metametameta: Ratings: Worksafe, Standard, Mature, Explicit

Entry tags:

Ratings: Worksafe, Standard, Mature, Explicit
I've ranted about the evils of movie ratings for fic in the past. Aside from the psychosis that invades the MPAA so that eviscerations onscreen are PG, female nipples are R, and a penis is an automatic NC-17 (because of course nobody under 18 has seen one before, right?), I don't like rating the reader rather than the content. I want fics (and arts and vids) rated by what's inside them, not by who's expected to find that most appealing.

The most common non-MPAA ratings suggested are age-based, which has several problems. Rating a story "teen" can be taken to mean "intended readers are teenagers; so this is probably not interesting to anyone over 21," rather than "intended readers should be at least 14 years of age." And who's deciding what's appropriate for a 14-year-old to read? Whose standards are being used? The author's? The host site's? Certainly not mine; I know what I was reading at 14, and a lot of it's not allowed at ff.net. Is anyone enforcing those ratings? Or is "15-and-up" fic being read by 12-year-olds, and we're all pretending that labeling it "15+" is somehow "protecting" those kids who are honest enough to stay away from stuff labeled Too Old For You?

Also, in some circles, it creates a stigma for writers & readers of less-explicit content; in others, because it's assumed that "adult" means "explicit sexual content," rather than "complex and mature themes," readers can be disappointed by stories rated "adult" that don't contain what they want to read. (Death, insanity, and torture are all potential themes in adult non-sexual stories.) And readers who would like complex or dark themes—but not sex—have trouble finding those stories.

So I've been considering how to rate fic (and art, vid & whatever) content. I like the idea of four ratings, which is what most sites use, and the options of individual warnings in addition to the ratings. (Ratings are the overall "level;" warnings are for specific contents—like sexual activity, character death, or incest, which could be included in any rating level.)

My Four Content Ratings:

WORKSAFE: Least extreme/objectionable; suitable for any readers; no triggery, offensive, or overly-complicated content. Completely worksafe; could be printed on business brochures or run in newspapers if the topic were appropriate.
(Examples: Children's books, corporate art; newspaper articles; Emily Dickenson's poetry. )
FICNOTES: content of this type almost never includes warnings. Even if it deals with triggery content, it's so abstract as to be unoffensive except to the most sensitive readers.
STANDARD: Can contain complex themes or references to triggery content, but not details thereof; some readers will want to avoid this; some parents will refuse to allow their children access, but usually agree that it's a matter of their personal choice. May include swear words or other offensive-but-common content. Some employers might object.
(Examples: Women-in-bikini artwork, tasteful nudes like David, scripts to most sitcoms are also here. Most books. Much humor goes here, even if it deals with topics that would otherwise be considered "Mature." Most song lyrics. Shakespeare's poetry. Note: most of this content is, in fact, "worksafe;" it just wouldn't be used as corporate content by most businesses.)
FICNOTES: sometimes contains warnings, if it touches on common "squicky" topics like incest, rape, underage sex, or death.
MATURE: Objectionable to some people; squick/trigger content; substantial numbers parents prefer kids not exposed to this. May include extensive swearing. Might not be legal for radio broadcast. Readers/viewers expected to understand complex themes and accept that this content makes some people uncomfortable.
(Examples: Harlequin romances, supermarket-counter horror novels, I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings, many L&O episodes, much of Tom of Finland's art. "Risqué" or bawdy song lyrics. Ginsberg's poetry.)
FICNOTES: Usually contains warnings, especially if it deals with kinky sex, violence, or intensely unpleasant or scary situations.
EXPLICIT: Graphic content that many people find objectionable; many believe all children shouldn't have access to this; some of this, in picture form, is legally restricted from children. This content severely upsets some people.
(Examples: Some of Crowley's poetry. Some "bodice-ripper" novels. Reservoir Dogs. Sex manuals & instruction books. Many types of netsuke. Femalia. A Clockwork Orange, the book—movie would be Mature.)
FICNOTES: Almost always has warnings, even if only for "explicit sex." Warnings should be carefully heeded by anyone with triggers.

So. Ratings 1-4, Worksafe, Standard, Mature, Explicit or WSME.
I'm not thrilled with the labels, especially the first two, but I couldn't figure out any others that gave a sense of gradual increase, indicated content rather than recipient, and didn't stigmatize the content one way or the other. (I could've said "innocuous" rather than "worksafe," but I don't want the "lowest" rating to imply "doesn't contain as much depth as other ratings." I wanted to acknowledge that materials at any rating can be intense and meaningful.) I'm collecting lists of stuff—books, movies, art, whatever—rated this way. Got a nice little chart on my hard drive, but I get too caught up in possibilities and trying to balance the lists out, when I know that really, a lot more stuff is going to be S and M than anything else. (Heh. Yeah, there's a lot of unacknowledged S&M in the world.) I plan on putting together a poll sometime soon, and seeing how other people would rate various stories, artworks and books.

Not intended to be absolute or definitive; this is how I'd sort these. Some are borderline, and someone else might nudge them into a different column. Certainly, I welcome examples & discussion, or claims that I've got some parts just wrong.
Elf's Table O Ratings, version 0.9

	Worksafe	Standard	Mature	Explicit
Sci-Fi Authors	Asimov	Clarke	Heinlein (later works)	Richard Morgan
Vampire stories	Bunnicula	I Am Legend	Interview With The Vampire	Incubus Dreams
Sex/ Reproduction	N/A	Where Did I Come From?	Our Bodies,Ourselves	The Joy of Sex
Animation	Naruto Scooby Doo Powerpuff Girls	Ranma 1/2 Simpsons Daria	Vampire Hunter D Aeon Flux Beavis and Butthead	Urotsukidoji South Park Drawn Together
Bible	Psalm 23	Genesis 23	Luke 23	Ezekiel 23

ETA for metafandomers: remember, you can use OpenID to reply with your LJ identity--and that way, you get email notifications of replies left to your comments.

(Post a new comment)

	mercurychaos 2008-06-25 05:07 am UTC (link)
	I like this concept. It makes so much more sense to categorize things based on their content rather than the audience, because the audience is always going to be really diverse regardless of who the intended "target audience" is. (Reply to this) (Thread)

elfwreck
2008-06-25 10:24 am UTC (link)

It was very, very difficult to come up with the "Standard" label.

What do you call stuff that's not entirely worksafe or ok to show to your grandmother (or not ok to show her in public), but isn't as mature or complex as Harlequin romance novels or Steven King books? What do you call the rating for shows like ER?

Most sites label it "Teen" or "PG." But... that implies it wants teenage readers. Teen-suitable isn't the same as teen-oriented, and I had a really hard time trying to figure out how to label the difference.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	(Anonymous) 2008-06-26 03:45 pm UTC (link)
	It means you have to be at least 13. It doesn't mean it's only for teenagers. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	kabal42 2008-06-25 02:00 pm UTC (link)
	Very good concept, this. I dislike the MPAA-ratings because the system makes no sense for my European mind-set. (May sound weird, but the views of what's okay to show whom etc. is very different here.) Your system makes a good deal more sense to me. I've met people who've devised similar gradings to use for themselves, but I like yours best of what I've seen so far. (Reply to this) (Thread)

elfwreck
2008-06-25 03:01 pm UTC (link)

What, you mean it's not obvious to you what a 14-year-old child should read with parental supervision? Doesn't everyone know that PG stands for Parental Guidance, and don't we all agree on what kind of content that is?

Riiight.

We don't agree on it *here*; I certainly don't expect people on other continents to understand whatever combination of morals & prejudices created the MPAA's ratings for movies, much less how fanfic authors apply those to fic.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	kabal42 2008-06-25 03:03 pm UTC (link)
	laughs Well, something like that, yes. Which is why pretty much whatever people come up with on their own is better. And why warnings (aka. information about titillating and/or disturbing content) are more important than ratings, in my opinion. (Reply to this) (Parent)

branchandroot
2008-06-25 02:08 pm UTC (link)

*nods* When MPAA got their knickers in that ridiculous twist about NC-17, I finally threw it all over and invented my own scale for my archive. Like you, I wound up with a combination of rating and labels to give my readers a reasonable guide, but my ratings went specifically for the "intensity". So I have I-1 through I-5 plus reasonably specific genre labels to say what major themes are deal with--Romance with Porn, frex.

I do wonder about about using Worksafe. It seems it might be best to leave worksafe and non-worksafe as their own continuum, with their own already established utility, and call the least explicit rating something else. Maybe even just Non-explicit, since it seems like you want to aim for a scale that can encompass all themes and simply address the level of down-and-dirty they're dealt with on.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

elfwreck
2008-06-25 02:48 pm UTC (link)

I don't want to say "non-explicit" or "innocuous" or "inoffensive"--I want each rating to be what the content is, not what it is not. And it's hard to come up with positive, rather than negative, labels for the default assumptions. I've had some interesting linguistic realizations, trying to choose these labels.

I also like that "worksafe" doesn't imply "juvenile and simplistic," and I had a hard time finding words that meant "no offensive content" but didn't imply puerile, shallow, or trivial.

That said, I'm not enamoured of "worksafe;" I just couldn't find another word that fit the meaning I want the label to encompass.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

branchandroot
2008-06-25 03:00 pm UTC (link)

*considers* What you want, then, isn't something that means "no offensive content", because that's another negative space description. If the true axis of description is offense or triggering, then it really would be most appropriate to use a range of positive and negative descriptors: this may do so, this will not do so. If you want to use only positive descriptors, than you need a different axis of description. Maybe clarifying that would help.

Actually, I wonder if what you want isn't General. The way you describe the categories seems to be tending in that direction. It isn't that Asimov and Dickinson don't deal with sex and death and politics and all of that, because they certainly do; it's just that they do so in a general way in contrast to an author like Blake, who does it explicitly.

I do think that Standard might also want a bit of rephrasing, if that's the case. Though I'm even less sure what you might use there instead!

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

elfwreck
2008-06-25 03:18 pm UTC (link)

"General" was what I had when first considering it--when the second category was still labeled "teen." But I can't use both General and Standard; nobody (including me) will be able to remember which is which.

I had vaguely thought if I could describe the four categories, the names (or some possible names) would be obvious--but they're not. These aren't categories we consciously acknowledge in everyday life, so we don't have labels for them.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

waywardoctagon
2008-06-25 11:35 pm UTC (link)

How about "General" for the lowest category and "Worksafe" for the next one up? Because, while "worksafe" does have its own meaning already, it seems to fit better with the second category... it seems like the defining line for worksafe-in-the-existing-sense is somewhere between "standard" and "mature". And at the same time, "worksafe" sort of has that implication that the content would be okay/appropriate for someone at work--an adult in the presense of other adults--not necessarily for every setting. So it seems to automatically be sort of "higher" than General.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

elfwreck
2008-06-26 01:17 pm UTC (link)

I could consider "family-safe," except that a lot of families can be pretty obnoxious. And I don't like using the word "family" to mean "nonsexual," which is what it seems to mostly be in mainstream media labeling.

While work is adults-around-adults, it's held to a more restricted standard than general public activity. There are no laws against sexual harassment or racial discrimination in public life--you can wink or sneer at anyone you want to on the bus. And you can wear t-shirts that say

I'M A VIRGIN
islander

in public, but not in many workplaces.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	waywardoctagon 2008-06-26 06:46 pm UTC (link)
	True... I was thinking more in terms of what you would/wouldn't get in trouble for having on your computer screen (assuming it was your lunch break, say). (Reply to this) (Parent)

	shyfoxling 2008-06-25 07:24 pm UTC (link)
	lol @ the Bible selections. I am very, very amused that all of them are 23s. (Reply to this) (Thread)

elfwreck
2008-06-25 07:37 pm UTC (link)

Well, I wanted the 23rd Psalm, because everyone's familiar with it. And I had to google for Ezekiel 23; I didn't know where it was, just the verse about "whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses." (It's a favorite among the anti-biblethumper crowd.) So when they were both 23's, I figured I had to find two more 23's to fill in the gaps.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	For anyone who's interested ... boosette 2008-06-25 11:50 pm UTC (link)
	Psalm 23 (King James because it's prettier.) Genesis 23 (New International) Luke 23 (New International) Ezekiel 23 (New International) I did not know about Ezekiel 23. (My church related boredom usually led me to the gorey battle scenes.) (Reply to this)

(Anonymous)
2008-06-26 11:04 am UTC (link)

This is great stuff. I kind of agree with waywardoctagon above, I like the idea of "general" or "standard" for the suitable-for-any-audiences material and switching it with "worksafe" to convey that this material is a bit more complex but, well, still worksafe.

This is much less unwieldy than my own personal "ratings" scale, in which I basically just say "this is what's in here, read if you think you can handle it." Heh.

I always enjoy your meta. Hope to see you at Escapade again next year.

--Nyssa23 at LJ

(Reply to this) (Thread)

elfwreck
2008-06-26 12:43 pm UTC (link)

I think of "worksafe" as the most restricted category; there's plenty of content that's considered reasonable in public that's inappropriate in an office (which is what "work" mostly means in this context--nobody means "okay for viewing by construction crews," much less "wouldn't offend strippers on the runway").

"Worksafe" doesn't, in my mind, mean "legal." Legal's much broader. So's "acceptable in public." Work is supposed to be an offense-free environment, one that is more restricted in communication & attitudes than the general public.

But I'm much more concerned with the concepts of each of the four levels, than the label used for them; I'm hoping that, by opening the discussion and finding some words that don't label the reader, others will throw vocabulary at me until, by some fannish osmotic consensus process, the magic "right words" will become apparent to everyone.

Or at least to me, and then I can pester everyone until they start using them.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

rood
2008-06-26 12:32 pm UTC (link)

I like the idea.

I once wrote an essay and was very tempted to rate it 18+, mainly because it was rather complicated and I just knew younger folks would not really understand me (the older ones didn't either most of the time...). I mean, my warning was "I read Judith Butler".

I, unlike others, wouldn't like to label the first category "general" or "standard", however, because to me, "normal" stories contain at least a bit of potentially offensive content.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

elfwreck
2008-06-26 12:54 pm UTC (link)

That's why I have them set as they are--because "normal stuff" can offend some people. Because "normal" (or general, or standard) content, in my mind, includes juvenile innuendo and fart jokes and who's-sleeping-with-whom gossip, and grumbling about menstrual cramps, and calling some idiot a douchebag or asshat.

Which are not worksafe terms and topics. But they're not extreme and protect-the-children topics, either, unless they're overwhelming.

But I do understand that not everyone agrees on what "worksafe" is, either, and the terms probably all need a bit of polishing.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

pandorasblog
2008-06-26 12:46 pm UTC (link)

This is very well thought-out and I think it would make it a lot easier for people to select (or avoid) material based on the content. The fact that the existing film ratings don't do this for everybody is manifest by the number of websites that exist to tell parents the content of DVDs, videogames etc., so that they can decide whether they want their kids to view/play them.

For "Worksafe", perhaps "Universal" would be a good substitute? In the British Board of Film Classification's system, "Universal" or "U" is the equivalent ofa G-rating in the MPAA system. There also used to be a "Uc" meaning, "Universal and particularly suited to children" which was used for childrens' programmes on video, etc., but you never hear about that now.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

elfwreck
2008-06-26 12:59 pm UTC (link)

I'm thinking I want to avoid "general" or "universal"--because those both label the viewer. They do so very abstractly, by saying "suitable for everyone," but they're still labeling the receiver, not the content itself.

I tried to find words that meant "this content is mostly inoffensive, and would be acceptable in most public venues" or "this content contains no offensive matter by 95+% of people's judgments"--and couldn't find them. Was very odd. Nice little Newspeak exercise, searching for words that aren't defining everyday stuff by what it's not.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	pandorasblog 2008-06-26 01:01 pm UTC (link)
	Yeah; it says a lot about how often we define stuff viewed as positive (eg "suitable for children") in terms of its less desirable opposite, suggesting that a negative connotation is frequently present in our minds... the word "innocuous" always carries a tinge of the risque for me because it implies the existence of something else. (Reply to this) (Parent)

mosca.livejournal.com
2008-06-26 02:58 pm UTC (link)

I really like this system -- you've thought it out well, and it removes most of the lacunae that other fannish rating systems seem to have. It's simple, logical, and works in plain English rather than in abbreviations. I despair of its ever catching on because of the usual fandom = cat herding problem, and I'd hesitate to use it myself because I'd have to link to this post every time, etc. But that's a hesitation, not an outright rejection, because I do really like this.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

elfwreck
2008-06-26 05:26 pm UTC (link)

Oh, don't link to this one (except to suggest other people read it--I love getting recs); the ideas here aren't complete.

The goal--and it may not be reachable--is to discuss ratings and the lines between them and terms that could be used to describe them, enough that I can come up with a clever, memorable, iconizable system, where it'll be instantly understandable (at least on a general level), so people will be able to borrow it or adapt & twist it at will. ('Cos if your fandom really believes that "kisses, mouth closed" and "kisses with tongue" need separate ratings... um, go for it.)

Right now, the descriptions are still vague, and the words don't immediately click as "just right," and they don't stick in the memory as a neat coherent system. (I tried to get the initials of the rating-words to spell WISE, but it just wasn't happening.)

Mainly, I want to encourage rating content, not intended readers. And if not suborn the MPAA system, which is probably far too entrenched to go away, at least add some extra options that tell the reader more than "someone thinks this is a teen-appropriate story."

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	kashiichan.livejournal.com 2008-06-28 05:50 am UTC (link)
	I think the only time you'd have to worry about kissing would be on-the-cheek-type kissing vs full-on making-out. :P I really like these ratings. They seem a lot more logical than the other ones I've seen. I'd love to fill in a poll about them at some point, perhaps after you refine them a little more? The examples of canon texts is a good idea as well. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	azdaja-dafema.livejournal.com 2008-06-26 04:11 pm UTC (link)
	I like this a lot. I think this system works much better than the strange differences of ratings across the board. I agree, and LOVE how you've explained the four ratings - with writers. (Reply to this) (Thread)

elfwreck
2008-06-26 04:27 pm UTC (link)

One of the biggest problems (I perceive) with most fanfic ratings is that no other literature is rated in our normal lives, and so we've got no context to work from. We know that libraries sort "young adult" from "other" literature, but that's mostly based on publisher's decisions, and has little to do with how offensive/extreme the content gets.

But adult fiction isn't rated. While some extreme sexual content is flagged (or more likely, banned in some places), Richard Morgan's explicit science fiction is shelved alongside Anne McCaffrey's Dragonriders of Pern series.

I want to bring up the idea that ratings aren't just "a way to sort porn from nonporn," but a way to mentally categorize what we read.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

severed_lies
2008-06-26 06:57 pm UTC (link)

I like your categories. I never think about underage readers when I post a story. I frankly do not care who reads whatever there is to be read, and although there are practical reasons for age restriction on the journaling sites, it does not make sense from the writer's standpoint to limit the audience/readership by the MPAA standards (which are ridiculous to say the least), and ineffective as applied. The meat of the system you outline is excellent, when paired with appropriate content warnings.

(Reply to this)

sidra
2008-06-26 07:50 pm UTC (link)

indicated content rather than recipient

I think the recipient is the whole *point* of ratings - ratings are an attempt to protect the recipient from content that is not appropriate for them.

If I say this fic is 'worksafe' I'm talking about the recipient - if you, the recipient, are at work, you probably won't mind being found looking at this by your boss. Except, of course, that the rules at my work may be different than at your work.

If the picture shows a naked penis, I could add a warning 'full-frontal nudity' because warnings are about content, but if I say it's rated 'Explicit' then I'm making a determination as to who the recipients should be.

Michelangelo's David, unless it's been fig-leafed, has full-frontal nudity - there's no question about that. But whether it's considered Worksafe, Standard, Mature or Explicit depends entirely upon the current social mores. The fig-leaf is the rating, in a way, and it's been put on and taken off at different times over the years.

Ratings are always about social customs - "most people would find this offensive" , "most people wouldn't mind their children seeing this" - there's always a "most people" which means that "some people" don't agree.

Warnings are about the content, and can be either objective or subjective but Ratings are about the recipient, and always depend heavily on community standards, which are by no means universal either across time or between societies.

Ratings are the overall "level;"

But, level of what? I've seen level of 'intensity' or level of 'maturity', but it all comes down to what "most people" are comfortable with.

I actually like 'Worksafe' it implies that this is something you'd be okay caught reading in the most conservative of places. That is, that the content is 'comfortable for everyone'. Worksafe is probably similar to 'General' - appropriate for all audiences.

Your 'Standard' seems to be an 'appropriate for most people' - there may be a few exceptions - young children, people who are easily offended, etc. but 'most people' would find it okay.

'Mature' is more like 'many people' - not everyone is comfortable with this, in fact, there are quite a few people who aren't.

And 'Explicit' is 'some people' - most people aren't comfortable with this, or at least, not in public.

In other words, no matter what you call them, the four ratings will always come down to:

Suitable for 'Everyone', 'Most People', 'Many People', & 'Some People' . Maybe you should just call them that :)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

elfwreck
2008-06-27 12:51 am UTC (link)

I don't think rating mature/explicit is labeling the reader--except to say, "readers should be people who want to see mature/explicit details in a story right now." I consider this very different from the statement, "readers are expected to be 16 years of age." Or worse, "readers are expected to have the literary maturity of 16 year olds." There is, of course, always some debate about what's considered "mature" or "explicit" (or "worksafe") content, but that's separate from the concept itself.

Any four-tier rating system could be broken down to all/most/some/few readers--the idea is to give a quick key as to what kind of content you're using to filter that.

This is not:

Contains no math,
Contains basic math only; readers will need to add, subtract, divide and multiply,
Contains quadratics and square roots; readers will need basic trig & calculus skills,
Contains differential equations; readers will need advanced calculus and number theory.

Nor is it "this software runs on Windows/MacOS/Linux/Cray." This is a rating system based on sex, violence, bodily functions, and crudity. (Not exactly "offensiveness"--while an offensive work almost certainly wouldn't be Worksafe, an extremely offensive one might not be Explicit.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

lizardbeth
2008-06-27 11:42 pm UTC (link)

(from metafandom). I thought this was interesting when I first read it. Then I went away and thought about it, and I had an idea. Perhaps the "Standard" level should be the "Source Material" level? It occurs to me that for fanfic, there's a Source at the root of it. That source brings with it certain expectations: if I'm writing HP fanfic my "baseline" is set at pretty mild. But if I'm writing Anita Blake, then my baseline is going to be set as group sex and violence. IOW, if you know that source, you shouldn't be surprised to find content similar to the source. Now obviously HP and other comparatively mild fanfic things could then get ratings that mark explicitness beyond the baseline.

You could still keep a Worksafe level, for material from a more graphic source that doesn't actually approach the level of the source.

I don't know, I guess this is too complicated. It just seems that any helpful rating system should not only help the people who want their porn a way to find it, but indicate how far it deviates from the source material the fanfic is based on. (I'm no fanartist, so I'll leave that for others) It just comes out of my dislike for having to decide between on PG, PG-13, or R (or whatever narrow category when archiving) for material that is basically no different than anything on my t.v. screen...

(Reply to this)

(Anonymous)
2008-06-30 04:33 pm UTC (link)

*grins* Seeing that the Vampire genre ratings examples go from Bunnicula to Anita Blake is way funnier than it probably should be.

I personally prefer MPAA ratings because I'm familiar with them, comfortable with them, and have a general idea of what content an "R" fic will contain vs. an "NC-17" fic, but since my main interest with ratings is knowing if there will be much in the way of violence (as a h/c fan, I of course hope for "yes") and whether there will be explicit sex (so I can gauge whether I should access the fic/art/etc. on a public computer or on my parents computer or only on my own laptop), a rating of worksafe vs. mature/explicit would still let me decide whether or not to click on a fic.

Well, as long as people actually typed out the entire word and didn't make me try to parse confusing acronyms like FRNSFWWTFBBQ.

--elspethdixon on lj

(Reply to this)