223 replies to this topic

[MkB]

They don't want Benson criticised, but are happy to criticise what others do - others that support the future of Bond

I may be mistaken Zorin Industries, but I don't think any of the usual scapegoats of the CBn forum (Brosnan, Forster, etc.) have been treated to a front page article making fun of them?

[Mister Asterix]

They don't want Benson criticised, but are happy to criticise what others do - others that support the future of Bond

I may be mistaken Zorin Industries, but I don't think any of the usual scapegoats of the CBn forum (Brosnan, Forster, etc.) have been treated to a front page article making fun of them?

I don’t believe Mr Benson has had a front page article making fun of him either.

[Santa]

I admit to being on the fence on this one but if something has caused this much upset/controversy/whatever you choose to call it, then I think it should probably be taken off the front page. Leave the thread with a link, fair enough, but I think this has gone on too long now.

[Lazenby880]

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.

I know the section to which you refer Mister Asterix. Indeed, I posted a review there myself! However, is it now forum policy to relax the policies as regards proper decorum and contravening the filter for reviews of any films / books etc.? If so what is the point of having such rules to maintain an element of civility and pleasantness? CBn *is* a fantastic place to discuss myriad aspects of Bond. The focus the site has on the literary side of things is remarkable given the small number of people who are as interested in the books as they are in the films. Overall, I have also found it a very friendly place to discuss such matters. I'm all for reading a review of a book, even a very negative one. Unfortunately this is not a review. It would not be taken seriously by anyone of note. It detracts from the generally respectful and even amiable atmosphere in these parts.

Thanks for your replies Mister Asterix. However that the site cannot see the difference between this essay and previous ones is surprising. Editing it substantially would not have led to a loss of integrity. In fact I don't see how the site could perceive a loss of integrity in editing down the superfluous stuff and editing out the bitterness (which I say as someone who doesn't even like Benson's writing!). It would actually suggest greater professionalism. On that point I don't believe that spynovelfan's points have been addressed.

Nevertheless, there does appear to be little point in going on since the moderators evidently think this sort of thing is acceptable on the part of one of their colleagues.

Edited by Lazenby880, 09 March 2009 - 07:15 PM.

[Doctor Shatterhand]

I admit to being on the fence on this one but if something has caused this much upset/controversy/whatever you choose to call it, then I think it should probably be taken off the front page. Leave the thread with a link, fair enough, but I think this has gone on too long now.

Santa, I understand your point of view, but that would be total censorship. I would prefer a re-edit, and from the hands of Jim; with the moderators having final say.

I don't want to see anyone's opinion dissed, but each one of us must have a moral obligation to each other when we have that opinion.

[Santa]

I admit to being on the fence on this one but if something has caused this much upset/controversy/whatever you choose to call it, then I think it should probably be taken off the front page. Leave the thread with a link, fair enough, but I think this has gone on too long now.

Santa, I understand your point of view, but that would be total censorship. I would prefer a re-edit, and from the hands of Jim; with the moderators having final say.

I don't want to see anyone's opinion dissed, but each one of us must have a moral obligation to each other when we have that opinion.

Removing the article completely would be total censorship and I'm not suggesting that. I'm trying to take the middle way .
I hope that if Jim felt it needed editing that he would have done so by now, and if not I'd like him to have the courage of his convictions and leave it. I do believe the intent of the article was to be funny, not to offend and wound, however that clearly hasn't happened. As it is, people are offended and I'd like to think the CB.n mods are interested enough in the views of some of the long time posters here to want to help calm things down. I think taking it off the front page would go a significant way towards that, without being as dramatic as total censorship.

[Safari Suit]

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.

In this instance, I agree. I can see both sides of the argument. If some poster was to register at the site and his first post contained something along the lines of "there are a few worse ways to spend your time than watching Daniel Craig act, such as being burnt to death" or something along those lines they would admittedly be instantly be dismissed as a CNB-ite and a complete cretin, and be told in not particularly uncertain terms that they weren't very welcome here. But at the same time they would not face the same level of persecution and fervent scrutiny that Jim's review has received. I think it's not a matter of increasing regulation of extremity in posts and reviews by "higher up" members, it's more a matter of respecting extremes of opinions in the posts of members in general.

With regards to Mr. Benson's financial contributions to this fine site, I am very greatful to him for them but he was contributing to a website dedicated to the disussion of James Bond. I am sure it occured to him that in the course of this discussion some criticisms of his work, and perhaps even wholesale dismissal of his work, would be made. I am sure a genuine Bond afficianado like Mr. Benson would not advocate a site in which discourse never rose above the level of Paul Whitehouse-esque "int James Bond Brilliant!" comments.

Gardner: I can remember only one title that was flatly denied me ­ BLONDES PREFER GENTLEMEN. I still think it's a good Bond title.

I think it's bloody awful! As a Bond title, or indeed any kind of title. It's one step away from "Pobody's Nerfect" and even less funny.

I admit to being on the fence on this one but if something has caused this much upset/controversy/whatever you choose to call it, then I think it should probably be taken off the front page. Leave the thread with a link, fair enough, but I think this has gone on too long now.

Santa, I understand your point of view, but that would be total censorship. I would prefer a re-edit, and from the hands of Jim; with the moderators having final say.

Why is asking someone to bastardise their own work less offensive than their work being taken down?

[dee-bee-five]

If one is a professional writer, actor, director one must be prepared to have critics - professional or otherwise - critique one's work. (And I know of what I write...). It goes with the territory and to bleat about it is pointless. Mr. Benson presumably knew he would face reviews as harsh (albeit wickedly funny) as Jim's when he accepted the gig. I'm not aware anyone forced his head into the noose at gunpoint. If I were Mr. Benson, I'd console myself by thinking of the cheque...

And, for the record, I lapped up every word Jim wrote in his review and enjoyed the whole enormously. Would that I could write the same about NDOD, which I found to be the weakest of Raymond Benson's books (and I happen to rate his Bonds higher than the wretched John Gardner series).

[Loomis]

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?

Well, if Faulks was given great freedom, he sure as heck didn't use it. I agree, though, that Gardner and Benson seemed to be under heavy manners compared to the more recent authors.

[dee-bee-five]

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.

Isn't "deliberate assault" a tad over the top? A savage critique, employing undeniable sarcasm and undoubted wit, doesn't really amount to asault, does it? In this case, I felt Jim was more like a tom cat toying with a half-dead mouse.

Perhaps this little storm in a tea cup is just a case of some people not being English and finding our sense of humour rather difficult to follow...?

[Craig Arthur]

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?

So far as I know, Raymond did not 'choose' the novel titles. When marketing something as important as a title, not to mention IFP protecting the Bond 'brand', the choice would have been taken out of Raymond's hands. The publishers and IFP would make the final decision. As with the Gardner books they would always go with something that sounds like a Fleming title. The end result was they often sounded like imitations of the Fleming originals (ditto the Brosnan era movie titles). However, something like "Zero Minus Ten" was a fantastic title unlike any other Bond title. It sounds worthy of anytihng Fleming came up with.


And no, there are only three novels in the trilogy (you are erroneously thinking that the short story "Blast From the Past" is a fourth novel)

Edited by Craig Arthur, 09 March 2009 - 10:04 PM.

[Doctor Shatterhand]

Why is asking someone to bastardise their own work less offensive than their work being taken down?

For the simple reason that their work is still available, only edited. Taking it completely down gives me the impression that Jim has been censored without saying anything at all.

This debate is not about Jim's critique, it is about the fashion it was written. Like sticking a dog-pooped shoe into another person's mouth. It may be funny to the one watching as it happens, but to the receiver, it stinks.

[Doctor Shatterhand]

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.

Isn't "deliberate assault" a tad over the top? A savage critique, employing undeniable sarcasm and undoubted wit, doesn't really amount to asault, does it? In this case, I felt Jim was more like a tom cat toying with a half-dead mouse.

Perhaps this little storm in a tea cup is just a case of some people not being English and finding our sense of humour rather difficult to follow...?

Oh great, another nation heard from!

[Scrambled Eggs]

Perhaps this little storm in a tea cup is just a case of some people not being English and finding our sense of humour rather difficult to follow...?

Actually I think all the criticism of the article has come from Brit types.

I've enjoyed a lot of Jim's writing and I think he makes a wonderful, unique contribution to Cbn. Generally, I think Cbn is excellent reading when it comes to Bond literature, both through the articles published and on this forum.

But I can't say I liked reading this particular piece, for the reasons others have described far more eloquently than I could - so I won't labour the point.
By the author's own admission the article's about him more than Never Dream of Dying - so surely the best place for it would have been on a blog, rather than on the front page of this site?

I've a lot of respect for Jim and the others who make this site work. I think this thread simply proves that people have high expectations of Cbn. I also think that, far from being a bad thing, discussions like this are an essential part of making sure the high standards are kept.

Speaking for myself, I've learned a lot about Bond, Fleming and spy literature in general through this site (particularly from some of the contributors to this thread) and it'd be a great shame if people contributed less because of this little episode.

[DAN LIGHTER]

Perhaps this little storm in a tea cup is just a case of some people not being English and finding our sense of humour rather difficult to follow...?

Actually I think all the criticism of the article has come from Brit types.

I've enjoyed a lot of Jim's writing and I think he makes a wonderful, unique contribution to Cbn. Generally, I think Cbn is excellent reading when it comes to Bond literature, both through the articles published and on this forum.

But I can't say I liked reading this particular piece, for the reasons others have described far more eloquently than I could - so I won't labour the point.
By the author's own admission the article's about him more than Never Dream of Dying - so surely the best place for it would have been on a blog, rather than on the front page of this site?

I've a lot of respect for Jim and the others who make this site work. I think this thread simply proves that people have high expectations of Cbn. I also think that, far from being a bad thing, discussions like this are an essential part of making sure the high standards are kept.

Speaking for myself, I've learned a lot about Bond, Fleming and spy literature in general through this site (particularly from some of the contributors to this thread) and it'd be a great shame if people contributed less because of this little episode.

I agree Mr Eggs. This is the first place I come to for Bond info. You cant beat your fellow forum members for Bond info. They beat any books.

Passions run high on this subject. Its the first bit of Jim I have read and his writing is to clever for me. I think a blog would have been a good place for Jim's writing as most of it was about him which has already been discussed here. He has had a very good turn out for this one though. This thread is on fire!

I have ordered Raymond Benson's Union Trilogy and cant wait to read it.

[Santa]

I have ordered Raymond Benson's Union Trilogy and cant wait to read it.

Now that is good news .

[dee-bee-five]

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.

Isn't "deliberate assault" a tad over the top? A savage critique, employing undeniable sarcasm and undoubted wit, doesn't really amount to asault, does it? In this case, I felt Jim was more like a tom cat toying with a half-dead mouse.

Perhaps this little storm in a tea cup is just a case of some people not being English and finding our sense of humour rather difficult to follow...?

Oh great, another nation heard from!

Oh, forgive my contribution. I was forgetting that only the American view must prevail and sod the rest of us. Mea culpa.

[Doctor Shatterhand]

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.

Isn't "deliberate assault" a tad over the top? A savage critique, employing undeniable sarcasm and undoubted wit, doesn't really amount to asault, does it? In this case, I felt Jim was more like a tom cat toying with a half-dead mouse.

Perhaps this little storm in a tea cup is just a case of some people not being English and finding our sense of humour rather difficult to follow...?

Oh great, another nation heard from!

Oh, forgive my contribution. I was forgetting that only the American view must prevail and sod the rest of us. Mea culpa.

Lend Lease, anyone? Dee-Bee, you didn't catch my American humour.

[spynovelfan]

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.

'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.'

If you believe that this is not at least an attack of Mr Benson's work, I wonder what you think would be an attack, especially as you've already said you'll publish Jim's next submission, seemingly no matter what the content.

The article may state its own non-importance and that it's one man's opinion, but this site has chosen to publish it, and I would hope that makes it rather important to you. People do, of course, make up their minds about what sort of a site this is based on what you choose to publish.

I find the argument that the article is 'an attack on itself' unconvincing and irrelevant, and feel it misses the point (as I said when Jim used it early in this thread) - it completely ignores that Benson is still attacked! This is a writer who has contributed financially to the running of this site and who generously gave his time to be interviewed by it at length, and yet for some reason the site sees fit to publish, not a harsh critique (I've defended the previous articles in the series, which were all that), but a mean-spirited piss-take of his work. I somehow doubt you would have published this article the day before the interview with Benson was to take place! It seems more than strange to do so now, especially as I don't think there have been any reviews on the front page, scathing or otherwise, of the latest Bond novel or film. Kicking this novel in this manner seven years after publication is an odd editorial decision, I think, but it's also a rather destructive one: it says to anyone who visits the site that this is what you feel qualifies for publication.

I'm all for being edgy, but this isn't that. It's... seedy, for want of a better word. It left a very nasty taste. Someone mentioned CraignotBond earlier. I'd forgotten all about them but yes... I feel that this article, while well-written, is in much the same spirit as that site - which I don't visit because I intensely dislike that spirit. Of course authors can expect their work to be roundly criticised, and might even receive very mean-spirited treatment. The question is whether this site wants to be the sort of place that publishes the latter sort of material.

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.

I wasn't aware that the publicly expressed terms of use of the site's forums (http://commanderbond.net/article/801) had been altered. Can you link me to the new terms of use? Is it okay for forum members now to skirt the auto-censor and insult other members? Even if that is the case, do you feel this should apply to front-page articles on the site?

I don’t believe Mr Benson has had a front page article making fun of him either.

'Slice off the routine MI6 stuff, which would be easy enough as they add nothing, this is a hero in a tepid romantic action piece that would work just as well if the hero was Jed Bang or Trig Kyll or, perhaps more likely for Mr Benson and his adult entertainment enthusiasms, Dick Klitt.'

He has had a front page article making fun of his work, though. I'm surprised and disappointed that the amount of very reasonably expressed criticism in this thread from very reasonable people seems not to have persuaded you in the least that you might have made an error of judgement.

Finally, I think all talk of censorship here is bogus. In 1968, the Sunday Telegraph invited Ann Fleming to write a review of Colonel Sun, but when she submitted it they chose not to publish it. They exercised their editorial judgement. If the TLS had not published Amis' review of Gardner's book, they wouldn't have been restricting his freedom of speech or censoring him, but exercising their editorial judgment. Ditto if they had edited it - articles are edited every minute of the day. You could either have told Jim this wasn't fit for publication and asked him to edit it further, edited it yourself, or declined to publish it in any form because it was inappropriate (and breaks your own published terms of use for the forums). As this is a website and not a printed publication, you can still exercise any of those options. So: will you, please?

[clinkeroo]

Some observations from the sidelines:

*It is interesting reading the posts from the people that are actually trying to comment on the Bond aspects of the review sprinkled in amongst the slag. It is like trying to hear whispers in a thunderstorm.

*Strange, the part that I've always criticised in this book, that the characterization of Draco as a villain with little integrity is completely different than the man in OHMSS, one of Fleming's noble villains, is the one part of the book that JIM was willing to accept blindly. I disagree with JIM on most of his other points, but they're written in such a humorous fashion that I found it a great read. Albeit, a great adult read.

*JIM's writing reminds me so much of Sir Noël Peirce Coward's that I am sometimes stunned at how sharp his wit is. Certainly, had Coward been writing today, his vocabulary would be even more flowery and colourful than JIM's. For me, this is a great complement, and I see JIM as carrying on a great tradition in English literature.

*This has no clean end because so many people are arguing so many different points. It is like trying to have a sensible discussion in one of the political threads dealing with Bush or Obama, and the more it digresses, the less intelligent, and more vile the posts are becoming. I'm starting to think it is this thread, and not JIM's review, that is the most offensive and needs to be shut down.

*Spy just wanted to know why the article could say things that we can't say in the forums. I think Mr. * took a swipe at answering this with one of his more recent posts. Both men are friends of mine, I'd like to think, and I can see both their points. That works for me.

*I can't speak for Raymond, and he doesn't speak for himself on this site, as he did on the newsgroup (which is a loss to all of us, he knows more about Bond than anyone this side of Cork) but I think he would find the article more funny than hurtful.

*I hope everyone is being sarcastic with this The World vs. America BS. I know most are, but sometimes it's hard to tell. The cutting wit in JIM's writing is much more tangible than some of the more sophomoric and ill-defined comments being made here.

*JIM is being strangely silent on this. I figure he is either steering clear of the fray, or he is sitting back and laughing his off at all of us. Maybe both.

[spynovelfan]

I'm starting to think it is this thread, and not JIM's review, that is the most offensive and needs to be shut down.

I think that would be utterly absurd. There's nothing in here that remotely contravenes the terms of use at all apart from skirting the auto-censor, and that's only because I've quoted a front-page article.

I agree that there are a lot of points being made and some people are getting a wee bit snippy (I'm half Scottish, for the record). But this could all be resolved rather quickly by a moderator addressing the questions.

I can't speak for Raymond, and he doesn't speak for himself on this site, as he did on the newsgroup (which is a loss to all of us, he knows more about Bond than anyone this side of Cork) but I think he would find the article more funny than hurtful.

And I think that is highly presumptuous.

[clinkeroo]

I can't speak for Raymond, and he doesn't speak for himself on this site, as he did on the newsgroup (which is a loss to all of us, he knows more about Bond than anyone this side of Cork) but I think he would find the article more funny than hurtful.

And I think that is highly presumptuous.

Just as I would find it highly presumptuous for someone to assume that he would find it hurtful rather than comical. I'll ask him if he ever comes by the newsgroup again.

At least JIM's spite and vile were done in jest, some of what is being said here is just bitter and petty from both sides IMHO.

I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. --Voltaire

[spynovelfan]

I can't speak for Raymond, and he doesn't speak for himself on this site, as he did on the newsgroup (which is a loss to all of us, he knows more about Bond than anyone this side of Cork) but I think he would find the article more funny than hurtful.

And I think that is highly presumptuous.

Just as I would find it highly presumptuous for someone to assume that he would find it hurtful rather than comical. I'll ask him if he ever comes by the newsgroup again.

At least JIM's spite and vile were done in jest, some of what is being said here is just bitter and petty from both sides IMHO.

I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. --Voltaire

I don't think it matters one way or the other - the piece speaks for itself. As I've already said, guessing how offended the target of an attack might be isn't an editorial principle I agree with.

I think you exaggerate the pettiness in this thread: by and large I think concerns have been expressed reasonably and articulately. I don't think it's in any way comparable to the article. Should spite about a James Bond novel have a place on the front page of a James Bond fan-site?

Does your Voltaire quote mean you would defend anything at all published on the front page of this site? I rather wished it might have editorial standards.

[clinkeroo]

No, but I have the choice not to read.

This is not my site, but I would defend the owners' and operators' rights to say what they want whether I disagree with it or not. I would find it prudent for them to have a warning on the article, no different than the "Spoiler" banner we use from time to time. I'm sure some of the countries that will eventually publish your novels will require such things. Once again, though, I can suggest all I want, but it isn't my site. I have a piece coming up here soon that deals with subject matter that I wouldn't mind an advisory sticker on.

I would not want my children (11 and 13, respectively) to read this content, and CBn is blocked on their computer. Nor would I want them to read many of the stories that you and I have written until they are older. There is a time and a place for everything, but what that time and place are, are up to the individual, or their legal guardians.

One man's "attack" is another man's "review." One man's "spite" is another man's "opinion." Does an opinion piece on a James Bond novel have a place on a James Bond site? Certainly.

Not publishing a negative review because we believe that someone may be offended by a roasting of their writing, or a negative review of their novel, or because we disagree with the writing style of the review's author, is not an editorial stance I would support. But if it is made on a site I don't own, I don't get a say other than to not read the bits I find offensive.

Once again, I like Benson's Bond, I do not agree with the opinion that JIM is expressing.

I'm a conservative, and although I might not find the films of Michael Moore or Al Gore to be entertaining, funny, or factual, I accept that others do, and never put up a fight when we chose to play them at the theatres I ran.

As an adult I would be more offended if they had chosen not to publish it.

BTW, I’m part Scottish as well.

[spynovelfan]

No, but I have the choice not to read.

[Loomis] Ultimata rarely work, you know. [/Loomis]

Nobody's saying they don't have a right to publish this. I very much doubt any countries will require warnings on my novels, but even if they were to, it would only be for language, which is far from the most important issue here (though I agree that an 'Adult content' line would be appropriate, as well as a spoiler warning).

I find your statement that you'd be more offended if they hadn't published this a bit strange. Are you offended by all the articles that don't make it into your favourite daily paper? Or do you read it because you trust their editorial judgement? I had an article rejected by a British newspaper last week - please write to tell them how offended you are and that they've censored my work!

Sorry, but I find the whole equation of this with freedom of speech to be absurd and completely missing the point. Choosing not to publish an article isn't censorship, and neither is editing it.

CBn can publish what they choose, pretty much, yes - and visitors will choose to continue reading it or not, depending on their editorial judgement. If the articles are going to continue in this CraigNotBondish vein (as I think this is), the readership will of course become more CraigNotBondish.

[Mr. Blofeld]

I would not want my children (11 and 13, respectively) to read this content, and CBn is blocked on their computer. Nor would I want them to read many of the stories that you and I have written until they are older. There is a time and a place for everything, but what that time and place are, are up to the individual, or their legal guardians.

Funnily enough, my parents do similar to me (that is, they've blocked "mature content" on my computer from time to time), and it annoys the bloody hell out of me. If you're trying to teach your children how to become informed adults, let them discover online; that's what I did, and I've never regretted it.

Similarly, although spynovelfan feels the article should be edited down, I'd say otherwise; it's not everyday you learn a new term for the male sexual organ...

I've done yet another 180. Let the piece be.

[clinkeroo]

I understand what you're saying, MB, but sometimes the fact that the parents express that they don't willingly condone something is just as important, or more important, in the long run, as preventing the initial behaviour.

Telling your kids the dangers of alcoholism, and not letting them drink around you, won't stop kids from drinking, but it will make them more aware of the dangers involved, and more capable of making informed decisions. I know you get it, and I probably sound preachy, sorry.

SNF, got the message.

[dee-bee-five]

*I hope everyone is being sarcastic with this The World vs. America BS.

I think that would be a reasonable assumption...

Jim's article was waspish and cutting, to be sure. But it was also funny. Coffee-spewing-over-the-keyboard funny in places. And it was a criticism of the work, not the man - as all good critiques are. Like all writers (and actors and writers), Mr. Benson must accept the rough with the smooth; it's part of the contract when you enter public life.

It was once written of Katherine Hepburn that "she runs the gamut of emotions from A to B". I recall one review of a British actor playing Jesus of whom it was said "He is to be congratulated, for he has achieved what no other man has ever achieved - to make the audience yearn for Jesus to be nailed to the cross." And of the British (alleged) "comedienne", Jennifer Saunders, the Sunday Times once wrote, "You can't actually accuse Ms. Saunders of being a bad actress because you actually have to be able to do something to be bad at it." Doubtless we can all recall similar cruel comments. And in comparison, I would submit Jim's review was a tickle with a feather. Were NDOD to be reviewed by a British critic like A.A. Gill, I fear it would be a bloodbath. And, for the record, I wouldn't agree with it if it were because I generally liked Benson's Bond books.

I must admit to be baffled by the reaction to Jim's piece. I should have thought that having a contributor with such wit, insight and flair for words would have been regarded as a positive. Seemingly not. It can't be - can it? - that some are a little envious of his fierce intelligence and writing talent...

[Loomis]

I must admit to be baffled by the reaction to Jim's piece. I should have thought that having a contributor with such wit, insight and flair for words would have been regarded as a positive. Seemingly not. It can't be - can it? - that some are a little envious of his fierce intelligence and writing talent...

Well, that would hardly apply to spynovelfan, whose intelligence and writing talent ought to be obvious. (I mean, he's a published novelist with rave reviews from famous names! He's conceivably on the cusp of truly spectacular success, and it may well be that in a couple of years we'll all be discussing the film version of FREE AGENT starring Daniel Craig or Ralph Fiennes or Clive Owen.)

As for Jim, he's done some truly great writing on this site, and no one's trying to claim that he has a brain the size of a pea, but this piece of his on Benson is so overlong and unfocused that, even as a huge admirer of his penmanship, I could be bothered to do no more than skim it. That it may or may not insult Benson is hardly the only problem - the demands it makes on the reader are enormous, while offering paltry and well-worn returns. As I say, it's a half-hour John Bonham drum solo - undeniably the work of a virtuoso, but at the same time a complete pain in the to endure.

[dee-bee-five]

I must admit to be baffled by the reaction to Jim's piece. I should have thought that having a contributor with such wit, insight and flair for words would have been regarded as a positive. Seemingly not. It can't be - can it? - that some are a little envious of his fierce intelligence and writing talent...

Well, that would hardly apply to spynovelfan, whose intelligence and writing talent ought to be obvious (I mean, he's a published novelist with rave reviews from famous names!).

Quite. Which is why he, more than anyone, should be aware that this is just par for the rough and tumble course. Hell, I work on shows that regularly have the piss ripped out of them. All part of the job. And it makes not a jot of difference to me when I collect my pay cheque every month...