Do Better: SFF without Sexual Violence discussion
Group Guidelines - Town Hall
>
Guidelines for Series - (Opens Oct 13)
date
newest »
newest »
Mod
I don't want to put an exact end date as I'd like as many active members to have a chance to share their viewpoints. Though 1-2 weeks would be ideal 😁
Mod
Eva wrote: "My thought was that perhaps as long as an individual book also works as a satisfying standalone, we could let it stay. But if it leaves you with a thousand burning questions or a cliffhanger and you can't see how the story continues without reading an SV-containing sequel, it would be mean to put it on the shelf"
Mark wrote: "I like that idea. The Earthsea series is the first thing that pops into mind. It isn’t until book 4 that SV is included, but each of the first three work as their own stand-alone stories, and you don’t feel like it’s a single, ongoing tale"
Mary wrote: "This would be a good discussion to have since some series don't have a arching plot through the entire series, or work as standalone novels set in the same world and there's always the series that aren't complete.
Maybe a thread just to address/provide additional information on the books in a particular series that are on the bookself and why some books in the series are not included."
Beige wrote: "Hi everyone, this topic is officially open!I don't want to put an exact end date as I'd like as many active members to have a chance to share their viewpoints. Though 1-2 weeks would be ideal 😁"
Yay! Here are my initial thoughts:
"1) starts out with no SV but later books include it?"
I would say to INCLUDE the books that do work, as long as each volume included on the bookshelf works well as a stand-alone.
"2) is still in progress and SV is added to a future release?"
Include the non-SV books as they are released. If a future installment includes SV, fall back to the proposed rule for Item 1 (include those that work as stand-alone stories).
"3) is recommended by a member who has only read the first book and they are unaware of future content?"
Have as a "pending further investigation" by the mods. Include unless it becomes clear that there is future SV, then fall back to proposed rule for Item 1.
Mod
Series That Standalone:
"Works as a standalone" might be fairly subjective. Personally, if the story has one fairly continuous plot, but doesn't have a burning cliffhanger, I can wait months or years until I get to the next. I suspect that others might not be as patient as I? 😂
• What does standalone mean to you?
• Would you be okay with say allowing a bk#3 if book #1 or #2 had SV? I struggle with that scenario
• What if the series is 10 books long and only 2 have no SV? Do we allow those?
I may have misunderstood, so please correct me if I'm wrong. With the scenarios I've raised, I feel like we start to veer away from the goal of the group. What do you think?
Beige wrote: "What does standalone mean to you?In my opinion, "works as a standalone" means a book that is part of a series, but which has a definitive beginning, middle, and end. There will likely be some overarching series plot and ongoing themes, but you don't feel like you're left on a major cliffhanger. Earthsea is a prime example of this... you could read Book 1 and nothing else, and still feel like you're getting a complete story. Book 2 is a thematic continuation, but starts a new plot with a new main character, and in a different part of the world (and also happens to work as a standalone). Another example of this is Discworld. I believe much of modern Urban Fantasy might also fit this description. Or there are other series where Book 2 might take place a span of years after the events of the first, therefore Book 1 works as a standalone... something like that.
The opposite example is something like the (decidedly NOT "Do-Better-Friendly") GRRM series... it's almost like you are reading a single novel in multiple volumes, as opposed to something with its own satisfying conclusion.
I think deciding "works as standalone" would have to be up to the person who suggests it... they would use their judgment for this, but of course other members could dispute this as needed.
"• Would you be okay with say allowing a bk#3 if book #1 or #2 had SV? I struggle with that scenario"
No. I would propose that, to avoid confusion, series books must be added/approved sequentially (based on publication order). If book 1 and/or book 2 had SV, book 3 could not be included EVEN IF the "works as standalone" component is met.
"• What if the series is 10 books long and only 2 have no SV? Do we allow those?"
Again, the first criteria met would be that each book has to sequentially work as a standalone.
Second, I totally get the concern. Why would we want to promote a series where 80% has SV and only 20% does not? I would propose we go with a "majority rules" option here. That is, if MORE books have no SV, those books without SV can be included. When the scales tip in the other direction, and more books in the series have SV, then none of the books in the series would be included.
So in a series of 10 books, at least 6 (and remember, they would have to be the FIRST 6, not scattered installments) would have to be free from SV.
Thoughts?
Another possible solution (separate from my above-posted suggestions) would be to ONLY ever consider the first book of a series, regardless of how the series itself is structured. Not only is this easier to manage from an administrative standpoint, it could come with a disclaimer/explanation in the group guidelines... something like "In the case of a series, please note that we only review the first book for content warnings. We cannot guarantee that subsequent installments won't include SV or other off-limits subject matter. For concerns about any specific series, feel free to start a conversation with our other members in the General Book Chat thread."
Mod
Thanks is for clarifying 😁 I do like the idea in principle, but I'm struggling with how we would manage it. My one caveat is that I don't want moderators to have to research each title in a series and I'm not yet seeing a way to determine majority rules without that. Let me know if you do.
I'm just just about to post a few scenarios we could consider with their pros and cons. I *think* I've captured your idea. Let me know!
It's difficult starting these detailed conversations in text, but we got there eventually with our last topic, and I'm sure we'll do so on this one too. 😁
Beige wrote: "Thanks is for clarifying 😁 I do like the idea in principle, but I'm struggling with how we would manage it. My one caveat is that I don't want moderators to have to research each title in a series and I'm not yet seeing a way to determine majority rules without that. Let me know if you do."
This is why I'm starting to like my second suggestion more... the "Book 1 Only" rule. This also avoids the subjective nature the whole "works as a standalone" thing. And yes, it prevents the mods from having to research multiple books within a single series (I mean, Discworld alone has 40+ novels!)
Mod
I'm very keen to see what everyone else thinks about this. I admit, I have a dislike of lists that feature more than bk#1 of a series. I don't feel they offer the same level of discovery. For example, I recently got excited by a new women writing space opera list, only to discover that more than 50% were just sequels. HOWEVER, this group is more about discovering SFF without SV so I'm really going back and forth on this one. Help!
REQUEST: Here are a few variations of series limits and their potential pros and cons for us to contemplate. Please let us know if you have another scenario to propose or addition pros/cons for scenarios below....
1) Only allow the first in the series on our bookshelf, if it contains no SV
Pro: Easy to understand and manage, list has zero sequels therefore discovery is high
Con: We're providing a lot less guidance to members, they'd have to research the sequels themselves, if they don't they could end up finding SV as early as bk#2
2) Only allow the first 3 books of a series on our shelves, but only if none contain SV. Note: a new series might be removed if 2nd and third release end up containing SV
Pros: Easy to understand, provides members with more guidance than option 1, minimizes the % of sequels on our bookshelf
Cons: it's a bit more work for mods to research, but not prohibitive, reduces the amount of books that qualify for our shelves, members need to research #4 onwards
3) Maximum of 5 books per series. #1 in series must contain no SV, 4 other "standalone" installments (without SV) can be recommended
Pro: Not sure....more informative to those willing to skip sequels with SV?
Con: Not easy to communicate, We may end up promoting series that have a fairly high % of SV I.e. 3/4 out of 10 have SV
4) No series limit. #1 in series must contain no SV, all other "standalone" installments (without SV) can be recommended
Pro: Easy to communicate. Informative to those members willing to skip sequels with SV.
Con: Bookshelf could end up with a high % of sequels, We may end up promoting series that have a fairly high % of SV. I.e. 7 out of 12 have SV
I wonder if we should also try to make a distinction between true series (many overlapping characters/events and a chronological relationship between books) versus books that take place in the same universe but don't necessarily have a strong relationship to one another or a definite reading order. So for instance, I don't think of Discworld as a real series. There are several series within the Discworld universe, but many of the books exist somewhat independently of each other and there is no real reading order. I think this would also apply to something like Provenance. I bring this up because while I agree that in a series I wouldn't want to recommend a later book if earlier books had SV, I also wouldn't want to miss out on including books like Provenance because the previously-published Radch books were excluded.
Mod
..."
Agreed, I tried to riff on it with option #2 in my comment #10
Mod
Good point! Linked series are something we have questioned on our exclusion list. And it works both ways...
• We have excluded Provenance due to the EARLIER linked series
• We excluded Assassin's Apprentice because a LATER linked series has SV as a theme. Also, because of confusion about domestic violence, but I digress
I like the options where we limit the number of books in a series that are on the shelf, but it seems like it might be useful to include some tags so that members can see whether it is known or unknown if later books in the series include SV. (I.e. a tag for "unknown if SV in series" and another for "SV in later books" so that there is no obligation on the mods to review and approve.)
Mod
I see what your saying. Based on the recommendation thread conversation and mod research, we might know the answer so why not share it. Yeah, that could work.
It seems to me that there might be some merit in including books within series, but with notes that others in the series are not free of sexual violence. I can imagine a scenario where a reader started a series and realized it had sexual violence and wanted to know if there was more in the series. They might base their decision to continue the series on that info. And you could include a disclaimer with the list that books on the list represent only themselves and not their series. But my first instinct is to go the route Mark was outlining.
Mod
Thanks, Kristen! Can you clarify which comment # of Mark's you are referring to? He's had a few 😉
Here's a recap....
Mark, Kaa and I seem to be agreeing that if bk#1 has SV it wouldn't make it on our bookshelf, that's as far as we have gotten. I've laid out a few other options in comment #10
Also, where we happen to know more SV info on the series, we could communicate via bookshelf tag. The bookshelf has limited space for tags on each book. I'll play around with it by tomorrow, and report back
I think the easiest to manage would be the tags proposed and define them in the FAQ"unknown if SV in series" - for ongoing series but all currently published novels verified
"no SV in series" for those instances where the entire series has been verified.
If there are SV in some of the books I think they shouldn't be included unless there is a omnibus for example, the Penric and Desdemona series the three novels when Penric is younger are SV free and are a complete arc compiled into omibus called Penric's Progress. I would include Penric's Progress on the shelf and no other individual novels.
or a sub-series for example when I look at Discworld (I've not read any just looking at goodreads) there are series Witches or Death etc, if a particular subseries is ok maybe a tag "no SV in sub-series" and again provide definition in FAQ
Beige wrote: "1) Only allow the first in the series on our bookshelf, if it contains no SV"This is the option I prefer.
"Pro: Easy to understand and manage, list has zero sequels therefore discovery is high"
Agreed. I also tend to dislike shelves with more than one book per series... it makes the bookshelf seem cumbersome and gives the perception that it is more robust than it actually is; at first glance you might be like "Cool! 300 books on this list!" but then you realize it's only 4 authors :P
"Con: We're providing a lot less guidance to members, they'd have to research the sequels themselves, if they don't they could end up finding SV as early as bk#2"
The members are (hopefully) not lemmings walking off cliffs (I tried to find a decent gif for this, but had no luck...assistance needed!) ;). I think there is a certain benefit of the doubt that can be given, especially if a disclaimer is made within the guidelines about series in general... having only the first book on the shelf sparks members to do their own research AND it also might contribute to further in-group conversation (i.e. "Hey, I just read Assassin's Apprentice, does anyone know if Royal Assassin has SV?"). It's a balance between the mods doing ALL the work for the group and the group being more interactive.
Kaa wrote: "I wonder if we should also try to make a distinction between true series (many overlapping characters/events and a chronological relationship between books) versus books that take place in the same universe but don't necessarily have a strong relationship to one another or a definite reading order."I also agree with this! Great point. I think Discworld is kind of an outlier series, and so the first book of each sub-series should be considered, along with the two standalone books; is there anything else in SFF that's structured quite like that? I can't think of anything. Modesitt's Recluce might be the closest I'm coming up with. As for Provenance, that's another good example. I feel if it's something like that, a "standalone set in the same world" it should be fair game for inclusion, as long as it's written so that you can read it without reading the earlier trilogy.
Mod
#1 - Distinct series with an SFF universe
I think it's very easy to communicate that we will allow the first book from every distinct series within a series universe.
#2 - Using tags to comment on the rest of the series
I loved the tag idea and was thinking of something like...
- Series cont with SV
- Series cont w/o SV
- Series cont - SV unknown
However, when I looked at how it would play out, I questioned how much benefit it would offer in reality. Here is my thinking on this and why I came to this conclusion..
A) Our group mandate is to validate each recommendation. Since we all agreed it's not practical for the mods to research each installment of a series, then I wouldn't feel comfortable placing the tag "Series cont w/o SV" without thorough research. Therefore, this label is out.
B) For us to place a "series cont with SV" it would require the member to have read the rest of the distinct series and "remember" if SV was included. Since we often agree our SV memory isn't so great, and we don't want to mislabel, we would probably err of the side of "Series cont - SV unknown"
End Result - I predict that we'd be placing a "Series cont - SV unknown" tag on the vast majority of series which doesn't add value. Also, the tag space is limited for each book on the bookshelf, I feel that using this space for subgenre and 'select' content warning labels probably offers more member guidance.
See alternative proposal in the next comment...
Mod
Members suggest #1 in the series. For it to be added a mod would validate SV in the first and second in the series
• If both have no SV, both would be added to the bookshelf
• If either one has SV, neither would be added.
Pro: Gives members more insight into a series without requiring a lot of additional mod research, limits the number of sequels on the bookshelf
Con: Requires the member to research the rest of the series. <------ I think we can agree, this is inevitable no matter what we decide
NOTE: this would apply to each distinct series within a universe. So if a universe has 4 series, the most we would add is 8 books (if members recommended all 4 series, which may not be likely?)
I think I'm going to reverse my thoughts on the use of tags. How series are handled is possibly the most important issue for the group given that so much of Sci Fi and Fantasy is in series, trilogies etc
I'm a bit uncomfortable making this suggestion since it's the mods that would need to do the verification on any novel included on the bookshelf. I hate to use a common euphemism but this is a marathon not a sprint so I don't think there should not be pressure for the mods to have a short turn around on the verification process.
Having said that I think each book from a series should go on the shelf as it's verified. I know it's been mentioned that it's annoying to look at a list and find that half of a list is from series, but this is a different kind of list that looks for specific events as opposed to a theme or type of character. I also struggle to see the value in only including books #1 and #2 and not the rest.
This would allow for ongoing series to be verified as released. Standalones within a universe/series could be included. If a book in a (non-standalone) series has SV the series would be excluded, this means if book #3 in a series is released and has SV and books #1 and #2 are on the bookshelf they would be removed.
Since I'm not going to have to do the work, I'll defer to the Mods who will. But consider setting a reasonable turnaround for verification and asking more of the person making the recommendation, ie if they recommend an entire series it should have been read within the past year etc.
Mod
I'm going to continue pondering, review everyone's comments again and get back with my thoughts tomorrow.
I completely understand the concerns of not wanting to research full series, however, I feel we should cater for fully safe series but emphasise, that it takes time or mods have the right to reply "on hold" if they are busy etc.
I just don't think we should restrict member suggestions and our members should be able to freely read full series and know they are safe. It just wouldn't feel like "doing better" if we could not add at least one full safe series.
I don't mind risking myself with spoilers, taking extra care with series or researching more (though not to say every mod should feel like this) and I think we should create a rule for series that have x amount (ie 12 books) should only be suggested by members who have read the full series. It would prevent our shelves being flooded and, large series being suggested often.
I just don't think we should restrict member suggestions and our members should be able to freely read full series and know they are safe. It just wouldn't feel like "doing better" if we could not add at least one full safe series.
I don't mind risking myself with spoilers, taking extra care with series or researching more (though not to say every mod should feel like this) and I think we should create a rule for series that have x amount (ie 12 books) should only be suggested by members who have read the full series. It would prevent our shelves being flooded and, large series being suggested often.
Mod
In light of this, I'd like us to adopt an interim series guideline. This is what organizations do when they don't have enough info to make an informed decision. We pilot an interim guideline and in March 2021, we reconvene to discuss our learnings and decide if we need to tweak, pilot a different idea etc. Of course, if we need to chat about how it's going before March, we can do so here.
I'll continue to make the regular exclusion/questioned list so we won't lose track of member discussions during the interim period.
Please provide feedback on this interim solution.....
-------------------------------------------------------------
Series Guidelines - October to March 2021
Members may recommend the first and second editions of a series. A moderator will validate both editions to confirm they meet our SV and other content guidelines.
∆ If both editions meet our guidelines, both will be added to the bookshelf
∆ If either edition doesn't meet our guidelines, neither will be added
∆ If a member reports that specific later edition does contain SV, we will either remove the series OR add a label to the bookshelf on editions 1 & 2. <-------- lets review these on a case by case basis during the pilot and decide if we need both options or just one
In the future, as the group grows, it is our goal to increase our moderator capacity and allow for more editions of each series to be added to our bookshelf-database
That all sounds good to me! We can all see how it works and re-evaluate as needed. Thanks for putting all this info together! :)
I think that sounds reasonable and, thanks for concisely explaining it.
Mod
We'll re-open the guideline discussion in March 2021 once the pilot period is complete.
That said, if you have any feedback before then, feel free to comment here 😁
Our group aims to provide a reliable resource for readers who wish to avoid SV in SFF. One area of complication is series. For example, what if a series:
1) starts out with no SV but later books include it?
2) is still in progress and SV is added to a future release?
3) is recommended by a member who has only read the first book and they are unaware of future content?
We need to agree on a guideline to series that we can clearly communicate SV to members.
NOTE: We'd like to rule out the option of moderators researching every edition of a series. Some series are VERY long and let's be honest, that doesn't sound like fun.