Recently, I received an email from an author asking for clarification on admittedly ambiguous information on our Submissions page; specifically:
Xchyler Publishing does not publish erotica, gratuitous gore, Satanic themes, nor manuscripts promoting child abuse, drug abuse, illegal activities, or self-harm.
and
Please know the acquisition committee judges the following criteria: . . . inappropriate content (including pervasive profanity).
What does that mean, exactly? An excellent question. In this post, we shall attempt to provide a uniform point of reference for such subjective statements.
In his communication, the author cited Quentin Tarentinoas the measure by which he gauged his own work. XP would certainly find Tarentino levels of graphic violence and offensive language beyond our purview, as we would any of the juvenile raunch or “sex romps” currently so popular in movies. So, how to grade what we do accept?
While this post would be easy to write should we simply refer to the Motion Picture Association of America’s ratings system and say, “no R-rated books”, we hesitate to use so arbitrary a system. For example, the MPAA gave both The King’s Speech and Kill Bill Vol. IRestricted ratings. They compared apples and oranges and called them persimmons.
It will not do. Thus, we offer our more lengthy treatise here in an effort to better clarify ourselves.
Regarding sexuality:
If the author writes solely to titillate and create sexual arousal in the reader, we won’t publish it. However, the use of implied sensuality gives us more leeway, as it, by its very nature, leaves much up to the individual reader’s interpretation. If a scene could nicely “fade to black”, we would ask the writer to do so.
Much would also depend upon whether or not the scene propels the plot forward and the weight such situations bear in the work. Essentially, if you think the best cover for your book features two almost-naked people in a sweaty clutch, we’re not the publisher for that work.
Regarding offensive language:
We identify four different categories of questionable expressions and define them as follows:
- Vulgarity: crude, inelegant slang in common usage, such as shit, damn, ass, whore, etc.
- Obscenity: coarse, aggressive words referring to the organs and acts of sexual reproduction, often used as expletives.
- Profanity: the abuse, disrespect or debasement of the name of Deities, no matter the religion.
- Hate speech: derogatory, desparaging or inflammatory imprecations of a bigoted nature based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.
While we tolerate a certain concentration of vulgarity, if the characters in a work or the writers of it cannot express themselves without the constant use of obscenities and profanities, that counts strongly against them in our evaluation of the work.
However, if the plot, character development, technical expertise, and storytelling counterbalance that deficiency, we may simply ask the author to censor themselves. This would include reducing the frequency of use and/or substituting harsher expletives with those less or inoffensive.
We understand the import of context, which is why we would not publish a novel set in a contemporary prison, for example. Demanding such a work meet our standards of language exceeds all bounds of reason. Such a work would be better represented elsewhere.
For informational purposes, consider f-bombs as our gauge. Used only infrequently to convey moments of rage or hatred would earn a rating of 6 or 7 on a 1-10 scale; more frequently in anger or agitation, 4-5; common usage in conversation, 1-2. This score is then averaged with other criteria. Strong writing skills will raise the overall results.
Perhaps one could consider such language and other questionable content as grime on a pane of glass through which a work is viewed. The thicker it collects, the more it obscures the story.
Regarding violence:
We consider gratuitous violence that which fails to propel the plot forward or enhance the storytelling. We discourage the graphic descriptions of blood and gore. Like sexuality, the best scenes are those in which the author allows the reader the freedom to set their own limits of exposure. We applaud the skillful writer capable of eliciting visceral responses from their readers without resorting to the “gross-out” factor.
Again, context is everything. In our editorial process, we have had both ends of the spectrum: situations in which we requested less violence, and others where we suggested more. The story remains our primary focus, and the best way to tell it dictates our decisions.
A measuring stick:
You may find an excellent example of what we at Xchyler Publishing deem acceptable in Oblivion Stormby R.A. Smith. His occasional use of offensive language assists in developing characters, reflecting social conditions, and intensifying emotions. However, he refrains from overwhelming the reader to the point of nullifying the finer points of his writing.
While the nature of his story also demands acts of violence, he has not found it necessary to overexpose these scenes and make them the primary focus of his work. He relies upon the fast pace, action sequences, and inherent peril to build tension, rather than explicit descriptions of blood spatter, dismemberment and viscera.
We also consider Oblivion Storm the perfect example of the difference between paranormal and demonic subjects. While Mr. Smith writes an original, thoughtful, and intriguing ghost story full of unexpected twists and turns, he refrains from immersing the reader in Evil.
I strongly recommend it not only as an XP bellwether but as an intriguing, compelling tale, entertaining and well-written.
In conclusion:
At Xchyler Publishing, we pride ourselves in our determination to consider any manuscript as a whole, rather than the sum of specific parts. Strengths in some areas may very well compensate for deficiencies in others. We encourage great storytellers of fantasy, Steampunk, suspense/thrillers and the paranormal to submit their work, expecting the editorial process inherent to publishing any manuscript.
Helping authors tell their stories in the best possible manner will ever remain our primary purpose. To that end, we may ask that each one roll up their sleeves, pull out the Windex® and the Bounty®, and polish that glass through which their tale is seen until the reader forgets it is there.
