223 replies to this topic

[Zorin Industries]

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.

In the instance of Jim's paragraph there, he is NOT "making fun" of Benson. He is offering a critique of what faults he feels Benson is dogged by as an author.

Being rude is wrong. Being disingenuous to Raymond Benson as a CBN advocate and supporter is (maybe) wrong too. I say "maybe" as Benson (as some have already noted) has to take the rough with the smooth when it comes to critiquing his work. Otherwise we are in a dangerous New Labour world where no-one is allowed to hear the "no" word and senseless back-slapping piffle now constitutes discussion.

Furthermore, I do think that - whilst Jim has perhaps over-egged the sexual references in his piece (which is entirely his wont folks) - I think some have maybe mistaken the references for insults. This surprises me as the focus of CBN is that "sexist, mysoginst" chap by the name of James Bond 007. I agree with Dee-Bee-Five here when there is a slight whiff of prurience here. And that prurience has mistaken well-founded and evidence-supported viewpoints for damning Raymond Benson as an individual.

Jim has quite rightly noted that Benson (from the evidence Jim has provided) should be nominated for the Bad Sex In Literature Award. Or does the very talk of "sex" unnerve people. Because I would hate to see CBN become a site where reference to a bit of slap and tickle (and Benson did not have a gun to his head when he writes his er love scenes) is mistaken for slander, personal slurs and a childish manner in which to debate a piece of work such as NEVER DREAM OF DYING.

Having read the review a couple of times now I find little to no evidence of Jim being rude. His waspish tone is only trying to highlight just how ridiculous Benson's book is. Jim's writing style is using the ridiculous to underline the absurd. That already marks Jim out as a better author than Benson. He is certainly more pithy, original and incisive than any Bond author who thinks dog shows or the Cannes Film Festival are original backdrops to a 007 er "adventure". I would personally add that this is where it may be wise to always source a British author to pen future Bond novels.

I haven't read NEVER DREAM OF DYING but I am familiar with Benson's writing. And from what I've read and from reading this review I would add that it seems that Jim understands the world of Bond a great deal more astutely than Benson. Bond is indeed a "vapid" character, but he (almost accidentally) has hit upon what is apparently wrong with NEVER DREAM OF DYING. Jim is suggesting it is a misguided tapestry of what someone thinks is the recipe for Bond, but is cutting corners on the finer ingredients. Finesse, panache, style and pith cannot be created by blindly throwing a pin in Bond's physical and physiological map. You have to know why you are using those facets. Jim is merely trying to suggest that Benson does not.

Is Jim's worse crime here that he uses too much pith, verbal finesse and acerbic style to discuss Raymond Benson who it appears does not use enough? One piece of writing is overwritten. One is underwritten. I know who I think has more successfully nailed the character and world of James Bond 007. And the separate issue of CBN politics should not railroad that - as Mister Asterix is perhaps hinting at.

[spynovelfan]

In the instance of Jim's paragraph there, he is NOT "making fun" of Benson. He is offering a critique of what faults he feels Benson is dogged by as an author.

I don't agree. It has some insights, of course, but I don't find it a constructive critique in its current form, but a diatribe that abandons all the accepted principles of fair play in a review. While Raymond Benson might well be aware that his work may receive such treatment, I am disappointed to find it on the front page of this site. I just don't think it belongs on 'the world's greatest James Bond fan site'. We've had five articles from Jim on Raymond Benson's work - I think this one overstepped the mark for the standards of this website.

Being rude is wrong. Being disingenuous to Raymond Benson as a CBN advocate and supporter is (maybe) wrong too. I say "maybe" as Benson (as some have already noted) has to take the rough with the smooth when it comes to critiquing his work. Otherwise we are in a dangerous New Labour world where no-one is allowed to hear the "no" word and senseless back-slapping piffle now constitutes discussion.

Not having over-the-top attacks doesn't mean everything has to be back-slapping piffle, though, and I do wish people would stop saying it does.

I and others have said, several times, that strong and critical reviews are absolutely fine. There is a line, though, isn't there? And that line is the site's editorial judgement. In your view, this article doesn't cross that line - in mine and I think several others', it does (by some way, I think). We obviously have different standards for this.

'It's so easy to laugh
It's so easy to hate
It takes guts to be gentle and kind'

It's a small and perhaps forlorn hope that Jim, who I believe is fond of the Smiths, might think about any of this.

'This surprises me as the focus of CBN is that "sexist, mysoginst" chap by the name of James Bond 007.

Do you think sexist and misogynist material should be published on the front page, then? After all, it is a site about a sexist misogynist dinosaur, according to M in one of the films!

I agree with Dee-Bee-Five here when there is a slight whiff of prurience here. And that prurience has mistaken well-founded and evidence-supported viewpoints for damning Raymond Benson as an individual.

I don't think it's about prurience at all. What is insulting about the article is the tone. It's just bad form: mean-spirited, nasty, unpleasant, and belongs on something like CraigNotBond, not here. Not in this form, anyway.

“She reached down, grasped him, and proceeded to return the favour.”

So, James Bond fingers a French fancy who then tugs away at his purple-headed womb broom. Unless, by returning the favour, she stuck a couple of fingers up his wrong ‘un and, I dunno, worked out a bit of sweetcorn or, on the basis of this rubbish, the manuscript of a book.'

I find this offensive, but it's nothing to do with the sex references. It's the last seven words, which abandon all sense of fair play and respect to the author whose work is supposedly being critiqued, and just gleefully, cruelly, complacently dismiss the whole thing. A harsh, lacerating constructive review would have been an asset to this site. This is not that. It could still be, with some editing.

Jim has quite rightly noted that Benson (from the evidence Jim has provided) should be nominated for the Bad Sex In Literature Award. Or does the very talk of "sex" unnerve people. Because I would hate to see CBN become a site where reference to a bit of slap and tickle (and Benson did not have a gun to his head when he writes his er love scenes) is mistaken for slander, personal slurs and a childish manner in which to debate a piece of work such as NEVER DREAM OF DYING.

I personally don't have a problem with the sex references, and that hasn't been the focus of this discussion. You speculated that there may be a 'whiff' of prurience and then a few sentences later are talking very firmly as if the sex definitely is unnerving people (no longer a whiff, then, but fact in your mind) and then a sentence after that you've upped it again and speculate that people are calling for a site without any references to sex at all - sorry, I don't find it at all convincing!

Your comment about Benson not having a gun to his head when he wrote the love scenes is ironic, considering the article states:

'...there’s pleasing speculation to be had and imagery to brainspunk that Mr Benson was forced to emit amateur p�rn at gunpoint and this is the spill, taking the ournal out of journalism.'

The word 'brainspunk' doesn't bother me, as I said the first time I quoted it on this thread. Neither, really, does the skirting of the auto-censor, although I'd like to know why there's one rule for the front page and another for the forums (still unanswered). No, I think what is offensive about this is the suggestion that the book is 'amateur p�rn' that the author was forced to emit. The last six words of the paragraph are a clever joke, but not entirely appropriate, as he's looking at a novel rather than a piece of journalism. I suppose one could argue, and perhaps there's shards of that in the piece, that the descriptions of sex are 'journalistic', but I suspect the truth is that he just thought it a great nasty little joke to use, so he used it. I think it still attacks Benson, and it's offensive in ways that have nothing to do with the imagery, but everything to do with the tone.

Another very offensive suggestion in the article is that one of the scenes of the novel is plagiarism ('a shameless lift?'), which is not backed up with any textual evidence at all. There are many more.

The article does this site no favours in its present form.

Is Jim's worse crime here that he uses too much pith, verbal finesse and acerbic style to discuss Raymond Benson who it appears does not use enough?

No, I'm all for that. The problem is that he simply mocks Benson's work and lays aside all the usually accepted rules of fair play in literary criticism. While I am sure there are thousands of websites on which those rules are merrily abandoned, I didn't think this was one of them, and hope it doesn't have to be.

Some harsh, lacerating criticism is welcome, I think, but there are clear choices to be made in defining the tone of the site, and this was and is such a choice. Nobody's asking that the site praises every aspect of the James Bond world or sucks up to those who contribute to it - actively going out of your way to spit on them, though, is something I don't want to see, and I'm disappointed that so many people here apparently do.

I do think that that is what this piece does: it spits on the work of a James Bond continuation author. Why do such a thing on a James Bond fansite?

[Zorin Industries]

“She reached down, grasped him, and proceeded to return the favour.”

So, James Bond fingers a French fancy who then tugs away at his purple-headed womb broom. Unless, by returning the favour, she stuck a couple of fingers up his wrong ‘un and, I dunno, worked out a bit of sweetcorn or, on the basis of this rubbish, the manuscript of a book.'

SPYNOVELFAN says

I find this offensive, but it's nothing to do with the sex references. It's the last seven words, which abandon all sense of fair play and respect to the author whose work is supposedly being critiqued, and just gleefully, cruelly, complacently dismiss the whole thing. A harsh, lacerating constructive review would have been an asset to this site. This is not that. It could still be, with some editing.

I don't find this paragraph offensive at all. That is why I think some odd prurience is indeed at play here. Yes, Jim's tone might not reflect the so-far undeclared boundaries of CBN (and hence he hasn't mis-reflected anyone or anything so far) but Jim is using a tone that is deliberately echoing the abrupt and almost juvenile, inexperienced wordplay of Benson's work.

And what is offensive about "this rubbish, this manuscript of a book"...? ONE word in that could have been rephrased..."rubbish".... Are we to say that the phrase "rubbish" is offensive to anyone in the 21st Century? The phrase "brainspunk" doesn't bother you but "rubbish" does...? What sort of nanny review do people want?

Jim's certainly strong tone is only reflective of his animosity to the book. What is so wrong in that? I don't count you here spynovelfan at all, but a few more people "reviewing" things on CBN could learn from Jim's commitment and passion. Yes, he's gone over the top a bit, but does it matter?

SPYNOVELFAN says

Do you think sexist and misogynist material should be published on the front page, then? After all, it is a site about a sexist misogynist dinosaur, according to M in one of the films!

Why are people being so presbyterian about one reviewer taking that very world to a comedic level of wordplay (a reviewer, by the way, who is well-known for his acidic musings and spurts of honesty - apologies for using the word "spurt" there - edit it out by all means).

SPYNOVELFAN says

"I think what is offensive about this is the suggestion that the book is 'amateur p�rn' that the author was forced to emit. The last six words of the paragraph are a clever joke, but not entirely appropriate, as he's looking at a novel rather than a piece of journalism. I suppose one could argue, and perhaps there's shards of that in the piece, that the descriptions of sex are 'journalistic', but I suspect the truth is that he just thought it a great nasty little joke to use, so he used it. I think it still attacks Benson, and it's offensive in ways that have nothing to do with the imagery, but everything to do with the tone".

There is NOTHING offensive about one reviewer claiming a novelist's project (in this case NEVER DREAM OF DYING) is "amateur p*rn". From the examples Jim gives I can see that Benson's sense of sexuality for James Bond 007 has nothing to do with the sexual game of chess that Fleming first crafted for his leading man. It is indeed laughable. So how does Jim underscore that...? He has a laugh at it. It only "attackes Benson" because those rubbishy sounding sex scenes are what has "nothing to do with the imagery and everything to do with the tone". The only pitfall is Benson has apparently created naive imagery and lazy tone. For me THIS is what is really "not entirely appropriate" about this style of writing - i.e. it is "rubbish".

[spynovelfan]

“She reached down, grasped him, and proceeded to return the favour.”

So, James Bond fingers a French fancy who then tugs away at his purple-headed womb broom. Unless, by returning the favour, she stuck a couple of fingers up his wrong ‘un and, I dunno, worked out a bit of sweetcorn or, on the basis of this rubbish, the manuscript of a book.'

I find this offensive, but it's nothing to do with the sex references. It's the last seven words, which abandon all sense of fair play and respect to the author whose work is supposedly being critiqued, and just gleefully, cruelly, complacently dismiss the whole thing. A harsh, lacerating constructive review would have been an asset to this site. This is not that. It could still be, with some editing.

I don't find this paragraph offensive at all. That is why I think some odd prurience is indeed at play here. Yes, Jim's tone might not reflect the so-far undeclared boundaries of CBN (and hence he hasn't mis-reflected anyone or anything so far) but Jim is using a tone that is deliberately echoing the abrupt and almost juvenile, inexperienced wordplay of Benson's work.

I'm confused by your use of the word 'prurience'. I said that I didn't find the sex references offensive, but the last seven words, ie 'this rubbish, the manuscript of a book'. And I stated my reasons for finding them offensive, which I don't think have anything to do with prurience.

SPYNOVELFAN says

Do you think sexist and misogynist material should be published on the front page, then? After all, it is a site about a sexist misogynist dinosaur, according to M in one of the films!

Why are people being so presbyterian about one reviewer taking that very world to a comedic level of wordplay (a reviewer, by the way, who is well-known for his acidic musings and spurts of honesty - apologies for using the word "spurt" there - edit it out by all means).

I note you didn't answer the question.

I don't mind acidic, comedic wordplay about Bond at all - I love it, when done well. But I think is well past acidic and, as I said at the start of this, more like bullying. It leaves a very nasty taste. It is the sort of thing you'd find at CraigNotBond.

“She reached down, grasped him, and proceeded to return the favour.”

So, James Bond fingers a French fancy who then tugs away at his purple-headed womb broom. Unless, by returning the favour, she stuck a couple of fingers up his wrong ‘un and, I dunno, worked out a bit of sweetcorn or, on the basis of this rubbish, the manuscript of a book.'

SPYNOVELFAN says

I find this offensive, but it's nothing to do with the sex references. It's the last seven words, which abandon all sense of fair play and respect to the author whose work is supposedly being critiqued, and just gleefully, cruelly, complacently dismiss the whole thing. A harsh, lacerating constructive review would have been an asset to this site. This is not that. It could still be, with some editing.

I don't find this paragraph offensive at all. That is why I think some odd prurience is indeed at play here. Yes, Jim's tone might not reflect the so-far undeclared boundaries of CBN (and hence he hasn't mis-reflected anyone or anything so far) but Jim is using a tone that is deliberately echoing the abrupt and almost juvenile, inexperienced wordplay of Benson's work.

And what is offensive about "this rubbish, this manuscript of a book"...? ONE word in that could have been rephrased..."rubbish".... Are we to say that the phrase "rubbish" is offensive to anyone in the 21st Century? The phrase "brainspunk" doesn't bother you but "rubbish" does...? What sort of nanny review do people want?

Jim's certainly strong tone is only reflective of his animosity to the book. What is so wrong in that? I don't count you here spynovelfan at all, but a few more people "reviewing" things on CBN could learn from Jim's commitment and passion. Yes, he's gone over the top a bit, but does it matter?

I note that you censored your original post. Oh, no, sorry, you edited it.

I think you are missing my point. 'Rubbish' is not an obscene word, as 'brainspunk' is. It is more offensive, though, in this particular context, because it and the words that follow it make it clear that the 'reviewer' is not actually writing a review of the book in question. He is speculating that the book is so bad it could be removed from someone's anus, and he is doing it in a very condescending and nasty and mocking tone, that says he is no longer interested in pretending to examine the strengths and weaknesses of the book in a fair way, but is just going to have fun at its expense and think up increasingly outrageous ways of saying he thought it was poor.

On a James Bond website, I think this seems rather poor judgement, especially as the writer in question has contributed financially and otherwise to the running of the site.

You clearly think it's splendid judgement. You and I apparently have very different expectations for the standards of this site.

[Zorin Industries]

“She reached down, grasped him, and proceeded to return the favour.”

So, James Bond fingers a French fancy who then tugs away at his purple-headed womb broom. Unless, by returning the favour, she stuck a couple of fingers up his wrong ‘un and, I dunno, worked out a bit of sweetcorn or, on the basis of this rubbish, the manuscript of a book.'

I find this offensive, but it's nothing to do with the sex references. It's the last seven words, which abandon all sense of fair play and respect to the author whose work is supposedly being critiqued, and just gleefully, cruelly, complacently dismiss the whole thing. A harsh, lacerating constructive review would have been an asset to this site. This is not that. It could still be, with some editing.

I don't find this paragraph offensive at all. That is why I think some odd prurience is indeed at play here. Yes, Jim's tone might not reflect the so-far undeclared boundaries of CBN (and hence he hasn't mis-reflected anyone or anything so far) but Jim is using a tone that is deliberately echoing the abrupt and almost juvenile, inexperienced wordplay of Benson's work.

I'm confused by your use of the word 'prurience'. I said that I didn't find the sex references offensive, but the last seven words, ie 'this rubbish, the manuscript of a book'. And I stated my reasons for finding them offensive, which I don't think have anything to do with prurience.

SPYNOVELFAN says

Do you think sexist and misogynist material should be published on the front page, then? After all, it is a site about a sexist misogynist dinosaur, according to M in one of the films!

Why are people being so presbyterian about one reviewer taking that very world to a comedic level of wordplay (a reviewer, by the way, who is well-known for his acidic musings and spurts of honesty - apologies for using the word "spurt" there - edit it out by all means).

I note you didn't answer the question.

I don't mind acidic, comedic wordplay about Bond at all - I love it, when done well. But I think is well past acidic and, as I said at the start of this, more like bullying. It leaves a very nasty taste. It is the sort of thing you'd find at CraigNotBond.

You and I clearly have different expectations for the standards of this site.

“She reached down, grasped him, and proceeded to return the favour.”

So, James Bond fingers a French fancy who then tugs away at his purple-headed womb broom. Unless, by returning the favour, she stuck a couple of fingers up his wrong ‘un and, I dunno, worked out a bit of sweetcorn or, on the basis of this rubbish, the manuscript of a book.'

SPYNOVELFAN says

I find this offensive, but it's nothing to do with the sex references. It's the last seven words, which abandon all sense of fair play and respect to the author whose work is supposedly being critiqued, and just gleefully, cruelly, complacently dismiss the whole thing. A harsh, lacerating constructive review would have been an asset to this site. This is not that. It could still be, with some editing.

I don't find this paragraph offensive at all. That is why I think some odd prurience is indeed at play here. Yes, Jim's tone might not reflect the so-far undeclared boundaries of CBN (and hence he hasn't mis-reflected anyone or anything so far) but Jim is using a tone that is deliberately echoing the abrupt and almost juvenile, inexperienced wordplay of Benson's work.

And what is offensive about "this rubbish, this manuscript of a book"...? ONE word in that could have been rephrased..."rubbish".... Are we to say that the phrase "rubbish" is offensive to anyone in the 21st Century? The phrase "brainspunk" doesn't bother you but "rubbish" does...? What sort of nanny review do people want?

Jim's certainly strong tone is only reflective of his animosity to the book. What is so wrong in that? I don't count you here spynovelfan at all, but a few more people "reviewing" things on CBN could learn from Jim's commitment and passion. Yes, he's gone over the top a bit, but does it matter?

I note that you censored your original post. Oh, no, sorry, you edited it.

I think you are rather spectacularly missing my point. 'Rubbish' is not an obscene word, as 'brainspunk' is. It is more offensive, though, in this particular context, because it and the words that follow it make it clear that the 'reviewer' is not actually writing a review of the book in question. He is speculating that the book is so bad it could be removed from someone anus, and he is dong it in a very condescending and nasty and mocking tone, that says he is no longer interested in pretending to examine the strengths and weaknesses of the book in a fair way, but is just going to have fun at its expense and think up increasingly outrageous ways of saying he thought it was poor.

On a James Bond website, I think this seems rather poor judgement, especially as the writer in question has contributed financially and otherwise to the running of the site.

You clearly think it's splendid judgement. We heartily disagree.

SPYNOVELFAN says

"I do think that that is what this piece does: it spits on the work of a James Bond continuation author. Why do such a thing on a James Bond fansite?"

Well where the hell else would that happen? Yes, Jim does "spit" when he could maybe "point" and apparently Raymond Benson once contributed a fruit sponge for a CBN cake sale (or whatever) but does that mean that lazy "continuation" writing (which in itself only fills me personally with dread - but that's just me) is to be lauded from the hills forever more.

I never said it is "splendid judgement". I do think though that the so-called attacks in the piece have been grossly inflated and taken very much out of context - a context that Jim himself goes to great (and over-lengthy) pains to admit are only "an opinion".

“She reached down, grasped him, and proceeded to return the favour.”

So, James Bond fingers a French fancy who then tugs away at his purple-headed womb broom. Unless, by returning the favour, she stuck a couple of fingers up his wrong ‘un and, I dunno, worked out a bit of sweetcorn or, on the basis of this rubbish, the manuscript of a book.'

I find this offensive, but it's nothing to do with the sex references. It's the last seven words, which abandon all sense of fair play and respect to the author whose work is supposedly being critiqued, and just gleefully, cruelly, complacently dismiss the whole thing. A harsh, lacerating constructive review would have been an asset to this site. This is not that. It could still be, with some editing.

I don't find this paragraph offensive at all. That is why I think some odd prurience is indeed at play here. Yes, Jim's tone might not reflect the so-far undeclared boundaries of CBN (and hence he hasn't mis-reflected anyone or anything so far) but Jim is using a tone that is deliberately echoing the abrupt and almost juvenile, inexperienced wordplay of Benson's work.

I'm confused by your use of the word 'prurience'. I said that I didn't find the sex references offensive, but the last seven words, ie 'this rubbish, the manuscript of a book'. And I stated my reasons for finding them offensive, which I don't think have anything to do with prurience.

SPYNOVELFAN says

Do you think sexist and misogynist material should be published on the front page, then? After all, it is a site about a sexist misogynist dinosaur, according to M in one of the films!

Why are people being so presbyterian about one reviewer taking that very world to a comedic level of wordplay (a reviewer, by the way, who is well-known for his acidic musings and spurts of honesty - apologies for using the word "spurt" there - edit it out by all means).

I note you didn't answer the question.

I don't mind acidic, comedic wordplay about Bond at all - I love it, when done well. But I think is well past acidic and, as I said at the start of this, more like bullying. It leaves a very nasty taste. It is the sort of thing you'd find at CraigNotBond.

“She reached down, grasped him, and proceeded to return the favour.”

So, James Bond fingers a French fancy who then tugs away at his purple-headed womb broom. Unless, by returning the favour, she stuck a couple of fingers up his wrong ‘un and, I dunno, worked out a bit of sweetcorn or, on the basis of this rubbish, the manuscript of a book.'

SPYNOVELFAN says

I find this offensive, but it's nothing to do with the sex references. It's the last seven words, which abandon all sense of fair play and respect to the author whose work is supposedly being critiqued, and just gleefully, cruelly, complacently dismiss the whole thing. A harsh, lacerating constructive review would have been an asset to this site. This is not that. It could still be, with some editing.

I don't find this paragraph offensive at all. That is why I think some odd prurience is indeed at play here. Yes, Jim's tone might not reflect the so-far undeclared boundaries of CBN (and hence he hasn't mis-reflected anyone or anything so far) but Jim is using a tone that is deliberately echoing the abrupt and almost juvenile, inexperienced wordplay of Benson's work.

And what is offensive about "this rubbish, this manuscript of a book"...? ONE word in that could have been rephrased..."rubbish".... Are we to say that the phrase "rubbish" is offensive to anyone in the 21st Century? The phrase "brainspunk" doesn't bother you but "rubbish" does...? What sort of nanny review do people want?

Jim's certainly strong tone is only reflective of his animosity to the book. What is so wrong in that? I don't count you here spynovelfan at all, but a few more people "reviewing" things on CBN could learn from Jim's commitment and passion. Yes, he's gone over the top a bit, but does it matter?

I note that you censored your original post. Oh, no, sorry, you edited it.

(Yes - I did EDIT it. I can't be doing with all these quotes within quotes and have to edit as I prefer to tackle each point separately rather than as one messy and confusing quote within quote thing...!)

I think you are missing my point. 'Rubbish' is not an obscene word, as 'brainspunk' is. It is more offensive, though, in this particular context, because it and the words that follow it make it clear that the 'reviewer' is not actually writing a review of the book in question. He is speculating that the book is so bad it could be removed from someone's anus, and he is doing it in a very condescending and nasty and mocking tone, that says he is no longer interested in pretending to examine the strengths and weaknesses of the book in a fair way, but is just going to have fun at its expense and think up increasingly outrageous ways of saying he thought it was poor.

On a James Bond website, I think this seems rather poor judgement, especially as the writer in question has contributed financially and otherwise to the running of the site.

You clearly think it's splendid judgement. You and I apparently have very different expectations for the standards of this site.

[spynovelfan]

There is NOTHING offensive about one reviewer claiming a novelist's project (in this case NEVER DREAM OF DYING) is "amateur p*rn".

Well, he actually said it was pleasing to speculate he had been forced to write it and then made a very cheap joke... but I've already been into that and you ignored it. You are free to reduce all my points to simpler different ones if you want - but I think my points still stand.

I don't see anything wrong with editing your posts, ZI. The technology of the site allows it. You can do it very fast, correct what you realise with a little reflection doesn't sound quite right or perhaps was a bit over the mark, and very few people are wiser in the long run... What a boon!

From the examples Jim gives I can see that Benson's sense of sexuality for James Bond 007 has nothing to do with the sexual game of chess that Fleming first crafted for his leading man. It is indeed laughable. So how does Jim underscore that...? He has a laugh at it. It only "attackes Benson" because those rubbishy sounding sex scenes are what has "nothing to do with the imagery and everything to do with the tone". The only pitfall is Benson has apparently created naive imagery and lazy tone. For me THIS is what is really "not entirely appropriate" about this style of writing - i.e. it is "rubbish".

Amazing assumptions considering you haven't read the book! Delighted to see that this James Bond fansite has encouraged you to seek out a James Bond novel and decide what you make of it... oh. It hasn't. It's had the opposite effect, apparently.

What do you make of the accusation of plagiarism, completely unbacked by any textual evidence? Presumably that's okay, too?

[Zorin Industries]

"I don't mind acidic, comedic wordplay about Bond at all - I love it, when done well. But I think is well past acidic and, as I said at the start of this, more like bullying. It leaves a very nasty taste. It is the sort of thing you'd find at CraigNotBond. "

It is not bullying. There are far worse examples of bullying in the world than one guy lambasting another's poor sense of writing.

I am not going to be backed into a corner here. I will state again that Jim could have hemmed it in a bit. I also think that CBN needs to be clear to itself which way it wants its discussions and arenas of scrutiny to go. But that is for itself. The last thing I personally want to see is some of the contributors on CBN dictating what is and isn't "offensive" (I do NOT include SpyNovelFan here at all).

In a very public arena (and via a very high ranking individual) I was once told a piece of work of mine was "offensive". It was near the mark granted, but actually was an innocent piece about mis-reading something for something far worse than it actually was. That was sort of the point. I later found out that the reasons those people found it "offensive" actually had NOTHING to do with the content of my work but politics and selfish career angst.

I do wonder if there are other agendas at play here (eg. an inability by some to take Jim's tone for the tongue-in-cheek world it comes from). It would also be interesting to find out what Mr Benson thinks of the review as. to be honest (and I don't want to speak for him definitively) I'm wondering if he would just dismiss it on the grounds it is ONE person's view and that life is too short.

[spynovelfan]

Yes, Jim does "spit" when he could maybe "point" and apparently Raymond Benson once contributed a fruit sponge for a CBN cake sale (or whatever) but does that mean that lazy "continuation" writing (which in itself only fills me personally with dread - but that's just me) is to be lauded from the hills forever more.

But who ever said it should be lauded? Why this insistence that it's either one extreme or the other? Please read post number 69 (oo-er) in this thread.

Your idea that 'he once contributed a fruit sponge for a CBN cake sale (or whatever)' is extremely ungracious, as is your utter conviction that NEVER DREAM OF DYING is lazy when you haven't even read it.

It does shed new light on why the article passes muster for you, though.

[Zorin Industries]

There is NOTHING offensive about one reviewer claiming a novelist's project (in this case NEVER DREAM OF DYING) is "amateur p*rn".

Well, he actually said it was pleasing to speculate he had been forced to write it and then made a very cheap joke... but I've already been into that and you ignored it. You are free to reduce all my points to simpler different ones if you want - but I think my points still stand.

I don't see anything wrong with editing your posts, ZI. The technology of the site allows it. You can do it very fast, correct what you realise with a little reflection doesn't sound quite right or perhaps was a bit over the mark, and very few people are wiser in the long run... What a boon!

From the examples Jim gives I can see that Benson's sense of sexuality for James Bond 007 has nothing to do with the sexual game of chess that Fleming first crafted for his leading man. It is indeed laughable. So how does Jim underscore that...? He has a laugh at it. It only "attackes Benson" because those rubbishy sounding sex scenes are what has "nothing to do with the imagery and everything to do with the tone". The only pitfall is Benson has apparently created naive imagery and lazy tone. For me THIS is what is really "not entirely appropriate" about this style of writing - i.e. it is "rubbish".

Amazing assumptions considering you haven't read the book! Delighted to see that this James Bond fansite has encouraged you to seek out a James Bond novel and decide what you make of it... oh. It hasn't. It's had the opposite effect, apparently.

What do you make of the accusation of plagiarism, completely unbacked by any textual evidence? Presumably that's okay, too?

Let's not get catty here. There is no need.

Of course real plagiarism is wrong. But isn't it a bit limiting to discuss that in the context of James Bond "continuation" novels when these writers have been paid to "continue" what has been done before. It's just a shame for James Bond that no author since Fleming has really taken the baton in a creative way that has continued the quality and finesse. That is purely my opinion. But new plot ideas and settings do not constitute new stories in my mind - as actually Jim is trying to highlight when criticising Benson's use of the Cannes Film Festival (which strikes me as completely lazy and does indeed echo Benson's filmic ambitions for Bond and his own writing ironically if not deliberately).

[Zorin Industries]

Yes, Jim does "spit" when he could maybe "point" and apparently Raymond Benson once contributed a fruit sponge for a CBN cake sale (or whatever) but does that mean that lazy "continuation" writing (which in itself only fills me personally with dread - but that's just me) is to be lauded from the hills forever more.

But who ever said it should be lauded? Why this insistence that it's either one extreme or the other? Please read post number 69 (oo-er) in this thread.

Your idea that 'he once contributed a fruit sponge for a CBN cake sale (or whatever)' is extremely ungracious, as is your utter conviction that NEVER DREAM OF DYING is lazy when you haven't even read it.

It does shed new light on why the article passes muster for you, though.

Okay. Raymond Benson does apparently deserve some credit for something he did for CBN in the past (something a lot of us don't have a clue about by the way). I apologise if I have been "ungracious".

Jim's tone is not bullying. Just a wee bit haranguing and - which does him no favours - repetitive in its snipey comments. But some reviewers work like that. It is to be taken with a pinch of salt (or rock salt if you like). Not as the definitive word on Benson, NEVER DREAM OF DYING or CBN.

Maybe I'm just against something that is "intended" to be a slightly comical rant being curtailed in any way. Whether it IS only a comical rant is perhaps open to question....

[spynovelfan]

Let's not get catty here. There is no need.

Massive irony of that comment aside, I don't think I have been.

Of course real plagiarism is wrong.

You misunderstand, I think. Jim has questioned in the article if one of the scenes in the book is a 'shameless lift' of a scene in one of the films - but not given any supporting evidence for this rather important claim. Do you approve or not?

It's just a shame for James Bond that no author since Fleming has really taken the baton in a creative way that has continued the quality and finesse. That is purely my opinion.

And I'm afraid it counts for little with me, because you've already admitted that you haven't read NEVER DREAM OF DYING. That is the definition of prejudice - you have pre-judged that Benson didn't do it. You need to read all his works before I listen to your opinion with anything like seriousness.

But new plot ideas and settings do not constitute new stories in my mind - as actually Jim is trying to highlight when criticising Benson's use of the Cannes Film Festival (which strikes me as completely lazy and does indeed echo Benson's filmic ambitions for Bond and his own writing ironically if not deliberately).

As I said before, what a shame that a review of a Bond novel on a James Bond fansite, far from encouraging an apparent Bond fan to investigate the book, has caused him to write it off entirely without reading it.

This article is clearly encouraging a similar approach and ethos as CraigNotBond - please could a moderator tell us why this is and respond to the other questions about it?

[Zorin Industries]

Let's not get catty here. There is no need.

Massive irony of that comment aside, I don't think I have been.

Of course real plagiarism is wrong.

You misunderstand, I think. Jim has questioned in the article if one of the scenes in the book is a 'shameless lift' of a scene in one of the films - but not given any supporting evidence for this rather important claim. Do you approve or not?

It's just a shame for James Bond that no author since Fleming has really taken the baton in a creative way that has continued the quality and finesse. That is purely my opinion.

And I'm afraid it counts for little with me, because you've already admitted that you haven't read NEVER DREAM OF DYING. That is the definition of prejudice - you have pre-judged that Benson didn't do it. You need to read all his works before I listen to your opinion with anything like seriousness.

But new plot ideas and settings do not constitute new stories in my mind - as actually Jim is trying to highlight when criticising Benson's use of the Cannes Film Festival (which strikes me as completely lazy and does indeed echo Benson's filmic ambitions for Bond and his own writing ironically if not deliberately).

As I said before, what a shame that a review of a Bond novel on a James Bond fansite, far from encouraging an apparent Bond fan to investigate the book, has caused him to write it off entirely without reading it.

This article is clearly encouraging a similar approach and ethos as CraigNotBond - please could a moderator tell us why this is and respond to the other questions about it?

To be honest there is very little that would convince me to read any more James Bond continuation novels. I have read my fair share in the past and they just feel like movie tie-in "adaptations" of middling films that don't exist (for good reason).

As I said before, what a shame that a review of a Bond novel on a James Bond fansite, far from encouraging an apparent Bond fan to investigate the book, has caused him to write it off entirely without reading it.

This article is clearly encouraging a similar approach and ethos as CraigNotBond - please could a moderator tell us why this is and respond to the other questions about it?

No - this article has not put me off reading the novel. Benson's other work has.

[Hitch]

I think the most surprising aspect of this whole Benson kerfuffle is that, given the febrile nature of the internet, something like this hasn't happened before. Three years ago, I would have bet good money that I would not have spent the next three years as an almost daily visitor to a website dedicated to that rather childish and, cinematically at least, fairly coarse fantasy figure, James Bond. Little did I know that I had discovered a wonderful website, full of unexpected pleasures and general bonhomie. I take my hat off to all the moderators, including the admirable Jim himself. The internet is lawless, it appears (which may be a good thing given most countries' fondness for real censorship), yet it saddens me to see how people indulge their baser instincts to attack others simply because the opportunity is there. CBn seemed to be a cut above all that - in fact, I've been rather proud to be a member, given the high quality of the articles and forum discussions.

What was a polite discussion seems to have degenerated to a point where insults are now being thrown (mild racism, accusations of envy) as they are elsewhere on the net. Clinkeroo's harnessing of Voltaire, while essentially valid, is an over-reaction to mild requests for a little light editing. Censorship doesn't come into the equation. Jim can say whatever he pleases on his own website, but surely responsible editing standards and the seemingly outdated notion of good manners comes into play in this instance. I adore scathing reviews if they're well-written and serve a legitimate critical purpose (I'm reading a collection of venom-barbed criticism at the moment - but the reviews are attacks on artistic works not personalities), yet Jim's review is self-indulgent, though there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, and quite possibly insulting to Benson. And it's that notion of "possibly" that exercises me - if Jim worried about whether to publish it then why publish it in that form at all? The mere possibilty of insulting someone, and a good friend of the site at that, for no good reason other than the stretching of one's literary muscles, should have precluded the review's publication.

Finally, there seems little point in continuing this debate, where not a few members and some moderators seem either to ignore, misinterpret or misunderstand some of the points under discussion. I most certainly do not care for the accusation that ulterior motives might play a part in disliking Jim's article as it stands. I might add that those comments that could be termed overly robust - or downright abusive - seem to be coming from one side of the camp.

[Zorin Industries]

I think the most surprising aspect of this whole Benson kerfuffle is that, given the febrile nature of the internet, something like this hasn't happened before. Three years ago, I would have bet good money that I would not have spent the next three years as an almost daily visitor to a website dedicated to that rather childish and, cinematically at least, fairly coarse fantasy figure, James Bond. Little did I know that I had discovered a wonderful website, full of unexpected pleasures and general bonhomie. I take my hat off to all the moderators, including the admirable Jim himself. The internet is lawless, it appears (which may be a good thing given most countries' fondness for real censorship), yet it saddens me to see how people indulge their baser instincts to attack others simply because the opportunity is there. CBn seemed to be a cut above all that - in fact, I've been rather proud to be a member, given the high quality of the articles and forum discussions.

What was a polite discussion seems to have degenerated to a point where insults are now being thrown (mild racism, accusations of envy) as they are elsewhere on the net. Clinkeroo's harnessing of Voltaire, while essentially valid, is an over-reaction to mild requests for a little light editing. Censorship doesn't come into the equation. Jim can say whatever he pleases on his own website, but surely responsible editing standards and the seemingly outdated notion of good manners comes into play in this instance. I adore scathing reviews if they're well-written and serve a legitimate critical purpose (I'm reading a collection of venom-barbed criticism at the moment - but the reviews are attacks on artistic works not personalities), yet Jim's review is self-indulgent, though there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, and quite possibly insulting to Benson. And it's that notion of "possibly" that exercises me - if Jim worried about whether to publish it then why publish it in that form at all? The mere possibilty of insulting someone, and a good friend of the site at that, for no good reason other than the stretching of one's literary muscles, should have precluded the review's publication.

Finally, there seems little point in continuing this debate, where not a few members and some moderators seem either to ignore, misinterpret or misunderstand some of the points under discussion. I most certainly do not care for the accusation that ulterior motives might play a part in disliking Jim's article as it stands. I might add that those comments that could be termed overly robust - or downright abusive - seem to be coming from one side of the camp.

I hope that doesn't mean Zorin Industries?

[Lazenby880]

I think the most surprising aspect of this whole Benson kerfuffle is that, given the febrile nature of the internet, something like this hasn't happened before. Three years ago, I would have bet good money that I would not have spent the next three years as an almost daily visitor to a website dedicated to that rather childish and, cinematically at least, fairly coarse fantasy figure, James Bond. Little did I know that I had discovered a wonderful website, full of unexpected pleasures and general bonhomie. I take my hat off to all the moderators, including the admirable Jim himself. The internet is lawless, it appears (which may be a good thing given most countries' fondness for real censorship), yet it saddens me to see how people indulge their baser instincts to attack others simply because the opportunity is there. CBn seemed to be a cut above all that - in fact, I've been rather proud to be a member, given the high quality of the articles and forum discussions.

What was a polite discussion seems to have degenerated to a point where insults are now being thrown (mild racism, accusations of envy) as they are elsewhere on the net. Clinkeroo's harnessing of Voltaire, while essentially valid, is an over-reaction to mild requests for a little light editing. Censorship doesn't come into the equation. Jim can say whatever he pleases on his own website, but surely responsible editing standards and the seemingly outdated notion of good manners comes into play in this instance. I adore scathing reviews if they're well-written and serve a legitimate critical purpose (I'm reading a collection of venom-barbed criticism at the moment - but the reviews are attacks on artistic works not personalities), yet Jim's review is self-indulgent, though there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, and quite possibly insulting to Benson. And it's that notion of "possibly" that exercises me - if Jim worried about whether to publish it then why publish it in that form at all? The mere possibilty of insulting someone, and a good friend of the site at that, for no good reason other than the stretching of one's literary muscles, should have precluded the review's publication.

Finally, there seems little point in continuing this debate, where not a few members and some moderators seem either to ignore, misinterpret or misunderstand some of the points under discussion. I most certainly do not care for the accusation that ulterior motives might play a part in disliking Jim's article as it stands. I might add that those comments that could be termed overly robust - or downright abusive - seem to be coming from one side of the camp.

Very well written Hitch. I agree with all you have written - hopefully CBn will become a gentlemanly place once more! Given the lack of resolution, and how this debate has turned from a solid discussion to unpleasantness and misinterpretation (deliberate or not), it is perhaps futile to continue.

[Zorin Industries]

Very well written Hitch. I agree with all you have written - hopefully CBn will become a gentlemanly place once more! Given the lack of resolution, and how this debate has turned from a solid discussion to unpleasantness and misinterpretation (deliberate or not), it is perhaps futile to continue.

I actually agree with that.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Thirded; it's been an interesting discussion, but not a pleasant one to watch.

[Loomis]

Yes, Jim does "spit" when he could maybe "point" and apparently Raymond Benson once contributed a fruit sponge for a CBN cake sale (or whatever) but does that mean that lazy "continuation" writing (which in itself only fills me personally with dread - but that's just me) is to be lauded from the hills forever more.

But who ever said it should be lauded? Why this insistence that it's either one extreme or the other?

Quite. Those who are objecting to Jim's article believe that Benson's work should never be criticised in any way whatsoever. Oh, wait, no one's actually said that, have they?

Your idea that 'he once contributed a fruit sponge for a CBN cake sale (or whatever)' is extremely ungracious

Indeed. I found it a cheap, distasteful jibe.

[Zorin Industries]

Yes, Jim does "spit" when he could maybe "point" and apparently Raymond Benson once contributed a fruit sponge for a CBN cake sale (or whatever) but does that mean that lazy "continuation" writing (which in itself only fills me personally with dread - but that's just me) is to be lauded from the hills forever more.

But who ever said it should be lauded? Why this insistence that it's either one extreme or the other?

Quite. Those who are objecting to Jim's article believe that Benson's work should never be criticised in any way whatsoever. Oh, wait, no one's actually said that, have they?

Your idea that 'he once contributed a fruit sponge for a CBN cake sale (or whatever)' is extremely ungracious

Indeed. I found it a cheap, distasteful jibe.

Did the currants outweigh the sponge?

I am very sorry. But a not very brilliant quip about a cake sale is hardly the most "distasteful" thing ever to have happened to CBN. And I semi-retracted that quip a few posts back.

[Doctor Shatterhand]

Jim's writing style is using the ridiculous to underline the absurd. That already marks Jim out as a better author than Benson. He is certainly more pithy, original and incisive than any Bond author who thinks dog shows or the Cannes Film Festival are original backdrops to a 007 er "adventure". I would personally add that this is where it may be wise to always source a British author to pen future Bond novels.

Hmm, it was a British author who took Bond to Euro-Disney in NEVER SEND FLOWERS.

I find that anyone can write a Bond story or fan fiction if they want to give it a try. It may not be the best, it may not even be legal, but they gave it a try. But to say that, "it may be wise to always source a British author to pen future Bond novels," is very arrogant in my opinion and only illustrates the callous feelings towards American authors such as Benson.

Certainly you may not have a problem with a British actor playing the part of American billionaire Bruce Wayne in the latest incarnation of Christian Bale? I personally do not, he is very good in the role. So why is it that only British authors can write OO7 novels or stories?

Perhaps there is a cold jealous feeling towards outsiders of British exports. The unnecessary attacks on Marc Forster's directorial style in QOS has been called into question by many on these websites, yet Forster created a fantastic film, but I digress. This is about Benson and Jim's critique.

Allow me to offer a suggestion to Mister Asterix or any other moderator. Email Raymond Benson and ask him what he thinks of Jim's critique. Does he think it is funny and a big chuckle, as some have put it here, or does he find it hurtful and mean spirited? If you in turn receive a positive reaction from Benson, please feel free to post it here and show the rest of us that we are wrong and that we need to get on with our lives. If his reaction is negative, would you offer him an apology?

Fair enough?

[Loomis]

I am very sorry. But a not very brilliant quip about a cake sale is hardly the most "distasteful" thing ever to have happened to CBN.

Never said it was, Zozmeister.

And I semi-retracted that quip a few posts back.

I've no use for your semis.

[Zorin Industries]

I am very sorry. But a not very brilliant quip about a cake sale is hardly the most "distasteful" thing ever to have happened to CBN.

Never said it was, Zozmeister.

And I semi-retracted that quip a few posts back.

I've no use for your semis.

I agree. There is never any point in going in half-cocked.


"Zozmeister"...? To quote MAUSER from POLICE ACADEMY 3...."I think I like it...."

[Zorin Industries]

Allow me to offer a suggestion to Mister Asterix or any other moderator. Email Raymond Benson and ask him what he thinks of Jim's critique. Does he think it is funny and a big chuckle, as some have put it here, or does he find it hurtful and mean spirited? If you in turn receive a positive reaction from Benson, please feel free to post it here and show the rest of us that we are wrong and that we need to get on with our lives. If his reaction is negative, would you offer him an apology?

Fair enough?

I think Benson and Jim are dating anyway... this internet conflict is just their "thing".

[Mister Asterix]

Let me just say one thing quickly. All of the opinions expressed in this thread are appreciated and are taken in to consideration for the current situation and the future, for we know that they all have the intent to have CBn and the Bond community be the best it can be.

[Doctor Shatterhand]

Let me just say one thing quickly. All of the opinions expressed in this thread are appreciated and are taken in to consideration for the current situation and the future, for we know that they all have the intent to have CBn and the Bond community be the best it can be.

Thank you Mister Asterix, I concur and appreciate your effort.

[DAN LIGHTER]

Is this thread being closed now?

[Mister Asterix]

Is this thread being closed now?

Nope.

[DAN LIGHTER]

Ok ill remain seated.

With all the posts in this thread so far, I still dont think its matched the lengh of Jims piece

[dee-bee-five]

Hmm, it was a British author who took Bond to Euro-Disney in NEVER SEND FLOWERS.

Indeed. And in my opinion the Gardner series was an abomination in a way the Benson Bonds never were.


Allow me to offer a suggestion to Mister Asterix or any other moderator. Email Raymond Benson and ask him what he thinks of Jim's critique. Does he think it is funny and a big chuckle, as some have put it here, or does he find it hurtful and mean spirited? If you in turn receive a positive reaction from Benson, please feel free to post it here and show the rest of us that we are wrong and that we need to get on with our lives. If his reaction is negative, would you offer him an apology? Fair enough?

I think it would be a very sad day for free speech if the author of a book being reviewed had the right to reply. And, believe me, I've been on the receiving end. I had to endure one review which comprised 90% of the work done by myself and my colleagues lifted by the reviewer and presented as though it was all his, followed by 10% of personal attack on us. But, to be perfectly honest, it was in the fine old traditon of brandishing a baiting bladder on a stick. The only sensible thing to do is to grow a thick skin and shrug it off. To take any notice of it is just nonsense. I'm sure Raymond Benson knows that; he strikes me as being savvy and well adjusted.

[Doctor Shatterhand]

I think it would be a very sad day for free speech if the author of a book being reviewed had the right to reply.

Isn't that what free speech is all about anyway, the right to speak up when something is wrong?