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."

 

[BreakTheBar]

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'm on a list for Worst on Literotica? That's fucking fantastic I should put that on my business cards.

 

[Actingup]

I'm on a list for Worst on Literotica? That's fucking fantastic I should put that on my business cards.

Yeah, I've been thinking of doing that too!

 

[Actingup]

The opinion is also based on their very brief stint in the AH where the mod blew them up in close to record time.

The length of the comments is proportionate with level of self-importance whether its positive or negative. A comment longer than many lit stories isn't 'deep', its look at my genius.

But the main reason I made the comment is so the OP or anyone else they've blasted doesn't take them that seriously, and practices "Look at the source" because as you said, they only speak for themselves, they just do so loudly and nastily, unless you can hit their personal sweet spot...so are they objective as you ask me to be? No, they're not. The authors she blasts often are the ones here that told them to piss off. Is that objective? No.

Hilariously, they put an author here on their do not read this author list for being an awful writer.... but raved over a story that author wrote under another pen name because they didn't know it was them.

Hmm...not sounding objective there either.

You can't perfume a pig.

I just received a comment on "The April Fools News Story" (where Stacnash deigned to leave her review of me, and I've let it sit despite it stinking like the turd that it is) from @unadulterable, who is one of those charming readers that reads stories carefully, picks up and nicely comments on errors, but also reads the other comments first.
________________

"I am also always interested to read the comment section, both to understand others' reactions and for clues as to who else might be worth a read. In that context, I am mystified and bemused by Stacnash. As a scientist, I have written peer reviews shorter than that, and much less offended even by some of the worst submissions. Note that they typically represent months of work, tens of thousands of dollars' support, and strict standards for originality and adherence to standards. To me t seems very odd to expect literary masterpieces on a free website mostly devoted to shared titillation. I also thought that, for such a long essay of literary criticism, Stacnash might have written some truly exceptional stories to show how it should be done. Apparently not.

I did skim through Stacnash's listings from best to worst, and was pleased to see some of my favourites ranked well, but after seeing Actingup in the dogbox I will check out a few others from there to see if they are as good."
________________

Exactly. Whatever my merits or otherwise as a writer, there are others who have clearly been put in the dogbox for reasons that are unrelated to the quality of their work.

 

[lovecraft68]

I just received a comment on "The April Fools News Story" (where Stacnash deigned to leave her review of me, and I've let it sit despite it stinking like the turd that it is) from @unadulterable, who is one of those charming readers that reads stories carefully, picks up and nicely comments on errors, but also reads the other comments first.
________________

"I am also always interested to read the comment section, both to understand others' reactions and for clues as to who else might be worth a read. In that context, I am mystified and bemused by Stacnash. As a scientist, I have written peer reviews shorter than that, and much less offended even by some of the worst submissions. Note that they typically represent months of work, tens of thousands of dollars' support, and strict standards for originality and adherence to standards. To me t seems very odd to expect literary masterpieces on a free website mostly devoted to shared titillation. I also thought that, for such a long essay of literary criticism, Stacnash might have written some truly exceptional stories to show how it should be done. Apparently not.

I did skim through Stacnash's listings from best to worst, and was pleased to see some of my favourites ranked well, but after seeing Actingup in the dogbox I will check out a few others from there to see if they are as good."
________________

Exactly. Whatever my merits or otherwise as a writer, there are others who have clearly been put in the dogbox for reasons that are unrelated to the quality of their work.

I'm in the dogbox as well as don't read and how awful I am.

They only read and commented one story I put here-that's no longer here-and it was a reluctance piece, and if you go through their reviews they claim every story like that is pure rape, threaten to report them etc. Its obviously a category they despise, but read there anyway. That alone to me brands them a troll. Normal readers don't go into categories they hate then spew the hate.

Like I said look at the source.

But I like how anyone who has gotten a positive comment from them is doing the "They're not so bad" even though they saw how they behaved here. Guess to some people if you flatter them its okay if you treat others poorly.

 

[StillStunned]

But I like how anyone who has gotten a positive comment from them is doing the "They're not so bad" even though they saw how they behaved here. Guess to some people if you flatter them its okay if you treat others poorly.

Or maybe those people weren't around when that behaviour happened. And rather than just take your repeated word for it, people prefer to form opinions on what they've experienced for themselves.

And even then, is it so much worse to accept a positive review than it is to reject a negative review? Particularly if your argument is, "Well, they showed bias against other people, so obviously their criticism has no merit, even if I've had no interactions with them before this and therefore they have no reason to be biased against me."

 

[nice90sguy]

The comments that I pay most attention to are made by other authors here, who've been through the process of writing stories.

 

[lovecraft68]

Or maybe those people weren't around when that behaviour happened. And rather than just take your repeated word for it, people prefer to form opinions on what they've experienced for themselves.

And even then, is it so much worse to accept a positive review than it is to reject a negative review? Particularly if your argument is, "Well, they showed bias against other people, so obviously their criticism has no merit, even if I've had no interactions with them before this and therefore they have no reason to be biased against me."

You were here. In fact, I'd hazard to say most people posting today were there then.

It's like politics. There can be someone you really dislike, but if they come out in favor of who you voted for, suddenly they're more tolerable, if you liked them and they come out supporting something you don't, now they're "that asshole"

Human nature. When someone has an obvious bias-which many of is have, we just avoid that which we do not like-but trash that genre anyway, they're no better than the screeching LW style anon. When their negative reviews are nasty hate spewing, but they can be flattering in other moments, that's still not a good commentor, they're just extremely biased. People here always say they want thoughtful feedback, but when one has the troll qualities they freely exhibit-like creating Stasi lists of writers THEY don't like, then they have no real value unless you happened to appease them. They can't look at content they don't care for but say "Well, not my thing, but well written or had some upside. " No, its reeeeeeeee.

Whatever, if you accept an asshole because they kissed yours, that's your thing

 

[StillStunned]

You were here.

No I wasn't.