I wrote a posting called “Lame Responses to Rejected Stories” a couple of days ago that has caused way more angst than I expected from a 102 word posting. The problem arose from my choice of articles to which to link.
First, a little framing.
Nick Mamatas used to be the slush editor at Clarkesworld Magazine, one of the highest paying, and in my opinion, most literary of the pro magazines. It’s been one of my top markets to submit to for quite some time, and guided much of my professional development as a writer. Nick used to give personal and detailed feedback to every single submission, which was one of the main reasons I subbed to it.
Upon receiving one particularly positive rejection, I started a thread on SFReader “bragging” about it, since I felt like I was getting close to cracking the market. The thread quickly evolved from “congrats on the positive feedback” to “your feedback was much more positive than mine” to “Mamatas is a jerk”.
Several writers shared particularly caustic remarks that Nick had made about their stories and writing in general, and then in response to a posting where I said that I thought Jeff Vandermeer’s “Third Bear” was an excellent tale, Chris wrote this:
it seems like you’re saying that since he was a World Fantasy Award winner he wrote a great tale and it was accepted by Clarkesworld. I have a different take on it–I think that because he is a World Fantasy Award winner, that got his mediocre tale into Clarkesworld. I seriously doubt if a no-name submitted this story it would have been accepted
Nick Mamatas had been following the thread, or it might have come to him through a Google Alert or whatever, but he commented on his blog:
I enjoyed this thread about me, especially the thirteenth item, which complains about my acquisition practices by complaining about two stories I did not acquire — Sean Wallace acquires for the “prominent author” slot. Also hot, a later item in which it is declared that the story in question was only acquired because the author and I are friends. Finally, we get to the bit where someone says, inevitably, “I seriously doubt if a no-name submitted this story it would have been accepted…”
That’s probably where it should have ended. Mamatas is a guy who you tangle with at your own peril. Witness his dismantling of Luke Jackson, the guy who posted the rejection letter he received from Helix that sparked the whole William Sanders controversy, AND his dismantling of Sanders in the same controversy. Yeah, that’s right, he took apart two of the major players in the same controversy. I could post several more links where he has exposed hypocrisy or hidden biases quite definitively, but let’s just say he’s the Zorro of verbal sparring and leave it at that.
Chris ended up taking on Mamatas, and the results weren’t very flattering for anyone, as you can see from the link.
When I wrote my posting and wanted to link to an example of Mamatas’ zeal for verbal sparring and lack of filtering, I recalled that thread and found the link. I most certainly did NOT link to it to hurt Chris in any way, who is a writer I’ve known from SFReader for years. Once again, I linked to it to illustrate “Going Mamatas on someone”, and not to state that Chris’ response to a rejection was lame.
HOWEVER, as a result of my linking to that article, someone added an anonymous comment to that thread attacking Nick, who, as you might have guessed, is a dude I greatly admire. Anonymous comments are just cowardly. It’s worse than gossiping behind someone’s back, because it’s very public. Seriously, if you have something to say to someone, either have some balls and sign your name to it, or keep your mouth shut. End of story.
After all, Chris might have posted anonymously, but in the text of his comments, he identified himself. Chris is a writer who has balls. And you have to respect that.