![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Warning...this post could contain triggers??
Question that I've been pondering after wandering about online on Saturday...specifically in the Amazon and Good Reads book review/book discussion threads...
Should artwork, specifically books, movies, video games, music, television, comic books, and to a degree internet blog posts come with "trigger" warnings?
It is an interesting question. I'm no longer certain I know the answer.
Should we put warning labels on our entertainment? And to what degree? How uncomfortable have we become with our society and its constant influx of information...that we are insisting that a filter be placed on everything we read for pleasure and watch for pleasure? There's something to be said for "Reading Dangerously" after all. Isn't that what art is about? The interaction. Being challenged. IF you aren't offended, challenged, or forced to think, to interact - is it even art or just mindless decor or flotsam?
In the movie industry - many film-makers despise the R and NC-17 labels and cut out chunks to avoid them, they know it is a type of censorship. R and NC-17 movies don't get as wide a distribution. So make less money at the box-office. G rated has similar issues, actually. It's the almighty PG and PG-13 that everyone wants. Skyfall, Avengers, Twilight, Hunger Games were PG-13.
And I remember how angry record labels got when you put ratings on them. It has died down now, mainly because no one pays any attention to it. But gotta give Tipper Gore credit for trying. It is however ironic to see someone like Mark Watches whine about Tipper Gore's crusade for warning labels on records and CDs, and demand trigger warnings on internet posts. Is he so delicate that he can't handle reading an email, but not a lurid bit of music or a book or a tv show? Should there be a difference? Maybe. Email after all is more invasive, and harder to filter out - well not entirely - we all have spam filters.
And in books - there are to a degree warning labels anyway - the book will often state that there is content inside that is unsuitable for young readers. But where do you draw the line? See that's the battle Tipper Gore ran into with the ACLU on record labeling...the slippery slope. You start out with the best of intentions...oh, I just want to be warned about "inappropriate sexual violence" or "boddice ripper/rough sex" or rape...then before long you find that the murder mystery you love can't be published any longer because of graphic violence and comic books now are behind the front desk in special white covers - that you can't see behind until after you present an id, and pay for them. And you think to yourself, wait! How did it go to that extreme! I just wanted a simple warning.
So the question then becomes how do you warn people without censoring or limiting access to the content? Television does it with MPAA rations - this content is for mature viewers only and may contain sexual situations and violence that is inappropriate or offensive to some viewers. In short, if you have delicate sensibilities, or are immature in these matters, please go elsewhere.
I remember Joss Whedon ran into this problem on TV. He was writing a teen supernatural tv series. Then suddenly introduced graphic sexual situations in the latter seasons. Especially on UPN which didn't have a standards division, because until Buffy they hadn't needed one. WB did - they knew Whedon and Williamson (Dawson's Creek) well. UPN did post prior to the episode Seeing Red - "this episode is for mature viewers and may contain content that is disturbing or offensive to some viewers." It did have a warning - at least in NY it did. Dollhouse also came with warnings, as did episodes of Firefly, and Angel. Is that the same as a trigger warning?
I know when I do book reviews - I'll state the subject matter in this book could trigger some people. There's a lot of people on my lj, for example, who can not handle sexual violence in their reading or viewing material - all other types of violence is okay, it's just sexual violence or violence of sexual nature (ie. rape) that they can't handle. So whenever I do a book, movie, tv review and it contains sexual violence (or rape) - I will alert them to it and tell them not to read, rent, or watch. Of course being human beings - they are insanely inconsistent in this regard. Apparently some sexual violence isn't as bad as other sexual violence. It's impossible to know what will or won't trigger them in this regard. Not helped by the fact that they are also spoilerphobes (not all but most). So I'm caught - do I spoil them to warn them? Or let them get offended? You really can't win, can you? Also what if the trigger isn't a big deal when you actually watch it, just on paper? Which is why doing a trigger warning can be a dicey prospect.
What if providing the trigger is a huge spoiler in regards to the story? This poses a problem...because if your friends hate spoilers and the trigger warning is a spoiler, and the rest of the book or series is amazing and you know they'll love it - what do you do? (Example - do you tell a friend that you want to introduce Buffy to, that Spike will attempt to rape Buffy in a difficult to watch sequence in Season Six? Or do you refrain? Particularly since you sort of have to see it in context - and everyone interprets that scene differently.)
Of course in some situations...the trigger may not spoil at all and just be obvious...such as the flick Zero Dark Thirty - which depicts torture in a positive light - or shows it as being helpful in obtaining information according to various reviewers. (I haven't seen it.) This is the critique John McCain had of the film - that it depicted torture unrealistically and dishonestly. This spoiler has made me wary of seeing the film. (My trigger is torture. I have problems watching torture scenes and often feel by watching them, I'm condoning how media is portraying them. This is not true of all films. Skyfall depicted torture as being less than useful and pointless. Which is what I liked about Skyfall. As did The Avengers - which equally depicted torture as not necessarily working and back-firing.)
Should people be warned about triggers in book club books? I used to be in two book clubs. They never warned us. I remember reading a book, Bret Easten Ellis' American Psycho, that had a scene in it that I wished I had been warned about - prior to reading, so I didn't have to read it.
But I can't blame the person who suggested it for not warning me - she didn't know that scene had been in there either. Nor was she necessarily triggered by it. It was my responsibility to determine whether this was a book I wanted to read, not her's.
I think people should choose. But the choice should be informed. Yet we live in an age in which we can obtain information easily without having to ask anyone for it. We have the internet. If we want to know if we will like a tv show, book, movie or what-not - we need do little more than google it. And as long as we don't mind being spoiled...we can learn all we wish.
So the choice becomes - is it worth it to risk being emotionally triggered, in order to remain unspoiled? I don't know.
But I'm not sure...placing trigger warnings on everything is the right approach either - because then you remove that choice from others. Some people may not mind being emotionally triggered. So if you put trigger warnings, spoiling content - they don't get to choose whether or not to be spoiled, and that may be unfair to them - since they may not have the same trigger. So is there a way to spoil those who fear the trigger, and not spoil those that don't?
Also what if the trigger warning - has the opposite effect, instead of warning people off, it attracts. Curiousity killed the cat, etc, etc.
I don't know.
What do you think?
Should artwork, specifically books, movies, video games, music, television, comic books, and to a degree internet blog posts come with "trigger" warnings?
It is an interesting question. I'm no longer certain I know the answer.
Should we put warning labels on our entertainment? And to what degree? How uncomfortable have we become with our society and its constant influx of information...that we are insisting that a filter be placed on everything we read for pleasure and watch for pleasure? There's something to be said for "Reading Dangerously" after all. Isn't that what art is about? The interaction. Being challenged. IF you aren't offended, challenged, or forced to think, to interact - is it even art or just mindless decor or flotsam?
In the movie industry - many film-makers despise the R and NC-17 labels and cut out chunks to avoid them, they know it is a type of censorship. R and NC-17 movies don't get as wide a distribution. So make less money at the box-office. G rated has similar issues, actually. It's the almighty PG and PG-13 that everyone wants. Skyfall, Avengers, Twilight, Hunger Games were PG-13.
And I remember how angry record labels got when you put ratings on them. It has died down now, mainly because no one pays any attention to it. But gotta give Tipper Gore credit for trying. It is however ironic to see someone like Mark Watches whine about Tipper Gore's crusade for warning labels on records and CDs, and demand trigger warnings on internet posts. Is he so delicate that he can't handle reading an email, but not a lurid bit of music or a book or a tv show? Should there be a difference? Maybe. Email after all is more invasive, and harder to filter out - well not entirely - we all have spam filters.
And in books - there are to a degree warning labels anyway - the book will often state that there is content inside that is unsuitable for young readers. But where do you draw the line? See that's the battle Tipper Gore ran into with the ACLU on record labeling...the slippery slope. You start out with the best of intentions...oh, I just want to be warned about "inappropriate sexual violence" or "boddice ripper/rough sex" or rape...then before long you find that the murder mystery you love can't be published any longer because of graphic violence and comic books now are behind the front desk in special white covers - that you can't see behind until after you present an id, and pay for them. And you think to yourself, wait! How did it go to that extreme! I just wanted a simple warning.
So the question then becomes how do you warn people without censoring or limiting access to the content? Television does it with MPAA rations - this content is for mature viewers only and may contain sexual situations and violence that is inappropriate or offensive to some viewers. In short, if you have delicate sensibilities, or are immature in these matters, please go elsewhere.
I remember Joss Whedon ran into this problem on TV. He was writing a teen supernatural tv series. Then suddenly introduced graphic sexual situations in the latter seasons. Especially on UPN which didn't have a standards division, because until Buffy they hadn't needed one. WB did - they knew Whedon and Williamson (Dawson's Creek) well. UPN did post prior to the episode Seeing Red - "this episode is for mature viewers and may contain content that is disturbing or offensive to some viewers." It did have a warning - at least in NY it did. Dollhouse also came with warnings, as did episodes of Firefly, and Angel. Is that the same as a trigger warning?
I know when I do book reviews - I'll state the subject matter in this book could trigger some people. There's a lot of people on my lj, for example, who can not handle sexual violence in their reading or viewing material - all other types of violence is okay, it's just sexual violence or violence of sexual nature (ie. rape) that they can't handle. So whenever I do a book, movie, tv review and it contains sexual violence (or rape) - I will alert them to it and tell them not to read, rent, or watch. Of course being human beings - they are insanely inconsistent in this regard. Apparently some sexual violence isn't as bad as other sexual violence. It's impossible to know what will or won't trigger them in this regard. Not helped by the fact that they are also spoilerphobes (not all but most). So I'm caught - do I spoil them to warn them? Or let them get offended? You really can't win, can you? Also what if the trigger isn't a big deal when you actually watch it, just on paper? Which is why doing a trigger warning can be a dicey prospect.
What if providing the trigger is a huge spoiler in regards to the story? This poses a problem...because if your friends hate spoilers and the trigger warning is a spoiler, and the rest of the book or series is amazing and you know they'll love it - what do you do? (Example - do you tell a friend that you want to introduce Buffy to, that Spike will attempt to rape Buffy in a difficult to watch sequence in Season Six? Or do you refrain? Particularly since you sort of have to see it in context - and everyone interprets that scene differently.)
Of course in some situations...the trigger may not spoil at all and just be obvious...such as the flick Zero Dark Thirty - which depicts torture in a positive light - or shows it as being helpful in obtaining information according to various reviewers. (I haven't seen it.) This is the critique John McCain had of the film - that it depicted torture unrealistically and dishonestly. This spoiler has made me wary of seeing the film. (My trigger is torture. I have problems watching torture scenes and often feel by watching them, I'm condoning how media is portraying them. This is not true of all films. Skyfall depicted torture as being less than useful and pointless. Which is what I liked about Skyfall. As did The Avengers - which equally depicted torture as not necessarily working and back-firing.)
Should people be warned about triggers in book club books? I used to be in two book clubs. They never warned us. I remember reading a book, Bret Easten Ellis' American Psycho, that had a scene in it that I wished I had been warned about - prior to reading, so I didn't have to read it.
But I can't blame the person who suggested it for not warning me - she didn't know that scene had been in there either. Nor was she necessarily triggered by it. It was my responsibility to determine whether this was a book I wanted to read, not her's.
I think people should choose. But the choice should be informed. Yet we live in an age in which we can obtain information easily without having to ask anyone for it. We have the internet. If we want to know if we will like a tv show, book, movie or what-not - we need do little more than google it. And as long as we don't mind being spoiled...we can learn all we wish.
So the choice becomes - is it worth it to risk being emotionally triggered, in order to remain unspoiled? I don't know.
But I'm not sure...placing trigger warnings on everything is the right approach either - because then you remove that choice from others. Some people may not mind being emotionally triggered. So if you put trigger warnings, spoiling content - they don't get to choose whether or not to be spoiled, and that may be unfair to them - since they may not have the same trigger. So is there a way to spoil those who fear the trigger, and not spoil those that don't?
Also what if the trigger warning - has the opposite effect, instead of warning people off, it attracts. Curiousity killed the cat, etc, etc.
I don't know.
What do you think?
no subject
The consensus on VFBC is - too much work for the moderators. (True, there's over 500 people. And they don't read many of the books ahead of time.)
With online book clubs? My advice is to read reviews of the book ahead of time (that's what I do) - detailed reviews, particularly the negative ones. You would not believe the stories people think are "beautiful and amazing romances, the best EVER!" Outlander is actually pretty tame in comparison. People have interesting taste.
Apparently you missed my review of Outlander years ago or forgot about it, where I stated it was a grueling read. I would have discouraged you - not your type of romance novel. It's a weird blend of fantasy (time travel with no explanation) romance and history (and the history isn't that accurate.) I did not like that book. A friend rec'd it to me, whose taste I trust, and who told me that it was the only romance novel she ever liked (which should have been warning enough since her other favorite romance novel is well, the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged - which have ahem similar scenes). I found it ponderous with a wimpy indecisive heroine and a grating sexist man.
With book clubs? You have to take the risk. Often the people recommending it have odd tastes. I was in two offline book clubs, lovely women. In one - my favorite of the two and the one that lasted the longest - we had three-four books that I absolutely despised. There was one book that I wanted to burn - American Psycho (ugh). (I didn't - I gave it to someone who loves that stuff). You just have to go with the flow. That's why Kindle's are wonderful nowadays - you aren't stuck with the book on your shelf.
So no, best intentions aside, my experience has been that friends don't necessarily know what you like and what bugs you most likely doesn't always bug them. They tend to be oblivious. It's hilarious how oblivious they can be.
And to be fair people are moody. You had no problems with the rape scenes in GWTDT (which actually bothered me more) or with Whedon's Dollhouse (ditto), but did with Outlander (which I can't even remember, not that I liked Outlander). So...how do you know when to warn? Same with Ann above, she's bugged by Rob Roy - but didn't appear to flinch with the stuff in Walking Dead, Supernatural, Buffy, Angel...so again how do you know? It would be one thing if you hated all "Rape" scenes - that you can warn against. But you figure out which ones. For example? My family and friends warn me off of tv shows and films that have spiders. (My mother told me when to hide my eyes during Return of the King - can't watch the spiders, and during Chamber of Secrets.) That's easy. It's when it is only in specific scenarios that it gets really hard.
no subject
You are absolutely right, the rape is brutal and terrible, but Lisbeth never had any expectation of kindness from that 'counselor', she was unprepared for him to be such a sadistic monster, but she did manage to extract every ounce of revenge and payback. She even managed to make it impossible for him to do this to anyone else who had to go to him for 'counseling'.
But when a woman's husband/soul mate beats her bloody (and gets sexually aroused from doing it) then I think that that is sick.... I think readers who think he is a romantic character are sick, and the heroine is sick for staying with him.
Women get victimized by men all the time, but I admire the women who stand up for themselves (which is why Lisbeth is a favorite of mine), and I avoid women who decide they deserved it. *shudder*
But you're right, I need to take responsibility for trusting a book club with a lot of very young women who have (in my opinion) questionable taste. I probably didn't read your review of "Outlander' (when did you write it?) because I didn't plan to read it.... But I should have (and I will in the future) read more reviews before wasting my time in the future.
no subject
I'd be really careful about generalizing about how other readers view that and why. Keep in mind - people have said and made the same comments about fans of Dollhouse, BTVS S6, Spike/Buffy, and ahem, Cabin in the Woods.
That said, I've admittedly read some disturbing posts on Good Reads regarding both Outlander (the woman excusing the beating because people do that in Wyoming and it's perfectly fine...WHAT??) and 50 Shades of Grey (the people who want to date Christian Grey in real life - sigh, are they crazy???), that make me wonder about people. But I also wonder about fans of Xander/Dawn and Giles/Buffy (ships that still squick me - too much Daddy/daughter for my taste) so there is that. LOL! I guess my point is mileage varies on this and sometimes you just have to shrug and say I don't get it and leave it at that. ;-)
But there are people who look at Outlander and enjoy it in the same way that you enjoyed Dollhouse. Or see it as fantasy, and like in the same way people liked Spike and Buffy. (I didn't like Outlander - spousal abuse tends to bother me. Also Jamie was dumb as toast, so he grated on my nerves.)
Good Reads is dicey. It's not that they are young women, just not necessarily well read. Also people do range the gambit. A lot of people read only erotica. They are married, hubby's on the road all the time, raising kids..they want a romantic hero who is the opposite.
IT's fantasy. In their fantasies - they want the alpha guy, dominant, who is controlling, but in reality they are married to a sweetheart.
My mom was like that. Most people are. Their fantasies are BDSM, and Spike, while their reality is the opposite - a nice beta guy.
Then there are single folks who like reading about abusive relationships, because no envy factor - they don't get depressed being single - thank ghod this isn't real.
Most people who read romance novels - don't see them as real - it's just a what-if fantasy, sort of like you watching the Walking Dead or Cabin in the Woods. It's not really that different.
no subject
Well I have to say that I didn't love Dollhouse because it was romantic (there is nothing romantic about human trafficking!). I loved it because it was depicting a Corporate Oligarchy that isn't too far from what we see today (corporate manipulation on every level, particularly with complete ownership of government). I loved it as an exploration of the powerless trying to stand up to overwhelming power (like in Hunger Games).... I know it didn't work for you, but it definitely did for me.