Has anyone else drawn the ire of story critic Stacnash? 🤣

[Voboy]

But that obscurity ultimately is on the receiver. A critic may intend to discourage, intimidate and damage, but is ultimately powerless to do so if the receiver takes the critique neutrally and refuses to be be intimidated, and it is entirely possible to do so without dismissing the content.

This is true, but it’s also a lot to expect from many people. A lot of folks just aren’t made to separate the medium from the message. I suspect stacnash isn’t one of those people, or else she’d probably couch her critiques a little more tactfully.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Obviously you haven't actually read any of her critiques, or if you have you have dismissed them due to tone, which effectively is the same thing.

Nope, I've read 8 or 9 of them. Can you cite some specific examples of useful feedback provided by your friend? Any evidence she "knows her stuff"?

 

[pink_silk_glove]

This is true, but it’s also a lot to expect from many people. A lot of folks just aren’t made to separate the medium from the message.

Yes, anyone can separate the medium from the message. It's not that difficult, certainly not nearly so difficult than it might seem to someone who has never really tried.

If one says, "I'm just not cut out for that," then they have already decided that they can't and won't. It's just an excuse, and as soon as they stop thinking that, they can start to actually do it.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

your friend?

You read her about as well as you read this, and I know that you read this because that is where your response came from.

She's a total cunt. ... I'll take her review any time but I'm not interested in defending her attitude.

So fuck off with your same old belligerent bullshit.

 

[Voboy]

Yes, anyone can separate the medium from the message. It's not that difficult, certainly not nearly so difficult than it might seem to someone who has never really tried.

If one says, "I'm just not cut out for that," then they have already decided that they can't and won't. It's just an excuse, and as soon as they stop thinking that, they can start to actually do it.

Sure. People can do a lot more, cognitively, than they think they can.

But they need to be open to their ability to do that. And direct, finger-wagging preachiness, or sarcasm, is a piss-poor way to bring them around. I’ve learned that over the years.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

You read her about as well as you read this, and I know that you read this because that is where your response came from.



So fuck off with your same old belligerent bullshit.

So, you aren't going to provide any evidence that Stac, "knows what she's talking about"?

 

[pink_silk_glove]

But they need to be open to their ability to do that. And direct, finger-wagging preachiness, or sarcasm, is a piss-poor way to bring them around. I’ve learned that over the years.

You see, you are still putting the focus on Stacnash. That is not the point. The point is to move the focus away from Stacnash and onto yourself and how you receive the feedback. When you do this, you completely disarm her nastiness. She becomes powerless to discourage or hurt you. Then you can collect up the feedback, and she might be the best prolific critic on lit. She's certainly in the top percentiles.

It is not Stacnash's or any other critics job to encourage you to write more or improve your game. It is up to the writer to improve his craft. the feedback is just a tool to do so. Is the hammer effective at hammering nails? Only when you wield it properly. Who cares if the hammer is ugly if it gets the job done? When Stacnash hands you a hammer, it may be ugly and greasy as fuck, but it drives in way more nails than 95% of other hammers around. If you choose only pretty hammers that are only good for small nails, because you don't want your hand to get dirty, that's up top you, not her, so don't blame her.

 

[Voboy]

Yeah. But any form of communication goes both ways. The onus is on both the giver and the receiver if the message is important.

People aren’t hammers. Hammers can’t change. If a listener can learn to separate medium from message, then a speaker can learn the same thing.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

You see, you are still putting the focus on Stacnash. That is not the point. The point is to move the focus away from Stacnash and onto yourself and how you receive the feedback. When you do this, you completely disarm her nastiness. She becomes powerless to discourage or hurt you. Then you can collect up the feedback, and she might be the best prolific critic on lit. She's certainly in the top percentiles.

It is not Stacnash's or any other critics job to encourage you to write more or improve your game. It is up to the writer to improve his craft. the feedback is just a tool to do so. Is the hammer effective at hammering nails? Only when you wield it properly. Who cares if the hammer is ugly if it gets the job done? When Stacnash hands you a hammer, it may be ugly and greasy as fuck, but it drives in way more nails than 95% of other hammers around. If you choose only pretty hammers that are only good for small nails, because you don't want your hand to get dirty, that's up top you, not her, so don't blame her.

Only Stacnash is a lousy hammer. Your whole argument relies on the premise that Stacnash is providing useful, valuable feedback.
She isn't.
It's just "you suck" dressed up in flowery language.

 

[filthytrancendence]

Another day, another misguided PSG rant. Just ends in 'y' at the AH, I suppose.

This one's really funny because it demonstrates you've got no idea what McLuhan was talking about:

Yes, anyone can separate the medium from the message.

I think probably y'all got lost in the sauce somewhere, because what you seem to mean is 'tone' and not medium, and those are just not even a little bit the same thing.

So like, sure... you could separate a medium from a message. Then it's just a medium. The internet. Words. An online forum. The medium holds no meaning. The medium shapes the message, not the other way around. That's McLuhan's entire thing.

As always, your point is baffling, PSG. And the way you deliver it is evidence of your limiting perspective.

Your point of view is less than useless form the perspective of a critic. You clearly have an extremely dim view of criticism as a discipline.

As I've said several times before, your point of view is potentially of some value to a writer. To pull nuggets out of shit, as I like to say. But you insist on delivering that point of view blind to how bad the shit smells. Maybe you're nose blind. Not everyone is. The answer here isn't to eliminate our sense of smell just because you don't value it. Everyone else can smell it. Doubling down on the blindness is not helping you make your case.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

It did seem par for the course. Stac seems more interested in trying to be clever than providing any useful feedback.
People insist "She knows what she's talking about" but there is scant little evidence to support that.

To be completely honest, what I've seen here and in every other thread is mostly people who received a bad review from Stacnash claiming she sucks, and people who received positive reviews claiming she rocks. Mostly being the keyword. There are a few different cases, such as @Voboy, for example. He received a very good review from her, but still, he dismisses her reviews. The guy is just weird!

Objectively speaking, Stacnash is somewhere in between. There is insight, but there is also blatant subjectivity in her reviews, not to mention the fact that she judges the writer and not the story.
Also, what is an undisputed fact is that Stacnash is a nasty person, and in that sense, the side claiming that she sucks has way more ground.

I understand those who won't even get into analyzing whether her reviews have merit because of her often nasty delivery. Why wade through shit to extract a potential pearl.

I understand those who say one should be pragmatic and extract everything useful and disregard the nastiness. That's not an easy thing to do, but okay, that point isn't without merit. Not everybody has the same mindset.

Aside from my own terrible experience with the troll side of Stacnash, and the realization of how much exactly the AH is selfish, I have my opinion of her as a reviewer. By pure chance, I had the opportunity to review two of the stories that she also reviewed. While our opinions weren't on opposite sides of the spectrum, there were stark differences in our views.

Once again, my claim is that if you put aside all the nastiness, she is mediocre as a reviewer. She catches some things very well and gives decent insight on them, but she is also blind to other things, and she is very, very subjective. If you read her reviews carefully, you'll see that she bases much of her insight on whether the story pleased her personally or not.

 

[Voboy]

To be completely honest, what I've seen here and in every other thread is mostly people who received a bad review from Stacnash claiming she sucks, and people who received positive reviews claiming she rocks. Mostly being the keyword. There are a few different cases, such as @Voboy, for example. He received a very good review from her, but still, he dismisses her reviews. The guy is just weird!

Objectively speaking, Stacnash is somewhere in between. There is insight, but there is also blatant subjectivity in her reviews, not to mention the fact that she judges the writer and not the story.
Also, what is an undisputed fact is that Stacnash is a nasty person, and in that sense, the side claiming that she sucks has way more ground.

I understand those who won't even get into analyzing whether her reviews have merit because of her often nasty delivery. Why wade through shit to extract a potential pearl.

I understand those who say one should be pragmatic and extract everything useful and disregard the nastiness. That's not an easy thing to do, but okay, that point isn't without merit. Not everybody has the same mindset.

Aside from my own terrible experience with the troll side of Stacnash, and the realization of how much exactly the AH is selfish, I have my opinion of her as a reviewer. By pure chance, I had the opportunity to review two of the stories that she also reviewed. While our opinions weren't on opposite sides of the spectrum, there were stark differences in our views.

Once again, my claim is that if you put aside all the nastiness, she is mediocre as a reviewer. She catches some things very well and gives decent insight on them, but she is also blind to other things, and she is very, very subjective. If you read her reviews carefully, you'll see that she bases much of her insight on whether the story pleased her personally or not.

I don’t “dismiss her reviews.” I’m glad she liked my pieces, but mostly because I like my pieces too. Lol.

But she’s not monolithic, she’s neither “all right” nor “all wrong,” and she is clearly biased. She is, in short, just another commenter. I have often compared her to commentarista, and she comes out very favorably in that comparison: he’s much more off-base than she is, I think.

I do think she’d be more favorably viewed if she changed her style, but I’ve already said enough about that.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

To be completely honest, what I've seen here and in every other thread is mostly people who received a bad review from Stacnash claiming she sucks, and people who received positive reviews claiming she rocks. Mostly being the keyword. There are a few different cases, such as @Voboy, for example. He received a very good review from her, but still, he dismisses her reviews. The guy is just weird!

Objectively speaking, Stacnash is somewhere in between. There is insight, but there is also blatant subjectivity in her reviews, not to mention the fact that she judges the writer and not the story.
Also, what is an undisputed fact is that Stacnash is a nasty person, and in that sense, the side claiming that she sucks has way more ground.

I understand those who won't even get into analyzing whether her reviews have merit because of her often nasty delivery. Why wade through shit to extract a potential pearl.

I understand those who say one should be pragmatic and extract everything useful and disregard the nastiness. That's not an easy thing to do, but okay, that point isn't without merit. Not everybody has the same mindset.

Aside from my own terrible experience with the troll side of Stacnash, and the realization of how much exactly the AH is selfish, I have my opinion of her as a reviewer. By pure chance, I had the opportunity to review two of the stories that she also reviewed. While our opinions weren't on opposite sides of the spectrum, there were stark differences in our views.

Once again, my claim is that if you put aside all the nastiness, she is mediocre as a reviewer. She catches some things very well and gives decent insight on them, but she is also blind to other things, and she is very, very subjective. If you read her reviews carefully, you'll see that she bases much of her insight on whether the story pleased her personally or not.

As I mentioned previously, I've read through a number of her reviews. I'd agree with you that her reviews are very subjective. There may he a few useful nuggets but the juice isn't worth the squeeze. It's like reaching into a porta-potty because you dropped a nickle.
This idea that she "knows her stuff" is laughable.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Yeah. But any form of communication goes both ways. The onus is on both the giver and the receiver if the message is important.

Yes, but if the intention of the giver is to insult hurt or harm, then the onus on the receiver to effectively receive it as harm is to take it as harm. Yet the receiver has no obligation to do so. The receiver can take it any way that he wants. If he takes it as insult or harm, he fully co-operates with the bully to allow himself to be harmed. You are correct. ; )

People aren’t hammers. Hammers can’t change. If a listener can learn to separate medium from message, then a speaker can learn the same thing.

I did not say that anyone was a hammer. I said that the feedback is a hammer, or a tool. Huge difference. This is also the exact same principle that many have criticized Stacnash for not separating the writer from the story. If one cannot separate Stacnash from her critique, one is doing the exact same thing that she is being accused of. I said that a critic's feedback was a hammer/tool. You took that to mean that the critic himself is a hammer/tool, see? That is the error.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

If you read her reviews carefully, you'll see that she bases much of her insight on whether the story pleased her personally or not.

Not as much as you think, and not nearly as much as all of the wonderful comments that brighten every writers day that say, "loved this story, it was so hot and your character is very sexy because I love redheads, 5 stars!" Those comments are stratospherically subjective and pretty much no one ever dismisses them or bats an eye.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Not as much as you think, and not nearly as much as all of the wonderful comments that brighten every writers day that say, "loved this story, it was so hot and your character is very sexy because I love redheads, 5 stars!" Those comments are stratospherically subjective and pretty much no one ever dismisses them or bats an eye.

And once again you provide no evidence to back up your assertions.

 

[Erozetta]

I don’t “dismiss her reviews.” I’m glad she liked my pieces, but mostly because I like my pieces too. Lol.

But she’s not monolithic, she’s neither “all right” nor “all wrong,” and she is clearly biased. She is, in short, just another commenter. I have often compared her to commentarista, and she comes out very favorably in that comparison: he’s much more off-base than she is, I think.

I do think she’d be more favorably viewed if she changed her style, but I’ve already said enough about that.

Comentarista reviewed the same story Stacnash did for me.

They both had some great critiques of my piece and both rated it higher than I would've by a lot. I appreciate the criticism they each offered much more than their praise as the story was not my best work by a fucking long shot. (Not my worst, either, but on a regular scale of 1-5 with 2.5 being middling, a 2.5-3 would be a fair rating for it by my estimation.) So, I'm kinda fascinated by the "why" of their ratings as those two seemed to like it reasonably well even with the its massive flaws, which both pointed out quite fairly.

 

[Voboy]

Comentarista reviewed the same story Stacnash did for me.

They both had some great critiques of my piece and both rated it higher than I would've by a lot. I appreciate the criticism they each offered much more than their praise as the story was not my best work by a fucking long shot. (Not my worst, either, but on a regular scale of 1-5 with 2.5 being middling, a 2.5-3 would be a fair rating for it by my estimation.) So, I'm kinda fascinated by the "why" of their ratings as those two seemed to like it reasonably well even with the its massive flaws, which both pointed out quite fairly.

Yeah, I can only judge by what they’ve written on mine. Stacnash was detailed, but biased and conventional.

Commentarista? Whoah. That dude decided I deserved downvotes because I failed to account for the quirks and foibles among generations of parent-child relationships among Hispanics (it wasn’t incest, and I thought my character was Italian, but whatever) and suggested I’d do better if I wrote more like Isabel Allende.

Like… thanks? But no thanks.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Not as much as you think, and not nearly as much as all of the wonderful comments that brighten every writers day that say, "loved this story, it was so hot and your character is very sexy because I love redheads, 5 stars!" Those comments are stratospherically subjective and pretty much no one ever dismisses them or bats an eye.

I agree, but no one, not even those who link every such comment into that bragging thread, consider such feedback as serious reviews. Those are simply readers who enjoyed the story. Yet there are people in AH who consider Stacnash the guru of reviewing. Well, she isn't. She is a mediocre reviewer at best.

 

[MelissaBaby]

Yet there are people in AH who consider Stacnash the guru of reviewing.

I don't think that anyone on the AH thinks that.

As I've said, before, the reaction to Stacnash is more toxic than any of her reviews could be.

(Now someone will call me "Stacnash's friend" or say I am defending her because she gave me a good review, and my point will be proven.

 

[lovecraft68]

I agree, but no one, not even those who link every such comment into that bragging thread, consider such feedback as serious reviews. Those are simply readers who enjoyed the story. Yet there are people in AH who consider Stacnash the guru of reviewing. Well, she isn't. She is a mediocre reviewer at best.

The key word is subjective. Regardless of how long, detailed and even insightful a comment is, its all based on what they like or dislike. There are some people I have seen in feedback over the years that have the ability to be objective and provide feedback that's positive even if the story is not in their wheelhouse, or offer reasonable polite feedback if they didn't care for it.

When someone rants like a lunatic at things they personally don't like they prove that good or bad reviews have nothing behind them other than personal taste. A thousand words or "Man, that was hot" mean the same thing. One just fluffs more than the other and they're not fluffing the author they're trying to wow people with their deep thoughtful propaganda. Wow, you used a lot of words, you're super smart!

In the same vein you can use one sentence to tell me I suck at writing or 500 it doesn't mean any more or less.

 

[lovecraft68]

I don't think that anyone on the AH thinks that.

As I've said, before, the reaction to Stacnash is more toxic than any of her reviews could be.

(Now someone will call me "Stacnash's friend" or say I am defending her because she gave me a good review, and my point will be proven.

I don't agree, there are people here who are extremely needy and crave being fawned over.

I also don't see anything as toxic as some of the things I've seen her say.

I'm quite well versed in toxic and this thread doesn't get a 5 out of ten on that scale.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I don't think that anyone on the AH thinks that.

As I've said, before, the reaction to Stacnash is more toxic than any of her reviews could be.

(Now someone will call me "Stacnash's friend" or say I am defending her because she gave me a good review, and my point will be proven.

I disagree with every statement you made there.

 

[Actingup]

But that obscurity ultimately is on the receiver. A critic may intend to discourage, intimidate and damage, but is ultimately powerless to do so if the receiver takes the critique neutrally and refuses to be be intimidated, and it is entirely possible to do so without dismissing the content.

If she wants her content to be taken seriously, she can learn to write criticism without being abusive. It's not a lot to ask.

 

[Voboy]

If she wants her content to be taken seriously, she can learn to write criticism without being abusive. It's not a lot to ask.

I tend to think that expecting a recipient to "grow a thicker skin" is not really a smaller ask than expecting a reviewer to "tone it the fuck down a bit." The onus is on both, most likely, if the message is worth sending and receiving.

I think both those changes can happen equally easily... meaning, not that easily for most people. Some of us can compartmentalize well, others need to work at it.