REVIEW: Russell's Reviews Volume One # 9

Martin Phipps martinphipps2 at
Fri Mar 7 15:41:32 PST 2008

On Mar 8, 5:49 am, Tom Russell <milos_par... at> wrote:
> Martin,
> We have fundamentally different and perhaps mutually exclusive ideas
> on art, criticism, and human beings.  If you find my advice to be so
> backwards and wrong-headed, why on earth do you want me to give it?

Why would it be so hard for you to be honest?  You've claimed that
you've been honest and that you've never used reviews to simply attack
people and that simply isn't true.  If you are truly incapable of
offering constructive criticism then I guess that would be the end of

> Just about every time I review one of your stories, we have an
> argument.  And it's not the fact that we have an argument that's bad;
> argument is healthy.  It's that it's the same argument, over and over
> and over (and over) and over and over* again.
> [*-- and over.]
> An argument that's ceased to be helpful or in any way illuminating.
> I'm tired of being called (or inferred) a hypocrite or a liar or some
> kind of egotistical self-styled guru; I'm also tired of the bizarre
> accusation that my reviews are the result of some strange and
> apparently long-held grudge.  And all that leads me to ask-- why on
> earth would I want to review one of your stories again?
> Why spend my time and effort on doing something that is so
> unrewarding?
> I'm done with this, Martin.  I'm not reviewing your stories.  That's
> it.  Finito.  Donezo.
> Since my advice is so wrong-headed and dishonest, I don't think you'll
> mind.

The question was whether you could manage to not be a complete
asshole.  The answer would appear to be "No".  That's settled then.


More information about the racc mailing list