What doesn't kill us makes us stronger

[AwkwardlySet]

But Stacnash does know what she's talking about. If you ignore the rhetoric and strip away the bile, she knows her shit. If Stacnash says that your characters are cardboard cutouts from crackerjack boxes, they probably are. If she says that your prose reads as smoothly as jagged broken glass, it probably does. If she says that your pacing is snails in wet cement, it probably is. If she says that your plot never rises above a blatant limp trope, it probably doesn't. This is the feedback that a writer looking to improve absolutely needs. If you dismiss her as a troll because your feelings are hurt, you lose.

I disagree.
I don't know what led you to have that impression about her reviews. There is insight there, sure, but there is just as much fallacious reasoning from more than one standpoint, even putting all the bile aside as you say.

 

[Katie_Mae]

I read that. I didn't think it was bad.

Thank you-- is a fun little frolic for my readers, but is not well written from a technical standpoint.

I just read it - it’s fun, creative, interesting. Most of the stories on that list are by authors who have written highly rated stories.

Thank you, and thank you for the comment. I found your feedback re the category choice helpful.

 

[YmaOHyd]

I kind of wonder though, if somebody came along that gave glowing 7000 word reviews and kept lists of the all time best writers and stories, would it drive any more traffic to those stories as compared to Stacnash reviews and lists?

I mean, Stacnash does give glowing reviews and keep lists of who she considers the best writers to be. This is her review of Call Girl by bridgetrose:

I thought this was fantastic and I’m delighted to have discovered it.

It’s clear that you’re a great writer with bags of ability. Despite this only being a short piece, it picked up so much momentum as you strode forwards towards the climax. In the beginning, the father’s psychological struggle of having booked the call girl was believable and I could imagine him sitting there struggling to catch his breath.

When you arrived at the sexual content, it was superb. It can be a tough balance to achieve when writing sex scenes with escorts as there are a lot of notes to hit, but you did so expertly. To me, the whole piece came alive when Bridget went into seductress mode, knowing time was of the essence, and broke her father’s resolve like it was nothing. Despite my view that the sex scene required some additional foreplay, what you wrote fit perfectly with a prostitute who simply wanted to honour the terms of her transaction. So, despite the client being her father, she went straight for the jugular and the heat was searing.

Special mention goes to the way that you delivered - "Come on daddy, it's just fucking." – which, despite not being my thing, was so lurid and seductive that I was in awe.

That said, there were a couple of things that stood out which didn’t quite land. You couldn’t make up your mind about his attraction to Bridget as, one minute, he was stunned by his reaction to her at his door, while you then told us about how he'd previously listened to her have sex in the family home and he got incredibly hard for her. Also, I think you needed a stronger hook to establish Bridget’s attraction to him, and how long it had been there. However, in saying that, the way her attraction arrived like a bolt from the blue worked for you.

Overall, I think that you’re wonderfully talented. I love finding authors who build momentum throughout as opposed to starting off hot and slowly petering out. Above all, though, as good as this was, it felt like this was really easy for you to produce because of your abundance of talent. The story was simple, but it worked so well because the two characters were fully realised and believable, while I’d gladly read more of Bridget who you’ve barely scratched the surface of. That speaks to your fantastic potential, but no one should be in any doubt as to how capable you are in the here and now.

You’re the best incest/taboo writer I’ve read on the website so far. Great job.

That's the review she has for bridget linked in her list of the elite authors on Lit. She's not just a hater.

 

[WCSGarland]

I mean, Stacnash does give glowing reviews and keep lists of who she considers the best writers to be. This is her review of Call Girl by bridgetrose:


That's the review she has for bridget linked in her list of the elite authors on Lit. She's not just a hater.

I stand corrected.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I kind of wonder though, if somebody came along that gave glowing 7000 word reviews and kept lists of the all time best writers and stories, would it drive any more traffic to those stories as compared to Stacnash reviews and lists?

Her lists range from the top to the bottom, best and worst. Her opinion, obviously.

The question is, who gets to see these lists? Here on Lit, you have to know who she is, and I suspect that's limited to the AH. Authors here, on the whole, are her feeding ground.

I got the impression, from an exchange of a few PMs, that there's a mysterious cabal of secret reviewers, circulating carefully curated score sheets and ranking tables. I suspect there might also be a pyramid and an all seeing eye, and she's got God's number on speed-dial; but there's no clue for us mortals. It's an oddity. I'm sure she's amused she's had a revival.

 

[ElectricBlue]

As far as I know her lists are based on single stories, including single chapters of larger works in at least one case. Though it looks like in that case either the author deleted her comment or she didn't submit one.

I think so too, there's little logic in which story gets selected for a review. Although, I reckon there's a kink for anal sex, based on her review of my story - I was most amused that my use of cunt five times was considered vulgar, while getting it in the ass was not.

I know for sure several authors have removed her hostile reviews - I read several before they were deleted. Savage, for sure.

 

[Actingup]

Her lists range from the top to the bottom, best and worst. Her opinion, obviously.

The question is, who gets to see these lists? Here on Lit, you have to know who she is, and I suspect that's limited to the AH. Authors here, on the whole, are her feeding ground.

I got the impression, from an exchange of a few PMs, that there's a mysterious cabal of secret reviewers, circulating carefully curated score sheets and ranking tables. I suspect there might also be a pyramid and an all seeing eye, and she's got God's number on speed-dial; but there's no clue for us mortals. It's an oddity. I'm sure she's amused she's had a revival.

As a former member of a secret cabal in another context, I'd expect a bit more sophistication in the reviews and rankings if that was the case

Sigh... I should have started the thread with an example other than Stacnash. My bad.

 

[YmaOHyd]

I think so too, there's little logic in which story gets selected for a review. Although, I reckon there's a kink for anal sex, based on her review of my story - I was most amused that my use of cunt five times was considered vulgar, while getting it in the ass was not.

I know for sure several authors have removed her hostile reviews - I read several before they were deleted. Savage, for sure.

My read is that if there's a kink it's for, I dunno, extremity. Or force or something. She's reviewed a lot of I&T. Her bio says she's looking for recommendations in Loving Wives and NCR, which are two of her most-reviewed categories as well. She doesn't seem to like non-kinky romantic stories. She's only reviewed two in Romance, and they're 2- and 3-star. And she has BreakTheBar in the "one-star-worst-on-Lit" category based on the first Lit-chapter of his AMA: The Boyfriend series, which is a vanilla group sex series masquerading as Mind Control because it's largely/partly about not using the power (and also maybe about the RAAC/BTB dichotomy in the LW category; there's an interesting review to be written about the ways AMA:TB reacts to popular tropes in LW and MC). I don't think that if you write a really good story about a nice guy who meets a nice girl and they have nice sex and are happy about it Stacnash would look favorably upon that.

As a former member of a secret cabal in another context, I'd expect a bit more sophistication in the reviews and rankings if that was the case

Sigh... I should have started the thread with an example other than Stacnash. My bad.

Like it or not there isn't another reviewer who puts as much into their reviews as her. She's the only reviewer I know of who's worth discussing as an individual rather than just "here is a review that I got."

 

[lovecraft68]

As a former member of a secret cabal in another context, I'd expect a bit more sophistication in the reviews and rankings if that was the case

Sigh... I should have started the thread with an example other than Stacnash. My bad.

Didn't someone just start a thread about them and their friends going around bombing people, they said they were doing it to prove who the incels were in the AH

 

[pink_silk_glove]

The question is, who gets to see these lists? Here on Lit, you have to know who she is, and I suspect that's limited to the AH. Authors here, on the whole, are her feeding ground.

The last (only) time that I checked her profile, the lists were all there, grouped by her rankings.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

You people are giving her too much credit and importance, which she covets, no doubt.
The part of Lit history where she (and her group?) were important is long over as they don't seem to resort to the same... tactics, shall we call them. Be thankful it is so, and keep in mind that she is just another reader with strong opinions, even if those opinions are far more detailed.

 

[alohadave]

I guess I disagree, and to be fair to me, I formed my opinion before getting Stacnashed myself. For starters, her methodology is to take a single story and use that to assert opinions about the author and the author’s skills. There’s a logical flaw there. Would you review Winston Churchill based on his performance at Gallipoli? And then whatever nuggets of useful critique are there are layered in truckloads of muddy bile… of course there are some insights there, but they’re hard to find.

While the critiques on the writing is generally on point, it ceases to be a critique when they start attacking the author.

 

[NoTalentHack]

Stacnash has left many such comments, and keeps a list of all the authors she's reviewed. She's given terrible reviews to people who make a living doing this full-time (BreakTheBar) and people who are universally considered among the most talented storytellers on this site (onehitwanda). She's also given raves and useful critical feedback to some folks. She contains multitudes, does stacnash.

I prefer to think that she is legion.

 

[RejectReality]

I never saw her lists until this thread made me look at her profile. You were placed in five-stars sixteen years ago! It appears that her ratings are based on a single story, or maybe I'm missing something. She couldn't have possibly read everything that all of those authors wrote - or did she?

The story is that old. The lists, nowhere near.

The comment on the story is only a year old, as a matter of fact. I'm fairly certain it's whatever story is linked, and not much if anything else. For the people she considers disqualified or whatever it is, there may not even be a story read to form that opinion. The description of that list says it's people who have had stories removed by Lit or whatnot, so you can likely get disqualified without a read.

 

[gunhilltrain]

As far as I know her lists are based on single stories, including single chapters of larger works in at least one case. Though it looks like in that case either the author deleted her comment or she didn't submit one.

So it's a list of stories she likes, not authors, but she doesn't say that. Like @RejectReality I used as an example; he was just getting started in 2009. A sample size of one story has nothing about how an author may be getting better, declining in quality, or staying the same. Or like baseball players, they may have streaks and slumps.

 

[Bamagan]

News flash! The back door isn't a self-lubricating system

Well, it can be, but it's a rather messy fetish...

 

[gunhilltrain]

The story is that old. The lists, nowhere near.

The comment on the story is only a year old, as a matter of fact. I'm fairly certain it's whatever story is linked, and not much if anything else. For the people she considers disqualified or whatever it is, there may not even be a story read to form that opinion. The description of that list says it's people who have had stories removed by Lit or whatnot, so you can likely get disqualified without a read.

Oh yeah, I was just commenting on that while you wrote your response. There's something - quirky is not the right word for her. Obsessive, maybe that's better. And she didn't create the list, she curates it, a term used by museums and such.

 

[YmaOHyd]

Oh yeah, I was just commenting on that while you wrote your response. There's something - quirky is not the right word for her. Obsessive, maybe that's better. And she didn't create the list, she curates it, a term used by museums and such.

I'm not sure that's on her? I think that might be the default verbiage -- I don't see how you can change it.

Edit: Definitely not on her, that's a Lit thing. It just looks pretentious because, let's face it, very few people have publicly-facing story lists.

 

[SimonDoom]

But Stacnash does know what she's talking about. If you ignore the rhetoric and strip away the bile, she knows her shit. If Stacnash says that your characters are cardboard cutouts from crackerjack boxes, they probably are. If she says that your prose reads as smoothly as jagged broken glass, it probably does. If she says that your pacing is snails in wet cement, it probably is. If she says that your plot never rises above a blatant limp trope, it probably doesn't. This is the feedback that a writer looking to improve absolutely needs. If you dismiss her as a troll because your feelings are hurt, you lose.

I don't agree. I read through Stacnash's ranking of various Lit authors on a 1 through 5 point scale (including me), and I think it's bonkers. I think it shows no judgment whatsoever.

Stacnash reviewed one of my stories and ranked me as a "3" on her ranking of Lit authors, which I have no objection to. I've received far worse critiques than that one. I DO have a problem with her critique of my story being rather long-winded but failing to give examples of the supposed errors in the story. If you're going to go to the trouble of critiquing somebody's story, then offer a critique that the author actually can use. If there are errors in the story, identify them. Stacnash did not do that. I've read her reviews of the stories of some other authors and I find them to be similarly flawed: masquerading as close analysis, but when examined more closely being nothing more than an exercise in calling attention to oneself.

 

[Bamagan]

nothing more than an exercise in calling attention to oneself.

If that's his or her kink, they'll be sitting in a puddle of satisfaction about their success if they see this thread.

 

[gunhilltrain]

Her lists range from the top to the bottom, best and worst. Her opinion, obviously.

The question is, who gets to see these lists? Here on Lit, you have to know who she is, and I suspect that's limited to the AH. Authors here, on the whole, are her feeding ground.

I got the impression, from an exchange of a few PMs, that there's a mysterious cabal of secret reviewers, circulating carefully curated score sheets and ranking tables. I suspect there might also be a pyramid and an all seeing eye, and she's got God's number on speed-dial; but there's no clue for us mortals. It's an oddity. I'm sure she's amused she's had a revival.

She's taking this site way too seriously. I guess you were tongue-in-cheek about a cabal of reviewers and the Eye of Providence? Might be another plot by those mysterious Masons.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

I don't agree.

Of course you do. Your fave thing to do.

 

[PennyThompson]

The fuck? LMAO. What has lube got to do with political correctness? Jayzus. One thing I can be certain of. No woman has ever let this guy fuck her ass twice. Probably didn't let him finish the first time if he's this militantly opposed to lube.

News flash! The back door isn't a self-lubricating system, and porn flicks aren't real.

Real men only have sex with a completely bone dry partner, just ask Ben Shapiro

 

[YmaOHyd]

Real men only have sex with a completely bone dry partner, just ask Ben Shapiro

Always thought he'd do well here, he seems to have a thing for his sister.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Always thought he'd do well here, he seems to have a thing for his sister.

Didn't his novel get critically panned? I wonder what Stacnash would think of it. (strokes chin)