What doesn't kill us makes us stronger

[Katie_Mae]

She can’t, at least not on the Stacnash account. She got banned from the forums in record time for being an asshole and potentially an alt troll.

I'm talking about the comment on my story. She's added me to a list but here I am still waiting for the most amazing insights and I have nothing.

She said one lady here had a penis. Who knows what I'll learn about myself.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I'm talking about the comment on my story. She's added me to a list but here I am still waiting for the most amazing insights and I have nothing.

She said one lady here had a penis. Who knows what I'll learn about myself.

Well, here more than anywhere else, ladies with penises are welcome and free to be who they are.

 

[Katie_Mae]

Well, here more than anywhere else, ladies with penises are welcome and free to be who they are.

Hahaha

Generally though, I am legitimately curious. She's chosen the story I thought she'd always choose which is not one i think a serious critic should choose to actually review. (Imho)

I'm really interested to see which of its flaws she correctly identifies, what she misses, and if she actually identifies anything I don't already know. Though yes, I'm interested in laughing at any of the wall shit like the afore mentioned penis owning or imagined tos breeches etc

But, it's been over 36 hours. That comment is taking a long time to get through the comment queue and in hoping it hasn't been zapped

 

[Erozetta]

Would it be too much to ask people to acknowledge up front whether they are involved in sidebars and/or any other forms of communication with our infamous reviewer? Including private messages, but also being part of the (alleged?) discord or otherwise off-site chat group too. Or phone, or even carrier pigeons. Seems fair right? Over time, Some “stacnash defenders” have acknowledged and some have not. Some have been cagey. And some have changed their answers over time. Everyone should be transparent.

Me, no. None. FYI I did get a review myself, largely of the “I’m a terrible writer” variety, with just a dash of non-negativity in one aspect thrown in. (I’m not a defender, but I’m fine with the negative review. If anyone out there writes a 1000 word review I’ll (probably) give it a read).

Speaking of correlations: I’ll put on my tin foil hat to fit in with a couple folks here. Is their any correlation between the stacnash secret society and people who get invited by that (I forget who) person who arranges all the “by invitation only” author’s challenges? I can’t help but wonder.

Under Stacnash, the only contact I've had was a "contact form" message I sent to ask her to please put her list in order as it was initially very much out of order.

If they are who I think they are, I have had contact with them via social media outside of Lit as they have reviewed a different story of mine elsewhere. But I'm not confident I'm correct in my guess of who it is, so I can't be certain. I do know there's no sign of any such review group on their Discord server, so if it is that person, they have a private space of which I'm unaware. And I've only spoken to this person regarding my writing and my podcast on writing.

 

[jsmiam]

That sounds a bit farfetched. "I got a bad review, so anyone who gets a positive review must be part of a secretive clique."

It came up a few years back that she apparently had or has a discord, with followers and all. If I get bored, i may search for and fetch the post and Hold it up for ya. It seemed plausible at the time, I’m referencing past information that was posted.

And if your post is paraphrasing what you think I said, mayby I am a terrible writer!

 

[jsmiam]

Having had a altercation with Blackrandl (the invitational organiser) a long time ago, I don't think so. Very different styles of writing, and different behaviours and agendas. Blackrandl is within Literotica obviously, but I got the sense that Stacnash is more an outsider, circulating in some other collective of which Lit is only a part. Just a sense of that, nothing concrete.

Good points all!

 

[Comshaw]

Okay, I've got a maybe dumb question: Just who the hell is this Stacnash person? I've read through this entire thread and I see they must be a prominent entity for some, but those of us flying under the radar so to speak haven't run into them...yet.

Let me get back to the premise of the thread:
I have a story where I misspelled the title and so far haven't been able to fix it. When I noticed it I fully expected (and got) a couple of really scalding comments. I accepted that because I screwed the pooch by messing up the title. The surprising thing to me though is out of the 20 comments I got on the story, only two were about the title. Most of them were on the premise of the story, or more accurately what the readers thought the story was about.

The premise was a wife loses her keys and tries to squeeze in an unlocked window and gets stuck. She calls her husband to rescue her. Someone arrives and instead of getting her out of the situation they pull her leggings down and have sex with her. She assumes it's her husband, which later in the story it's made plain it was. Anyway her husband leaves and returns a bit later. By mumbling and misdirection he lets her think someone else had been there and not him. Later in the story she voluntarily has sex with the guy she thought had sex with her while stuck in the window. The husband reveals that it was all a subterfuge to get her to have sex with the guy so they could transition to a swinging lifestyle.

There were the inevitable "Cuck" comments of course. I expected those but it amazed me how many readers didn't or couldn't grasp the premise of the story. There were at least a dozen comments about her being raped. As in this one:

So the asshole husband sends a man to rape his wife?
by Anonymous user on 08/06/2020
She's in trouble and that's how her husband helps her? What's funny or entertaining about that? In her shoes I'd call the cops, go to the hospital, get a rape kit done and then see how funny her husband and his friend think their actions are while they're sitting in jail. You should have put this garbage in Non-Con.
1 star

It appears when readers have a deep set bias, they see what they want to see instead of what's there.

Comshaw

 

[alohadave]

Okay, I've got a maybe dumb question: Just who the hell is this Stacnash person? I've read through this entire thread and I see they must be a prominent entity for some, but those of us flying under the radar so to speak haven't run into them...yet.

https://www.literotica.com/authors/Stacnash

They review stories by leaving long comments on stories. There is history with them here as they have caused drama in the forums and were banned on the forum side. They claim to have a group that reviews and critiques stories here and other places.

There is also speculation that the account is a sockpuppet for someone in the AH.

 

[Comshaw]

https://www.literotica.com/authors/Stacnash

They review stories by leaving long comments on stories. There is history with them here as they have caused drama in the forums and were banned on the forum side. They claim to have a group that reviews and critiques stories here and other places.

There is also speculation that the account is a sockpuppet for someone in the AH.

Thanks. Maybe I'll be lucky and not attract that kind of attention.

Comshaw

 

[Katie_Mae]

It appears when readers have a deep set bias, they see what they want to see instead of what's there.

It's also possible, in this case, that they didn't finish the story and "noped out" the moment the identity of the person was questioned.

If you look at the comments not as "Why your story which I read sucked" but as "why I didn't finish your story," do they make more sense?

 

[Comshaw]

It's also possible, in this case, that they didn't finish the story and "noped out" the moment the identity of the person was questioned.

If you look at the comments not as "Why your story which I read sucked" but as "why I didn't finish your story," do they make more sense?

Yeah, that makes sense. But it still goes back to seeing what they wanted to see. Even though it wasn't stated but only obliquely implied that a man not her husband had sex with her, those readers didn't question what they THOUGHT had happened. They finished the story in their minds along the lines of what they believed happened and got angry about something that wasn't. That is a small taste of a condition that a larger section of people suffer from.

Comshaw

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Yeah, that makes sense. But it still goes back to seeing what they wanted to see. Even though it wasn't stated but only obliquely implied that a man not her husband had sex with her, those readers didn't question what they THOUGHT had happened. They finished the story in their minds along the lines of what they believed happened and got angry about something that wasn't. That is a small taste of a condition that a larger section of people suffer from.

Comshaw

Once again, a reader judging your work 0% on the quality of the writing or the storytelling and 100% on whether or not they agreed with it.

 

[Comshaw]

Once again, a reader judging your work 0% on the quality of the writing or the storytelling and 100% on whether or not they agreed with it.

Some readers, like the one I quoted, judged it not on the quality of the storytelling but on what they thought the story was about. I had many who liked it and the comments reflected that. For those who didn't and were off in left field as to how the story played out, they just reinforced a thing I believe: that people with deep-seated, blinding biases need only a hint of what they hate to make them judge a thing long before they have all the facts.

Comshaw

 

[FidelityBoss]

Would it be too much to ask people to acknowledge up front whether they are involved in sidebars and/or any other forms of communication with our infamous reviewer? Including private messages, but also being part of the (alleged?) discord or otherwise off-site chat group too. Or phone, or even carrier pigeons. Seems fair right? Over time, Some “stacnash defenders” have acknowledged and some have not. Some have been cagey. And some have changed their answers over time. Everyone should be transparent.

Me, no. None. FYI I did get a review myself, largely of the “I’m a terrible writer” variety, with just a dash of non-negativity in one aspect thrown in. (I’m not a defender, but I’m fine with the negative review. If anyone out there writes a 1000 word review I’ll (probably) give it a read).

Speaking of correlations: I’ll put on my tin foil hat to fit in with a couple folks here. Is their any correlation between the stacnash secret society and people who get invited by that (I forget who) person who arranges all the “by invitation only” author’s challenges? I can’t help but wonder.

Seems like a lot of speculation going on. Transparency is always good, but at the end of the day, people are going to interact how they choose. If there’s a pattern, it’ll probably show itself over time. As for secret societies and invite-only challenges, who knows? Maybe just a coincidence, maybe not. Either way, sounds like some drama brewing.

 

[FidelityBoss]

Okay, I've got a maybe dumb question: Just who the hell is this Stacnash person? I've read through this entire thread and I see they must be a prominent entity for some, but those of us flying under the radar so to speak haven't run into them...yet.

Let me get back to the premise of the thread:
I have a story where I misspelled the title and so far haven't been able to fix it. When I noticed it I fully expected (and got) a couple of really scalding comments. I accepted that because I screwed the pooch by messing up the title. The surprising thing to me though is out of the 20 comments I got on the story, only two were about the title. Most of them were on the premise of the story, or more accurately what the readers thought the story was about.

The premise was a wife loses her keys and tries to squeeze in an unlocked window and gets stuck. She calls her husband to rescue her. Someone arrives and instead of getting her out of the situation they pull her leggings down and have sex with her. She assumes it's her husband, which later in the story it's made plain it was. Anyway her husband leaves and returns a bit later. By mumbling and misdirection he lets her think someone else had been there and not him. Later in the story she voluntarily has sex with the guy she thought had sex with her while stuck in the window. The husband reveals that it was all a subterfuge to get her to have sex with the guy so they could transition to a swinging lifestyle.

There were the inevitable "Cuck" comments of course. I expected those but it amazed me how many readers didn't or couldn't grasp the premise of the story. There were at least a dozen comments about her being raped. As in this one:



It appears when readers have a deep set bias, they see what they want to see instead of what's there.

Comshaw

Sounds like a mix of confusion and strong reader reactions! Some people will always interpret things differently, especially with a premise like that. Miscommunication in storytelling can happen, but sometimes readers also just see what they want to see. As for Stacnash, seems like a bit of a mystery figure in the community drama. Probably one of those names you only hear if you’re deep in the scene.

 

[Comshaw]

Sounds like a mix of confusion and strong reader reactions! Some people will always interpret things differently, especially with a premise like that. Miscommunication in storytelling can happen, but sometimes readers also just see what they want to see.

Exactly.

As for Stacnash, seems like a bit of a mystery figure in the community drama. Probably one of those names you only hear if you’re deep in the scene.

Yeah, I ain't never been there. I'm an "on the periphery" kind of guy.

Comshaw

 

[SimonDoom]

I once listened to a funny commencement speech by Conan O'Brien, during which he recounted his own career troubles, and he said something like "Nietzsche once said that what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. What he forgot to say was that it almost kills you."