![[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
I knew the vaguest history of Rob Roy. That sort of thing happens in history, but I was surprised by the ferocity of the attack. I guess I wasn't prepared for that on TV.
Seeing Red wasn't that jarring to me. It was horrible, but it also didn't go past an attempt. Then again, I didn't see it first run either, and probably knew about it. Several episodes that are important, are lit differently in Buffy. The Body, Seeing Red, Chosen, and I'm sure more, I can't think of.
I don't think I'd want to read that book if that topic came out of nowhere. That, to me, is the hardest. I can always watch between my fingers if necessary, if I am aware of what is going to happen.
no subject
no subject
But it can be viewed in multiple ways. That's the problem. One person's trigger may be another's kink.
no subject
It was R-rated. The rape sequence key to the film - so television can't cut it without confusing you. In the 1970s they cut those scenes and confused the heck out of you. It was meant to be tramautizing - unlike Walking Dead and many television series violence which after a while feels paint-by-numbers because you get used to it. You were supposed to freak out - as the protagonist did. The trigger warning was in the R-rating. If it wasn't there, it probably would have been PG-13.
I get where you are coming from though. My brother had the exact same response to the gratitious violence in The Hobbit - he'd looked forward to it, had read the book to his 8 year old daughter, and took her and her friend to the film. It had added violence not in the book, that made the film more violent and not for children. HE was furious for not being warned.
And my parents who took my brother and I to Excaliber at the ages of 11 and 14, were furious when they discovered how violent it was - it started with a graphic rape sequence that makes Rob Roy look like nothing in comparison. Actually that was true of the whole film. My parents cursed themselves for not paying attention to the R rating.
no subject
I may have once, but remembered it more as a history saga sort of movie, rather than what it apparently was. I changed the channel after that scene, so never really found out how they ended it.