Do Better: SFF without Sexual Violence discussion
Group Guidelines - Town Hall
>
Excluding Sexual Violence - (Opens Oct 26, 2020)
date
newest »
newest »
Mod
1) Very Brief mentions of offscreen SV or implied SV:
For example:
Hollow Kingdom - (view spoiler)
Imager - (view spoiler)
2) A joke that includes a brief mention of SV -
For example:
Good Omens: The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch - (view spoiler)
3) Outlier Reviews:
They could be interpreting it differently that other reviewers or it could even be an error/typo. What should we do when 1 reviewer lists SV that other reviewers explicitly contradict or just don't mention?
For example:
♦ The Sorcerer of the Wildeeps - 1 review out of 700 mentioned (view spoiler)
♦ This Is How You Lose the Time War - 1 of 7000 reviews lists a (view spoiler)
♦ Winter Tide - 1 of 600 reviews lists a (view spoiler)
I don't know why but that joke from Good Omens actually bothered me more than the others. (Also, whoa how could I miss that?)
Mod
I've read only a handful of the books you've used as an example Beige, but if I had to follow my own guts alone, I'd say 1) and 2) are out, because an off-screen or mentioned rape still require a world where SV is a present, active threat, and I'm simply having a very hard time imagining any context in which a SV-based joke could ever be entirely harmless.
3) could be judged on a case by case basis - and since in situations such as these research doesn't prove decisive, I'd suggest we trust ourselves, and have an X number of members who've read it guarantee for the book? (with the understanding that we should do so only when we're absolutely positive our memory of the plot can be trusted, and that we can all be fallible of course).
Are we limiting this discussion to the specific term in the spoilers above? I have some other items I was going to ask clarification on. I'll get my thoughts together ( it's the 29th already?!)and do that on my pc where it's easier to use the spoiler tag.
Mod
Yes, I did a double take this morning when I saw it was the 29th!!
The spoilers above are just examples of what we've come across so far and discussed/questioned. Please do mention any other questions you have related to our SV guidelines, not already outlined in our FAQ 😉
Brief or offscreen isn't the relevant question, but rather it's like Elena says, does the story take place in a world where SV is tolerated and/or joked about.Also, what happens in Imager seems exploitive. Which imo is totally against what I hope this group is about. Women are people, not victims... stories that don't respect us as full-on people are not stories I want to read.
And yes, we'd have to painstakingly vet the outliers ourselves, imo. Too many people just don't notice 'yucky' stuff... I know, because I dnf a *lot* of books that need content warnings.
I agree with Elena on 1+2, and I'm in agreement with Cheryl about 3 - having someone from the group/a mod vet any outliers by reading the book after nomination with a specific eye for these things. I am personally willing to re-read Sorcerer and Time War, but I am not a mod, if that matters.
It almost feels like we need tags for the list. That way we can have levels? So you could look at the list and see which books are zero risk. A mod has fully vetted and can certify it is violence free. But maybe other books could be on there with a tag such as “likely safe but not read by mod yet.” Maybe it would be easier to come up with a color system. Green = definitely safe, yellow = very likely safe, orange = one mention of off screen violence, etc. Would that be too complicated?
Mod
@Cheryl - It has been interesting to see how relatively few reviewers discuss content warnings. I thought they'd be more than we've been seeing. I believe it will increase over time as some of the YA reviewers read more adult SFF.
For 1 & 2 - I'm particulary glad to see you all in agreement here because this would be tricky to moderate. If we allowed for even the briefest of mentions of SV, we'd have to try and assess how disturbing the mention actually is, which could be tricky without reading it.
For 3 - I like both Elena and Cheryl's idea for this. Maybe we could combine them?
If a review lists a "mention" if SV and other reviews state their is no SV, the moderator would...
< Mark it as questioned on the exclusion list
< Check to see if any members have recently read the book, if so, ask members to comment
< If no one has read it recently, place it on a "pending" list. Invite members/mods to read the pending books sometime in the future and report back to us.
@Kaa, I'm currently reading This Is How You Lose the Time War, (and loving it) so I'll be able to confirm 😁. I'd be happy for the support of any active member in helping to read and validate the "pending". Over time, of course, we wouldn't want reading to be a chore 😉
Mod
Sorry Kristin, I just saw your comment after I wrote mine. 😁
I think we could achieve your spirit of your idea via the "pending list" mentioned above. The pending wouldn't be on the bookshelf but on a list in a thread. They'd stay there until an active member/mod decided to read it.
I worry about putting so much pressure on mods. I know you all are so busy. I imagine there will be a ton of outliers in the long run. Perhaps jumping on your color system, Kristen, and your thought aboit having X amount of members verify, Elena... we have some sort of way for members who read the book from our shelves to help categorize it. For example, we have a tag on the shelf for outliers, so those venturing into the book know that it *appears* to be SV free, but may pose a risk. When they finish, there's a thread where they verify that its SV free or point out the SV. As it gains more reads by members it goes from a red outlier to a yellow to a green. Of course, we'd have guidelines for *how* how to read for verification.
That way it's not a single person reading for verification (we all make mistakes), but multiple and all the heavy lifting isn't only done by our wonderful mods. Or something of a similar idea within our shelves?
Wow I was really typing that one for a long time it seems. Haha!
Mod
Kab says: I am personally willing to re-read Sorcerer and Time War, but I am not a mod, if that matters.
I don't think it does at all in this case - we mod provide further research when needed, but obviously we'd simply be following the guidelines we've collectively agreed upon so far to determine if a book can be added to our shelf, same as everyone else.
I do wonder though if we should decide to have more than one member alone taking it upon themselves to make sure a certain book meets our criteria: I worry it might discourage folks in participating, if they feel that all the responsibility falls upon them alone, you know?
When we first started discussing this whole Do Better project over at WBtM we talked about having at least two people greenlighting a book: I suggest we do the same for the books that fall within this "undecided" category. The downside of this would likely be that it'd take us even more time to clear a book for the shelf, though.
Beige says: I think we could achieve your spirit of your idea via the "pending list" mentioned above. The pending wouldn't be on the bookshelf but on a list in a thread. They'd stay there until an active member/mod decided to read it.
Amanda says: I imagine there will be a ton of outliers in the long run.
You both bring up valid points and suggest valid solutions. I too fear things might get out of hand, but... there's nothing like trying, right? Whatever we decide to do in the end, I suggest we go for a trial period, like we're doing for the series: so far having members' recs being validated by further research by the mods proved satisfying, and we ended up with only a handful of books that need further looking into, so it's possible our fears won't come true, Amanda 😉
The pro of the list Beige suggested is that it makes it immediately clear the books haven't been cleared yet as safe reads (since, well... they wouldn't be on the shelf at all): it'll be a "to do" list of sorts, and it might make it easier for us all to keep track of the work to be done in that sense.
The pro of the system Kristen and Amanda suggested is that it would give us more than just one or two opinions on an outlier. Then again, we're always open to question a "greenlighted book" status, if members bring up new concerns about it.
In the end I think I prefer the idea of a pending list after all, if it's a satisfying solution for everyone.
Mod
Take that ☝🏻 wall of text 😂
Mod
Anyway, I'd be willing to read Hollow Kingdom in December, and give another chance to Winter Tide some time next year (I DNFed it in the past but I've been meaning to get back to it sooner or later, and I wouldn't mind it to be sooner 😉)
I'd be up for checking out This Is How You Lose and The Sorcerer of the Wildeeps in November if we decide in favor of having more than one member clearing an outlier.
Looking at the FAQ actually answered most questions. For (view spoiler) how vague should still be flagged? sometimes that word is never used but just alluded to with a villain.
I'm aligned with everyone else agreeing with 1 and 2. Pending list for #3 and happy to help out with reading books I was planning to read anyway or look interesting and bringing any questionable content to the mods for a decision.
Mod
@ Kristin & Amanda - One thing we have previously discussed and decided is not to put anything on our shelves that isn't green/no SV. While we could use tags, they could be easily missed and want to avoid as much confusion as possible. Currently, everything that has been excluded (red) or is being questioned (orange, yellow) is on the same list.
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Based on everyone's comments, I think we should create seperate lists for red and orange. If we have an orange/pending list, members can review and see what's on their TBR and might consider reading one and letting us know if they think it's actually green or red. And
Amanda, thanks for your concern about mods 🤗 With this solution, the orange/pending becomes a passive, member volunteer. Mods wouldn't feel pressure to read.
Mod
Orange/Pending List:
♦ The Sorcerer of the Wildeeps - 1 review out of 700 mentioned (view spoiler)
♦ This Is How You Lose the Time War - 1 of 7000 reviews lists a (view spoiler)
I'm currently reading this 😁
♦ Winter Tide - 1 of 600 reviews lists a (view spoiler)
♦ NEW Prosper's Demon - 1 of 417 reviews lists a (view spoiler)
Interestingly, 2 of the 4 outlier reviews are from a member of this group. I'm hoping they see our comments and decide to join in 😊
Mod
Mary, Thank you! Your FAQ comment made me very happy 😁😁😁
Mary wrote: "...how vague should still be flagged? sometimes that word is never used but just alluded to with a villain"...
We have been excluding books with implied SV. I suspect the reason we are finding single outlier reviews that contradict other reviewers is their interpretation of what's being implied. Where there isn't review consensus, I like what the members here are proposing, placing them in pending until another member eventually reads it and provides more insight.
Mod
#1&2 - Consensus on excluding brief mentions of SV, implied SV and jokes including SV
#3 - Proposed solution for outlier reviews
♦ Create a pending list
♦ Invite active members to read pending books in the future and report back.
a) If they report no SV, this will equal 2 member confirmations: The original member who proposed the book and the 2nd member who read it. The book will be removed from pending added to the bookshelf-database
b) If they report a mention/implied SV, the book will be moved from pending to the exclusion list.
EDIT - Another Question
What should more do when there is a low number of reviews. Up until now, we have only been researching and validating books if they have approx 100 written GR reviews. This number will automatically exclude some books from smaller presses, newer books and short stories (that GR librarians don't delete).
100 was chosen because not all reviewers list content warnings, so I felt we needed a buffer of sorts. What do you think?
Beige wrote: "Amanda, thanks for your concern about mods 🤗 With this solution, the orange/pending becomes a passive, member volunteer. Mods wouldn't feel pressure to read."I'm such a worrier I just worry about you all. You really do so much for these groups! It impresses me every day.
Beige wrote: "#3 - Proposed solution for outlier reviews
♦ Create a pending list
♦ Invite activ..."
I think this is a pretty good solution, but I do think we should or have a brief method for readers when they're reading. It's (unfortunately) too easy to miss it because its so common. So if someone is reading for confirmations, maybe just like a quick "please enjoy the book, but if you're reading for confirmations to help our project, please try to actively watch out for SV. Here's what we consider SV: " Just because I think its too easy to miss while not actively looking for it, since so many of us have been so desensitized.
Beige wrote: "100 was chosen because not all reviewers list content warnings, so I felt we needed a buffer of sorts. What do you think?"
Perhaps if it is less than 100, but a member recommends it, we use the same method but instead of 2 confirmations, maybe 3? It might mean we'd make up a significant percentage of readers, but we'd also be promoting smaller authors and publishers.
Beige wrote: What should more do when there is a low number of reviews. Up until now, we have only been researching and validating books if they have approx 100 written GR reviews. This number will automatically exclude some books from smaller presses, newer books and short stories (that GR librarians don't delete). 100 was chosen because not all reviewers list content warnings, so I felt we needed a buffer of sorts. What do you think?
I think the if the short story/little reviewed books have been recently read by the person recommending it and they can confim it’s SV it could be added while the memory of the story is still fresh.
Proposed solution for outlier reviews
♦ Create a pending list
♦ Invite active members to read pending books in the future and report back.
a) If they report no SV, this will equal 2 member confirmations: The original member who proposed the book and the 2nd member who read it. The book will be removed from pending added to the bookshelf-database
b) If they report a mention/implied SV, the book will be moved from pending to the exclusion list.
I understand that the background implication that SV is a thing that happens can be super triggering for some people. But for off handed mentions. I guess it depends on how strict the rules are going to be. Maybe have a list/shelf called “almost did better” or “do better...but!” For mentions of SV and maaaybe Rape jokes. edit: NOPE no rape jokes!
Personally my trigger is on page/graphic that’s obviously a hard no same for sex criminal protagonists or POVs. SV survivor as backstory for a character(only referenced but not shown) depends on execution.
Threats and creepy advances squick me out but as long as nothing happens it’s mostly fine(depending on my mood), SV jokes are crass and tasteless they get an eye-roll.
Mod
Good point. I'm reading This Is How You Lose the Time War because it was on my tbr AND it had an outlier review. Even though I'm looking to find this mention of SV, I'm worried I might miss it, the prose is very unique and poetic. So good call, it definitely needs some guidelines. I'm comfortable adding after the second member read. If we happen to find contrary evidence down the line, I think we can feel okay about it being on the shelf for that period, because
a) it was subtle enough not to register with 2 readers
b) though we are being very cautious, we'll never be perfect
Amanda wrote: "Perhaps if it is less than 100, but a member recommends it, we use the same method but instead of 2 confirmations, "
I like this idea too! Pending because of outliers AND because we need a second opinion, and in these cases we can't use GR reviews.
Mod
I completely agree with you this is a very subjective issue - thus, the need for guidelines as clear and exhaustive as we can make them - but I'd argue "rape jokes" simply have no space here.
Elena C. wrote: "Ayo wrote: "I guess it depends on how strict the rules are going to be. Maybe have a list/shelf called “almost did better” or “do better...but!” For mentions of SV and maaaybe Rape jokes."I compl..."
You know what after thinking about it yeah no rape jokes. The fact that supposedly adult writers still think they are “hilarious” is making me angry
Mod
We certainly value the fresh perspective and they are the essential first step in our process. However, we have already agreed that a second confirmation is required before it's added to our shelves. Our goal is to be a trusted resource for GR and Google users, so the second validation is key. Often the second validation is done by moderators researching GR reviews, but some scenarios we are discussing here require another method. More details on this can be found in our group guidelines and FAQ
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Ayo wrote: "I understand that the background implication that SV is a thing that happens can be super triggering for some people. But for off handed mentions. I guess it depends on how strict the rules are going to be. Maybe have a list/shelf called “almost did better” or “do better...but!” For mentions of SV and maaaybe Rape jokes"
For this project we chose GR because of its massive database and social network. Unfortunately, it has some limitations in that we can only maintain one bookshelf per group. We have decided the bookshelf will be onside with the sensitive readers. However, we have started a thread of what we exclude, and we now seem to be deciding on a 2nd list for "pending"
Idea - Based on your comments though, maybe we need a better way to sort our exclusions within GR? Maybe the red and orange idea Kristin had.... excluded because of onscreen/offscreen SV is RED. excluded for mentions/implied is ORANGE. It would allow the less sensitive readers to easily browse, which I think you and Kristin are both suggesting. I'll play around with how we do this, but yes, I'm in agreement
Based on your comments though, maybe we need a better way to sort our exclusions within GR? Maybe the red and orange idea Kristin had.... excluded because of onscreen/offscreen SV is RED. excluded for mentions/implied is ORANGE. It would allow the less sensitive readers to easily browse, which I think you and Kristin are both suggesting. I'll play around with how we do this, but yes, I'm in agreemenThe only problem is we don’t want to pile on too much work on the mods! You do so much already.
Mod
It's really a manageable amount right now, these planned guideline discussions have slowed everything down. Once we finish them, we'll have even more time for book research/validations.
And when we grow, we'll just add more mods 😁
Mod
Thanks again for everyone who participated in this discussion. Below is the draft of our new guidelines. This will be open for feedback into next week, after that the guidelines and FAQ will be updated and new 'Pending' list will be created. We won't start the next discussion on 'Excluding Authors' until our newsfeeds have calmed down a bit
Brief mentions of SV:
We will exclude all books where research confirms: brief mention of SV, implied SV and jokes including SV. All excluded books, and their reasons will be listed on the exclusion list. Books with brief mentions of SV will be sorted separately from those with higher volumes of SV content
Outlier Reviews:
When a very low number of GR reviews contradict a much higher number of reviews, the book will be placed on a new pending list. Members can opt to read a pending book and provide the deciding vote on whether the book is either excluded or added to the group bookshlef-database
Insufficient Reviews:
Books with less than 75 written reviews will also be moved to the pending list. A minority of GR reviewers list content warnings, without a a sufficient number we cannot rely on reviews to validate members recommendations.
Please comment below with any questions.
Sensible to me. I appreciate the option of member volunteers reading titles of which "we" are uncertain.
Mod
Agreed!
Thank you, Jo - good summary :)
Hey, I haven't check in in a while, but I wanted to point out that She Who Became the Sun is not the kind of book I would expect on a list like this. The main character is female but has to completely hide that / subvert it to fit into a patriarchial world. Later on in the story there are also plenty of questionable interactions with the camp wives of officers. Also this is more historical fantasy than anything else, and in that regard it far more heavily relies on the China historical backstory than most other books. Which means far more patriarchy, oppression, and enslavement of women / queer people.
Do Better: SFF without Sexual Violence
Books mentioned in this topic
She Who Became the Sun (other topics)This Is How You Lose the Time War (other topics)
Winter Tide (other topics)
The Sorcerer of the Wildeeps (other topics)
This Is How You Lose the Time War (other topics)
More...
Our group aims to provide a reliable bookshelf-database that highlights SFF without sexual violence. We err of the side of caution by validating each member's recommendation against the reviews in Goodreads.
This discussion is to gather ideas on our approach to outlier reviews. Reviews that may contradict our member's viewpoints and/or the majority of other reviewers who comment on content and potential triggers.
• Where do we draw the line?
• And is the line the same for onscreen SV vs. a passing mention or joke?
Our goal is to side with the more sensitive reader, however we are learning there are many degrees of sensitivity. Not to mention the human error factor