I think a moment to define what the "justification" entails might cut to the meat of the matter, at least on that point. I know this part is unclear to me, and I feel it needs to be ironed out before nominations start coming in. I'll use my own story "The Dark One" which ran in 2008 and contains one of the most F-ed up scenes I've ever written, as an example.
Would the italicized section be sufficient to meet the "description" requirement in an entry that so many are concerned to see, or would the analysis of *why* that particular scene is necessary be needed as well?
The Ratings Panel would receive an email saying, essentially:
I'd like to check the eligibility of my short story "The Dark One," posted on Open Scrolls Archive, where it is rated as Adult for Implied Sex; Angst; Discussion of War-time Violence, including the death/dismemberment of an infant; and Disturbing Imagery.
(LINK)
Thanks for your help, Neu
STOP: TRIGGERS BELOW. Proceed cautiously.
The situation that worried me is when a hopeless old grandmother describes how her now traumatized daughter-in-law came to be in her state. Grandma explains that an Uruk Hai snatched up the infant the wife had been nursing, bit off his head, and handed her back the body. While the story is told, the husband lies beside them dying of burns incurred in the attack, and the bereaved mother sits with a piglet wrapped in sacking, nursing it. In a later scene, the grandmother and son are found dead, with the daughter-in-law still nursing the piglet. Eomer and Thedred, deprived of the information the son could have provided about the Uruk Hai in the West of Rohan, see that the traumatized woman will be taken to Aldburg where she might be safe and looked after.
SAFE SPACE AGAIN
It sickened me to write, but I included it to illustrate the kind of emotional and psychological torment refugees in war-torn areas frequently go through, and some of the ways a traumatized mind would find to cope with so sudden and gruesome a loss.
Does it have "literary merit"? I don't know, but I haven't been chewed out for it, and the story would definitely lose something without that scene. But, looking at it as a reader/reviewer, the fact that the violence is "off screen" so to speak is all that I think keeps it R v NC17.
Neume, this is exactly the kind of thing I want to clear up now rather than later. I can't remember when I used "justify" or in what context specifically, but I didn't mean to make too much out of it.
At a minimum, the panel needs two pieces of information: that a certain story needs to be looked at, and (for longer stories) that the panel should focus on these specific chapters. And really, the author's only providing the second point. Anything else is gravy. If an author has has specific concerns they'd like the panel to look at more specifically, I'm happy to pass that on and have the panel assure the author that, no, the animal cruelty you wrote about in chapter seven really doesn't earn more than a violence content advisory of four. Or whatever the case may be. The justification isn't you laying out your case for why you think your choice is correct. The language is a hold-over from the old system, and is my way of asking: what is it that makes you uneasy with your rating choice? What makes you unsure about your rating to the point that you want a second opinion? It really doesn't need to be anything complicated or involved.
If you sent me the italics section that would definitely be sufficient. And if you sent me all the rest, I'd pass that along to the ratings panel. But if you didn't include it, I wouldn't bat an eye either.
Excellent. I think this is the kind of illustrative example we need to address the question. Feel free to reference people here or pass it along elsewhere if it may be of use.
I'm also not sure where "justify" came into the discussion, or who used the term initially, but it's a word I've seen used in the wide-spread debate. To me, that language indicates the strong feelings associated with the idea of making someone "defend" their choices as an author, which I think is where a lot of the hurt and suspicion is coming into play.
I'm also not sure where "justify" came into the discussion,
If a story receives a "5" in any of these areas, you will need to demonstrate it is eligible for the awards.
Demonstrate is so very close to justify or defend.. I understand -- it has to go past the review panel. It doesn't mean it needs a twenty-page legal brief defending it. it just sounded that way.
I used the word justify in my post above. I intentionally used it because it, along with the word 'defend' was the word that I have read people discussing this in other forums use.
Moreover, I specifically chose to use the word justify in my post above because it is the word the people who wrote the original protest to this policy used:
"The ratings system places an undue burden on authors who write mature content by requiring them to justify the literary merits of their stories and potentially discourages their participation in the awards."
That is a direct quote from Doc Bushnell/Pande's letter that the people signed.
That is where 'justify' come into the discussion, just to clarify.
ETA: Marta/the MEFAs never used that term. All MEFAs said was: "But where exactly do you draw the distinction on whether a story is mature or adult? To help with that, we set up a ratings panel a few years back, a group of long-term MEFA members who will read stories and decide whether they think they are mature or adult. If a story was rated adult, it wasn't eligible that year. And if the author put the story before the panel during nominations season, the story could be withdrawn and entered again in a later year (if for example the author changed the story, or MEFA guidelines changed)....To avoid that problem, we're tweaking the rules a little bit. If your story is rated "mature" you need to show that it's not really adult before it can compete. This can happen in two ways: you can either run it by the ratings panel during the nomination period, or else you can show us a major archive (not just a personal site or blog) where the story is posted with a rating that clearly fits within the "mature" rating. And this doesn't have to be the link you give the MEFAs; it can be any other site that basically shows the story fits our mature ratings. Either way, you need to show us it's not adult during the nomination period; otherwise, it won't be able to compete. But the real point of all this is that it also won't be pulled out of the awards later, if someone complains that it's adult rather than mature." From the LJ announcement on this blog on policy changes dated June 16.
The actual wording of the 1-6 content advisories and all associated with it that will appear on the nomination form/FAQs were still in draft form when they started to circulate. But even in the drafts, I doubt we used the word 'justify' because, as I've said above, our intent here was just to narrow down what the ratings panel read/get more info from the author.
FYI, see the bolded text below that formed the basis for "justify literary merit" from the group of writers who wrote the letter. As Randy noted, this needn't entail a 20 page legal brief. I believe everyone understands that. For a short story or a novella of a three or four chapters, this might not be problematic, but for a full novel with mature content, it has the potential to throw up a barrier to the author of a nominated story.
If a story receives a "5" in any of these areas, you will need to demonstrate it is eligible for the awards. This typically happens in one of two ways. First, you can have the MEFA ratings panel look over it and agree that the content advisory really is the correct one. This isn't because we want to second-guess you, but rather it's to protect you from misunderstanding our policies. (If we later find out your story is ineligible to compete it will have to be withdrawn, and if this happens late enough in the awards it won't be eligible to compete in future years.) To do this, you would need to email the awards administrator. [mefasupport@gmail.com> Re: ratings panel] Include a link to the story, specific chapters or scenes you want looked at, and also a brief description of the scenes' context to show how they function in the larger story. Our ratings panel will then decide whether the story can compete in the MEFAs. If the story does need to be withdrawn, you will know this in time for it to still be eligible in future years.
Twice the piece quoted: you need to show. In order to compete you have to come forward with details, it isn't optional and comes across that you have to defend/justify your participation. There are some more issues with the bit you cited:
Either way, you need to show us it's not adult during the nomination period; otherwise, it won't be able to compete. But the real point of all this is that it also won't be pulled out of the awards later, if someone complains that it's adult rather than mature.
Bold emphasis made by me. The burden of proof is only during nomation period and not the periods after that. An author, of for example a work in progress still can develop their story (or a completed story still might undergo edits) and add material that could have the rating altered. A reader still can stumble upon those and report those, even though it states it cannot be pulled, it isn't clear on alterations made on a work that still can turn a mature story in a too adult one for sensitive readers... I am not even sure if that is covered/discussed in the 'new' policy, but I can see the weakness there. It's better to do away with those ratings and just do a General, Teens and Adult system. Straightforward and very simple. Let the skill of using the backspace button be a factor there.
I used the word justify in my post above. I intentionally used it because it, along with the word 'defend' was the word that I have read people discussing this in other forums use.
Defend and justify are pretty close in meaning, and that's how rumor works. Things get skewed as they're passed on.
What has changed this year is that the author no longer gets to make the judgement call about whether a story is mature or adult. The burden of proof is on us, if you will.
To be fair, that decision was never solely up to the author. The difference is one of scale: whereas in the past any author could have their rating challenged (and possibly changed if the ratings panel agreed), this year it happens to all authors, upfront and in the same way. That has the advantage of at least being consistent and also happening early enough that people hadn't voted for a story all awards long and it was pulled at the last second, which nearly everyone I've talked to seems to think is massively unfair.
I'm not saying that this policy is good or bad. I'm just trying to clarify that the author not being able to set their own rating isn't an actual change, though the number of authors affected definitely is.
also happening early enough that people hadn't voted for a story all awards long and it was pulled at the last second, which nearly everyone I've talked to seems to think is massively unfair.
Frustrating, perhaps. But I always understood that if we interpreted the ratings too generously (and didn't check with the ratings panel first) we ran the risk of a complaint being lodged at any time.
Would the italicized section be sufficient to meet the "description" requirement in an entry that so many are concerned to see, or would the analysis of *why* that particular scene is necessary be needed as well?
The Ratings Panel would receive an email saying, essentially:
I'd like to check the eligibility of my short story "The Dark One," posted on Open Scrolls Archive, where it is rated as Adult for Implied Sex; Angst; Discussion of War-time Violence, including the death/dismemberment of an infant; and Disturbing Imagery.
(LINK)
Thanks for your help,
Neu
STOP: TRIGGERS BELOW. Proceed cautiously.
The situation that worried me is when a hopeless old grandmother describes how her now traumatized daughter-in-law came to be in her state. Grandma explains that an Uruk Hai snatched up the infant the wife had been nursing, bit off his head, and handed her back the body. While the story is told, the husband lies beside them dying of burns incurred in the attack, and the bereaved mother sits with a piglet wrapped in sacking, nursing it. In a later scene, the grandmother and son are found dead, with the daughter-in-law still nursing the piglet. Eomer and Thedred, deprived of the information the son could have provided about the Uruk Hai in the West of Rohan, see that the traumatized woman will be taken to Aldburg where she might be safe and looked after.
SAFE SPACE AGAIN
It sickened me to write, but I included it to illustrate the kind of emotional and psychological torment refugees in war-torn areas frequently go through, and some of the ways a traumatized mind would find to cope with so sudden and gruesome a loss.
Does it have "literary merit"? I don't know, but I haven't been chewed out for it, and the story would definitely lose something without that scene. But, looking at it as a reader/reviewer, the fact that the violence is "off screen" so to speak is all that I think keeps it R v NC17.
Reply
At a minimum, the panel needs two pieces of information: that a certain story needs to be looked at, and (for longer stories) that the panel should focus on these specific chapters. And really, the author's only providing the second point. Anything else is gravy. If an author has has specific concerns they'd like the panel to look at more specifically, I'm happy to pass that on and have the panel assure the author that, no, the animal cruelty you wrote about in chapter seven really doesn't earn more than a violence content advisory of four. Or whatever the case may be. The justification isn't you laying out your case for why you think your choice is correct. The language is a hold-over from the old system, and is my way of asking: what is it that makes you uneasy with your rating choice? What makes you unsure about your rating to the point that you want a second opinion? It really doesn't need to be anything complicated or involved.
If you sent me the italics section that would definitely be sufficient. And if you sent me all the rest, I'd pass that along to the ratings panel. But if you didn't include it, I wouldn't bat an eye either.
Reply
I'm also not sure where "justify" came into the discussion, or who used the term initially, but it's a word I've seen used in the wide-spread debate. To me, that language indicates the strong feelings associated with the idea of making someone "defend" their choices as an author, which I think is where a lot of the hurt and suspicion is coming into play.
Reply
If a story receives a "5" in any of these areas, you will need to demonstrate it is eligible for the awards.
Demonstrate is so very close to justify or defend.. I understand -- it has to go past the review panel. It doesn't mean it needs a twenty-page legal brief defending it. it just sounded that way.
Reply
Moreover, I specifically chose to use the word justify in my post above because it is the word the people who wrote the original protest to this policy used:
"The ratings system places an undue burden on authors who write mature content by requiring them to justify the literary merits of their stories and potentially discourages their participation in the awards."
That is a direct quote from Doc Bushnell/Pande's letter that the people signed.
That is where 'justify' come into the discussion, just to clarify.
ETA: Marta/the MEFAs never used that term. All MEFAs said was: "But where exactly do you draw the distinction on whether a story is mature or adult? To help with that, we set up a ratings panel a few years back, a group of long-term MEFA members who will read stories and decide whether they think they are mature or adult. If a story was rated adult, it wasn't eligible that year. And if the author put the story before the panel during nominations season, the story could be withdrawn and entered again in a later year (if for example the author changed the story, or MEFA guidelines changed)....To avoid that problem, we're tweaking the rules a little bit. If your story is rated "mature" you need to show that it's not really adult before it can compete. This can happen in two ways: you can either run it by the ratings panel during the nomination period, or else you can show us a major archive (not just a personal site or blog) where the story is posted with a rating that clearly fits within the "mature" rating. And this doesn't have to be the link you give the MEFAs; it can be any other site that basically shows the story fits our mature ratings. Either way, you need to show us it's not adult during the nomination period; otherwise, it won't be able to compete. But the real point of all this is that it also won't be pulled out of the awards later, if someone complains that it's adult rather than mature." From the LJ announcement on this blog on policy changes dated June 16.
The actual wording of the 1-6 content advisories and all associated with it that will appear on the nomination form/FAQs were still in draft form when they started to circulate. But even in the drafts, I doubt we used the word 'justify' because, as I've said above, our intent here was just to narrow down what the ratings panel read/get more info from the author.
Reply
If a story receives a "5" in any of these areas, you will need to demonstrate it is eligible for the awards. This typically happens in one of two ways. First, you can have the MEFA ratings panel look over it and agree that the content advisory really is the correct one. This isn't because we want to second-guess you, but rather it's to protect you from misunderstanding our policies. (If we later find out your story is ineligible to compete it will have to be withdrawn, and if this happens late enough in the awards it won't be eligible to compete in future years.) To do this, you would need to email the awards administrator. [mefasupport@gmail.com> Re: ratings panel] Include a link to the story, specific chapters or scenes you want looked at, and also a brief description of the scenes' context to show how they function in the larger story. Our ratings panel will then decide whether the story can compete in the MEFAs. If the story does need to be withdrawn, you will know this in time for it to still be eligible in future years.
Reply
Either way, you need to show us it's not adult during the nomination period; otherwise, it won't be able to compete. But the real point of all this is that it also won't be pulled out of the awards later, if someone complains that it's adult rather than mature.
Bold emphasis made by me. The burden of proof is only during nomation period and not the periods after that. An author, of for example a work in progress still can develop their story (or a completed story still might undergo edits) and add material that could have the rating altered. A reader still can stumble upon those and report those, even though it states it cannot be pulled, it isn't clear on alterations made on a work that still can turn a mature story in a too adult one for sensitive readers... I am not even sure if that is covered/discussed in the 'new' policy, but I can see the weakness there. It's better to do away with those ratings and just do a General, Teens and Adult system. Straightforward and very simple. Let the skill of using the backspace button be a factor there.
edit: I accidentally hit an enter here, sorry
Reply
Defend and justify are pretty close in meaning, and that's how rumor works. Things get skewed as they're passed on.
What has changed this year is that the author no longer gets to make the judgement call about whether a story is mature or adult. The burden of proof is on us, if you will.
Reply
I'm not saying that this policy is good or bad. I'm just trying to clarify that the author not being able to set their own rating isn't an actual change, though the number of authors affected definitely is.
Reply
Frustrating, perhaps. But I always understood that if we interpreted the ratings too generously (and didn't check with the ratings panel first) we ran the risk of a complaint being lodged at any time.
Reply
Leave a comment