyway, I'm still on the fence as to whether Jim's article was truly disrespectful.

I would welcome some comment from the mods too, at this point... B)

#106 Santa

Santa

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6445 posts
  • Location:Valencia

Posted 08 March 2009 - 02:43 PM

My head hurts.


My knee hurts and I think it's spreading to my head.

#107 Hitch

Hitch

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1219 posts

Posted 08 March 2009 - 02:54 PM

Joyce, if someone wrote a response to one of your pieces of fiction in which, at great length and with much glee, they mocked it, called it awful [...] I think it's easy to say you wouldn't mind...


Oh, I would mind. I would crawl into the foetal position and feel depressed for weeks, but I wouldn't feel the website should remove the article. The reviewer would be allowed to speak his mind.


But what if Raymond Benson or any author were to suffer the same reaction as you describe because of such an article? You might not mind - but can you say that neither would anyone else? Might it not be best to err on the side of caution? There is nothing wrong with a penetrating piece of criticism, as Jim's previous reviews have shown, but it would reflect better on CBn if the moderators remembered that good manners and discretion go a long way to making this site such a pleasant place to visit. Jim, who I admire greatly, is perfectly at liberty to post whatever he likes on his own website, but I would suggest that CBn has a wider responsibility to its readership - of all ages. Furthermore, a bowdlerised (detestable word, I admit) version of his review would still be an asset.

#108 David Schofield

David Schofield

    Commander

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3026 posts

Posted 08 March 2009 - 03:19 PM

(The idea that I'm advocating slavish devotion to Bond figures suggests you haven't read my other posts here, David. Oh well - it appears few others have either!)


Clearly you haven't been advocating slavishness, Spy.

But there are degrees - at what point can the person critiqued say that "that's a bit too OTT for me" and have a review cut? (Or I won't contribute to CBN because they might CRITICISE, not applaud, my work.) It is, a case of interpretation: JC and I find Jim's review perefectly reasonbable.

Hell, Zencat was suggesting that if the person critiqued didn't like what was being said, he was entitled to put the critic on his backside!

#109 Lazenby880

Lazenby880

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 937 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 08 March 2009 - 03:45 PM

Sorry, Lazenby 880 (and others), I just don't see any problem with what Jim wtote, that's the thing. Surely, it was agressive (in Jim's unique way) but it was an attack on Benson's writing, NOT on Benson personally. And Benson chose to present NDOD to us.

First of all, thanks for the welcome David. B)

I guess this is where we depart. I feel that Jim's 'review' did overstep the mark. You are right. He does not explicitly attack Benson as an individual. Nevertheless I am still very uncomfortable with the vitriolic, bitter and nasty way in which this essay has been written. It doesn't critique Benson's novel. It is just a long, for want of a better expression, taking the michael of Benson's novel. There is a basic level of human decency and courtesy which is not evident anywhere in this essay.

You are quite right - I am not a fan of Benson's work at all. People should not be attacked for expressing dislike of a particular novel. However I do think there is a level of decorum that is especially necessary a ) from a moderator, and b ) on a front page article. Moreover, I know you will say it isn't personal and that, even if it were, the only character Jim assassinates is his own. But as Hitch says, CBn does arguably have a wider responsibility.

I doubt moderators will defend their editorial decision because I doubt there is an editorial decision to defend. As mentioned, some of it is funny but it doesn't read as though it has been edited at all. I could be wrong, of course, but it was probably just posted on the front page with little, or no, prior discussion regarding its content. Again, this is unfortunate, as despite the 'opinion' tag it is representative of CBn and it does clearly violate a number of CBn's own terms and conditions.

I've now read more of the review - it's an absurdly self-satisfied piece of writing that would be mocked by anyone with a shred of success to their name. The Reviewer obviously sees himself as a witty craftsman with his pen. Mmmmm, riiigghhhttt. What exactly has he had published lately? Anyhow, if it is true that official Bond-people have contributed to this site in the past then I would agree that they are less likely to if it's associated with this kind of amateur drivel.

I agree with you MrKidd in terms of the content of the review. It may indeed be wishful thinking to hope for higher standards on the internet, which of course allows people to get away with all sorts of things professional newspapers and journals would not dream of publishing. My concern is that this is a front page article which does not live up to a very basic standard of manners and decency. If someone else had written such a thing on the forums I do think it would have been removed. That it appears on the front page, written by someone who can write well, is surprising from what is an otherwise pleasant place to discuss Bond.

Edited by Lazenby880, 08 March 2009 - 03:52 PM.


#110 ACE

ACE

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4543 posts

Posted 08 March 2009 - 03:58 PM

But read what spynovelfan is actually saying.

Regardless of what one thinks is the benefit of Raymond Benson's James Bond writing (or, for that matter, that of the entity that is "Jim"), this site has rules and codes of conduct that apply to forum posters. Those rules, naturally, are to keep the place civil. It is arguable that there is a greater responsibility for i) the moderators to follow them and ii) for any Front Page article to be in line with its own rules.

I think the point holds fair about reviewing any James Bond art, literature or works. And I think, generally, the reviewers are cognisant of it.

What spynovelfan appears to asking for is guidance as to what the CBn policy actually is in light of there being an obvious breach of the rules laid down for all on this site when it comes to one of the moderators running a front page article. I think it is a fair point which has not been answered despite repeated, reasonable requests. I, for one, would like to know the answer.

It is not about Raymond Benson's Bond, freedom of speech, censorship, sucking up or down or even sucking clitori*. It is about a person writing on James Bond fan site (not a general literature site or general film site, but a James Bond fan site) in flagrant breach of the rules that it lays down for others.

I don't think spynovelfan is issuing ultimatums ("remove or I go"). It is disingenous to make that connection. I think he is merely saying, please provide guidance on this specific, apparent inequity as it bothers not only me but other fans too. I think spynovelfan is right in a number of his points. I'm not going to quote Edmund Burke.

No-one is saying CBn is not an extraordinarily good site run by volunteers who work very hard but who ultimately, in the manner of any gratis, internet website, do not have to account for their editorial disconnect to the site users. It is like a gentleman's club in that respect, with rules for the members but not the heirarchy.

Such thoughtful anguish emanates from the fact that because of the high standards of the site, a well-written but unfair article (unfair as judged by the site's very own rules) by a Moderator on the Front Page sours the palette a little. Sours the palette for a fellow writer, artist, James Bond fan, spy novel fan, internet community member and site-contributor. There is a bigger picture. Something that does affect one's moral compass does cause one to challenge the direction.

There has been no clarification on the site's editorial policy despite repeated requests for guidance. I think the request is fair but there doesn't seem to be any requirement for the site to provide it. No one can force the issue.

Personally, I prefer it when "Jim" turns that great, scary, ascerbic talent of his towards the many things he must like about the world of James Bond. When he does so, it is scintillating ...

Whoops, sorry!!!!!!!!!!

Quantum Of Solace reviewed by Jim

The Man With The Golden Gun examined by Jim

*reference to Jim's front page article for those that haven't read it.

#111 David Schofield

David Schofield

    Commander

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3026 posts

Posted 08 March 2009 - 04:26 PM

It is not about Raymond Benson's Bond, freedom of speech, censorship, sucking up or down or even sucking clitori. It is about a person writing on James Bond fan site (not a general literature site or general film site, but a James Bond fan site) in flagrant breach of the rules that it lays down for others.


Well, I haven't read the CBN rule book on what's allowed in postings.

But then I've always worked on a principal of reasonable common decency in communicating with others. Here and in life. And I see no way in which Jim has gone beyond that in his review.

Or am I just being thick skinned?

#112 MarkA

MarkA

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 697 posts
  • Location:South East, England

Posted 08 March 2009 - 04:41 PM

Well, I haven't read the CBN rule book on what's allowed in postings.

But then I've always worked on a principal of reasonable common decency in communicating with others. Here and in life. And I see no way in which Jim has gone beyond that in his review.

Or am I just being thick skinned?


I am with you on this one. All I can see that someone had the b**l* to write far my lucidly than I could my very own opinion of Benson. I am really not worried whether I ever met Benson at all, so I am not too worried saying that Jim's review was pretty spot on. Thank you.

Edited by MarkA, 08 March 2009 - 04:42 PM.


#113 zencat

zencat

    Commander GCMG

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 25814 posts
  • Location:Studio City, CA

Posted 08 March 2009 - 04:44 PM

Hell, Zencat was suggesting that if the person critiqued didn't like what was being said, he was entitled to put the critic on his backside!

Well, as entitled as the law allows. B)

#114 ACE

ACE

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4543 posts

Posted 08 March 2009 - 04:50 PM

David, there is this true story of two famous international lawyers who were negotiating a peace settlement. Those who've read about it will remember that this was to solve the outbreak of hostilities in Lower Lomdardia after the incident with the Polaris and the panda.

The lawyers, Relgis Williams, a native-English speaker and Jaap Henek, a brilliant, but non-native English speaker took a cigarette break, relieved after many intense hours of discussion. They believed they had achieved a conclusion.

As they smoked their Balkan Sobranies, Williams asked, "So, we have a gentleman's agreement?"

Henek was perplexed. "What's a 'gentleman's agreement'?" he asked.

Williams thought for a moment and then answered, truthfully. "Well, it's not an agreement and it's not between gentlemen..."

#115 Hitch

Hitch

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1219 posts

Posted 08 March 2009 - 05:13 PM

All I can see that someone had the b**l* to write far my lucidly than I could my very own opinion of Benson.


Is that Benson the man or Benson the writer? The distinction is pertinent to this thread.

#116 MarkA

MarkA

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 697 posts
  • Location:South East, England

Posted 08 March 2009 - 05:57 PM

Is that Benson the man or Benson the writer? The distinction is pertinent to this thread.

I think that is Benson's writing. I have never met him so I form no opinion of him as a person.

Edited by MarkA, 08 March 2009 - 05:57 PM.


#117 Mr. Blofeld

Mr. Blofeld

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9173 posts
  • Location:North Smithfield, RI, USA

Posted 08 March 2009 - 07:23 PM

PS - good to see you back here, Lazenby 880, and ironically supporting Mr B. when I understand part of your reason for dropping out in the past was the very hardline support for Benson some on CBN advocate... :tdown:

Do you mean me? B)

#118 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 08 March 2009 - 07:31 PM

I don't think spynovelfan is issuing ultimatums ("remove or I go"). It is disingenous to make that connection. I think he is merely saying, please provide guidance on this specific, apparent inequity as it bothers not only me but other fans too.


Yes, but he has stated explicitly that he will cease to have anything to do with CBn in the event that the moderators continue to greet his points with a wall of silence. He is not merely saying "please provide guidance on this specific, apparent inequity as it bothers not only me but other fans too" - he is saying "please provide guidance on this specific, apparent inequity as it bothers not only me but other fans too, otherwise I shall wash my hands of this site".

I appreciate that spy's main concern is that his points be addressed by The CBn Team™. It's not as though he's looking for an excuse to stop coming to CBn (I presume). But I talk about an ultimatum based on what he has written. An ultimatum is defined as a case of "I request that you do such-and-such, otherwise, in the case of your non-compliance, I shall respond in such-and-such a way". That fits the bill here.

That there has been no clarification on the site's editorial policy despite repeated requests for guidance. I think the request is fair but there doesn't seem to be any requirement for the site to provide it. No one can force the issue.


Which is more or less what I was trying to say.

#119 clinkeroo

clinkeroo

    Commander

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 818 posts
  • Location:Detroit, home of the Purple Gang

Posted 08 March 2009 - 07:32 PM

JIM,

Udderly hilarious B) . As someone who’s spent some time milking our bovine friends, my stomach physically hurt at one point from laughing.

The only thing that makes me sad is that you didn't skewer the "Che Che is back from the dead" zombie angle.

#120 clinkeroo

clinkeroo

    Commander

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 818 posts
  • Location:Detroit, home of the Purple Gang

Posted 08 March 2009 - 07:53 PM

Good God.

I simply just read the article, linked to the comments, and dropped a blurb. Now I'm reading the feedback, and it appears a whole lot of people whom I respect, have lost their frickin' minds for the moment.

People here know I support Benson for the most part. He's a nice guy who's always done right by me, who truly loves the character in all incarnations, and I for one, think that love shows through in his books in positive ways. But I would be very sad indeed, if the chance to read a critical piece by JIM, is taken away from us.

I know this is the last thing that people here are trying to do, but it may end up in defacto censorship. After this little B)-storm (couldn't resist), JIM may be less inclined to write another review, or the site may be less inclined to post one to the front page.

I know that it is just a matter of seeking equality or consistency in articles and postings, and that few want works to be censored, but to take it to this extent may have undesired results.

Just slap a warning label on the rascal so we can get back to talking about Bond.