I am not a scientist but one of my favorite books ever is The Discoveries by Alan Lightman that has the original papers of scientific discoveries in the 20th century and an essay about each one. Everyone needs to be at least moderately scientifically literate in this world.
What an interesting post! As someone with a degree in education -- another field where research exists but people feel free to make up their own -- I am intrigued to read your perspective.
As someone who deeply appreciates trigger warnings and has had many discussions about the positive, after reading your work it occurs to me that perhaps we need more nuanced language around this topic. Because you're absolutely right, we should not have trigger warnings protecting white fragility. I find the difference somewhere around your conversation with your friend, about "just being thoughtful."
The vast majority of conversations I have about TW's are within the romance genre, and that becomes a different conversation. Let's just go with the assumption that everyone is picking up a romance book as an escapist feel-good read. Some romance absolutely does deal with serious issues, but overall readers want something emotional.
But the thing is, some people get thrills about things that other people find horrific. I have never experienced sexual assault; it's not a trauma that I have or a way I define myself -- but I absolutely, positively, very strongly NEVER want to read a "hero" who in any way sexually assaults a character, especially what we are supposed to believe is his love interest. Some people find that a vicarious thrill that satisfies something inside them, and I have no particular judgement (as long as they are adults), but also I don't want to read it. Some people draw the line at inter-family relationships or age gaps or siblings having sex; some people don't.
In one of my writing groups, someone asked whether a particular situation was non-con or dub-con so she could add the correct TW's. In the discussion, no one worried about whether people would be reliving their trauma, or if reading this scene was a good way to work through psychological problems. It was just very straightforward: she wanted to give her book some indications so the readers who found it wanted to read the sort of story she had, so the readers have a positive reading experience.
That discussion was also about TW's, but seems completely separate from what you are writing about. Honestly, it really seems more like spice levels than a big psychological drama -- it's just helping readers find the books they are going to enjoy reading, in a genre that is all about enjoyment.
thank you for such a well thought out comment. I've wondered this before about romance specifically. I had seen trigger warnings that books had contained cheating but wondered if that should just be given a new name- an indication that there's something in here that's going to be a record scratch for some readers, rather than "this may retraumatize you."
Yeah -- I don't think those TW's are about trauma, or just about trauma. A lot of readers really hate cheating, and of course cheating might be traumatic for some people, but I don't see that as the point of discussions. It's just about whether that is the right book for this reader.
I also see a significant number of readers, in both romance and women's fiction, who are willing to read certain subjects but want control of when they do it. I see a lot of people who bounce back and forth between serious or darker books and lighter reads, and they just want to use TW's to make sure they know what they're getting.
I also see them called CW for content warnings. So far, I personally am not seeing a big different between when people use TW or CW, so it's not solving the underlying problem. From what I can see, CW makes more sense for everything, because it takes the whole doing-psychology-on-other-people out of it. People with trauma can decide if the content is a trigger for them, and if so whether it's a helpful one!
(The underlying problem being that there's a big difference between putting warnings that protect discomfort from serious topics, like slavery, vs putting a warning on a sex scene with elements some people find un-sexy.)
Great article!
I am not a scientist but one of my favorite books ever is The Discoveries by Alan Lightman that has the original papers of scientific discoveries in the 20th century and an essay about each one. Everyone needs to be at least moderately scientifically literate in this world.
Loved this. Thanks so much for sharing.
What an interesting post! As someone with a degree in education -- another field where research exists but people feel free to make up their own -- I am intrigued to read your perspective.
As someone who deeply appreciates trigger warnings and has had many discussions about the positive, after reading your work it occurs to me that perhaps we need more nuanced language around this topic. Because you're absolutely right, we should not have trigger warnings protecting white fragility. I find the difference somewhere around your conversation with your friend, about "just being thoughtful."
The vast majority of conversations I have about TW's are within the romance genre, and that becomes a different conversation. Let's just go with the assumption that everyone is picking up a romance book as an escapist feel-good read. Some romance absolutely does deal with serious issues, but overall readers want something emotional.
But the thing is, some people get thrills about things that other people find horrific. I have never experienced sexual assault; it's not a trauma that I have or a way I define myself -- but I absolutely, positively, very strongly NEVER want to read a "hero" who in any way sexually assaults a character, especially what we are supposed to believe is his love interest. Some people find that a vicarious thrill that satisfies something inside them, and I have no particular judgement (as long as they are adults), but also I don't want to read it. Some people draw the line at inter-family relationships or age gaps or siblings having sex; some people don't.
In one of my writing groups, someone asked whether a particular situation was non-con or dub-con so she could add the correct TW's. In the discussion, no one worried about whether people would be reliving their trauma, or if reading this scene was a good way to work through psychological problems. It was just very straightforward: she wanted to give her book some indications so the readers who found it wanted to read the sort of story she had, so the readers have a positive reading experience.
That discussion was also about TW's, but seems completely separate from what you are writing about. Honestly, it really seems more like spice levels than a big psychological drama -- it's just helping readers find the books they are going to enjoy reading, in a genre that is all about enjoyment.
thank you for such a well thought out comment. I've wondered this before about romance specifically. I had seen trigger warnings that books had contained cheating but wondered if that should just be given a new name- an indication that there's something in here that's going to be a record scratch for some readers, rather than "this may retraumatize you."
Yeah -- I don't think those TW's are about trauma, or just about trauma. A lot of readers really hate cheating, and of course cheating might be traumatic for some people, but I don't see that as the point of discussions. It's just about whether that is the right book for this reader.
I also see a significant number of readers, in both romance and women's fiction, who are willing to read certain subjects but want control of when they do it. I see a lot of people who bounce back and forth between serious or darker books and lighter reads, and they just want to use TW's to make sure they know what they're getting.
I also see them called CW for content warnings. So far, I personally am not seeing a big different between when people use TW or CW, so it's not solving the underlying problem. From what I can see, CW makes more sense for everything, because it takes the whole doing-psychology-on-other-people out of it. People with trauma can decide if the content is a trigger for them, and if so whether it's a helpful one!
(The underlying problem being that there's a big difference between putting warnings that protect discomfort from serious topics, like slavery, vs putting a warning on a sex scene with elements some people find un-sexy.)