223 replies to this topic

[spynovelfan]

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".

After repeatedly asking the first question and receiving no response from moderators, you pointed out to me that it's their site so they can do what they like, as if that were the issue. I pointed out that people can also choose not to visit websites if they don't approve of the way they're run. That wasn't an ultimatum, but simply pointing out to you that it's not a one-sided deal.

For the (hopefully) complete avoidance of doubt, I don't believe I've issued any ultimatums but if I have I unissue them, and simply ask again: moderators, please could you provide guidance on this specific, apparent inequity as it bothers not only me but other fans, too? Thanks.

[ACE]

Oy vey! The impossible job, indeed!
And Blondie Craig thought he had problems!

[MkB]

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

About... who?

[marktmurphy]

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.

Sorry- what? Where did I say otherwise? You're the one who said I should be saying the exact same thing about both; I'm the one pointing out that they're different. I'm not sure of your comprehension abilities.

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

Well, I wouldn't entirely disagree there. He can be overly florid. An editor is definitely required.

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.

Not exclusively, no. You posted the different meanings of it yourself. How strange that you've forgotten them already.

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.

It's kinaesthetic imagery. The strict meaning of the word isn't used here. I find it bizarre that you've never come across any form of prose which hasn't used it. What kind of books do you read usually? I would encourage you to try reading some poetry sometime- I think it'll be a real eye-opener for you.

[Zorin Industries]

Zorin is lost. Such vitriol and too-ing and fro-ing never happens when I get involved...!?!

And did ACE use the phrase "clitori" somewhere there...? Are you saying there is more than one?!! I missed my female anatomy class. I was in the school toilets reading some Raymond Benson tie-in er "novel".

[Santa]

And did ACE use the phrase "clitori" somewhere there...? Are you saying there is more than one?!!

If only!

[Zorin Industries]

Is it me or do most of the titles for Benson's Bond "novels" or whatevers just sound like early 1990 TV movies about revenge starring Morgan Fairchild...? Titles are not his strong point - in Bond and beyond (in fact I'm surprised he's not yet used "Bond And Beyond" AS a title).

And why is THE UNION TRILOGY called that when it is formed of four titles?

[Doctor Shatterhand]

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

Well, I wouldn't entirely disagree there. He can be overly florid. An editor is definitely required.

Finally we agree on something. That's what is needed on Jim's critique and what I have been trying to explain. A decent edit where constructive criticism remains and the overtly mean-spirited piffle removed. It is not needed, it is hurtful, and it is beneath CBn's dignity. Also, an apology to Raymond Benson from the moderators would be nice touch as well.

[Doctor Shatterhand]

Is it me or do most of the titles for Benson's Bond "novels" or whatevers just sound like early 1990 TV movies about revenge starring Morgan Fairchild...? Titles are not his strong point - in Bond and beyond (in fact I'm surprised he's not yet used "Bond And Beyond" AS a title).

And why is THE UNION TRILOGY called that when it is formed of four titles?

The three novels in this omnibus involves the evil organization known as THE UNION. An added bonus is the short story Blast from the Past which Benson wrote before Zero Minus Ten.

As for titles, Raymond probably did not have total control over that. As did John Gardner, who I interviewed, would suggest a possibility but the publishers were the ones who ultimately chose the title.

Personally I like the title DoubleShot.

[Zorin Industries]

Is it me or do most of the titles for Benson's Bond "novels" or whatevers just sound like early 1990 TV movies about revenge starring Morgan Fairchild...? Titles are not his strong point - in Bond and beyond (in fact I'm surprised he's not yet used "Bond And Beyond" AS a title).

And why is THE UNION TRILOGY called that when it is formed of four titles?

The three novels in this omnibus involves the evil organization known as THE UNION. An added bonus is the short story Blast from the Past which Benson wrote before Zero Minus Ten.

As for titles, Raymond probably did not have total control over that. As did John Gardner, who I interviewed, would suggest a possibility but the publishers were the ones who ultimately chose the title.

I'm not doubting what you say but that seems a bit weak on Benson's part. Surely if he'd come up with stunning titles then they would have been upheld?

[Mister Asterix]

Alright, first I apologise that I have not responded in this thread earlier. I’ve had other non-related things I’ve been dealing with.


Second, I made the call to put this article up, and I’ll stand by it. I wish we had more articles like it, albeit with differing opinions. And I’ll invite any of you to submit your own examinations of Benson’s or any other Bond related works.

I personally loved Benson’s books, and thoroughly enjoyed Never Dream Of Dying. I also met Mr Benson recently and found him a very nice man and had a great extended conversation with him. And I won’t lie to you and tell you that it didn’t weigh heavily on me that I knew this article would hurt Mr Benson even though it is but the opinions of one man. But I also think it is clearly spelt out in the first half of the article that it is not intended to be an assault on Mr Benson, and that Jim means no ill will toward him.
I also know that Jim was worried about about what Mr Benson would think.

I also know that Jim was brought on to the CBn team precisely because he offers a differing opinion than what might be turned out by fanboys such as myself. Honestly I wish we had more differing opinions, and I wish I had Jim’s ability to express opinion to offer my own more often.

Sorry, if it’s brutal, but I did feel if this article was going to run it needed to run nearly unedited. I don’t think we would have integrity if we were afraid to put up something we know would have a backlash.

I’m sure I’ll address this more when I have more time, but know that if Jim gives it to me I will put up The Impossible Job VI.

[Zorin Industries]

And a great many people's faith in a site like this has been restored, reaffirmed and reinforced by Mister Asterix's views there.

Just because someone's opinions differ from the norm doesn't mean they should not - if well thought out and conveyed - be offered as a counterpoint.

I for one do not want to take part in a site like CBN if it is to solely brown nose instead of discuss, evaluate and sometimes differ. As someone who has come late to this thread and will probably leave it before the lights go up, I find it very one-sided if someone like Benson CANNOT be criticised and reviewed but it is perfectly acceptable to slam Brosnan, certain Bond films and certain Bond film directors. It is as if that sort of scorn is okay until some people's safe little fan world is threatened by an opinion that believes the sun does not shine from Benson's gunbarrel.

Perspective should be used at all times. I think Mister Asterix today has just demonstrated a greater ability at that than some here on CBN are prone to do.

[Hitch]

With respect, that seems to be an almost wilful misunderstanding of the issue. I don't want to get involved in a tedious online shouting match, but I am disappointed by the response from CBn and some members. It's not what was said but how it was said that is the problem. I'm all for criticism and I don't believe in sacred cows. Is it too much to ask for polite discourse?

[spynovelfan]

Alright, first I apologise that I have not responded in this thread earlier. I’ve had other non-related things I’ve been dealing with.


Second, I made the call to put this article up, and I’ll stand by it. I wish we had more articles like it, albeit with differing opinions. And I’ll invite any of you to submit your own examinations of Benson’s or any other Bond related works.

I personally loved Benson’s books, and thoroughly enjoyed Never Dream Of Dying. I also met Mr Benson recently and found him a very nice man and had a great extended conversation with him. And I won’t lie to you and tell you that it didn’t weigh heavily on me that I knew this article would hurt Mr Benson even though it is but the opinions of one man. But I also think it is clearly spelt out in the first half of the article that it is not intended to be an assault on Mr Benson, and that Jim means no ill will toward him.
I also know that Jim was worried about about what Mr Benson would think.

I also know that Jim was brought on to the CBn team precisely because he offers a differing opinion than what might be turned out by fanboys such as myself. Honestly I wish we had more differing opinions, and I wish I had Jim’s ability to express opinion to offer my own more often.

Sorry, if it’s brutal, but I did feel if this article was going to run it needed to run nearly unedited. I don’t think we would have integrity if we were afraid to put up something we know would have a backlash.

I’m sure I’ll address this more when I have more time, but know that if Jim gives it to me I will put up The Impossible Job VI.

Thanks for the response, Mister Asterix - much appreciated.

I must admit to being disappointed by it, though. I actually thought the site might do the proper thing here, and either edit or remove the article. I think that would have shown integrity. I don't think that publishing a very over-the-top and cruel pisstake of someone who has contributed both to the Bond world and to this site, both in terms of his time and in auctioning off one of short stories and donating proceeds from that to help it in a time of trouble (http://commanderbond.net/article/2190), and 'braving' the fact that some people might object to that, is any sort of integrity at all. At least, not the sort I've come to expect from this place. For the sake of clarity and posters like Zorin Industries, who either haven't read the article or this thread or both, the point made by several here has never been that CBn shouldn't publish tough criticism of Bond-related stuff, but that it should always aim to do it with class and a sense of fair play - and the rules it has itself set down for the forums! If it is really true that Jim was wringing his hands that his piece might cause offence, I think he might have taken more care with how he wrote it. The last paragraphs of the piece are especially offensive, I think: this is far from a harsh critical review, but someone gleefully and complacently making fun of a fellow author's work. It's well over the line, and I hoped that some reflection might have made the people who run the site realize this.

The terms of use of these forums forbid anyone from skirting the auto-censor: I presume this is because you are aware that there are a lot of young and impressionable Bond fans around the world who might read what is written here, and you want to give a good impression? Can I ask why that standard doesn't apply to articles on the front page? Similarly, the terms of the forums state that we can't insult each other or the moderators of the site. Both Jim and Raymond Benson are writers, and have written Bond short stories, for instance: why does the fact that Mr Benson's were published mean that all the usual standards of criticism are thrown out of the window? Would you really have allowed such a piece to have been posted and stood as it is in the fan fiction forums? Why not? I think there are several people here who would appreciate a follow-up answer when you or any other moderator has the time. Thanks.

[Loomis]

I don't think that publishing a very over-the-top and cruel pisstake of someone who has contributed both to the Bond world and to this site, both in terms of his time and in auctioning off one of short stories and donating proceeds from that to help it in a time of trouble (http://commanderbond.net/article/2190), and 'braving' the fact that some people might object to that, is any sort of integrity at all.

You know, you do have a point, spy.

And, as expected, the official answer from the moderating team appears to be: it's Jim, so he can do what he likes. Told ya.

[Doctor Shatterhand]

As for titles, Raymond probably did not have total control over that. As did John Gardner, who I interviewed, would suggest a possibility but the publishers were the ones who ultimately chose the title.

I'm not doubting what you say but that seems a bit weak on Benson's part. Surely if he'd come up with stunning titles then they would have been upheld?

Not necessarily. I believe that Benson and Gardner initially both came up with excellent titles but the publishers would balk and decide on something different and even though Gardner or Benson ultimately came up with the title, it was probably the third or fourth suggestion that Glidrose approved.

Gardner emailed me back in 2003 for an online interview and this was his answer about the titles:

John Gardner: In spite of all the stories and chatter I think I did most of them (titles). Others have claimed to have provided titles but I think Glidrose and Putnam only gave about two (and I couldn't tell you which ones they were). You have to remember that there were huge pressures on me. I really couldn't do as I wanted. It was like being in a straight jacket as far as writing was concerned. When we came to the editing phase I was edited three or four different ways ­ By Glidrose, then the British publisher (Richard Cohen wanted me to completely rewrite and re-set the first book): then the American publisher. I was sliced and diced every time. It was as though everyone wanted to get into the act and, nearly always, it started with the title which made me very suspicious. I've always thought that an editor who begins a meeting with the words, "I'm not certain about the title," is the kiss of death. I can remember only one title that was flatly denied me ­ BLONDES PREFER GENTLEMEN. I still think it's a good Bond title.

So with all due respect, I would give any official writer of the series some considerable room when it comes to the critiques of their work. Unlike Fleming who pushed the envelope and set the standard, the OO7 books of today are published by a committee.

I don't think that publishing a very over-the-top and cruel pisstake of someone who has contributed both to the Bond world and to this site, both in terms of his time and in auctioning off one of short stories and donating proceeds from that to help it in a time of trouble (http://commanderbond.net/article/2190), and 'braving' the fact that some people might object to that, is any sort of integrity at all.

You know, you do have a point, spy.

And, as expected, the official answer from the moderating team appears to be: it's Jim, so he can do what he likes. Told ya.

And the response from those who disagree with the mods is: "What a shame, this website use to have class and now only caters to two-face hit and run writers."

[zencat]

So with all due respect, I would give any official writer of the series some considerable room when it comes to the critiques of their work. Unlike Fleming who pushed the envelope and set the standard, the OO7 books of today are published by a committee.

I actually think Gardner and Benson suffered much greater constraints than the authors do today. In our interviews, both Charlie Higson and Samantha Weinberg give the impression that they were given a surprising amount of freedom, at least from IFP. And, obviously, Faulks was given great freedom. Wonder if he was even edited?

[Lazenby880]

And, as expected, the official answer from the moderating team appears to be: it's Jim, so he can do what he likes. Told ya.

This is correct Loomis. It is unfortunate that there is not a more rational reasoning for the sort of unapologetic nastiness and clear flouting of CBn's *own rules* found in the original 'review'. Many points raised by snf initially have not been addressed. I agree with Hitch: "It's not what was said but how it was said that is the problem. I'm all for criticism and I don't believe in sacred cows. Is it too much to ask for polite discourse?" No-one is asking for slavish fawning of anything. All that is being asked for is a very ordinary level of decency and decorum. I don't think this is too much to ask of anyone here, and certainly isn't too much to ask of a moderator who is supposed to uphold the very rules on the forums he breaks in his essay.

Moreover, it seems that if another essay of a similar tone is produced it will be put on the front page without hesitation. Personally I think this damages the site substantially.

[Doctor Shatterhand]

So with all due respect, I would give any official writer of the series some considerable room when it comes to the critiques of their work. Unlike Fleming who pushed the envelope and set the standard, the OO7 books of today are published by a committee.

I actually think Gardner and Benson suffered much greater constraints than the authors do today. In our interviews, both Charlie Higson and Samantha Weinberg give the impression that they were given a surprising amount of freedom, at least from IFP. And, obviously, Faulks was given great freedom. Wonder if he was even edited?

Perhaps you're right. Gardner and Benson were under the old flag of Glidrose.

[Zorin Industries]

And, as expected, the official answer from the moderating team appears to be: it's Jim, so he can do what he likes. Told ya.

This is correct Loomis. It is unfortunate that there is not a more rational reasoning for the sort of unapologetic nastiness and clear flouting of CBn's *own rules* found in the original 'review'. Many points raised by snf initially have not been addressed. I agree with Hitch: "It's not what was said but how it was said that is the problem. I'm all for criticism and I don't believe in sacred cows. Is it too much to ask for polite discourse?" No-one is asking for slavish fawning of anything. All that is being asked for is a very ordinary level of decency and decorum. I don't think this is too much to ask of anyone here, and certainly isn't too much to ask of a moderator who is supposed to uphold the very rules on the forums he breaks in his essay.

Moreover, it seems that if another essay of a similar tone is produced it will be put on the front page without hesitation. Personally I think this damages the site substantially.

I don't see what the fuss is about(!).

Okay. I can see why there would be a fuss - having read the piece - but Jim is VERY clear - if not annoying clear and repetitive - that this is HIS (what for it) "opinion".... He could certainly cut to the chase more effectively and not get so bitter about it all. But his perceptions and opinions of the book are justified when you read his extrated examples and reasoning.

And - putting aside the idea that Benson is or is not a CBN supporter of note - I didn't see much evidence of him being rude about the guy. Acidic yes. But not personal.

If Jim is guilty of anything then it is over-writing. Not something you can level at Benson (if you are to accept Jim's "opinions").

EDIT :

I take it all back. I've read it all again and Jim disses BLAST FROM THE PAST...? (!). Where is Jim's table at the CBN bar as I'm going to drag his hide out to the CBN parking lot and show him my "opinion"!!

What a (COCKNEY NAN) liberty!

[MkB]

I don't see what the fuss is about(!).

Okay. I can see why there would be a fuss - having read the piece - but Jim is VERY clear - if not annoying clear and repetitive - that this is HIS (what for it) "opinion".... He could certainly cut to the chase more effectively and not get so bitter about it all. But his perceptions and opinions of the book are justified when you read his extrated examples and reasoning.

This is how I see it: it would be HIS opinion (in capital letters) if it was posted in a forum thread. If posted on a front page article, to a certain extent CBn takes some responsibilities in it.

And - putting aside the idea that Benson is or is not a CBN supporter of note - I didn't see much evidence of him being rude about the guy. Acidic yes. But not personal.

Please note that I suspect my opinion of the novel might very well be the same as Jim's, had I read it; this is not the point, as SNF repeated earlier. It's the form of the expression, not the opinion itself.

Actually, this reminds me of a former teacher of mine, who enjoyed taking a nasty pleasure, after exams, in commenting very sarcastically about the spelling mistakes he had found in the essays. He turned it in a way that made the class laugh sheepishly, even though the students knew they were laughing at (I insist on at someone, not about the mistakes) one of their fellows who was in the classroom. I've always found this rather despicable.
My point is, I'd prefer being informed (very honestly, and harshly if that is what it takes) about the flaws and qualities of a book, rather than being led to laugh at it.

[Doctor Shatterhand]

I take it all back. I've read it all again and Jim disses BLAST FROM THE PAST...? (!). Where is Jim's table at the CBN bar as I'm going to drag his hide out to the CBN parking lot and show him my "opinion"!!

What a (COCKNEY NAN) liberty!

Sorry, are you being facetious or did you actually do a 180 on your opinion?

[Zorin Industries]

I don't see what the fuss is about(!).

Okay. I can see why there would be a fuss - having read the piece - but Jim is VERY clear - if not annoying clear and repetitive - that this is HIS (what for it) "opinion".... He could certainly cut to the chase more effectively and not get so bitter about it all. But his perceptions and opinions of the book are justified when you read his extrated examples and reasoning.

This is how I see it: it would be HIS opinion (in capital letters) if it was posted in a forum thread. If posted on a front page article, to a certain extent CBn takes some responsibilities in it.

Okay. That does merit concern. Or at least some cautious hindsight.

[Doctor Shatterhand]

Actually, this reminds me of a former teacher of mine, who enjoyed taking a nasty pleasure, after exams, in commenting very sarcastically about the spelling mistakes he had found in the essays. He turned it in a way that made the class laugh sheepishly, even though the students knew they were laughing at (I insist on at someone, not about the mistakes) one of their fellows who was in the classroom. I've always found this rather despicable.
My point is, I'd prefer being informed (very honestly, and harshly if that is what it takes) about the flaws and qualities of a book, rather than being led to laugh at it.

I'm not removed from any humor that leads to constructive criticism, but you are right about having some respect to the author, even if you hated the work passionately, there needs to be some decency.

[Mister Asterix]

I remember when there was the huge controversy over Ice T’s song ‘Copkiller’ and how everyone was up in arms over the song advocated killing the police. At the time I couldn’t help but to think of the all the time I spent in school talking about how great Swift’s A Modest Proposal was that advocated eating human babies. I always felt Ice T got a raw deal.

Now I’m not saying Jim article is of the import of A Modest Proposal or even ‘Copkiller’, nor am I saying that Jim’s article is a work of irony or any of the such. What I am saying is I think Jim’s writing and humour is being misunderstood. I would not be surprised if I were told that never in the history of man has there ever been a review that expressed so deliberately its own non-importance as this piece has. With that I will say to my reading I see the humour and deliberate childishness of some of the language as a furtherance of this effort, not as an attack on the work it critiques. That this style, I believe, stands as an attack on itself, not on Mr Benson or his work.

Of course, Jim’s critique of [ndod] is not gentle, but I do believe that it has travelled far out of its way to expressly state both overtly and more subtly his point that it is just one man’s opinion of no consequence.

[MkB]

Actually, this reminds me of a former teacher of mine, who enjoyed taking a nasty pleasure, after exams, in commenting very sarcastically about the spelling mistakes he had found in the essays. He turned it in a way that made the class laugh sheepishly, even though the students knew they were laughing at (I insist on at someone, not about the mistakes) one of their fellows who was in the classroom. I've always found this rather despicable.
My point is, I'd prefer being informed (very honestly, and harshly if that is what it takes) about the flaws and qualities of a book, rather than being led to laugh at it.

I'm not removed from any humor that leads to constructive criticism, but you are right about having some respect to the author, even if you hated the work passionately, there needs to be some decency.

Of course, me neither But in this precise case, I do believe that the humour / sarcasm is the point (since none of the posters on this thread is denying anyone the right to express opinions about all things Bond).

[Zorin Industries]

I take it all back. I've read it all again and Jim disses BLAST FROM THE PAST...? (!). Where is Jim's table at the CBN bar as I'm going to drag his hide out to the CBN parking lot and show him my "opinion"!!

What a (COCKNEY NAN) liberty!

Sorry, are you being facetious or did you actually do a 180 on your opinion?

Neither.

I was trying to be "humorous" - trying to throw some whimsy on something that is not really going to bring the world to its knees. And that is why I am not going to side with anyone here.

Jim has some very valid points about some matters. He may have gone over the top in expressing them, but if this is indeed the fifth time he has slammed Benson in this manner then I do have to question why folk didn't complain before? Or at least why the moderators didn't act as master to his unruly padewan tendencies.

I did not know that Raymond Benson has allegedly "helped" CBN and that is only to be commended. But others have helped the world of Bond and seen their efforts slammed - foe example, Marc Forster who has been the butt of some quite narrowminded bile since October 2008. Whilst he is the quickest example that springs to mind and he hasn't maybe helped "save" CBN during some its unsettled times, he has helped create a new film and stepping stone in the evolution of James Bond 007 (and one which not everyone thinks is "over edited"). The fact that Forster directed a film that has helped prolong and nurture Bond (as Benson did in the literary sense) should surely deem he - just as an example - should not be slammed. But the truth and reality of this so-called 'democracy' we call the internet is that some people are wanting it both ways. They don't want Benson criticised, but are happy to criticise what others do - others that support the future of Bond (i.e. make the films - which, let's face it, is the only reason the likes of the Fleming Estate can pay a writer like Benson to pen a few Bond books).

I only use Forster as an example. This is not meant to ignite a SOLACE discussion by any stretch.

[Lazenby880]

This is how I see it: it would be HIS opinion (in capital letters) if it was posted in a forum thread. If posted on a front page article, to a certain extent CBn takes some responsibilities in it.

I agree with the general thrust of your post MkB. However, it couldn't be posted on a forum thread. After all, it flouts the forum's policies quite openly. Surely it would be difficult for a moderator to post something in a forum for which another member would be reprimanded severely? Then again, is there a difference between forum and front page article? One could argue a front page article should have *higher* standards than a simple forum post. Moreover, how can others be criticised for a lack of decorum when there is such bitter vitriol on the front page written by a moderator?

(Zorin Industries) Jim has some very valid points about some matters. He may have gone over the top in expressing them, but if this is indeed the fifth time he has slammed Benson in this manner then I do have to question why folk didn't complain before? Or at least why the moderators didn't act as master to his unruly padewan tendencies.

Hi Zorin. If you read the thread and the other articles it is quite evident that this essay *is* indeed different from the previous ones. That is the problem. The others had at least some semblance of being critical reviews. This is a self-indulgent and nasty and bitter rant that is just not cricket.

Edited by Lazenby880, 09 March 2009 - 06:40 PM.

[Doctor Shatterhand]

I take it all back. I've read it all again and Jim disses BLAST FROM THE PAST...? (!). Where is Jim's table at the CBN bar as I'm going to drag his hide out to the CBN parking lot and show him my "opinion"!!

What a (COCKNEY NAN) liberty!

Sorry, are you being facetious or did you actually do a 180 on your opinion?

Neither.

I was trying to be "humorous" - trying to throw some whimsy on something that is not really going to bring the world to its knees. And that is why I am not going to side with anyone here.

Jim has some very valid points about some matters. He may have gone over the top in expressing them, but if this is indeed the fifth time he has slammed Benson in this manner then I do have to question why folk didn't complain before? Or at least why the moderators didn't act as master to his unruly padewan tendencies.

I did not know that Raymond Benson has allegedly "helped" CBN and that is only to be commended. But others have helped the world of Bond and seen their efforts slammed - foe example, Marc Forster who has been the butt of some quite narrowminded bile since October 2008. Whilst he is the quickest example that springs to mind and he hasn't maybe helped "save" CBN during some its unsettled times, he has helped create a new film and stepping stone in the evolution of James Bond 007 (and one which not everyone thinks is "over edited"). The fact that Forster directed a film that has helped prolong and nurture Bond (as Benson did in the literary sense) should surely deem he - just as an example - should not be slammed. But the truth and reality of this so-called 'democracy' we call the internet is that some people are wanting it both ways. They don't want Benson criticised, but are happy to criticise what others do - others that support the future of Bond (i.e. make the films - which, let's face it, is the only reason the likes of the Fleming Estate can pay a writer like Benson to pen a few Bond books).

I only use Forster as an example. This is not meant to ignite a SOLACE discussion by any stretch.

I never said Benson cannot be criticized. I for one would welcome a constructive critique on any thing Bond. Jim has done that in the past, and quite well. However, this time around it is a deliberate assault.

[Mister Asterix]

This is how I see it: it would be HIS opinion (in capital letters) if it was posted in a forum thread. If posted on a front page article, to a certain extent CBn takes some responsibilities in it.

I agree with the general thrust of your post MkB. However, it couldn't be posted on a forum thread. After all, it flouts the forum's policies quite openly...

A couple of points here.

First, it is HIS opinion and we do take some responsibility for it.

Second, if you’d care to take a look the Member’s Review section for Quantum of Solace in the forums you will see that we did significantly relax the site’s and forum’s policies to allow our members to express their opinions in reviews in the way they wished.