The two words I find difficult are "objectionable" and "sensitive."
I'm open to suggestions here! I don't think we'll ever achieve precision; I've rather given up trying. You're right that no system can hit everything that every person will find "objectionable" or "sensitive," but I don't think that's the point. We know there are categories of content that contingents of readers wish to avoid at least some of the time, and there is a cultural baseline shared by most people in English-language Tolkien fanfic fandom that understands what falls under that [admittedly vague] umbrella of "objectionable and sensitive." Like a knife fight: yes. Animal abuse, a blowjob behind a 7/11, screaming at a small child ... yes, yes, and yes. A person juggling pineapples? No ... even if there is a reader out there deathly allergic to pineapple who gets itchy just reading it.
But if there are better, more precise words, I will switch out in favor of them. These two are the best I've been able to do so far.
I actually would make the case that "potty humor" would absolutely fall under "sensitive and objectionable" and should bump up the ratings accordingly, if one chooses to use ratings. A story that leans on potty humor "that is not graphic or pervasive" would be Teens, similar to how this kind of humor bumps movies into PG-13 territory. It certainly wouldn't be a General story. Once the descriptions do become "pervasive or graphic," yes, it would become Adult. One of the most disturbing horror stories I ever read, initially published in Playboy and reprinted in a "best of year" anthology, wasn't even really horror except for the fact that it contained extremely, extremely graphic detailing of a mishap that involved no blood or gore but lots of poop, enough that it definitely became horror.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2021-08-26 12:36 am (UTC)I'm open to suggestions here! I don't think we'll ever achieve precision; I've rather given up trying. You're right that no system can hit everything that every person will find "objectionable" or "sensitive," but I don't think that's the point. We know there are categories of content that contingents of readers wish to avoid at least some of the time, and there is a cultural baseline shared by most people in English-language Tolkien fanfic fandom that understands what falls under that [admittedly vague] umbrella of "objectionable and sensitive." Like a knife fight: yes. Animal abuse, a blowjob behind a 7/11, screaming at a small child ... yes, yes, and yes. A person juggling pineapples? No ... even if there is a reader out there deathly allergic to pineapple who gets itchy just reading it.
But if there are better, more precise words, I will switch out in favor of them. These two are the best I've been able to do so far.
I actually would make the case that "potty humor" would absolutely fall under "sensitive and objectionable" and should bump up the ratings accordingly, if one chooses to use ratings. A story that leans on potty humor "that is not graphic or pervasive" would be Teens, similar to how this kind of humor bumps movies into PG-13 territory. It certainly wouldn't be a General story. Once the descriptions do become "pervasive or graphic," yes, it would become Adult. One of the most disturbing horror stories I ever read, initially published in Playboy and reprinted in a "best of year" anthology, wasn't even really horror except for the fact that it contained extremely, extremely graphic detailing of a mishap that involved no blood or gore but lots of poop, enough that it definitely became horror.