Right now, Dennis Lehane’s incredible Small Mercies is on sale. Set in Boston in the summer of 1974 and focused on the city’s violent response to the forced integration of the city’s schools, it’s not for the sensitive reader. The main character, Mary Pat, is a bitter, alcoholic, racist who, when her daughter vanishes, takes on the Irish mob, the police, and, from her perspective, all of Boston to find her child.
Our world was, obviously, a different place in 1974. Much of America was comfortable with and unashamed about their biases. It was an era where kids–I was one–grew up telling dumb Polack jokes, where the n-word was commonly used, and the idea of a same sex relationship was treated with, at best, mocking humor and at worst, violence. On the yellow buses I took home from schools, kids taunted other kids about their weight, their dentition, and their ethnicity and the bus driver paid not a whit of attention. (When I got braces in 5th grade, the kids on my bus in Bloomfield Hills chanted for what seemed like miles Tinsel teeth Duck! Tinsel Teeth Duke. My best friend Suzie, who’d not yet gotten her teeth fixed, heard Buck tooth Ribbit, Ribbit, Ribbit. Buck Tooth Ribbit, Ribbit, Ribbit.)
In this book, Lehane writes Boston as it was. As he began writing it, he was well aware that the language he wished to use would, for some, be unacceptable. He, however, felt it was necessary to tell the story he wished to. In this incisive interview at Shondaland, he said:
That was the very first discussion me and my editor ever had. I said, “I’m not dialing this back. I’ll modulate it. I appreciate the need for nuance in some of this, but I’m not dialing it back fully.” What we did was, we went in, and we looked at any place where it wasn’t clear that these words were coming from Mary Pat’s consciousness; they weren’t coming from the authorial voice. That was the key. We were very scrupulous about that. I’m glad we did it. I have no issues with that. I know this book is going to be brutal to read, and it’s going to be shocking to see those words. People are going to have a lot of trouble with some of it. But, man, my job is not to write to your safe space. If you can’t take it, don’t read the book. Simple as that. But it’s important that people see what the quiet part [of racism] looks like. People don’t understand that this is still happening in very uncoded language. And if you don’t have a real look at that, how are you supposed to even remotely figure out how to address it?
It will surprise not one of AAR’s regular readers to hear that I huzzahed when I read this. I do not, either personally or as the publisher here, believe it is an author’s responsibility to write prose that makes readers feel safe, unappalled, or validated. Cranky old lady that I am, I feel that safe spaces let us stay in our own worlds and that can stop us from growing and changing when we face challenges. Being safe makes it harder to adapt to our chaotic and often dangerous world. As Alex Honnold recently wrote for the NYT, being fearful of something helps us differentiate between real, physical danger and general anxiety. We can excise all the offensive language or characters we wish, determinedly live removed from society’s evils, but that doesn’t stop the world from being full of horrors. I’ve always felt that confronting that which offends me in books makes me more able to challenge it in person.
But, as usual, that’s just me and I am well aware that what I think, in this case, is best is routinely difficult for other readers. What do you think? Do authors owe readers a safe space? Should those who write voices, characters, words, or plots we find egregious be silenced? Should readers be informed, prior to reading, about all in the book that make be hard to parse? And, if so, why?
I am totally with you – cranky old ladies to the fore!
For anything like general fiction, or any non fiction, I want the genuine story the author tells, and if I read about an era that was ugly and violent I want the living truth, not a bland re-telling.
I like to be coddled just a bit in my romance reading – simply with an honest blurb. But that is when I buy romance, designated as such, where I buy a “fairytale”, a solid HEA and where I want to know what type of romance I choose. Also due to limited time and some fairness from the author – tell me what I buy. Trigger warnings etc. are too much for me, they often give away plot I would rather discover by myself. And I read romance before we had all the genres and sub-genres and sub sub genres, and was fine with that, as long as there were some indications on which type of fairytale I am buying = honest blurb.
So I have preferences, but I do not expect them to be met. I take care of my own feelings, and my wounds. I prefer to be occasionally irritated or upset by some story, thought or attitude that I find hurtful rather than to be pandered to.
Which is why my most serious anger is at all the cancelling and stopping and rewriting books going on – just let us all live. Do not kill a livelihood just because you disagree.
The world does not owe me (or you) constant preemptive care for all my potential wounds – that just makes for a totally meaningless blandness, much like formal Japanese court rituals, or Louis XIV Versailles. Everything is hidden, everything is coded, nobody understands what is truly happening, and people get upset when somebody says that the Emperor is naked, after all – not at the nakedness, but at the saying.
I am sad that more and more, I am forced to live in such a world. Re-learn all new codes – I do not believe that racism, misogyny or homophobia disappears, it just finds different outlets.
Lehane book was one of my favourites of the year. Brilliant tension and character development.
I was recently setting up Storygraph to use as a reading tracking site and I filled out their recommendations form. They have an insanely long list of items that you can choose from of things you don’t want to read about, from islamophobia and antisemitism, to incest and domestic abuse, to gore, to many many *many* others of the world’s ills. And, as a fellow cranky old woman, I decided to use a very light hand in choosing items. Yes, it’s totally not pleasant to read some of this stuff, but it feels more real and meaningful to me.
I do think that’s one of the issues I’ve had with some of the newer authors I’ve read, esp. in historical romance, they sand off all the issues that someone might not like in their characters until there’s honestly nothing left and no opportunities for growth.
My POV on this one is simple: if authors want to give trigger warnings and/or prewarn for certain content, they can and should. In the between space, no one should EVER be censored creatively. Any topic can be handled with cleverness – the problem is some do not approach certain subjects with same. No one should expect safety from the creative realm.
Also, as stated below: well written blurbs help. Deceptive ones do not.
Well, if they want to, sure. Should content warnings be expected and readers get upset when they don’t exist? No.
Precisely!
There is a difference between “expected” and “required.” In my opinion the heads up need not be specific. “This book contains scenes of violence which may be upsetting to some readers.” And I think it’s great if the book blurb describes books accurately, like “gritty,” or “dark themes.” I don’t like a lot of angst and really don’t want detailed violence in my books. I have the news for that, which I do read daily. I don’t mind emotional journies or angst that doesn’t grind on for the whole book (or series), and I like a heads up. Generally, though, I’m not finding that information difficult to get without spoilers. Most books I want to avoid are pretty obvious to me with the blurb or maybe a trusted reviewer. I have stopped one or two in the past year, but I read 200 books a year so that’s not a lot.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I go into a different brain space depending on the genre of book I’m reading. If I’m reading a gritty noir, I expect to encounter plenty of rough characters/language/situations. I don’t need to know in advance that that’s what I’m going to get—the type of book makes it self-explanatory. If I’m reading a psychological suspense, I know there’s going to be twists, turns, untrustworthy characters, gaslighting, people in peril, possibly a shocking death or two. Again, I don’t need to know what I’m getting, the genre of the book prepares me for it generally if not in the specifics. I think the issue rears its head more frequently in romance or women’s fiction because I am in a different brain space when reading a book where my expectations are emotional growth, possibly with some angsty complications, and the promise of an HEA. So, when I’m reading romances (or, to a lesser degree, romantic-suspense), I don’t mind a bit of a heads-up about what the book might contain. That’s not to say I think writers should self-censor, but if there are upsetting elements/situations in a romance, I like my “romance reading brain” to be prepared. On the other hand, I would probably laugh out loud if Dennis Lehane’s books had trigger/content warnings; I’d be thinking to myself, “Of course some characters are going to be racist/homophobic/abusive/etc., this IS a Dennis Lehane novel!”
I 1000% agree with you, Dabney. We have become a society where 330 million people expect the world to conform around them to make sure that they are never uncomfortable or never have to face “icky” things that make them feel bad (or think about things they SHOULD think about). And if anyone does cross some “line” when trying to be authentic or to make people think about those hard things, they are too often vilified as being a bad person. (As an example – those who call anyone who has an issue with the gender-bending of a certain Bridgerton character “homophobic” despite legitimate reasons for being unhappy with that choice). While I think trigger warnings are a kind way to give readers a heads-up so that they can make an informed choice, sanitizing a fictional world in order to offer safe spaces is not a writer’s job.
I’m in a writers group, and one of the members is writing a story set in 1920s Wyoming and is about cattle ranchers. At one point, one of her characters used the n-word and we had a discussion about it. We talked about how, if she were to publish, it would invite a world of hurt, so was it worth it? Was it necessary to tell the story she wanted to tell or was there a way to leave it out? It’s sad that she felt the push to forgo authenticity for the sake of avoiding backlash.
That’s such a challenge. If I wrote a book set in the South Florida of my youth–I lived there from ages 15 to 20)–and I wrote as my peers really talked then, my characters would use language and say things that would be unacceptable today. But if I sanitize their words, am I writing a realistic story?
And are we really a world of readers who reading one word is too much to take?
It seems to be getting that way in some quarters.
Q: Do authors owe readers a safe space?
A: No
Signed: Another Cranky Old Lady
Another vote for the cranky old ladies.
I remember reading, a few years back, about a US college that was being pressured to take all the bad stuff out of Shakespeare’s plays so they didn’t upset anyone!
I know there are many reasons why people might want to know what they’re going to read in advance, but as DDD says, if I’m reading a gritty suspense novel, then I already know there is likely to be some violence and maybe some gruesome scenes in it, maybe one protagonist is keeping deep, dark secrets from the other, or there are some psychological games going on, so I don’t necessarily need it spelled out for me.
That said, one author who writes those kinds of stories is always careful to provide an extensive list of potential triggers in the front of his books – but they’re skippable if I don’t want to read them. But not wanting to trigger readers doesn’t stop him writing those things – he just makes sure he prewarns for them.
That said, I see so many “reviews” these days that are basically along list of TWs… many of which are spoilers, so I don’t read them. I do accept that I’m lucky in that I don’t really have any triggers, however.
I absolutely hate the idea of censorship. Books in which siblings fall in love and have sex totally squick me out, but there is obviously an audience for them, as there is for the sort of “dark romance” we’ve been talking about here on various threads. I won’t read them, but that doesn’t mean I have the right to tell someone else not to read them.
I’ve been seeing a fair bit of discussion around the word “unalive” lately – which I believe is yet another TikTok phenomenon that needs to die a death (or that needs to “be unalived”) – what is wrong with the regular words we already use? Yesterday I saw a thread on Twitter in which someone argued that saying “X completed his/her life on… date” is a preferred way to say someone committed (or, as I believe is now preferred “completed”) suicide. I can kind of understand the substitution of “completed” for “committed” in front of the word “suicide” – but saying someone “completed” their life makes no sense in that context, as it clearly ended prematurely.
I know language is always evolving – but is it too much to ask for it to evolve in a way that MAKES SENSE??
I was actually forced to read censored Shakespeare in my (Catholic) high school. It was a bizarre experience.
The TikTok thing about unaliving is because TikTok censors some words (guns are often referred to as pew-pews, for example).
Good grief. It’s pathetic.
What about it is pathetic? TikTok, or the people who evade the censorship?
It’s ridiculous that people have to avoid using perfectly normal vocabulary.
Well, I think this is curious…on the one hand, there are readers who praise an author, the cruder his books are, not necessarily realistic crudeness, but if there is a celebration of violent situations, non-consensual sex and gore everywhere, the book is more interesting (whether romance or not) and anyone who feels sensitive is a special snowflake that should go somewhere else.
On the other hand, there are readers who hope not to read anything distressing in their reading, they want to relax so everything should be happiness, speeches of self-affirmation, self-esteem and a world where there is love, happiness and everyone agrees on everything, basically one hallmark movie but without any sick mother or any of the distressing things that hallmark sometimes has.
My answer on this is simple, the author must be honest when promoting himself…if the author promotes himself as a writer of any “dark” subgenre be it romance, mystery, comedy or “gritty” then no one should expect something fluffy that will make you feel good even without trigger warnings, If the author writes about taboo things that many people find disgusting then put it on your website or in the synopsis of the book so that no one makes the wrong purchase.
On the other hand, if an author promotes himself/herself as a writer of sweet, healthy and cozy things, then he/she is committing to making the comfort of his/her readers a priority. The same author is proclaiming that his/her desire is to write stories that at the same time are a safe space for they group of readers.
On the other hand, a “normal” author who has never said that his specialty is the cozy and healthy or the taboo and twisted has not committed to anything.
But if an author must put warnings for things on their work about things that are upsetting, how can an author than surprise readers? And what about the books that have distressing content written in ways that are healing rather than hurting?
I suppose that surprising readers must be within what is expected…for example in a mystery or romance book you can expect some misfortunes but I remember a romantic book by an author where in the first chapters a scene is shown of how the heroine being girl is raped by her father and uncles. I think that deserves a TW. Literature has evolved a lot, for example I love gothic romance or books like “Jamaica Inn” but nowadays there are gothic books that have scenes of mass rape…that for me would not be a pleasant surprise, in fact I have a right to know. What I spend my money on.
On the other hand, if someone approaches something from a healing point of view, it could be fine, but I’m just saying that there are many authors, especially romantic comedies or women’s fiction, whose slogans are things like “sweet and healthy” or “stories that warm your heart.” so people don’t buy those books expecting to read painful things and if the attempt to include it curatively goes wrong…it can go very wrong then if the author has formed his/her entire career under the idea of writing sweet, comforting stories and even suitable for everyone ( that “suitable for 8 to 88 years old”.) are going to have to warn that what they are selling this time addresses certain topics. I’m not saying all the authors, just those who have built their image and career giving the message of “I write things that make you feel comfortable.”
Well, I can tell you that readers return books all the time. Amazon lets you return an ebook for many reasons and almost all booksellers will take a book back if you say it was poorly marketed and upset you.
“ how can an author than surprise readers? “
Surprise is overrated, especially in romance. I mean, we know there is a HEA/HFN at the end.
I respectfully disagree. Sure, you know the ending of a romance, but what happens between the opening and final words can go anywhere. One of my favorite contemporary romances Sleepover made me sob so hard my husband was concerned.
I agree with you completely. It is being exposed to ideas beyond our comfort zone that we learn and grow.
I think of it like allergy shots, each of which contains a small amount of the allergen. By getting exposure over time, someone for whom allergies can be life threatening can teach their bodies to not overreact to the allergen.
I think this is a very very bad example to make your point/discuss your idea. Allergy shots are voluntary. No one gives an allergy shot to someone without that person’s full knowledge. If a host knows they have people with allergies coming to their house for dinner, and they don’t tell these guests about the allergens in the food they’re serving because they think it’s just a small amount and it will be good to give them “exposure” to teach them not to overreact to the allergen.
Do you see what I mean? it’s not for the host to decide. It’s for the guest to decide.
There are likely gourmands out there who *love* to be surprised to find what is in the food they are served. They might want to figure it out for themselves. They probably are also privileged enough to not have allergies. But if that is the case, then they have just as much responsibility to avoid finding out what’s in the food as people with allergies have to find out if there is an allergen in the food and thus avoid it.
So when the comparison is made between trigger warnings for books and allergens, what I am hearing is that one set of people doesn’t need to take responsibility but another group has to, and the group that has to take the responsibility is the one who is already dealing with fear and trauma.
(Personal notes; I too am a cranky old woman. I do not have allergies. I have an adult child who has a peanut allergy, I do not read trigger warnings, and they don’t bother me.)
Well, that’s not how I think about it, but I see what you are saying.
Censoring content: absolutely NO.
Setting accurate expectations: definitely YES.
I wrote about labels and expectations long before the modern trigger warning fad ( http://www.ccrsdodona.org/markmuse/reading/genrelabels.html ).
Thanks for linking to your article, Mark. I agree that setting expectations appropriately is the key. This is as much the responsibility of the publisher as the author. The cover, the blurb on the back of the book or on Amazon, endorsements, etc. all set expectations of the content of a book. Reviewers play a role in setting expectations as well. Don’t tell this book is a lighthearted romantic comedy and then have the main character go through all kinds of trauma and angst for half the book. To me, that goes to truth in advertising, and authors and publishers definitely owe us that.
But art can be both humorous and full of sorrow. It’s hard for me to see how publishers can thread the needle.
“This is a difficult emotional journey made lighter with humor and warmth.” I really don’t think it’s always that hard to set expectations.
But, that description makes it sound as though the book is most about the difficult journey.
I will say I think the idea that others need to shape their work to the expectations of others is just not one I’m comfortable with.
Yes. But they can tell me about their art so I can decide.
„ romantic comedy dealing also with some difficult life changes“ comes to me.
Reviews here are clear enough about darkness, gore, fun etc – I generally can decide based on a review here whether this book would work as light reading for me. And very very rarely do you spoil thebook. So it is possible to do.
No one has said that authors need to shape their work to the expectations of others. Authors are free to write what they want to write, as they should be. But we, the readers should be given an accurate, general description of the book.
I didn’t say that, Dabney. I don’t think they need to shape their work either, and this is a good example of what I wrote about up tread. I feel you are misrepresenting my thoughts.
Carrie, at no point have I been talking about you or any other reader here. I am trying–and clearly doing a poor job of it–to discuss an idea.
In a word, no.
Authors don’t “owe” readers a safe space any more than readers “owe” authors a five-star review. If a book goes off in a direction I find offensive, I stop reading it, or skip ahead to see if things improve. I do not insist that everyone accommodate my neuroses. The only thing that actually angers me is a book that is sloppily and carelessly written. Any author who expects me to buy a book needs to at least do the basic author job of writing.
One of the things that annoy me (and there are many) is the rather narrow range of things that people feel entitled to complain about. Can I demand a label that says, “Warning: Author confuses lie and lay“? Or “Warning: Gratuitous use of obscenities”?
Just tell me up front if the dog or cat dies. I can’t go there. I know there is a site like that for movies but AFAIK, not for books.
Goodreads will often let you know that.
I have a friend who always wants to be warned if an animal dies, even if it spoils the plot!
First of all, authors do not “owe” readers a safe place. But authors and publishers do owe us truthful advertising and promotion of a book to help us decide whether or not we want to spend our time, money and emotional energy reading it. I hate it when a book is advertised as one thing and turns out to be another.
I have a more nuanced view of trigger warnings. Many, many people have experienced some form of trauma in their lives. For example, in the United States 81% of women and 43% of men have experienced some sort of sexual harassment or assault in their lifetimes. https://www.nsvrc.org/statistics. And that is just one form of trauma.
If authors and publishers choose to target those consumers who have experienced trauma by labeling their books cozy or by providing trigger warnings, then they have increased the potential audience for their books. I commend them for their sensitivity and providing people who have experienced trauma with reading options. As long as the warnings are avoidable for those who don’t want them, they don’t hurt anyone and can benefit many people.
I hear you and I think it’s unwieldy in practice. What warnings are warranted? If your mom hasn’t recently died and you are still grieving, does that mean that all books should come with a “parental death” warning? And what if that ruins a surprise plot element?
You use the term “all books should…” which is an absolute. I never said “all books should” have trigger warnings, and I would never advocate for “all books’ to have trigger warnings. To clarify, I suggested that some authors and publishers will choose to market to audiences who appreciate trigger warnings, and if they choose to do so, then in my view, that is a good thing. It is a niche market and deserves support as much as the BDSM or polyamory or any other market. As a former therapist, I had clients who were easily triggered, so I understand that there is an audience for gentler books which will not be triggering or else books with trigger warnings.
I apologize. I’m not a fan of trigger warnings but that doesn’t mean I don’t believe all readers have a right to find the books that work for them. I misspoke.
I much prefer putting a spoiler in a review than using a trigger warning for all to see.
That’s what it boils down to in the end.
I don’t like the theme here that readers who want to avoid difficult scenes or topics are somehow weak or “less than” those readers who enjoy grappling with heavier topics in their entertainment or who can stomach more gore. Daily life has a way of pushing us out of our comfort zones if we active and involved.
I’m really tired of the idea that if I like something a bit lighter in my reading I’m a Polyanna. No. Actually, I’m a trauma surviver who still goes to weekly therapy for PTSD. I still interact with the current news and engage in real life conversations about current topics with friends and family. But certain things can bring on anxiety attacks or worse, and I need a break from reading about the horrendous ways animals are abused across our country and world, or the rolling back of decades of rights for our vulnerable populations, or seeing mysogyny praised by religious leaders, or climate deniers, sexual abuse, etc. The wieghty topics we all have to grapple with on a daily basis are necessary, but I don’t generally want them in my my entertainment (at least not in detail). If I don’t want to read a decription of child abuse, I’m not weak. It’s literally a daily journey to healing that several members of my immediate family and I deal with every day.
Just fyi, I don’t think authors owe their readers a safe place. Absolutely not. They are free to write what they want and readers should be free to read what they enjoy. I like to know at least some vague cautions before I start a book by an unknown author. If I can’t find that info, I’ll usually skip the book…too many others to read. If I encounter something I’m not comfortable with, I quit reading. I’m an adult, I don’t have to throw a temper tantrum about it. But I’ll probably leave a note on GR (no ratings for DNF books) that I found some content upsetitng to hopefully give others a heads up.
Carrie, I agree.
I tried to work out the difference as best I could, between wanting freedom for authors but also respect for the expectations I have when reading romance. Give me a clear blurb and a clear genre and I am usually good.
I am sorry if I failed you, since I also consciously avoid reading things that are too dark and gory in my „light“ reading, romance, fantasy, SF, crime.
I feel as if we should be able to say that we’ve strayed too far in the warnings world without readers feeling as though they are personally being attacked. I don’t read, in any of the comments, that anyone is weak or lacking. What I read is that there needs to be some other way for readers to find their comfort zones rather than warnings.
Liking light reading is something I suspect most readers at AAR share. Again, I don’t see anyone criticizing reading things that make one feel good.
I think Goodreads is a gread solution, personally.
I’m not going to make a bigger deal of it an quote the places in the comments I feel were dismissive, but there is a feeling we’re not challenging ourselves or we’re asking for too much if we simply wanting to know basic triggers. Your original question was “do authors owe us a safe place.” But you went on to say should they be silenced and should we have an exhaustive list of concerns. That’s not really asking for a discussion, because of course none of us here want them to be silenced. There is a HUGE gap between silencing an author’s voice and asking for a clear discription of the book and some basic content warnings if necessary.
I’m glad this works for you, I really am. But this might not work for everyone. I mostly confront these issues in discussions in real life. Just the idea that you would imply anyone not reading challenging books would somehow think the world isn’t full of horrors is unsettling. There are many, many ways for someone to get information and grapple with life’s difficulties besides reading it in their “for entertainment” books. I think this is the implication that has upset me, that somehow because I don’t want to confront all of society’s ills in my entertainment make me somehow living in ignorance or denial.
I am sorry you feel that way. As you know, I feel strongly AAR needs to be a place that readers can discuss ideas. If I say, I don’t think trigger warnings are a good thing for society, it doesn’t mean I am saying those who feel they are helpful are flawed.
Why don’t people who don’t want trigger warnings just choose not to read them?
They’re tough to avoid. I find they are too spoilery for me but many reviews have them in a place that, if you’re reading the review, you can’t avoid seeing them.
This whole conversation is making me think that at AAR we should use trigger warnings when reviewers want to but simply put them in a spoiler tag.
I pretty much never read trigger warnings. To be honest, I don’t know why avoiding them is difficult. I just … skip them, even when they are on the page in front of me. Have you tried skipping over them? I mean, I don’t read every word on the copyright page. I just skip over it.
The way I read, I take in a paragraph or more at a time. So it’s hard for me to avoid small sets of words. #myproblem
Maybe you could ask your husband or someone else to put a post-it over the content warning before you start to read a book.
But we’re reaching the point of absurdity, and I suspect you know this isn’t really the issue. The issue, and I think we need to address it as a society, is that content warnings and “cancel culture” make people afraid that they themselves will be judged for saying the wrong thing or expressing an idea that is no longer considered “acceptable” or liking something that is considered problematic. This is an understandable concern, but ultimately, it’s one that can be addressed without worrying about “woke” people and “snowflakes” who can’t handle historical realities without a trigger warning.
All we need is empathy. We need to expect it from others and we need to expect it from ourselves. And one of the things I love about romance fiction is that it makes empathy a central part of the story – in addition to the sexytimes and the love story.
I also think that we as voracious readers love words and respect words. Words matter. Stories matter. And both words and stories change and evolve, which is normal and frustrating and exciting and depressing all at the same time. Just look at the origin of the term “woke.” Back in the 2010s, we called “woke” people “Social Justice Warriors,” and before that we called them “Politically Correct” or “PC.” And before that we called them “Bleeding Heart Liberals.” We come up with new words and phrases all the time, and it’s delightful, even if I have no idea what “skibiti toilet rizz” is. My 13 year old nephew does, though. 🙂
WARNING: This post contains references to sexual assault. I don’t see this as the issue at all. The issue for me is that you can’t put genuine trigger warnings on most works. That is because a trigger warning tends to be specific to a trauma, such as a backfire or fireworks not setting off most of us, but they can be debilitating for veterans (and dogs, but that’s a different issue.) Yet we don’t warn that a book, TV show, or movie contains these things, which are genuine problems. I recently had a very disturbing PTSD moment over a common backyard item. I screamed in my car like some kind of crazy person, and when the episode was over, I was just grateful my family wasn’t in the vehicle with me at the time. Fortunately, I was near my location and was able to make it there safely, take a few minutes and then go about my day with none the wiser to what had happened. But it would be impossible for the city to warn me I would see that item if I glanced into a backyard while driving. It’s not regulated, and most homeowners would rightly wonder just how disturbed I am if I asked for it to be.
We can include warnings for some things like rape or sexual assault, but again, most TRIGGERS are common and inescapable. A club scene that reminds you of being date raped, crowded elevators that remind you of being groped by a co-worker who took advantage of that situation on a regular basis during the morning commute. The guy who liked to lean over you in the elevator, trapping you against the wall so you couldn’t even get out when your floor came up. All of those are real situations, and yet we don’t put trigger warnings for elevator scenes, which is something many women react to.
Another problem I have is that people often confuse content warnings with trigger warnings. A trigger is something that causes an uncontrollable reaction in the sufferer, like elevators for those who have been assaulted in one. But content is something like offensive language, sex, use of drugs, use of alcohol, racist language in a book about the 70s or a novel dealing with racial integration. etc. For me, the solution is to use the many book sites available to find out what a book is about, not try to figure out what should constitute content/trigger warnings.
Saying you don’t think trigger warnings are good for society can come across as ableist.(I’m not saying you are, just letting you know how it can be interpreted.) And that is exactly what is bothing me, and exactly what feels dismissive. Maybe most people don’t need them and you feel like they are demanding things they shouldn’t, but why should people who don’t need a service (handicap parking, ramps, extra time on tests, etc.) get to be the ones who decide what everyone else needs? I’m glad you don’t need trigger warnings. But for me it makes my life easier. It literally helps me avoid panic attacks and insomnia from being triggered. And yes, that has happened to me. And personally, even if I didn’t have these issues, if I knew it was helpful for other people with PTSD or similar issues be more successful in finding appropriate reading material, I’d still support clear book descriptions and content warning for their sakes, just like I support ramps and other accessibility aids for those who are physically disabled.
Just another quick thought. You mentioned allergy shots and how being exposed to difficult themes can help get us used to them, and to a certain extent I agree with you, but with caveats. I have definitely pushed my comfort zne with books that challenge me and been better for it. But it’s my choice and I know how far to push myself. CBT deals with small dose innoculation to treat people with phobias, for example, but that’s in a controlled environment and a very structured system. You wouldn’t treat a person with a spider phobia by suddenly presenting them with a spider. (They started my daughter off looking at line drawings of spiders, then progressed to photos, etc.) That’s how running across a description of child abuse or excessive violence (torture scenes) is for me. Coming across it unexpectedly in a book can be triggering, not therapeutic.
^^ I relate to this, I have many friends who do.
It seems like what is necessary and maybe better than trigger warnings (since TWs can ruin plot twists or other story elements) is subgenre designations that communicate a lot of that information and are used very strictly. If I pick up a “dark fantasy”, I should be prepared to encounter some pretty dark stuff. I don’t need specifics because the genre has warned me. If I pick up a “cozy fantasy” I should feel absolutely confident that I will NOT encounter dark stuff. And then we need some method of holding authors and publishers accountable to truth in advertising.
I loved Small Mercies not because it was dark but because it was nuanced. Most people are shades of gray, not black or white, and to write about humanity with authenticity, you need to cover that. For the most part, Lehand does a fabulous job of finding the heart of a woman who can seem quite heartless.
Honestly, I don’t think authors are being asked to write “safe spaces.” I think a lot of issues have cropped up recently because publishers are pushing to sell their books to as wide an audience as possible, which often has them targeting genre markets that sell well with books that don’t meet that genre’s standards. In other words, if I pick up a romance, I want a romance. I want a back blurb that does a decent job of telling me what I am getting into. I don’t expect spoilers, but if the book is about an idyllic small town with a hot cowboy sheriff, I will avoid it, and I want to know to avoid it. Don’t put a blurb telling me I’m getting a story about a magical circus and deliver that instead. If it’s a horror novel, put it in horror, don’t try to sell it as something else. IMO, dishonesty by publishers looking for quick sales has led to a lot of this backlash. That’s honestly why I first started visiting AAR – to get the real story on what a book is actually about.
That’s an interesting take I hadn’t thought of. Thanks!
Several commenters have spoken about reader expectations here and I agree with Maggie that the current desperation on the part of some publishers to sell oranges to people who really want apples without telling them their product IS an orange is part of the problem.
I am currently writing a review of a book which has upset some readers because the blurb fails to mention something quite important (which is not a spoiler) and I understand why those people are annoyed. To be fair, the author has since revised the blurb and I don’t think they were trying to mislead.
There’s also the reverse problem, too: publishers failing to signal that a book is an orange to people who actually DO want oranges. If it weren’t for AAR, SBTB, and being good friends with a publishing insider, I’d have missed out on dozens of oranges because I thought they sounded or looked like apples, while simultaneously bouncing off apples I had picked because I thought they were oranges. How are both things happening!?
I don’t think authors owe anyone a safe space. That said, if a writer fails to fulfill a readers’ expectations/desires or really puts them off, they are likely to erode their fan base or never get loyal readers in the first place. So it’s certainly in their interest to market their books to readers who will not be shocked or surprised too much by what they get. As an aside, the Lehane book is an absolute tour de force. Really loved it, even though the ending made me want to punch someone.
I actually think the thing that would be more useful, at least for the romance genre, is a run down of the kinds of sex acts that show up in a given novel. There are some things that take me out of the story either because of how unrealistic they are (like having seventeen orgasms in a row from rough penetrative sex sans lube), how dangerous they are (autoerotic asphyxiation), etc. And maybe it’s the old lady in me, but I hate thinking of impressionable teens reading these and getting their sex ed from them. I also don’t think knowing that a book contains such things is going to ruin the surprise, per se, assuming the story is more than just a litany of various sexual positions. But maybe that’s just me.
I loathe trigger warnings and have often been spoiled by them. By the time I’ve registered the words ‘content warnings’ on the page I’ve already read half of them, so not easy to avoid, unless the actual list is hidden by a link or placed on the following page.
However I recognise why some people need to know exactly what they’re getting in a book. But surely you can find out somewhere on the internet without warnings needing to be part of the actual book? If I’m not sure whether to read something I just jump on Amazon or Goodreads or a site like this and read enough reviews or comments that I can make a decision.
As another commenter pointed out, movies and TV shows don’t come with detailed warnings. If viewers are sensitive they do some research or ask someone else who’s seen the show…..
“movies and TV shows don’t come with detailed warnings.”
When I see “Sexual Situations” in the content advisories for tv shows, I’ve been know to whoop loudly and shout “They’re gonna bone!”
“If viewers are sensitive they do some research or ask someone else who’s seen the show.”
Similarly, readers who are upset by being spoiled by content warnings in books can ask someone else if there is a content warning in the book.
‘Sexual situations’ is not a detailed warning. I’m talking about warnings like ‘death of a pet (off page).’ A novel is a work of art and at some point the reader has to take a leap of faith to fully experience that art. While a content warning may give peace of mind to one sensitive reader or turn them off reading that book at all, for another reader with no such qualms it can lessen the reading experience by blabbing plot points that reader would prefer to experience as the author intended.
Particularly when it comes to the romance genre which focusses on a relationship and deep feelings, a string of clinical warnings (which as I said above, are prominently placed and hard for a a fast reader to avoid) can make me feel like there’s nothing left to discover about the relationship except what sexual positions they’re going to use (which is the least interesting thing about romance, in my opinion). While fear of emotional distress may deter some readers from trying a book without warnings, lack of the unknown definitely deters others.
“While fear of emotional distress may deter some readers from trying a book without warnings…….”. If a reader can’t face reading a book without “warnings”, then I wonder how they can get out of bed in the morning, drink tap water, cross the street, go for a swim or a nice walk in the park, hold down a job, have any meaningful relationships in life. Marriage, partnership, children or no children, sickness and health, death and even breathing could all require trigger warnings for some it seems because life is full of challenges, problems and mini and not-so-mini disasters. I find this sad beyond belief. It would seem that some will meander through life with their heads in the metaphorical sand to avoid their “triggers”. Life is a challenge for everyone and unless we meet it head-on, with a smile and willingness to take the thick with the thin, then are we even living? If reading a book is so concerning, then why bother to read at all? This particular discussion has been very interesting and full of observations from many points of view; well done to Dabney for opening this particular can of worms; revealing for sure.
I’m liking the idea of, at AAR, putting all such warnings in a spoiler tag. Then readers can do what’s right for them.
Yes, try that.
I generally like how things are done here, so I see no need for change at AAR. If you got the impression that there is a wish on this site for a change, this sounds like a good way to do it.
That would be great, Dabney! I wish more publishers, authors and websites would think creatively about this issue. Thank you for listening to all perspectives on this issue.
I think that most of us do our best to include the sort of information under discussion in the text of our reviews anyway, and I know I have occasionally included a note at the end if, for some reason, it didn’t fit.
I do like the idea of expanding warnings when reviewers feel it’s appropriate but putting them under a spoiler tag.
Harsh, and brutal!
I generally prefer a clear category and good blurb to trigger warnings. Very much so. In my fun reading, because I want to decide how I spend my fun time. For my serious reading, other rules apply.
But I would prefer to know if a fiction crime book is about harm to children. I went into a terrible book by Elizabeth George, trusting her (my bad) and reading too much. I did not get those images out of my head for a very long time. I learned my lesson, I carefully check any crime, romantic suspense, thriller or similar: I prefer to avoid any book where there are children in all these categories. Because they might come to harm. So, there is a specific situation where I would prefer to know up front. I deal with it by avoiding a large part of a genre, depriving a lot of authors of my money.
This allows me to get why other people need to know up front. And respect their limits. Mine are few, and I manage them. But they give me a bit of fellow feeling and compassion.
I try not to be the person who disrespects any special needs I do not have.
So, I would rather manage my antipathy to spoilers in trigger warnings than expect people to avoid reading books.
It’s tough and I can see both sides.
This does strike me as a very modern concern. Like, when Little Nell died, readers gasped, cried, and moved on. But, times change and our sense of what we can take and manage changes too.
This is a funny example because it is alleged that people waited at the docks for the ships from England to find out whether Little Nell had died.
https://www.victorianweb.org/authors/dickens/boev1.html
“During almost 200 years since Dickens published The Old Curiosity Shop (1841), this passage has provoked passionate reactions, which started almost immediately after the novel appeared. Crowds of Americans anxiously waited at the docks for the ships coming from England to receive news from the novel’s next installment of the whereabouts and well-being of Little Nell”
I want to thank you for this reply, because it’s honest and I think encapsulates the foundational area of disagreement: opponents of trigger warnings think there is something wrong with people who want trigger warnings.
You are absolutely right: we all face the potential of risks and surprises in life on a daily basis. So what is wrong with people wanting to control the things they can? Why does that make them weak?
At a family gathering this past weekend, I found out that my brother-in-law is afraid of flying. He cannot imagine getting on a plane without thinking about all the things that could go wrong and being petrified the whole time. So, he doesn’t fly. As I am sure we all know, flying is very safe. Is my BIL a weak and fearful person who can’t “get out of bed in the morning, drink tap water, cross the street, go for a swim or a nice walk in the park, hold down a job, have any meaningful relationships in life”? Well, he is also a former NYPD police officer. He risked his life every time he did his job. He was on duty during 9/11. He is absolutely not a fearful, weak person. He dealt with fear every day in his job. But this is one thing that causes him fear that he can control, so he does.
Again, please, have some empathy for people who are not you. They are not bad people because they do not experience reading the same way you do.
Did I say that any one is bad? I wanted to point out that no one can control every aspect of life. Heroes, like your BIL, faced life head on, on the job on 9/11. Everyone has a hidden weakness but if taken as a challenge, an opportunity to explore, learn, grow then it can be a positive. Letting weakness limit you is an option but so is trying to overcome it. I am not saying one should opt for either choice but surely humanity progresses by rising to the challenges life throws in our path?
Not everyone can bootstrap their way through trauma, and not every person wants to exposure-therapy their way through something that traumatized them. One may not be able to control everything about life, but it’s important to be empathetic.
I’d ask that you not attack, even blandly, a specific person. Comment on the ideas not the writer, please.
Well, two decades of therapy, thousands of dollars, and lots and lots of hard work have made it easier, but yeah, life still throws me curve balls and panic attacks. I’m glad your have so much more “fortitude” than I do, or maybe you haven’t been through what I have. So I shouldn’t read at all? The lack compassion and understanding is unbelievable.
+1. Trigger warnings are not infantilizing people, and they’re not harming other’s daily lives. They’re a useful tool that helps people tell what’s right for them. I will refrain from personally attacking Elaine in this thread, but suggesting others must grit their teeth and march through their trauma until it doesn’t hurt is appalling. As if people don’t do that enough already. Sometimes the hurt must be aided with outside tools.
Carrie, I’m so sorry you feel attacked here. Your experiences are just as valid as anyone’s.
I am wondering how we can disagree about ideas in a way that you would feel comfortable with. I tend to feel that it’s acceptable in discourse to disagree about behaviors. So, for me, it’s OK to say:
Not voting is bad for our nation.
It’s not OK to say:
If you didn’t vote, you are a bad person.
So, in this case, I feel other readers should be able to say:
Trigger warnings cause more harm than good.
But not say:
If you like trigger warnings, you’re a wimp.
We should be able to disagree about what behaviors we, as individuals, think are best while not saying that those who disagree with us are behaving badly.
Again, I’m sorry if you felt personally attacked. I try very hard at AAR to make this a place where people can argue about ideas but not take down, personally others. It’s a tough needle to thread.
I knew what was likely to be said in in this thread, which is why I stayed out of it until now. I’m sorry about the lack of kindness and sensitivity too, Carrie.
It’s tough. I guess, for me, it’s more important to be able to talk about sticky issues than not.
There’s talking, and there’s talking in a way that dismisses or belittles other people’s experiences.
I’m not sure that’s very easy to enforce.
Again, if I say:
I think watching the NFL supports inhumane treatment of athletes.
That is my opinion and I feel people should be able to say that.
If I say:
If you watch NFL games, you are a horrible person.
I have attacked another person and that’s not OK here.
I’m not saying it should be enforced at all. AAR is what it is, and if most people feel a certain way, I’m certainly not going to suggest anything different to the majority. There are other places where I feel it’s safe to open up and where I can discuss sensitive matters.
That’s very fair. I try and keep AAR a place that all can chime in. And, by allowing commenters to say what THEY think is right (while avoiding personal attacks), I can completely see it doesn’t feel safe for some.
And, having reread the comment many are finding critical, I can see how the phrase:
If a reader can’t face reading a book without “warnings”, then I wonder how they can get out of bed in the morning, drink tap water, cross the street, go for a swim or a nice walk in the park, hold down a job, have any meaningful relationships in life.
could make some feel that they, as readers who feel they need trigger warnings, feel attacked. I can’t speak to what anyone else actually intends with their words, but this is certainly an example of phrasing that could make some feel criticized.
This comment made me regret voicing any opinion on the topic. I feel that I have contributed to a debate where the wish for protection in your fun reading has been equated with an inability to face life’s challenges. I am sorry that this is the outcome.
Again, I am sorry you feel that way.
What I feel about this discussion is that there is almost no way to discuss sensitive subjects without either censoring some or offending others.
Many sites censor everything, others allow most anything. Many sites don’t allow allowing comments on subjects where the debate is likely to get heated. Whenever AAR allows heated debate, feelings are hurt. There is very little middle ground on the internet in spaces where people of diverse views connect.
I get that. It is a narrow plank to walk on, and wobbly.
Each of us chooses what we want to do in our leisure time. Since leisure time is precious, we want to do something we are highly likely to enjoy. If we know we don’t like to read about sexual assault or children in danger or car crashes or any other potentially distressing topic, then why would we choose to do that for FUN?? Is it really necessary to stiff upper lip our leisure reading? I am in two book clubs. I just finished one book where rape played a significant role. I am now reading another where all kinds of terrible things are happening, including to a child. Yes, they are well-written and have provided much to think about. But I hope I can be forgiven for not wanting to wade into those waters all the time. I hope I can choose to pick up a book (perhaps with the help of content or trigger warnings) without any of those things and not be judged for “sticking my head in the sand.” It is how I choose to spend my leisure time, after all.
I so agree with you. I don’t read any books with child abuse or torture with very very rare exceptions. If I start a book and that’s a part of it, I put it down. No one should ever feel pressured to read or see anything they don’t want to when they are choosing what to do in their leisure time.
movies and TV shows don’t come with detailed warnings.
Untrue, TV MA warnings are usually descriptive down to sex, smoking and alcohol content. Does the Dog Die has existed forever as well.
Complaining about other people adding hot takes to a post when you stopped in just to add your own hot take is a choice.
It makes me sad when, at AAR, comments work to shut other people’s perspectives down.
My goal is to encourage open discussions, even when we disagree, so that we create a space where we learn from one another. It’s okay to have strong opinions, but we need to listen to others too.
I’d ask that next time someone shares a different viewpoint, even if it makes you boiling mad, don’t shut them down. Hear them out, debate respectfully, and help AAR continue to build a culture that’s dynamic and inclusive.
I continue to believe that, if everyone is kinder and less likely to take offense, we can have a site where all kinds of ideas, even ones hard to hear, can be civilly discussed.
I don’t know how to tell you that a romance novel review site is not a place to debate whether people who need to use trigger warnings are emotionally mature enough to wipe their noses. It’s a place where we should talk about books, trends and the industry and that used to be its mission.
This is a matter of perspective. I thought that it was a topic worth discussing and would probably be worth revisiting in the future. People had strong and differing opinions which would be interesting to respectfully explore.
Ok.
I have thought about this a bit.
For me, we were doing ok in this debate until Elaine stepped out with brutal views. Which were very much attacking personally people who need trigger warnings to enjoy books. That was my tipping point in the debate.
Me, just like everybody else, did not step in to say this explicitly, though we did react. But, we stayed within the lines. Not attacking the attack, just the points made. So we continued playing by the rules, after the really nasty denigration of all trauma victims. This was just like saying „if you lose your legs, then crawl, do not expect others to bend to your disability“.
The only person who could have called it – and should, in my personal opinion – is the moderator. Who came with a blog topic sure to have intense debate.
Telling all those who do it anyway to respect the rules, and not calling it clearly when someone doesn’t, makes this a space where I cannot debate with enjoyment.
I do not know all the possible tools: can you quarantine the comment and clarify with its author? Can you clearly say that this comment goes too far? Do you feel it did?
For me, though I dislike trigger warnings, I get why some persons need them, and in light of actual trauma, require them to enjoy their fun reading. And so I bend.
So the comment „just suck it up you weaklings“ was offensive (the text was worse imo, than my short version).
If you feel this comment was ok, our debate limits are different.
If you cannot say that the comment is nok, your moderation is such that I need to censor myself, or withdraw from debate, since it is not my role to call out what is offensive.
As Nah said, some truly interesting persons are not posting here anymore, like Blackjack, and others, and I miss their views. They said why, in the debates where they gave up on posting here. I am not there, yet. This is mostly due to a lot of other excellent content here.
Starting a debate that is sure to raise waves, and I knew it would, so you must have, too… starting such a debate and then not taking care to make this a respectful debate for persons whose honest vulnerable truth I salute, like Carrie G, is not ok. I can only read Elaine as an attack against persons like Carrie, which deeply offends me.
I tried to express that within the rules of not going directly against another person, now I see that this is not enough.
Dabney, telling me I should take my knocks here because free speech and honest debate is important is a cop out – you should call it and allow Elaine to either retract or delete or something – not my role to say what – this is my position on all this.
I decided to say it clearly, apologies to anyone who did not want themselves named in my post.
OK.
It’s interesting. I read the comments at many places–the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, The Washington Post, and several substacks. In none of them would Elaine’s comment have been pulled.
I was just in a debate in the WSJ about romance where I was personally insulted–as were the readers and writers of romance–endlessly. I think that’s fine. Those people are sexist, ignorant about what they’re talking about, and often deliberately mean. They’re words aren’t real to me–they’re just shit someone said and I don’t feel lessened by their dumbness or cruelty.
I’ll think more on this but I don’t want a heavily moderated site. My rule has been don’t insult other commenters. That’s it. If one person thinks an idea is dumb or wrong, they have the right to say so.
How can we talk about anything about behaviours without tresspassing on others’ feelings?
Let’s say I have an ask that says “Should an HEA include children?”
Can people say, “Anyone who hasn’t had children is making a huge mistake?” Or, “Those who have children today have made a selfish choice given the impact humans have on the environment?” “Or people should only adopt?” Or “Adoptees have a lot of issues so I don’t think it’s a good idea?” Or “It’s unethical for both parents to work and have kids?” Or “It’s wrong to be a stay at home mom because it sets a bad example for your kids?”
Can we discuss how women’s bodies are depicted in romance? If so, what happens if someone brings up weight loss drugs? If someone says, “There’s no reason for anyone to be fat any more,” do I censor them? (I’ve read just this line in just about every article I’ve read in the above papers recently.) (Do we let people use the word fat?) If someone else says, “Any one who uses weight loss drugs just to look better is supporting a culture of beauty that is punitive to women?” does that offend those who are finally losing the weight they’ve always wanted to?
I can see readers having all those opinions. Each of them is likely to make someone who made a different life choice feel criticized. Does that mean we don’t go there? Do we pick a side?
And I get that people come here for comfort. And maybe there are readers here who just want to talk about romance novels. But romance novels ARE reflections of our messy lives.
I will think about this some more. And I’ll say anyone is ALWAYS welcome to criticize how I run AAR. That’s your right as readers.
Thank you again for your feedback. It’s thoughtful and helpful. I send you love and grace.
This small romance blog isn’t Yahoo! News or the Wallstreet Journal, and they come with disclaimers warning people what they’re getting into when they sign up for a Disqus account to use them.
If someone says, “There’s no reason for anyone to be fat any more,” do I censor them? – Yes, because that’s blatant fatphobia. The simple fact of it is that big, expansive, inflammatory comments are just as bad as personalized ‘you suck’ comments.
I’m fat. Have been all my life. Will not and will never take weight loss drugs but I completely disagree with you. As much as I don’t like what they say they are entitled to a thing called free speech and it’s their right to say it. It’s my right to completely discount what they have to say because I think their opinion is of no worth and go on with my life like I have many other times when people have made fat phobic comments to me
I’m fat too, and it would bug me. We’re all different!
^^ Precisely.
Your post has given me the courage to add: It’s blatantly obvious that people like Elaine and Bunny Planet Babe and Nom de Plume back in the day were given way more slack in the comment section than they deserve. I suspect it’s because one or more of them donate money to the website or happens to be a friend of Dabney’s. The moderation here has always been highly biased in the name of ‘free speech’ but personal attacks seem to be fine to sling until Dabney’s bag or a favored commenter threatened. The way Dabney bends over backward for obvious trolls in the comment section, to the point of allowing her reviewers to be attacked for their opinions and scolding THEM publicly for defending themselves, continues to be appalling.
Um…. no. I am not friends with anyone who comments on the site. Nor do I track who gives money to the site.
You in the other blog:
One reader emailed me to tell me I was off base in my comments, another cancelled her financial support of AAR, and several others got close to testy in the comments.
If you don’t keep track of who financially supports the website, how do you know this person’s telling you the truth that they cancelled their financial support of AAR? You don’t keep any financial records for tax purposes either?
Of course I do. But, for me, I never look at the emails of who donates other than to send them a thank you note.
Look, your opinion of me is so low and discrediting that I’m no longer going to engage with you. I wish you all the best.
Very well. No hard feelings either way.
I have long been a silent reader, never before moved to offer my commentary. Yet now, the situation compels me to speak out, for you have truly gone too far.
If any amongst us deserves the ignoble title of troll in recent days, it is, regrettably, you. Your relentless persecution of other readers, your merciless attacks upon poor Dabney, and the pernicious atmosphere of dread you have cultivated—it is all too much to bear. It baffles the mind why you have not been subjected to stricter moderation.
I beseech you, cease this course of action. Many of us hold this place dear and do not wish to see it fall into ruin as so many other forums have. Your vitriolic assaults must weigh heavily upon those who work here. Once more, I implore you, for the sake of all, desist.
While I appreciate the vote of support, I’d ask that you not call out any other commenters in this way.
This is giving me a hilariously huge amount of credit since I’ve barely posted on this blog in the last two to three months. There is nothing vitriolic about my statements or my posts, I’m simply call them as I see them. I don’t persecute anybody. If you value the tone and tenor of this place – maybe don’t lurk and contribute?
Just because someone has a different opinion to you doesn’t make what they said a personal attack on you. It’s just a different opinion. Or is that not allowed?
I haven’t perceived any personal attacks against me whatsoever, except for the several times I’ve been called a troll here, which I’m not.
Lieselotte, I second everything you said. I was really taken aback at the cruelty of Elaine’s post. AAR is a relatively small community in the online world. Over time we get to know some people’s stories, if they are brave enough to share them. Carrie G, in particular, has often courageously spoken of her history of sexual assault and her appreciation of content or trigger warnings. So when Elaine made her comment, wondering how people who like warnings can “get out of bed in the morning” and they should suck it up and not stick their heads in the sand, it seemed like a direct and very personal attack. I felt that Elaine’s comment should have been called out and deleted. It added nothing to the conversation. If you go to AAR’s commenting guidelines, I think it was in violation of several, including #5, Be Kind. Dabney, when other AAR members protested Elaine’s comment, you called them out (including Carrie G, who gave an honest response), while failing to call out Elaine. I emailed you my concerns, which is something I have only done perhaps one other time in the 5 or 6 years I’ve been on this site.
Dabney, you are different from a moderator at the WSJ or NYT. You write the blogs, pose the questions and actively participate in the discussions, giving your own opinions and challenging others who differ from you. You are a big part of the community, and overall I think you do a great job of giving us things to ponder and discuss and creating a respectful atmosphere. I am very mindful that here in the US, this week is a big time for celebration with family and friends, and moderating is not what you want to be doing on the Fourth of July. I am sorry this has blown up the way it has, but I value this community and posters like Carrie G, who adds much to these discussions, and I hope this can be made right. I send you and everyone here love and grace and hope kindness is always in our hearts as we post.
I agree with this. When I read Elaine’s comments, my first thought was, “thank goodness I stayed out of this and didn’t risk opening up in any way, if such comments are fine on AAR”.
I also think the phrasing of a question can set the direction of a debate. If I ask, “Are readers overly dependent on happy endings?”, that’s different from “How do readers feel about happy endings?” The first question suggests that yes, readers might be overly dependent on happy endings. The second is neutral. Of course, none of us are neutral here, but I would personally feel there’s more room for nuance and differing opinions in the second instance. Just a thought I had this morning.
^^ Agree with both of you.
Honestly, AAR is a labor of love for me and I’m getting old. You’ve given me a lot to think about. Thank you. I too hope you enjoy your weekend.
And I’d add, we are not small. On an average month, we have close to 100K visitors. It’s just a small group that comments.
And what’s gone on in this thread is a possible reason why so few are commenting now?
I read your blog post, predicted how it would pan out (from past blog posts) and decided I didn’t have the bandwidth to take part………
No–that’s not what I’m saying. It’s always been a small number of our readers who comment. Most people, as long as AAR has been around, just read and don’t remark.
I don’t understand why trigger warnings are so controversial. If you don’t like them, don’t read them. Trigger warnings are easy to skip over as they are usually at the beginning of the book in the author’s preface. Or at the beginning or end of a review. 🙂
The inconvenience of skipping them is so minor. It’s like complaining about the existence of the copyright page. You don’t have to read that either! 🙂
I’ve been thinking and talking about this a lot lately and I think that trigger warnings and people’s’ responses to them are probably really about more than just trigger warnings. For me, it seems, that what we are really arguing about here is how to create a culture of resilience in a world where many feel we live in a culture of trauma. There are those who believe that it’s better, in terms of helping people to be happier, to tough out hard situations. However, for those for whom that’s a heavy burden, that seems like a cruel ask.
Personally, I think I’ve toughed out some pretty hard situations in real life. That’s why I don’t feel I need to tough them out again in the fiction I read for enjoyment, even if other people believe that my exposure to fictional trauma is something that builds fortitude or helps me grow as a human being.
Also, I have had the delightful experience of suddenly being exposed to a fictional traumatic situation (in a film) that reminded me of what I went through in the past. I don’t feel it made me a better or a happier person, even though I sat through the film because at the time, I had no choice. Now, I do have a choice, and since my choice is not to be triggered or retraumatized, authors who respect that choice are more likely to get my money than authors who don’t.
I get that. AND I am not a fan of trigger warnings.
I and my youngest son were debaters in high school. I tend to think of all disagreements as possible discussions I might learn from. I’m not saying that’s how others should see it–just that I am, at heart, interested in ways of seeing the world that I don’t share.
For me, there is a difference between choosing to take part in a disagreement/debate so I can learn something (knowing in advance that this disagreement/debate will be about a difficult or controversial topic), and picking up a book I hope to read for pleasure only to be suddenly confronted with a scene that triggers/retraumatizes me.
Sure. I get that. We are all different.
I disagree about what we are disagreeing about! LOL 🙂 From your comment above, you clearly see trigger warnings as an emblem of “a culture of resilience” vs a “culture of trauma”. That’s a heavy load to place! I see this discussion as some people viewing books like a forced dip in the ocean in the middle of winter — a way to toughen up mentally by exposing yourself to things you would not choose normally. If an ocean dip in winter appeals to a person, I say jump in and go for it. But I read for pleasure. I have very little free time and the real world is real enough that I don’t need to seek out more of the same in a book or a movie or a TV show. (I get my dips in the ocean without having to seek out extra through books!) I think it is a rather limited view to assume that books are necessary to build resilience — as if there are no other ways people can develop resilience. Resilience can be developed though many ways. Just like there is more than one way to exercise, learn, and build strength.
I believe in live and let live. And it is no hardship for me to skip a trigger warning if I don’t want to read it. I truly don’t understand why trigger warnings bother some people so much.
I don’t think less of anyone who wants trigger warnings. I just think, as a large scale cultural tool, they’re not great.
I’m not alone in believing that for our overall society, trigger warnings may do more harm than good. Many such as Jill Filipovic, the Association of Psychological Science, Shannon Palus, and others who feel they are not an effective mental health tool. I’d rather we as a culture used other more effective ways to help those through traumatic events in their lives.
Now, this doesn’t mean we won’t allow them at AAR–here, any reviewer who wants to use them may although we might start putting them in spoilers so those who don’t want to see them, don’t have to. Nor does it mean I think those who want trigger warnings are wrong for doing so. There are plenty of topics I avoid in my TV watching–books aren’t as problematic for me. I am known to plug my ears and cover my eyes when any scenes of torture are on the screen–I just can’t do it and, since it’s entertainment, I choose not to.
Again, in this discussion, I’d make the distinction between how I see those who want trigger warnings–you do you, it’s all good–and how I see them as a part of our overall culture.
“I’m not alone in believing that for our overall society, trigger warnings may do more harm than good. Many such as Jill Filipovic, the Association of Psychological Science, Shannon Palus, and others who feel they are not an effective mental health tool. I’d rather we as a culture used other more effective ways to help those through traumatic events in their lives.”
First of all, I am taking your word about the content of the articles you linked. I chose not to read them because 1. too many other things I want to read and 2. I prefer to read scholarly research. If they make a better argument than the one you cited, then I’m happy to hear it.
“Many … feel they are not an effective mental health tool. I’d rather we as a culture used other more effective ways to help those through traumatic events in their lives.”
No one has said that trigger warnings are the only mental health too that should be used, or even that it is a tool for mental health (this could be me drawing a fine line between “mental health tool,” and strategy for getting through life. I mean, I don’t like to watch horror movies. They get me physically stressed. I’ll watch some, sometimes, but overall, my strategy is to avoid them, and I am much happier for that).
Your argument that trigger warnings cause harm assumes that supporters of trigger warnings believe that trigger warnings are the only way to help people overcome trauma. Instead, I think many people believe trigger warnings are a small part of a large toolbox.
In other words, I would absolutely agree with you if we lived in a world where any kind of mental health counseling for trauma except for trigger warnings was unavailable to people. Then, I would say, “This is not how we should be directing our resources; people with trauma need more than that!” But clearly, we do have these resources, and people in treatment for trauma-related mental health issues use these resources.
By the way, I did use my time not reading the links you gave to look at some of the research on trigger warnings over the last few years. Kimble et al (2022) found that trigger warnings did not have an effect on students’ willingness to read difficult passages: “However, it is important to keep in mind that these findings represent an average response and do not negate the possibility of some individuals responding strongly to a passage or using a trigger warning to effectively avoid a negative emotional response. But overall, the data suggest that instructors can assign challenging passages with the expectation that any emotional distress will be brief and not disproportionately affect those with relevant traumas. In addition, there seems to be no evidence that students will use warnings to avoid classroom responsibilities en masse.” You can look at the study yourself here: doi:10.1080/07448481.2022.2098038.
On the other hand, Bruce et al (2021) do note some psychophysiological effects, referred to as a “nocebo” effect, creating negative expectations and thus increasing stress among media content consumers. (See here for link to article: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12144-021-01895-1.) So maybe that’s what’s happening with the people who do not support trigger warnings.
Looking at it this way, we can reframe the discussion from a moralistic approach (it’s bad! or good!) to a more utilitarian approach, i.e., considering that there might be effects on people in different ways, what are we going to do to solve this conflict?
Interestingly, I was looking at some of my books (all e-books) to see what various authors tend to do, and I liked Courtney Milan’s approach best. She has a notice in her front matter of The Marquis Who Mustn’t (great book, by the way!) that says “Content notes are available at:” and then provides the link. So yay! People who want to read can click the link, and people who don’t can just move on to the next page without being spoiled or nocebo-ed. Of course, this might only work for Milan because she self-publishes, and perhaps mainstream publishers do not want to do that service for their readers. But then that becomes an issue of how late-stage capitalism doesn’t really want us to have choices and opens a whole ‘nother can of worms. 🙂
Courtney’s way is great.
We a talking about VOLUNTARY READING (presumably for our own enjoyment) of fiction we have SELECTED TO READ. This is not about our involuntary exposure to the evils in the real world we can’t avoid while we live in it.
Authors should not ever be blocked from writing anything. Readers should not be deceived about what they will encounter when they read. AUTHORS DO NOT owe readers a safe space, but PUBLISHERS DO. The “safe space” dilemma can be resolved by accurate labeling.
Most of what I choose to read is in just two genres: F&SF and Romance. I know that ignores thousands of new books every year, but my tbr list already has thousands of entries and I really don’t feel a need to expand my fiction choices. Even within these two genres, I have a heavy bias toward romances with humor (not just rom-coms) and away from angst-fests.
Since many genre labels are (to me) of dubious specificity and accuracy, I rely on AAR reviews and other sources to get the specificity missing from the genre labels, blurbs, and ads.
As someone already pointed out, a “safe space” involves two different kinds of information beyond the genre label and blurb that are potential spoilers: content warnings and trigger warnings. A content warning lists things in the story that some readers might prefer to avoid even though they are within the scope of the declared genre. A trigger warning lists things in the story that can literally be harmful to readers with PTSD or past traumas.
What I would like to see (but don’t expect to see any time soon) is accurate and specific genre labels, blurbs, and ads, with spoiler-hidden content and trigger warnings. In printed books, it is easy to hide spoilers: have a heading on the right-hand page telling the reader that the left-hand page to follow has the spoiler (or content and trigger warnings). On review web sites and in ebooks, hiding spoilers is also easy with text that doesn’t display without a deliberate click or touch by the reader.
I absolutely agree. Thank you for this.
Well said!
I have a suspicion that this conversation is talking about two different things. When I first saw “trigger warnings” and “safe spaces”, what popped into my mind was people who get hysterical if the “N” word appears or who are deeply offended if anyone suggests that someone with whom they disagree is not pure evil. That kind of idiocy is contemptible.
However, graphic descriptions of violence, sexual or otherwise, are something else. I don’t know that tigger warnings are precisely necessary, but surely blurbs and book descriptions should be clear enough for the reader to know what’s coming. Much as I love mysteries, I avoid anything described as “gritty”. I would be seriously annoyed if a book marketed as a cozy suddenly began a detailed and accurate description of torture.
But does that actually happen? If it does, it sounds like truly stupid marketing.
I agree completely with what you are saying regarding back blurbs being clear on what a reader is getting. I don’t want to pick up a book like Truth Be Told (recently reviewed here) or Small Mercies without knowing they will be dealing with racial tension. That right there tells me things won’t be sweet and pretty.
That only deals with clear cut issues though and some are less easily defined. The problem comes when publishers, reviewers, and bookstores try to parcel out a book that is neither purely gritty nor completely cozy. Gone Girl had plentiful violence and two characters in desperate need of therapy. But was it gritty? Some would insist the dark nature of the tale does indeed make it gritty. Others would argue that the scenes on the page aren’t graphic enough to meet that definition.
When it comes to sex scenes, some who want a kisses-only book can get pretty bent out of shape over where those kisses take place. A case in point was Deanne Gist’s Tiffany Girl, where the hero kissed the heroine, and the kiss was described explicitly. Many readers complained that it passed the boundary of a kisses rating because the kiss took place in an open-doored bedroom, multiple kisses occurred, and the author mentioned it being open-mouthed.
What about old-fashioned bodice rippers? Should all of them come with rape warnings? How do we handle characters who have sex after drinking? Is it still consent? How drunk is too drunk? If the character is able to get in a cab, make it to the guy’s apartment and say, “Let’s have sex”, is he required to send her away? What if they got drunk together, and he’s every bit as wasted as she is?
I think the issue is more complex for those determining ratings than people sometimes understand. My own solution is detailed reviews. A lot of times they catch the nuances that make a book acceptable or not acceptable for me. Just my .02