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.