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

[Actingup]

I’ve said quite enough about her… however to summarise, I think that she is a poor critic with an inflated sense of self importance. When she doesn’t like a story, she phrases it as a personal attack, and she generalises from that one story to the author in general.

If she’s a librarian, they do weekly book burnings at her library.

 

[Voboy]

But I see why you'd defend them; you're just like them.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

 

[AwkwardMD]

I can't help but notice, Doc, how this is pretty much your prescription for everything!

Not that I'm complaining.

Some things are better with a little bit of lube.

 

[lovecraft68]

I wlll gladly admit it. My stories have gotten so few comments lately, I'd be happy with just about anything, lol.

Careful what you wish for....

 

[lovecraft68]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

Exactly

 

[Kumquatqueen]

I was quite chuffed to get Stacnashed - I'm a 3-star author, apparently. Their ire was over the story they reviewed being lazy and not worthy of me, which given I wrote it to see if I could write a story that ticked the readers' boxes in a category I have no interest in, is probably totally accurate. (Only One Bed, Again!)

I get few comments, certainly very few that are more than a few words, so getting one that was reasonably if backhandedly complimentary was appreciated. At least they'd clearly read the story!

 

[Rob_Royale]

Nah. I don't dabble in her prefered categories often enough to draw her fire.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Reading through some threads, it's hard to believe that the AH is a place where the median age is around 50, and where people often reveal a keen intellect when some interesting and non-polarizing topics are being discussed. Well, this is clearly not one of those topics.

More than a few people here have an obviously one-sided approach to Stacnash. Some present her only as an insightful and eloquent critic, while perhaps acknowledging her bias and the misguided approach to judge the writer rather than the story.
Some others present her only as a nasty and spiteful troll.
It is quite obvious to anyone who wants to see things objectively that she is both.

At first, I was gonna write a really long post with all the chronology of events and everything that has been going on in the forum and behind the scenes, and ask people to judge her while having in mind all the aspects of her personality.

I realize now that that would be a futile effort. All those who really want to be objective already know what I said to be the truth, so there is no need for me to waste my words. And all those who desperately want to see her only as an amazing critic who recognizes their "elite" writing, and of course, all those who want her to be nothing but a dumb and malicious troll, will continue to think so in order for their illusions to survive.

Anyway, no matter what you think of my post, as @MrHereWriting said, there is no doubt that Stacnash is having chain orgasms while reading topics such as this one. Well, as long as someone is having fun.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Reading through some threads, it's hard to believe that the AH is a place where the median age is around 50, and where people often reveal a keen intellect when some interesting and non-polarizing topics are being discussed. Well, this is clearly not one of those topics.

More than a few people here have an obviously one-sided approach to Stacnash. Some present her only as an insightful and eloquent critic, while perhaps acknowledging her bias and the misguided approach to judge the writer rather than the story.
Some others present her only as a nasty and spiteful troll.
It is quite obvious to anyone who wants to see things objectively that she is both.

At first, I was gonna write a really long post with all the chronology of events and everything that has been going on in the forum and behind the scenes, and ask people to judge her while having in mind all the aspects of her personality.

I realize now that that would be a futile effort. All those who really want to be objective already know what I said to be the truth, so there is no need for me to waste my words. And all those who desperately want to see her only as an amazing critic who recognizes their "elite" writing, and of course, all those who want her to be nothing but a dumb and malicious troll, will continue to think so in order for their illusions to survive.

Anyway, no matter what you think of my post, as @MrHereWriting said, there is no doubt that Stacnash is having chain orgasms while reading topics such as this one. Well, as long as someone is having fun.

Ted Kaczynski was both a brilliant mathematican and a nut job terrorist.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Ted Kaczynski was both a brilliant mathematican and a nut job terrorist.

Indeed. But let's be real. Stacnash is neither brilliant nor a nutjob. She is just a person.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Indeed. But let's be real. Stacnash is neither brilliant nor a nutjob. She is just a person.

Well, we've ruled out brilliant, but nut job is still on the table. Creating alts and all the other indicators of obsessing over this site aren't indicative of good mental health.

 

[lovecraft68]

Anyway, no matter what you think of my post, as @MrHereWriting said, there is no doubt that Stacnash is having chain orgasms while reading topics such as this one. Well, as long as someone is having fun.

50/50 on that. They could be getting off on the attention, but they're so arrogant they could be grinding their teeth at the people being dismissive of them.

I think the leaning toward them being a troll comes from two things.

One, to be taken seriously as a critic when presenting why they didn't like a story, it needs to be done in an intelligent professional manner, not nasty and frothing like the average LW troll. That tends to remove credibility.
Another is again, the lists. "I'm so important, let me tell everyone here who not to read based on my opinion" that's another sign of immaturity over being taken seriously.

Something else that strikes me is their two preferred categories that they want recommendations for, are the stories they trash the hardest and I wonder if this is one of those masochist trolls who read something they know they'll hate, hate it, then take it out on the author. That or they have such a particular grasp of what each should be nothing else is acceptable. By nature those categories are going to have a lot more material they hate than like.

My last point is something I can identify with in the sense I enjoy BDSM both in practice and in stories, but the category here is so rife with abuse, non consent and gross misrepresentation, that I long gave up trying to navigate the minefield looking for things I'd like. Its not worth rolling my eyes and back clcking ten times to find something decent. Difference is I know this, so I don't aggravate myself and then blast authors for it.

 

[Voboy]

Another is again, the lists. "I'm so important, let me tell everyone here who not to read based on my opinion" that's another sign of immaturity over being taken seriously.

Again, this is the part that bothers me, too.

I have no quarrel with any reader giving any kind of critique they like. Vive le difference. As I said before, stacnash is not even the most annoying commenter on the site; IMO, that would be commentarista, whose comments are far more off-base than stacnash's are. And STILL I tend to leave commentarista's comments up on my stories, because, again, it's a point of view to which he's entitled. I'm not afraid of it.

The issue with stacnash is the insistence on qualifying different writers based on their own standards, then proclaiming it publicly. It is certainly their "right" to do this, of course, but I think it's impolite, unhelpful, and petty.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

One, to be taken seriously as a critic when presenting why they didn't like a story, it needs to be done in an intelligent professional manner, not nasty and frothing like the average LW troll. That tends to remove credibility.
Another is again, the lists. "I'm so important, let me tell everyone here who not to read based on my opinion" that's another sign of immaturity over being taken seriously.

I agree completely, and that was exactly why I was the first person to publicly clash with Stacnash at the time.

 

[Djmac1031]

I made it to the 3 Star List with In Plane View.

Hey, someone enjoys "reviewing" stories, good for them. Everyone needs a hobby.

I do find it telling they basically make their judgements based on a single story sample.

They're entitled to their opinion of my story. But it's affected neither my approach to writing nor my audience's appreciation of it.

 

[MrHereWriting]

50/50 on that. They could be getting off on the attention, but they're so arrogant they could be grinding their teeth at the people being dismissive of them.

Jokes aside, I honestly have no idea who they are or that they were even in this forum or if I ever interacted with them: I have no memory of them.

 

[lovecraft68]

Again, this is the part that bothers me, too.

I have no quarrel with any reader giving any kind of critique they like. Vive le difference. As I said before, stacnash is not even the most annoying commenter on the site; IMO, that would be commentarista, whose comments are far more off-base than stacnash's are. And STILL I tend to leave commentarista's comments up on my stories, because, again, it's a point of view to which he's entitled. I'm not afraid of it.

The issue with stacnash is the insistence on qualifying different writers based on their own standards, then proclaiming it publicly. It is certainly their "right" to do this, of course, but I think it's impolite, unhelpful, and petty.

I've never heard of commentarista, great name though. I've gotten 26nth or whatever there name is a few times, overlycritical, there's a guy named Toughsailor who comments on many of my stories that says the stories are okay, but all my male characters are simps. There's a poster "Anubelore" who comments a lot in LW but other places as well that leaves those long personal diatribe type comments, some good, some bad, but at this point I see the name I don't even read it.

I never delete a comment no matter what it says, that's just me. The story she claimed was reported and removed had one of her long vicious comments on it, followed by another poster that was just as abusive, then an anon that sounded the same. Three comments in one day on a story that hadn't seen a comment in months (Hmmm) but I think they noticed their comment was gone because they strike me as the type to come back and see if people removed them or replied, and saw the story gone.

I don't care if someone wants to shit on a story, that comes with the territory on a free site anyone can post on, I do care about the "These are great writers, these are bad writers." I have never once claimed to be a better writer than anyone here, but by the same token I won't be told I'm worse than anyone. Everyone works hard on their stories, they're proud of them and whether I like the tale or not I am mindful that writing is a dream for many people and who am I to shit on it out of pettiness or because I can, or I feel righteously offended by it? I don't care for it, I don't vote or comment.

Most here have dealt with this crap and most handle it fairly well, but as I said before, some take it to heart and I think they do need to try and understand this site for the most part scores and comments positively and to go with that. But when someone is trying to shame people with a "don't read these people" list, that's too much. Takes a real small person to do that.

Blessed be the interwebz and the gift of bandwidth courage.

 

[lovecraft68]

Jokes aside, I honestly have no idea who they are or that they were even in this forum or if I ever interacted with them: I have no memory of them.

They were on this forum for a hot minute. I think it was one thread, and they were so abrasive and nasty the mod removed them from here in record time. I think they received a 'time out' for posting here, but not an account ban and they have not posted here since, but fairly certain they visit from time to time. So if you blinked, you missed them.

 

[joy_of_cooking]

a coterie of po-faced librarians, each daring the other to read naughty erotica and compare notes

...new author challenge?

 

[Djmac1031]

As I said before, stacnash is not even the most annoying commenter on the site; IMO, that would be commentarista, whose comments are far more off-base than stacnash's are

Commentarista commented on my story, Black Barbie, with a long winded commentary that, when boiled down to basics, said my story was good, but could have been better if I'd written it their way.

 

[Voboy]

Commentarista commented on my story, Black Barbie, with a long winded commentary that, when boiled down to basics, said my story was good, but could have been better if I'd written it their way.

Precisely.

He had an issue with one of my stories (fair), but his issue was that one of the characters' last names was vaguely Hispanic, and that my story was fatally flawed because, having brought up "interracial" sexual dynamics, I didn't use it as an opportunity to address race relations. He pointed out that that's how Gabriel Garcia Marquez would have done it. And I'm not kidding about any of that.

Me? I had spent literally fourteen seconds coming up with the character's name. It was "LaPerla." I wasn't thinking Hispanic at all; I was looking for something that went nicely with "Melissa," her first name. Another character was a "Cruz."

Dude's crazy. I left the comment up so that other readers could be as dumbfounded as I was. No paragraph breaks in it, either. I linked the story in case you guys want to go read the comment, lol.

ETA: I misremembered, lol. It wasn't Gabriel Garcia Marquez; it was Isabel Allende. My bad.

 

[Djmac1031]

Precisely.

He had an issue with one of my stories (fair), but his issue was that one of the characters' last names was vaguely Hispanic, and that my story was fatally flawed because, having brought up "interracial" sexual dynamics, I didn't use it as an opportunity to address race relations. He pointed out that that's how Gabriel Garcia Marquez would have done it. And I'm not kidding about any of that.

His issue with mine (among several) was that I didn't write an entire history/ backstory for my sex worker character describing exactly how she got into the business and the societal difficulties that drove her to it.

My story was a short & sweet encounter between a recently divorced man and a friendly and talented sex worker who helped him get a little self confidence back.

Commentarista wanted an additional 7.5K words ( I kid you not, they literally suggested this) to 'give the story a shot at developing.'

 

[THBGato]

Gabriel Garcia Marquez

Isabelle Allende, actually, but I take your point and it's a fairly ridiculous comparison.

 

[Voboy]

Isabelle Allende, actually, but I take your point and it's a fairly ridiculous comparison.

Thank you; I went back and read his comment and edited my post.

I've read it back to myself about four or five times just now and I still don't know what he was yapping about. It's sad; he spent half the comment telling me what a great job I'd done. Then he gave me a 3*

See, OP? It can be worse than Stacnash.

 

[BlazonG]

This discussion is hilarious, I’m glad I asked.