I write short fiction reviews for Tangent. When I started out, I knew that sooner or later, I'd hear from some writer who was irate because I dared to criticize his baby. In March 1999, it happened. An author sent me a long e-mail about my review, and also put the following message up on my guest book:
Name: Derek W. Wass
Website:
Referred by: Just Surfed On In
From:
Time: 1999-03-09 05:45:00
Comments: Hello Chuck: I found your site via a search for Night Terrors magazine, spec. Issue #6, the one in which I was published...I also found 'Tangent Online'. I'm not sure why you've taken it upon yourself to discredit unknown writers and first-time authors with your subjective and banal reviews but this is exactly what you do. The writers in this publication are not making a living at their craft (nor is the editor) and they certainly do not need to be demeaned by the likes of you. Now for Chuck Rothman: based on the presentation of your site and its content, I would judge you as cynical, caustic and uninspired 'writer' going through the haughty motions of a being a talented author. The majority of your material (your anecdotes, your C+ short-short and the teaser for your upcomining publication) all seem to revolve around the same theme: your dad (allegedly) meeting Einstein. Talk about milking something for all it's worth, what's next? A CD compilation of Chuck Rothman singing his dad's favourite Einstein tales? From what I've seen, you're a failed SiFi writer living off the past glory of one, out-of-print novel and a scattering of short stories. (Just an aside: it was quite classless to submit a review of your own novel to Amazon.) You're filled with bitterness at your own failings and you project this out at other writer's who have not had their spirits crushed. One might argue that as an-up-and- coming writer I should develop the thick skin necessary to handle harsh criticism.. Who says that I don't have it already? Say something intelligent and I'll take it. Perhaps you can even show me how it's done Chuck, leave my message in your guestbook. Show the world you can take a bit of your own bitter medicine, not just the ass-kissing diatribes you select to post.
And what brought this on? The following review:
More predictability: Derek W. Wass's "The Talent Show" is a tale of the worm turning. Matthew is the class victim; Danny Maugain is the class bully, who delights in tormenting Matthew. Matthew does a magic act at the class talent show, making Danny his volunteer. I'm afraid it continues just as you probably expect, with Danny's fate being a fairly routine gross out.
For some reason, the author seems to think this relatively mild bit of criticism is a bitter trashing. The story in question was not the best in the magazine, but certainly not the worst, either. I merely felt it was hurt because it was obvious from the start where the story was going.
I've heard that this is a common phenomenon: you don't hear from the authors whose work you say is worthless, turgid, confused, etc. but you do hear vitriolic diatribes from people when you merely say the work is "routine" or "predictable".
As far as the magazine in general was concerned, here's what I wrote.
Overall, the issue is a good read, especially if you are less bothered by guessing the ending that I am. All the stories are worth a look.
Not my idea of a trashing, either. There were eleven stories in the magazine. I thought three were excellent, two very good, three (including Wass's) so-so, one subpar, and one poor. (The eleventh story is hard to rate; like the Vicar's Egg, parts of it are excellent, but the weaknesses undercut the truly good parts.)
I'll leave it up to you to decide who's writing a bitter diatribe and who isn't. Send your comments.
By the way, Mr. Wass. My web page is about Einstein and my grandfather, not my father. The first rule of any serious reviewer is to get the facts right.
Return to Chuck Rothman's Home Page