What doesn't kill us makes us stronger

[Erozetta]

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.

Not everyone who got a positive review is doing the "They're not so bad" thing.

I'm on the five star list and believe them to be mostly trolling with their rankings because of it. The story they read of mine was *not* a five star story by any means. The flaws they pointed out were fairly accurate, the praise wasn't. I did appreciate the criticism on the story, but it was largely negated by the praise that felt like it was reaching pretty hard to counter the criticisms in order to put me on the list they did.

If they had reviewed a different story (Lyin' Eyes, Purrfectly Playful, or even Collars and Cravings, which wasn't up at the time.) I probably would've bought into it and believed the hype around the praise.

They basically fucked up in choosing to review an unedited fever dream that was little more than an experiment to see if I could write something where the narrative changed as it unfolded on a nonlinear timeline while the characters remained consistent between time shifts. And they also fucked up by choosing to review someone who can look at their own work objectively and doesn't think every piece they submit is a glorious piece of prose that should only ever be praised by the masses. I fuck up, I know I do, but I can still enjoy the story I wrote when I know it isn't my best effort. If they had said it was technically flawed in massive ways but still fun, I might've been on the "alright, I can buy that" side of things.

But this? "Specifically, you find small details that convey the emotions of your characters unlike anyone else and it suits you. All of those discoveries were made in the second half of the piece when the characters were exploring the true nature of their relationship. Sitting here just now, I’ve read so many stories that tried to capture a fraction of what you did in the last 2,000 words and they never came close, which is remarkable as I believe this is the first story you contributed to the website.
.
Once I arrived at the sexual content, you didn’t disappoint. I’d go as far as to say the pacing was terrific and you offered a few moments of genuine class. When Kate could only produce her non-answer in her moment of need, most readers would’ve melted in the face of the heat and been thankful that they stayed the course" was far too complimentary to be on *that* story.

I did appreciate this, though: "Again, you got there in the end, but you write like a taxi driver who’s gotten lost and somehow happens across his destination through force of will rather than purpose" perfectly fair and accurate to my writing and driving.
.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

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.

That's not how objective opinions are created. I guess you are not interested in forming one of those, after all.

 

[StillStunned]

That's not how objective opinions are created. I guess you are not interested in forming one of those, after all.

No less objective than meekly accepting someone's second-hand account of events that happened several years ago.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

No less objective than meekly accepting someone's second-hand account of events that happened several years ago.

No one is saying that. We have been talking about this person for a long time now, and have provided links and screenshots about their behavior many times in many threads. If you are interested in forming an objective opinion, that is valid data.

 

[StillStunned]

No one is saying that. We have been talking about this person for a long time now, and have provided links and screenshots about their behavior many times in many threads. If you are interested in forming an objective opinion, that is valid data.

But it isn't relevant to me. I wrote a story and got a positive review. That's the extent of my interactions with Stacnash, and presumably that's the extent of the interactions that most newer writers have with her.

Plenty of us here have been pissed off by other members of the forums. That doesn't mean that their opinions are invalid into perpetuity, including in respect of people who had nothing to do with the older arguments.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

But it isn't relevant to me. I wrote a story and got a positive review. That's the extent of my interactions with Stacnash, and presumably that's the extent of the interactions that most newer writers have with her.

Plenty of us here have been pissed off by other members of the forums. That doesn't mean that their opinions are invalid into perpetuity, including in respect of people who had nothing to do with the older arguments.

It is relevant because all those interactions were directly linked to Stacnash's reviewing behavior. It wasn't about people being annoyed by some of her unrelated posts on the forum or anything like that. All of those experiences were directly linked to her reviews, authors' reactions to those reviews, and then finally Stacnash's reactions to those reactions. Her behavior was that of a troll with the bias and ego the size of Texas.
My point is that it all speaks directly of her (lack of) integrity as a reviewer and is thus relevant to any reviews she makes. But the same as then, some of Stacnash's five-star authors (but thankfully not all) would rather put their heads in the sand and speak platitudes rather than confront the information that would make them unhappy.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Person X is a horrible person who must be shunned, shamed and spat on at every opportunity, and if us not telling you so is not sufficient, we have all kinds of evidence to shove in your face, and despite the fact that it is nearly impossible to digest all that evidence in one sitting to form any sort of meaningful opinion, you MUST agree with us forthwith, join our lynch mob and sign our petition in blood, otherwise you are an enabling asshat. Furthermore, if you give Person X any shred of credit for anything at all, no matter how unrelated or how true it may be, YOU are part of the problem. Our crusade is more important than the truth, so you're either with us or against us. Hurry up and agree. What, are you fucking blind?? Join us (not later after deliberation - right fucking NOW) or fuck off!

 

[StillStunned]

It is relevant because all those interactions were directly linked to Stacnash's reviewing behavior. It wasn't about people being annoyed by some of her unrelated posts on the forum or anything like that. All of those experiences were directly linked to her reviews, authors' reactions to those reviews, and then finally Stacnash's reactions to those reactions. Her behavior was that of a troll with the bias and ego the size of Texas.
My point is that it all speaks directly of her (lack of) integrity as a reviewer and is thus relevant to any reviews she makes. But the same as then, some of Stacnash's five-star authors (but thankfully not all) would rather put their heads in the sand and speak platitudes rather than confront the information that would make them unhappy.

I'm not going to convince you, and you're not going to convince me. I suggest we move on.

 

[lovecraft68]

Not everyone who got a positive review is doing the "They're not so bad" thing.

I'm on the five star list and believe them to be mostly trolling with their rankings because of it. The story they read of mine was *not* a five star story by any means. The flaws they pointed out were fairly accurate, the praise wasn't. I did appreciate the criticism on the story, but it was largely negated by the praise that felt like it was reaching pretty hard to counter the criticisms in order to put me on the list they did.

If they had reviewed a different story (Lyin' Eyes, Purrfectly Playful, or even Collars and Cravings, which wasn't up at the time.) I probably would've bought into it and believed the hype around the praise.

They basically fucked up in choosing to review an unedited fever dream that was little more than an experiment to see if I could write something where the narrative changed as it unfolded on a nonlinear timeline while the characters remained consistent between time shifts. And they also fucked up by choosing to review someone who can look at their own work objectively and doesn't think every piece they submit is a glorious piece of prose that should only ever be praised by the masses. I fuck up, I know I do, but I can still enjoy the story I wrote when I know it isn't my best effort. If they had said it was technically flawed in massive ways but still fun, I might've been on the "alright, I can buy that" side of things.

But this? "Specifically, you find small details that convey the emotions of your characters unlike anyone else and it suits you. All of those discoveries were made in the second half of the piece when the characters were exploring the true nature of their relationship. Sitting here just now, I’ve read so many stories that tried to capture a fraction of what you did in the last 2,000 words and they never came close, which is remarkable as I believe this is the first story you contributed to the website.
.
Once I arrived at the sexual content, you didn’t disappoint. I’d go as far as to say the pacing was terrific and you offered a few moments of genuine class. When Kate could only produce her non-answer in her moment of need, most readers would’ve melted in the face of the heat and been thankful that they stayed the course" was far too complimentary to be on *that* story.

I did appreciate this, though: "Again, you got there in the end, but you write like a taxi driver who’s gotten lost and somehow happens across his destination through force of will rather than purpose" perfectly fair and accurate to my writing and driving.
.

In case you don't already know it, but I think you do, you're not 'everyone' but interesting point that some of the 'good people to read' might only be there to tweak people from the forum. Or maybe not.

I think the most damning thing though to your point is them bashing an author here and putting them on the shit list, only to rave over a story that was written by that author under a different pen name, So that's telling.

I like the last line, I that taxi analogy is me since day one. Everything feels like a disjointed mess then in spite of myself it pulls together

 

[Comshaw]

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."

The parable of the three blind men and the elephant
"The parable of the blind men and an elephant is a story of a group of blind men who have never come across an elephant before and who learn and imagine what the elephant is like by touching it. Each blind man feels a different part of the animal's body, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then describe the animal based on their limited experience and their descriptions of the elephant are different from each other. In some versions, they come to suspect that the other person is dishonest and they come to blows. The moral of the parable is that humans have a tendency to claim absolute truth based on their limited, subjective experience as they ignore other people's limited, subjective experiences which may be equally true.[1][2] The parable originated in the ancient Indian subcontinent, from where it has been widely diffused."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

Comshaw

 

[Erozetta]

In case you don't already know it, but I think you do, you're not 'everyone' but interesting point that some of the 'good people to read' might only be there to tweak people from the forum. Or maybe not.

I think the most damning thing though to your point is them bashing an author here and putting them on the shit list, only to rave over a story that was written by that author under a different pen name, So that's telling.

I like the last line, I that taxi analogy is me since day one. Everything feels like a disjointed mess then in spite of myself it pulls together

The taxi driver line still makes me smile. It's a great analogy, and very apt for a few of us here, I'd bet.

Yeah, the one author being both worthy of a five and one star review is amusing. It definitely points to the reviews being about the specific content of the story than the writer themselves even though they frame the reviews around the capabilities of the writer.

One can't judge any writer's capabilities on the content of a singular story, but they can certainly judge that one particular story, which would be fair. I just think framing it in an absolute in regard to the writer themselves is a mistake. Everyone can learn and get better at writing/storytelling as long as they want to improve. To say otherwise is unnecessarily cruel, particularly when it's based on a writer's single story and not their catalogue as a whole. My quality in writing varies greatly from story to story and part of that is how much I give a shit about the story and how much I "just want it out of my head." There's nothing wrong with either.

But, I maintain that their elite list is on point, I would move quite a few of the authors in lower tiers up higher, though. (Off the top of my head: you, AwkwardMD, Omenainen, Onehitwanda, and SyleusSnow) and would move myself and a few others down in tiers, lol.

Your "Every Dog Has Its Day" is still the best depiction of internal family systems and the impact of childhood trauma on those personality components I've ever read in a fictional story.

 

[lovecraft68]

The taxi driver line still makes me smile. It's a great analogy, and very apt for a few of us here, I'd bet.

Yeah, the one author being both worthy of a five and one star review is amusing. It definitely points to the reviews being about the specific content of the story than the writer themselves even though they frame the reviews around the capabilities of the writer.

One can't judge any writer's capabilities on the content of a singular story, but they can certainly judge that one particular story, which would be fair. I just think framing it in an absolute in regard to the writer themselves is a mistake. Everyone can learn and get better at writing/storytelling as long as they want to improve. To say otherwise is unnecessarily cruel, particularly when it's based on a writer's single story and not their catalogue as a whole. My quality in writing varies greatly from story to story and part of that is how much I give a shit about the story and how much I "just want it out of my head." There's nothing wrong with either.

But, I maintain that their elite list is on point, I would move quite a few of the authors in lower tiers up higher, though. (Off the top of my head: you, AwkwardMD, Omenainen, Onehitwanda, and SyleusSnow) and would move myself and a few others down in tiers, lol.

Your "Every Dog Has Its Day" is still the best depiction of internal family systems and the impact of childhood trauma on those personality components I've ever read in a fictional story.

I get a kick out of being on the shit list. Seeing they only have a few followers, I don't think anyone is paying attention.

Thank you, I pulled Every Dog a few years back when I tweaked it and had it put into paperback. I wrote that between my wife's two cancer surgeries. I think that's why it came out as fucked up as it did. Go trauma!

 

[Actingup]

Right, so summing up the above, that particular reviewer has a poor reputation, although not everything she says is invalid.

This thread is meant to be about poking fun at the bad stuff (not just from her) that was written to wound rather than criticise - “the stuff that was written to make us slink into our corner” as I said at the start. The troll who was trying to insult your mother in order to get at you, but both you and your Mum laughed in his face. The playground bully who stole your lunch only to discover healthy salad sandwiches.

Stacnash’s ludicrous, pretentious one star reviews are one example of this, but there must be others. Please do share them here.

 

[alohadave]

Right, so summing up the above, that particular reviewer has a poor reputation, although not everything she says is invalid.

I said as much when she reviewed my story. The criticism of the story was pretty spot on, and it was things I already knew. What put me off was the rest of it. Criticizing my writing is fine, personally attacking me for what I write is not.

 

[lovecraft68]

Right, so summing up the above, that particular reviewer has a poor reputation, although not everything she says is invalid.

This thread is meant to be about poking fun at the bad stuff (not just from her) that was written to wound rather than criticise - “the stuff that was written to make us slink into our corner” as I said at the start. The troll who was trying to insult your mother in order to get at you, but both you and your Mum laughed in his face. The playground bully who stole your lunch only to discover healthy salad sandwiches.

Stacnash’s ludicrous, pretentious one star reviews are one example of this, but there must be others. Please do share them here.

Well, two others that are infamous for abusing people-with the occasional good review mixed in-are Overlycritical who left four, yes four, comments on the same story, and 26nth something, an LW regular.

But of course the best or the worst always comes from anon. This one is 10 years old and always makes me laugh.

the commenters

by Anonymous user on 01/24/2014
are awful hard on this writer after all anyone who would submit this story has to be a little slow if not then just plain retarded.

 

[Actingup]

by Anonymous user on 01/24/2014
are awful hard on this writer after all anyone who would submit this story has to be a little slow if not then just plain retarded.

I do hope they were asked to define the difference between slow and retarded in easy words!

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Yeah, the one author being both worthy of a five and one star review is amusing. It definitely points to the reviews being about the specific content of the story than the writer themselves even though they frame the reviews around the capabilities of the writer.

I've read multiple stories from the same author with significantly different levels of quality. It is no stretch to say that two stories from the same writer could score wildly different.

 

[Actingup]

I've read multiple stories from the same author with significantly different levels of quality. It is no stretch to say that two stories from the same writer could score wildly different.

That's true. And that's why we review individual pieces of work rather than judge the author's quality by a single piece of work.

 

[Erozetta]

I've read multiple stories from the same author with significantly different levels of quality. It is no stretch to say that two stories from the same writer could score wildly different.

Yeah, but you can't choose one of those stories and have a fair evaluation of the writer as a whole. If you read two of varying quality and rate the author on the average between the two, that would be a more fair assessment of the author's ability. But writing the review in the frame of "Author A sucks because this one particular story sucks, while author B is amazing because this one particular story is amazing" is not helpful in any way. They could've read the one story Author A didn't do a great job on while the rest of their work is considerably better, and the same could be true of author B, they might've happened to find the gem in a stack of shit while reading.

To review the stories on an individual basis is perfectly fair and reasonable. Where they lose my respect a little bit is by painting an author as a whole based off of a single sample of that author's work.

Either review the stories on a case by case basis, or review the author based on multiple samples of their work throughout their catalogue. Reviewing the author based on one story isn't helpful and benefits no one. Particularly when you're reviewing the same author under two different names when you could've combined the review points and actually created a useful review that could point out the highs and lows of the author, the things they did right and the things they messed up in one story vs the other. Reviewing single stories, however, is helpful, particularly to the degree that Stacnash does.

My only issue with her reviews is painting the author in a specific light based on one story. You can't assess an author's overall capabilities based on one work.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Yeah, but you can't choose one of those stories and have a fair evaluation of the writer as a whole. If you read two of varying quality and rate the author on the average between the two, that would be a more fair assessment of the author's ability. But writing the review in the frame of "Author A sucks because this one particular story sucks, while author B is amazing because this one particular story is amazing" is not helpful in any way. They could've read the one story Author A didn't do a great job on while the rest of their work is considerably better, and the same could be true of author B, they might've happened to find the gem in a stack of shit while reading.

Sure but when we get a detailed review several hundred words from someone who clearly had a clue about the elements of prose and plot and such, do we dismiss the entire thing outright over that aspect?

With such little feedback around here and the vast majority of that is 'loved it, 5 stars!" Stacnash is easily in the top 1 or 2 percentiles of reviewers here. I'm not arguing that she's not rude or arrogant or snooty or even a nice person at all. I'm just saying that we do ourselves a disservice when we dismiss and cry 'not fair' to such a blunt scathing swaggering review. No review ever makes any story any worse or any better. No reader's opinion ever changes a comma in the original work. When we get upset over this, we just don't like a fly in our ointment, but the feedback is NOT our ointment, no matter how much our ego wants us to believe that it is.

In a 400 word review, if we read it objectively, it is impossible not to find multiple pieces of good info that can help us in some way moving forward. Do we want that or not?

 

[Actingup]

Sure but when we get a detailed review several hundred words from someone who clearly had a clue about the elements of prose and plot and such, do we dismiss the entire thing outright over that aspect?

With such little feedback around here and the vast majority of that is 'loved it, 5 stars!" Stacnash is easily in the top 1 or 2 percentiles of reviewers here. I'm not arguing that she's not rude or arrogant or snooty or even a nice person at all. I'm just saying that we do ourselves a disservice when we dismiss and cry 'not fair' to such a blunt scathing swaggering review. No review ever makes any story any worse or any better. No reader's opinion ever changes a comma in the original work. When we get upset over this, we just don't like a fly in our ointment, but the feedback is NOT our ointment, no matter how much our ego wants us to believe that it is.

In a 400 word review, if we read it objectively, it is impossible not to find multiple pieces of good info that can help us in some way moving forward. Do we want that or not?

I agree with your last point, but it's like finding small bits of wheat amongst mountains of chaff. Her methodology is fundamentally flawed, as discussed above. Her opinions are arbitrary and in many cases apparently designed to be cruel but are frequently so far off the mark as to be laughable, which is what this thread is about. It wasn't meant to be a Stacnash-bashing thread, but she provides a rich vein of examples. In a world where we would like better critics, she doesn't cut it.

That doesn't mean that we should be upset though. It is what it is. Find what's useful, have a giggle at what's not, and move on, by all means. The more we are used to dealing with harsh criticism, whether justified or not, the easier it gets.

 

[Nynah]

From what I have read of this particular person's reviews, any useful criticism they have is buried under caustic diatribe and wildly reaching assumptions about the author in general. I do not begrudge writers who do not subject themselves to having to parse all that.

To use food analogies for feedback (not meant to be an exhaustive list of all instances of commentary but just ones pertinent to this discussion):

"Omg this story is awesome, five stars!" - Candy. Sure, there's some nutritional value there and it tastes/feels really good but doesn't offer much in the way of sustenance/improvement. Most authors will still take this over the alternatives and that is totally fine. Expecting this all the time is clearly not good either; balance is best.
"Your work is good, here's how it could be better." - A healthly, well-balanced meal. It might have some things like brussel sprouts or some other thing you find hard to swallow, but all around it provides positive reinforcement while also offering suggestions for improvement. The best outcome for feedback for any author, sadly not found all that often but is cherished when it is.
"This is 95% terrible, here's what little you got right but on the whole you are an awful writer and you should feel bad." - This is the equivalent of being served a pile of excrement with chunks of filet mignon distributed throughout. Any nutritional/substantive value is obviated by the fact the author has to dig through harsh put-downs and largely inaccurate suppositions about their character, so I cannot blame anyone who values their mental health to not want to sit through that.

I'm not saying everyone who has valid criticism of your work has to be your best friend or be completely saccharine and blow smoke up your ass. It costs nothing to be civil; being harsh and abusive is a choice and if an author decides not to engage with that, it's a perfectly reasonable response and they are under no obligation to try and pick out useful bits out of the morass of invective.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

I agree with your last point, but it's like finding small bits of wheat amongst mountains of chaff. Her methodology is fundamentally flawed, as discussed above. Her opinions are arbitrary and in many cases apparently designed to be cruel but are frequently so far off the mark as to be laughable, which is what this thread is about. It wasn't meant to be a Stacnash-bashing thread, but she provides a rich vein of examples. In a world where we would like better critics, she doesn't cut it.

You're dismissing. It's very clear. Find any reason to dismiss.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

"This is 95% terrible, here's what little you got right but on the whole you are an awful writer and you should feel bad." - This is the equivalent of being served a pile of excrement with chunks of filet mignon distributed throughout. Any nutritional/substantive value is obviated by the fact the author has to dig through harsh put-downs and largely inaccurate suppositions about their character, so I cannot blame anyone who values their mental health to not want to sit through that.

We roughly get 1 comment per 1000 views. This little bits of mignon are far far far more than then next 999 views will give us. Do we want it or not? If the answer is not an unqualified 'yes', then we are writing for approval more than we are writing to tell our story.

 

[Nynah]

We roughly get 1 comment per 1000 views. This little bits of mignon are far far far more than then next 999 views will give us. Do we want it or not? If the answer is not an unqualified 'yes', then we are writing for approval more than we are writing to tell our story.

The point of my filet mignon metaphor is that any useful advice that is offered in such a situation is tainted by the insults around it. Just because it might be useful/valid is still not a good enough reason to have sit through paragraphs and paragraphs of character assassination.

I don't include myself when you say "Do we want it or not?". I value my mental health and worth as a person enough not to have to consume hateful garbage just to get at the few scraps of actual critique. I'd rather have my stories get no comments than one laced with vitriol, so no, I don't want it. If that makes you think that I'm writing for approval over writing to tell my story, you are more than welcome to think that. It changes nothing about how I feel about the integrity of my own work and my own motivations for writing what I write.