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.
14 Comments(+Add)
This is all insane. It is weird to me that people judge editors for doing their jobs and running their magazines. I can’t imagine (publicly) talking trash about professionals in my field and expecting to get ahead in it. Insane, I tell you.
I bet Anonymous’s friends all liked his post, though.
Based on my personal experience with on-line encounters with the man, Nick Mamatas can indeed be a caustic character at times. And he likes to poke fun at and even insult those he feels are wrong, stirring up his covey of sycophants along the way. It seems to be all a part of the Mamatas persona, or as an editor acquaintance of mine put it, his “schtick”.
That being said, Nick Mamatas does has a lot to say about the publication industry, among a variety of other subjects, and much of what he says may be of great value. Still, I don’t believe he is always right one hundred percent of the time. Opinions differ, and much is simply a matter of opinion. And I would personally respect him more if he showed others a bit more respect. After he called me a “wannabe” and an “internet weirdo” (among other things), it’s hard for me to give him the respect and admiration he might otherwise deserve. I would be more willing to listen to advice from a “pro” that acts in a mature manner and treats aspiring writers with a bit of decency, rather than one that participates in childish name-calling. (Although, I admit to a bit of provocation concerning the name-calling incidents.)
Still, an editor’s opinion is the important one, the only one that truly counts, when talking about that editor accepting or rejecting material sent for possible inclusion in their publication. Rejections happen, and sending nasty responses to rejections makes you look like even more of an immature jerk than taking part in a bit of schoolyard-style on-line name-calling. It’s hard not to become a troll on occasion when on-line, but ideally trollish behaviour should have has no place in the world of publication.
Strangely enough, last time I ventured into Nick Mamatas’s journal, we actually had a decent discussion that did not devolve into insults and name-calling. So I guess he doesn’t act that way all of the time, just some of the time.
Perhaps I’ve simply lived too much of a life, much of it outside of the world of publication, to be impressed by such adolescent antics. There were times I wondered about the state of whole bloody publication world after my nasty encounters with Nick Mamatas, but now I don’t let it get to me as much. In the greater scheme of things, it ain’t worth it. And plenty of others obviously disagree with his snap judgment of my poetic and artistic abilities anyway. I’m not even sure he’s really ever seen any of my published art, or read any of my published poems and articles, although I could be wrong. And “blog” poems don’t really count, since they are rarely the best examples of my work. Often times, they are stuff written just for fun, or just to deal with personal issues.
Some love him. Some hate him. At this very moment, I’m indifferent. Let’s just say the jury is still out in regard to my opinion of Nick Mamatas.
“Mamatas is a guy who you tangle with at your own peril.”
Maybe I’m a glutton for punishment, then. Or perhaps I’m just a stubborn old fool. Well, a middle-aged fool, anyway.
I guess one thing that strikes me about this is the presumption that editors just take names. In the case of some theme anthos, that’s true, but for Clarkesworld they’re not running stories by Gaiman or Michael Chabon, so it doesn’t make any sense. In terms of sales, I’m a midlist writer, not a bestseller. And there are hundreds of midlist genre writers to choose from. And Sean has rejected other stories by me, and Third Bear wound up on a couple of awards ballots, among other praise.
It’s perfectly fine to say you don’t like a story, but not okay to prejudge the reason a story was taken. I mean, it just is almost *evil* because you can’t possibly know the backstory behind an acceptance.
For the record, I’ve never agreed with Nick Mamatas’ approach to rejections, as it’s entirely too self-aggrandizing. And it put him centerstage rather than the magazine.
@Kevin Talking trash is just stupid, but’s it’s especially bad to do it behind the veil of anonymity, because then it’s stupid and cowardly.
@Richard I don’t think “covey of sycophants” is the right term. I personally have nothing to gain from Mamatas. He’s not editing Clarkesworld any more, and I’m certainly not likely to sell anything at the imprint he heads. But I admire the guy. He’s open, he’s frank, and in every critique I got from him while he was at Clarkesworld, he was dead right.
Sure, he tends to dismember people when a more subtle approach might work just as well, but at least his voice gets heard.
@jeff
Thanks for commenting!
The problem is that A) writers are terrible judges of the quality of their own work, and/or B) writers have no idea what kinds of decisions editors have to make. This leads to thoughts like “Hey, my rejected story was way better than this printed one. Must be the name!”
I wouldn’t say that’s particularly “evil”, just ignorant. In Chris’ defense, he wrote the comment two years ago when he was at a different stage in his career.
About your second point, I, personally, heard about Nick’s rejections before I heard about Clarkesworld the magazine, so I guess my own experience was different. However, Nick is more well-known as an editor than the editors of many other magazines, so perhaps you’ve got a point.
Nick is brutally honest and caustic. He also knows a lot about the publishing and writing business. He’s got his blogging style, which is very much Nick.
He sold us a story for the first issue of Innsmouth Free Press, so obviously I like his writing. But even before that, he had made a good impression on me. As an editor and writer, he’s got talent. And as a blogger, he’s entertaining. Now you can take or leave the blogging part but that’s separate from the other stuff.
And I actually think he’s a nice guy, which is a personal assessment.
Not knowing Mr. Mamatas personally, I will say that my limited on-line interactions with the man have been uniformly negative.
Now that he’s not editing any market to which I could possibly submit, he’s mostly off my radar. Especially since he’s friendly with a few other genre personalities with whom I have also had uniformly negative interactions.
There’s a whole subculture there that just doesn’t mesh with me.
Brad,
Personally, I really admire Nick. For instance, when I was just starting out with this blog and was a complete unknown (rather than just “obscure” like I am today), he linked to this blog from his. Also, his rejections from Clarkesworld were treasured possessions.
When I went down to LA for WotF I was going to e-mail him and invite him out to lunch as a thank you for that personal feedback, except that I was too nervous to do that out of the blue.
I remember that spat you had with Nick, and I stayed out of it basically because I never want to have to “pick sides”. I admire Nick and am friends with you, and I don’t really want to have to give up either.
Brad,
Sorry, one last comment. I’d urge you not to exclude yourself from a “whole subculture”.
For instance, if I ever become friends with Nick, rather than just acquaintances (at best), are you and I going to cease being friends? I hope not.
Jordan,
One thing I never do with people, is play the guilt-by-association game. Just because Mamatas and I have gotten sideways with each other on-line doesn’t mean you and I can’t be copacetic. Nor do I expect my feelings to have any impact on how you feel about Nick.
And the subculture of which I speak is the controversy-mongering, fail-accusing, snark-festing subculture. So far as I’ve been able to discern, you’re not part of that group, regardless of whether you hold Mamatas in esteem or not.
Heaven forbid either Nick or I — or anyone else — ever demand that you choose sides.
People ought to be free to create relationships as individuals. To demand that Person A stop being friendly with Person B because Person C is friends with Person A and also dislikes Person B…. I dunno, that’s just so gradeschool.
Brad, absolutely not.
At this stage in my career, I’m trying to follow the strategy of pissing off the fewest number of people possible