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.
It's the way naughty children over the centuries looked for the "good parts" in a classic work and giggled
LOL! Sorry, that gave me a much needed giggle. Good analogy!
That is what I am saying exactly does not work.
You know better than I. As I said, I wouldn't dream of volunteering for that panel. I'd be so hopeless at it.
And sorry to make you answer the same question three times. I saw only after I posted my comment (long-winded typer that I am) that you'd already answered it.
I know how the ratings panel worked and it didn't work very well for me. But I was not included this discussion. I always read all of short stories and a much greater percentage of the novels we considered than was suggested to me. I cannot emphasize that too much.
If MEFAs were going to discuss any changes or alterations it should have been opened up to at least a broader selection of people if not mass democracy and, bottom line, everyone can profit from a professional copy check. The stuff is way too complicated, long, unclear, and folds back upon itself. Needs a hard line edit even if I agreed with the thrust of it, which I do not.
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
LOL! Sorry, that gave me a much needed giggle. Good analogy!
That is what I am saying exactly does not work.
You know better than I. As I said, I wouldn't dream of volunteering for that panel. I'd be so hopeless at it.
And sorry to make you answer the same question three times. I saw only after I posted my comment (long-winded typer that I am) that you'd already answered it.
Reply
Reply
If MEFAs were going to discuss any changes or alterations it should have been opened up to at least a broader selection of people if not mass democracy and, bottom line, everyone can profit from a professional copy check. The stuff is way too complicated, long, unclear, and folds back upon itself. Needs a hard line edit even if I agreed with the thrust of it, which I do not.
Reply
Leave a comment