Forum: Author Hangout

4) This one's a close call for me.

Yeah, I know. :(

It's a close call for me, too, but I suspect 'bestiality' is an 'interest' tag as much as it's a 'squick' tag. The tag might attract a bunch of readers who would be very disappointed, while keeping away a bunch who wouldn't be that irritated.

The problem with 'squick' tags is that many people would be fine with the scene as described - they just don't want to read about ongoing bestiality in detail. Some people don't even want it alluded to.

Basically: we're putting much too much work into one little tag that might mean 'once, in passing' or 'on every page, in detail' with no differentiation between the two.

Hence a foreword that clarifies, perhaps.

The tag might attract a bunch of readers who would be very disappointed, while keeping away a bunch who wouldn't be that irritated.

My exact thought.

Thanks.

because they suspect more untagged squicks?

I try not to have untagged squicks. I will never post that hitchhiker story on SOL because of that. The two tags I removed on "Teacher's Nightmare" were because they weren't part of the story, just something that happened at the end. It would be misleading to include them. It would be unfair to the readers searching for stories to read with those tags.

That's the dilemma.

You have three different instances of violence, including Death by violence. IMHO you should have a Violence Tag.

Sounds like the best compromise to me.

I'd skip the 'prostitution' and I'm undecided about the bestiality. Fans would expect something far more explicit, but it could represent a significant turn-off for those who have a squick about bestiality.

Minor issue - isn't writing about bestiality illegal in some legislations? Might some readers technically be breaking the law by unwittingly downloading a story containing bestiality?

AJ

As a reader I don't think you need any of the tags listed.

*big sigh of relief*

You're my new best friend. :)

A lot of authors are bad at descriptions. Tags are there as an easy set of checkboxes.

More to the point, I seem to recall tags (or something much like tags) arising back in the long-ago newsgroup days as being much more caution than advertising (but likely a bit of both).

And, for long stories, it won't be in the description. I need the description to just scratch the surface of the story. Trying to fit a caution in there isn't happening.

But, then, the one thing I have that's really a true warning only gets a 'caution' tag anyway.

More to the point, I seem to recall tags (or something much like tags) arising back in the long-ago newsgroup days as being much more caution than advertising (but likely a bit of both).

That's pretty much my memory as well. There were some codes that you were well advised to use if you're story had any of that content (off the top of my head they included any MM content, BDSM content and bestiality, though there were more.)

I still see them that way. I use them both to find stories appealing to me and to filter out stories that include content I'm not interested in. I don't mind finding things that I wasn't expecting, as long as it's not from the filter list. If it is, I'm likely to give the story a 1 and killfile the author. If a story says that some codes were omitted to preserve the surprise, I don't bother reading it unless I know the author's work and can take a reasonable guess as what was omitted.

The problem with all of this is the issue of spoilers.

Suppose, in a long-form story, a character is raped. On-page or off-page matters, but isn't a huge issue, I think.

Trigger/squick for some people, definitely. They want to be warned.

Rape fans will probably not get what they want.

But, in warning the triggered, every other reader goes in knowing someone's getting raped. Who? Where? When? It loses all suspense value.

If the author says 'some codes were omitted', you get the second problem: do you know the author well enough to know the omitted code is 'rape'? If so, we're back to spoilers.

And, back to the codes you mentioned: what if that rape happened to be an MM rape? Even if non-graphic, some people are going to 'give the story a 1 and killfile the author' if those aren't coded. But coding them destroys what might have been an enormous surprise.

For authors willing to do so, I'm a fan of using the 'caution' tag and having the author suggest contacting them if there are critical tags not mentioned. An author can 'spoil' the MM rape for one reader without affecting everyone else.

That takes responsive authors, though, and proactive readers, neither of which are givens.

For authors willing to do so, I'm a fan of using the 'caution' tag and having the author suggest contacting them if there are critical tags not mentioned. An author can 'spoil' the MM rape for one reader without affecting everyone else.

If you're worried about spoilers, that sounds like a good idea. As a reader I'm not worried about them, though. I typically enjoy a story as much, or more, on a second read through, so knowing how the story goes isn't a problem.

I enjoy rereads, too - but some part of that is often remembering what was a surprise 'back when'. There is a difference between knowing something is coming and not knowing, at least for me, even if rereads are good.

Heck, I still get emotional at some of the tearjerker scenes in my own writing :)

I don't mind finding things that I wasn't expecting, as long as it's not from the filter list. If it is, I'm likely to give the story a 1 and killfile the author.

Which is why I originally listed two story tags that I just removed (replaced with the "caution" tag). I guess back in 2009, upsetting a reader worried me. Now I don't worry about it. It's out of my control how a reader will react to my story so I'll do what I believe to be right, not what is (in today's terminology) politically correct.

Tags did indeed arise in the Usenet days of the 80's and early 90's as a way to warn readers of possible squicks. I personally will skip any story that has more than one non-cons type tag. Rape squicks me.

However, once sites like this one started using codes, they also became things people search on, to get their particular kink.

So I personally try to use them as a combination. Use the tags that you or your early readers believe would cause squicks. Then use the ones that are significant for the story.

For example, if the story's about a guy who picks up a prostitute (Pretty Woman), then it needs the prostitution tag because it's a big deal. But would you tag the film Serenity that way just because one of the characters is a prostitute? I certainly wouldn't.

This doesn't solve the "twist" issue, but it does prevent minor, mostly irrelevant codes/tags from cluttering up the description. But other than that, squicks and major issues seem to me to be the best guidelines for tags.

One thought, related to your rape squick comment: it feels to me like 'squick' has (in theory) some sort of scale. Some people are a 10 on rape. Any rape, even 10 years ago and off-page, is enough. Others would be edgy but okay with one off-page and barely described, but affecting a major character (in a realistic way). And still others would be squicked by even a fully consensual roleplayed rape.

That's one of the many worries. So far (negative spoiler here!) no one in my long-and-growing story has been raped on page (that includes describing an off-page rape in detail on page). But there are a number of characters who have had non-consensual things happen to them off-page. In some cases, we know what happened. In others, we don't.

I don't have things rape-tagged (and I don't think I ever would), but it certainly could fit. Heck, my MC uses the word 'rape' to describe what happened to another character, even though she wasn't using that word.

Hence 'caution'. If I were to use 'rape,' I'm certain I would warn people off who are fine, and I'm certain I would attract people who would be considerably disappointed.

To date, no one at all has complained about any of the instances, so I'm counting that as a win.

But would you tag the film Serenity that way just because one of the characters is a prostitute? I certainly wouldn't.

We all have the right to an opinion. I largely agree with your post.

However, specifically about Inara, more so in Firefly, than Serenity, it is a significant plot point that she is a "Courtesan"/Prostitute! Her profession, though "honorable" in "The Verse" was a major point of contention, and derailed the relationship between her and Mal.

At least a quarter, and perhaps a third of the episodes there is a significant plot point involving a paid professional date with a customer. Her Guild/Chapter House is important in several plots too, particularly in the movie Serenity.

Inara's profession affects her relationships with everyone aboard the Serenity, with the possible exception of Sheppard Book.

A better example would be the movie: Tombstone. One time, very early in the movie, it is mentioned (or perhaps heavily implied) that the wives of three of the Earp brothers had each been prostitutes before getting married (and that is how each met an Earp brother). It seems likely that Wyatt's wife's addiction to laudanum may be connected to her prior prostitution, but not necessarily. If Tombstone were on SoL it shouldn't have a Prostitution Tag. Despite characters, such as "Big Nose" Kate, various "Saloon Girls" or the trivia that several of the wives had been prostitutes; there is No plot point involving prostitution, nor does any sex for money occur on screen.

I have always thought of the tags as being advertising, not warnings.

I use them that way, but it's my understanding they were created to warn people about their squicks.

I once wrote a story on another site where I guy picked up a young, beautiful hitchhiker with long hair. In the car, the hitchhiker came on to the guy, stroking him, getting him excited (maybe oral too, I don't remember). They pull over in a cornfield and the hitchhiker lifts the back of her skirt and bends forward telling him to fuck her up the ass. While doing it, he reaches around for her clitoris and finds a dick. The story was all about the twist.

I expected a reaction from the reader like "Oh no!" or "Eww!" or "I didn't see that coming," but I got a lot of negative feedback because I didn't have the MM tag, which of course I couldn't. Throughout the story, the reader is enjoying a MF encounter. If it hadn't been for the twist, they might have loved the story. It was the same story with a different ending. So I'm sensitive to story tags.

Sometimes the twist is what makes the story, like in the Usual suspects, or, more pertinently to this thread, The Crying game.

If the only way you can get people to read your story is by making them think it's one thing, when it's really something else, that's fraudulent.

That's absurd.

Twists in a story are not fraudulent. Think about all the twist endings in "The Twilight Zone," in O. Henry's short stories, in "The Sixth Sense," in "Planet of the Apes," etc.

There's actually a twist in "Teacher's Nightmare," the story I referenced in my recent blog on story tags that activated this thread.

That time investment is a really good point and it makes the whole spoiler thing (which is part of what codes/tags would do) a lot harder.

An author I know was struggling with the incest code for a long series. There wasn't any in the first book but he planned for it to be a big part of the second book. He was unsure how to tag the first book as a result because he didn't want people who squicked on incest getting too sucked in and then surprised in the second book. He's gone radio silent so I don't know if he ever came up with a solution. I certainly understand the dilemma.

More likely it will make the story for some readers and destroy it for others.

I agree with that.

Sorry, some kinds of twist endings are okay, others are not. If the twist changes the fundamental nature of what the reader perceives the story to be, that's not okay.

I somewhat disagree with that. 'The Crying Game' is a perfect example. The twist destroyed that story for some watchers, without question, and made it for others.

On the other hand, I would argue it changed the fundamental nature of the story, but was perfectly okay. The story was about someone in that situation who learns the 'twist' at the same time the viewer does. That's the story. You can't tell it the other way and have anywhere near the emotional impact.

'The Sixth Sense' is another example. The worst thing that happened to that movie was the 'I see dead people' advertising campaign, because - without it - one goes into the movie having no idea why Cole is freaking out, and suspecting everything but the truth. It's a long way into the movie before you even find out that much.

And, if you know Cole 'sees dead people', at some level you're already looking around seeing who might be dead. Without that, many fewer people would have seen the final twist coming, because there's so much distance between the setup and any realization of what's really going on.

At that point, the twist fundamentally changes the story. It did, for most viewers, anyway. Even with the marketing campaign, most viewers went in expecting a horror movie. They didn't really get that at all (or, if they did, it was very sideways - the 'supernatural' element wasn't actually 'horrifying', and what 'horror' there was came from perfectly mundane, real-world lousy behavior), but most were very satisfied with what they did get.

Tossing in one more: 'Fight Club'. 'Fight Club' doesn't work nearly as well if you tell people what's really going on. In general, any 'unreliable narrator' story has that problem, and 'Fight Club' is nearly the epitome of an unreliable narrator.

I'm not sure how you tell stories like 'The Crying Game', 'The Sixth Sense', 'Fight Club', or many others without a certain level of 'bait and switch', and those are all highly successful stories with many strong supporters.

They also each have vociferous detractors. And, in cases were people were seriously offended, that sucks. But it's part of the cost of telling a potentially offensive story. That doesn't mean we forbid telling potentially offensive stories.

tricking people into reading them by deliberately leading them to think it's an inoffensive story until the very end is in my opinion morally wrong.

A twist is not tricking people to read the story.

Not sure I agree. What if I went to see a movie and felt like the advertising didn't match the movie. Refund? What if they said it was the 'feel-good movie of the year' and I didn't feel good. Refund? Or 'edge-of-your-seat suspense' and I was bored. Refund?

Lots of movies don't match up to the advertising. If theaters gave refunds for all of them, they'd lose a ton of money. 'Puffery' is perfectly legal, and it's more of a falsehood than anything audiences were told in advance about the three movies I mentioned.

As a reader I don't think you need any of the tags listed.

It's minority sets of readers that authors have to worry about - the potential 1-bombs give them a disproportionate amount of power.

AJ

certain activities have multiple codes, which include a general code and specific codes. If multiple specific codes apply, I would list the general code.

Reading this, what comes to mind is "incest" (general) and say "mother" and "son" (both specific). I think listing the general one only would lose potential readers who do a Category Search on the specific one(s).

If this is a multi chapter story, you could place a tag at the top of the chapters containing the specific bit

It's a short story that's broken into scenes. I'm not sure if I'll call them chapters or just use scene breaks. The whole story will be posted at one time even if choose chapters. It really is a short story.

I think what is really need is a set of new codes for the authors who can't spell correctly or who don't understand the most basic rules of grammar.

I think what is really needed, is a new set of codes for the authors who can't spell correctly, or who don't understand the most basic rules of grammar.

😜

I see I'm not the only one who struggles with story tags.

The multi-purpose functionality guarantees that.

AJ