Rhapsody, I'm not sure I understand what you're asking, so please bear with me.
Right now, if your story has a "5" in any area I will look to see if it's hosted at one of the archives that let you skip the ratings panel. If it is, I'll go ahead and finalize it. If it's not, then I would email you as the author and ask for a few pieces of information, most importantly the specific scenes that you want the panel to look at. I also give the author the opportunity to explain the context (what's going on before and after a scene), since the panel usually needs to know that. I think I ask for some other things, but those other things aren't really crucial.
Is this the description you're talking about? If so, I think we can be flexible here, especially for shorter stories. If something is a single chapter, I could just pass it on to the ratings panel without the author needing to do anything. For longer pieces, I'd still need to know what chapters need looking at, but everything else is strictly optional. So even if I had to email you and ask "Which chapters made you think this story earned a five", you could just send me the links. I could also offer to pass on anything else you wanted the rating panel to see, but that would be optional.
If you're talking about something else, please let me know.
No I am not, but the description thing is is exactly what I mean (it's far too late here, sorry about my muddled comment). Can the question be even shortened to just pointing out specific chapters instead of the author having to detail specifically detail material (scenes for example) should be looked at (I do think we're on the same page here right?)? I have some comments on the description field, but I will hold onto that 'till September.
I do believe that if you lessen this, many folks who are upset about this will feel less censored.
ask for a few pieces of information, most importantly the specific scenes that you want the panel to look at
The one sex scene or the one graphically violent scene in a novel out of context does not define that novel and an explanation by the author or anyone else of why it is necessary to the plot, characterization and artistic effect the author desires cannot be proven without one reading the entire thing and thinking about it. And not just the theoretically most nearly salacious cut from it.
no, but if you for example let the rating people read the chapter (or chapters around it for build up), they could weigh it properly against the rest of the written chapters right? Let's say you have 3 adult scenes spread over a 20 chaptered story, you could for example point them to those three chapters and let them run the statistics...
I think it is too simplistic. I still want to raise the out-of-context warning here. We are human and reading a graphically sexual or violent scene even if it is only 3% of the story has an affect upon one which it might not have in the context of living with the characters and submerged in their world for say 100,000 words.
True. Based on what I read below, I would suggest also that an evaluation of the working method of the ratings panel would be useful: lessons learnt, what does work and what doesn't.
Oshun, you may have a valid point that the ratings panel can't adequately judge things based on a scene (even a scene where the author provides some context). The ratings panel has always judged stories on this basis, so the fact that we're doing things this way isn't a change. More to the point, people signed up for the ratings panel not expecting to have to read a long novel quickly.
I'm happy to discuss changing this in September, but it's just not feasible to change it for 2012.
I always read significantly more than was suggested to me and never found the isolated scenes however presented useful, usually the contrary, which led me to read and read to get a feel for the piece as a whole.
Likewise. I wouldn't want 3 or 4 pages of some of my stories defining them, because I write some pretty F-ed up stuff; I like to give the authors under review a fair reading to see their whole point.
I am newly come to the ratings panel - and certainly expected to read more than just a few scenes.
I would expect to read anything under about 10,000 words all the way through properly - unless the content was really not to my taste, in which case I might skim a bit! I expect, as a minimum, if presented with a full length novel, to read the first couple of chapters carefully, for a sense of the style of writing and the plot, and then each full chapter where there might be a worry about a scene being in some way disturbing, and the intervening chapters briefly for a sense of what is happening outside those chapters.
I reckon I could do a 150,000 word novel in a couple of nights, as above - in fact I have done something not dissimilar with a 250,000 word one over a couple of nights this week - reading some chapters properly and skimming a few just to see what was going on, as it sort of interested me, but didn't really grip me - if you see what I mean.
It also occurs to me that those whose stories I am asked to check will have something of a bonus as, unless I really don't like it at all, as long as it turns out to be eligible under the rules at the time, I will doubtless write a review at the end of the process...
Your description above is pretty much how I read works for the review panel. There was a time of two when I was unable to fairly consider a work for whatever reason--in which cases, I recused myself. Marta mentioned this could be a problem for a slow reader. I would assert a slow reader is not qualified for the rating panel, where time is critical.
There is a method here that you should strive to study and remedy in the future. Don't drop a potential bombshell on the membership at the last minute and say, 'fine, we will discuss your point/complaint/suggestion for next year, after the award season.' Minimally, it makes most people with a difference feel disregarded and disenfranchised. Not that it is not your ballgame and we play here at your sufferance, but that you always gave me the impression of wanting to be inclusive and not exclude writers who take their work seriously.
That was the benefit of doing the PM right after the awards, in public. Yes it was hectic, but it was out in the open and folks could weigh in if they wanted to. But to post the conclusions of a - behind doors held PM - two weeks prior the start is absolutely too short notice for people to digest. Again, Marta, I have some suggestions about this that I want to discuss in public, but I will wait 'till September.
I think the confusion with this point (what the author would need to provide if they marked their story a 5) came from the idea that the author of a "5" story was going to have to 'justify' that they wrote 'literature' (whatever that is) rather than 'pr0n' (whatever that is--I don't know how to distinguish them and I don't care--I enjoy both, but that's also why I don't volunteer for the rating panel either. I'd be lousy at the distinctions they have to make).
I was part of the discussion on this new policy, and if I am remembering correctly, the reasoning was this: we want stories where there is any doubt to go to the panel sooner rather than later. That, however might mean a lot more work for the panel. So we said, maybe we could narrow down the work for them by asking the author who wrote the 5/6 story to tell us which chapters might contain the 5/6 rated material. That way, rather than making the ratings panel read the whole work, which might be 70 chapters long, they could see the author said 'chapters XYZ might be a problem,' they could look at those chapters in balance with the whole work and then judge more quickly. Now we did say in our discussions that might not always be helpful. In some works, every chapter has some potential 5/6 material in it. So the author would just say that and then the panel would look at the whole thing and make their judgment based on whatever criteria they use (I really don't know that).
Point is--we never planned to ask anyone to write an essay explaining why their work was not a 6. We just wanted to narrow down chapters to make the panel's work easier.
The one sex scene or the one graphically violent scene in a novel out of context does not define that novel and an explanation by the author or anyone else of why it is necessary to the plot, characterization and artist effect the author desires cannot be proven without one reading it.
Agreed. And I don't think the ratings panel would misunderstand that. You have some knowledge of how that panel works, right? I think they know and are always instructed to look at the 'mature/adult' material in the context of the whole work always, right? It's just we thought if we could narrow down the location of that material, it might make it easier/faster for the panel. I mean, if someone turns in a 70 chap novel with doubts/worries that the 1 chapter with sex in it would make it ineligible, if you knew from the get go that it was only one chapter and which one it was, wouldn't that make it faster for a panel member? That was the thinking on that.
That way, rather than making the ratings panel read the whole work, which might be 70 chapters long, they could see the author said 'chapters XYZ might be a problem,'
That is what I am saying exactly does not work. Suppose I am given several paragraphs of chapter X, all of chapter Y, and a snippet from chapter Z. A person who could read that in the novel and see how it worked might judge those harshly out of context. It's the way naughty children over the centuries looked for the "good parts" in a classic work and giggled--salacious satisfaction in that case garnered from a well-respected work as far from PWP as anything could be. Poor, poor basis for censoring a work.
Right now, if your story has a "5" in any area I will look to see if it's hosted at one of the archives that let you skip the ratings panel. If it is, I'll go ahead and finalize it. If it's not, then I would email you as the author and ask for a few pieces of information, most importantly the specific scenes that you want the panel to look at. I also give the author the opportunity to explain the context (what's going on before and after a scene), since the panel usually needs to know that. I think I ask for some other things, but those other things aren't really crucial.
Is this the description you're talking about? If so, I think we can be flexible here, especially for shorter stories. If something is a single chapter, I could just pass it on to the ratings panel without the author needing to do anything. For longer pieces, I'd still need to know what chapters need looking at, but everything else is strictly optional. So even if I had to email you and ask "Which chapters made you think this story earned a five", you could just send me the links. I could also offer to pass on anything else you wanted the rating panel to see, but that would be optional.
If you're talking about something else, please let me know.
Reply
Reply
I do believe that if you lessen this, many folks who are upset about this will feel less censored.
Thanks!
Reply
The one sex scene or the one graphically violent scene in a novel out of context does not define that novel and an explanation by the author or anyone else of why it is necessary to the plot, characterization and artistic effect the author desires cannot be proven without one reading the entire thing and thinking about it. And not just the theoretically most nearly salacious cut from it.
Reply
Or is this too simplistic reasoning?
Reply
Reply
True. Based on what I read below, I would suggest also that an evaluation of the working method of the ratings panel would be useful: lessons learnt, what does work and what doesn't.
Reply
I'm happy to discuss changing this in September, but it's just not feasible to change it for 2012.
Reply
Reply
Reply
I would expect to read anything under about 10,000 words all the way through properly - unless the content was really not to my taste, in which case I might skim a bit! I expect, as a minimum, if presented with a full length novel, to read the first couple of chapters carefully, for a sense of the style of writing and the plot, and then each full chapter where there might be a worry about a scene being in some way disturbing, and the intervening chapters briefly for a sense of what is happening outside those chapters.
I reckon I could do a 150,000 word novel in a couple of nights, as above - in fact I have done something not dissimilar with a 250,000 word one over a couple of nights this week - reading some chapters properly and skimming a few just to see what was going on, as it sort of interested me, but didn't really grip me - if you see what I mean.
It also occurs to me that those whose stories I am asked to check will have something of a bonus as, unless I really don't like it at all, as long as it turns out to be eligible under the rules at the time, I will doubtless write a review at the end of the process...
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I was part of the discussion on this new policy, and if I am remembering correctly, the reasoning was this: we want stories where there is any doubt to go to the panel sooner rather than later. That, however might mean a lot more work for the panel. So we said, maybe we could narrow down the work for them by asking the author who wrote the 5/6 story to tell us which chapters might contain the 5/6 rated material. That way, rather than making the ratings panel read the whole work, which might be 70 chapters long, they could see the author said 'chapters XYZ might be a problem,' they could look at those chapters in balance with the whole work and then judge more quickly. Now we did say in our discussions that might not always be helpful. In some works, every chapter has some potential 5/6 material in it. So the author would just say that and then the panel would look at the whole thing and make their judgment based on whatever criteria they use (I really don't know that).
Point is--we never planned to ask anyone to write an essay explaining why their work was not a 6. We just wanted to narrow down chapters to make the panel's work easier.
The one sex scene or the one graphically violent scene in a novel out of context does not define that novel and an explanation by the author or anyone else of why it is necessary to the plot, characterization and artist effect the author desires cannot be proven without one reading it.
Agreed. And I don't think the ratings panel would misunderstand that. You have some knowledge of how that panel works, right? I think they know and are always instructed to look at the 'mature/adult' material in the context of the whole work always, right? It's just we thought if we could narrow down the location of that material, it might make it easier/faster for the panel. I mean, if someone turns in a 70 chap novel with doubts/worries that the 1 chapter with sex in it would make it ineligible, if you knew from the get go that it was only one chapter and which one it was, wouldn't that make it faster for a panel member? That was the thinking on that.
Reply
That is what I am saying exactly does not work. Suppose I am given several paragraphs of chapter X, all of chapter Y, and a snippet from chapter Z. A person who could read that in the novel and see how it worked might judge those harshly out of context. It's the way naughty children over the centuries looked for the "good parts" in a classic work and giggled--salacious satisfaction in that case garnered from a well-respected work as far from PWP as anything could be. Poor, poor basis for censoring a work.
Reply
Leave a comment