http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree...mpus-books

How do we feel about stuff like this? Is it good, bad, neutral? It kind of reminds me of when I was a kid and I was reading a library copy of Stephen King's The Shining, and my Nan complained that books should be subject to the same certificate-restrictions as films, so children are less likely to be exposed to horrifying material.

Who is raising these blindfolded children who have no desire to step out of their little protected worlds? Somewhere in this forum there's the story of a well-respected teacher who lost his job because his reading Ginsberg to his highschool class upset one girl so much she couldn't take an exam the next day. Sad, it's a scary world out there and these children seem to be sorely unprepared.

Link to the story is in the OP
http://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-17208.html

I wonder if they are ready to red flag all the religious tomes, which have always horrified me.

And maybe we should apply it to all History and World Studies courses, equally horrifying.

Basket weaving, anyone?

there's censorship and there's stupidity, this one falls in the 2nd category. if they can be in a library, most kids should be allowed to read them.

i briefly skimmed it, i must admit the whole trigger warning thing strikes me as pretty innocuous. and as for one step away from banning books, what nonsense. we have film classifications, are we one step away from banning films? well, yeah. we do ban films. the really nasty ones. but that is usually due to greater crimes being committed. the thing most people have a problem with, including myself, is the standardising of a phrase, 'trigger warning'. that is, if i am in a classroom about to read Joyce to the little angels, i might like to say, in a more human way, "there are bits in this book that may make you feel uncomfortable, or inspire intense emotions, due to the subject matter. . . [oh dear, that didn't sound human, at all. but you get the point]", and then maybe a discussion about why the author approached the subject etc. i mean, the whole 'trigger warning' thing could be avoided in one lesson [philosophy should be taught in schools, mandatory, for at least a year]. the phrase, 'trigger warning' is a lazy way of dealing with it. yet, on the other hand, it strikes me as a bit pathetic the level of animosity these little ideas receive. like safe spaces! i mean, like it says in the article, these things come from primarily good place, and the arguments against them are an idiosyncratic irritation, at best. fuck it, put a safe space up in your local university. i couldn't give two fucks. and probably nor could rapists and murderers. put trigger warnings on everything, and, like the parental advisory stickers on hip hop albums and smoking causes cancer labels on cigarette packets, young people will inevitably ignore them; and the safe spaces you built will turn into empty spaces to be avoided [or at least, be filled with the kind of people you would want to avoid]. . . and all the best books, read by the best people.

(03-27-2016, 08:27 PM)billy Wrote:  there's censorship and there's stupidity, this one falls in the 2nd category. if they can be in a library, most kids should be allowed to read them.

Here they are pulling books off the shelves of libraries when they are available online. And these are college students, supposed adults, who want to be warned if they are going to experience an unpleasant emotion. What ever happened to developing empathy and an understanding the human condition?

(03-27-2016, 08:29 PM)shemthepenman Wrote:  that is, if i am in a classroom about to read Joyce to the little angels, i might like to say, in a more human way, "there are bits in this book that may make you feel uncomfortable, or inspire intense emotions, due to the subject matter. . . [oh dear, that didn't sound human, at all. but you get the point]"

It's funny you should mention Joyce. I've been reading Dubliners for my course, and one story implicitly ends with two little boys unexpectedly witnessing a paedophile-vagrant wanking in a field. There's a story that'd be triggered up the arsehole and out of the mouth these days!

---

I read a lot of stuff when I was probably too young for it. The Killer Inside Me by Jim Thompson (a book about an admitted psychopath and Texas sheriff who feels nothing while hurting and killing), poems by Anne Sexton about masturbation and the Holocaust, ghost stories and crime novels. Part of the reason that I was attracted to the library was that it contained stuff not restricted by the censors and grown-up world; you could expose yourself to all kinds of shocking experiences without having to buy meth and break into cars

It's a minor issue: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/201...and-debate
Love the comments section.

(03-27-2016, 08:40 PM)Heslopian Wrote:  

(03-27-2016, 08:29 PM)shemthepenman Wrote:  that is, if i am in a classroom about to read Joyce to the little angels, i might like to say, in a more human way, "there are bits in this book that may make you feel uncomfortable, or inspire intense emotions, due to the subject matter. . . [oh dear, that didn't sound human, at all. but you get the point]"

It's funny you should mention Joyce. I've been reading Dubliners for my course, and one story implicitly ends with two little boys unexpectedly witnessing a paedophile-vagrant wanking in a field. There's a story that'd be triggered up the arsehole and out of the mouth these days!

well, to be fair Joyce was banned in his own time, anyway. and yet, look, his books are still being read! shock horror! people still listen to NWA and The Sex Pistols. The level of freedom of expression we have today is not going to be derailed by a 'trigger warning' on a fucking book.

oi, talking about all that, have you heard of sargon of akkad? the youtuber, i mean. anyway, i made a series of videos that, apparently only i found funny. . .

I hope trigger warnings are a short lived fad.  First I heard of this was reading Neil Gaimain's book of short stories with this title, and it was in the intro.

Avoiding the very things that could get people better from difficult experiences is beyond counterproductive, it is indeed what can make people nonfunctional.

PTSD is over diagnosed, under treated at the same time by use of avoidance.  People who can face real life will surpass those over coddled, underprepared folks kept safe from the crickets at night.  

That being said, I hate spiders so I would appreciate a trigger warning before someone posts a picture of the same.

One day, I had a huge spider on my arm, no warning...long story.  Survived.


(Addendum:  I sought ought things like this as a yute to see what they didn't want me to.... I got nothing out of it but was a proud owner of The Anarchist Cookbook in high school)

I think ideas like this are bound to be unpopular in a writer's group but if we are to be honest - who would they hurt? A better idea might be to make trigger warning editions available for those who want them for a slight upcharge.

If they're assigned for class, any good teacher is going to address the themes in context and be mindful of possible triggers without the need for warnings -- but in the scheme of things, these trigger warnings fall into the category of laziness, like any label, and not really censorship. They're not saying "don't read them" but they are giving kids a bit of a copout if they don't feel like doing their homework.

"Sorry miss, I couldn't read past the first page because I get PTSD flashbacks whenever there's a talking pig."

(03-28-2016, 06:42 AM)Leanne Wrote:  If they're assigned for class, any good teacher is going to address the themes in context and be mindful of possible triggers without the need for warnings -- but in the scheme of things, these trigger warnings fall into the category of laziness, like any label, and not really censorship.  They're not saying "don't read them" but they are giving kids a bit of a copout if they don't feel like doing their homework.

"Sorry miss, I couldn't read past the first page because I get PTSD flashbacks whenever there's a talking pig."

that's true about the homework thing, i didn't think of that. but, again, kids have always had ways to fuck with the system. i remember when i was at school and we found out that one of the kids in class couldn't see blue on white, so couldn't see what was written on the board. the number of kids after this revelation that claimed their homework hadn't been completed because they could see the written instructions was laughable. the point is common sense prevailed. take the whole child population of a school, and you will get less than a handful of children that are genuinely, clinically, troubled by lenny squishing a mouse, and of course, we don't want to be like "fuck you, don't be so sensitive" in those cases; i think it is just a working out of a balance that each generation goes through. political correctness was the same back in the day. it got it wrong, on occasions, but ultimately benefited society.

Thing is, if you're not troubled by Lenny squishing a mouse, you miss a significant part of why the novel is important. Warnings, labels, whatever -- they're really just shortcuts enabling things to be pre-judged.

(03-28-2016, 07:16 AM)Leanne Wrote:  Thing is, if you're not troubled by Lenny squishing a mouse, you miss a significant part of why the novel is important.  Warnings, labels, whatever -- they're really just shortcuts enabling things to be pre-judged.

true, but i kinda meant 'deeply troubled', in a clinical sense. and for sure, a label enables prejudgement; not only that, but a prejudgement based on an arbitrary socio-intersubjective standard. yet, in all honesty, i think we, as human beings, cherish the conflict-the short cuts of the world enable a short cut to dissidence and rebellion; a label saying 'parental advisory' lets the little ones know "your parents will not necessarily want you listening to this". . . short cut to "better listen to this then! thank you 'parental advisory' label". and when it comes to art [in all its forms], done right, lenny squishing a mouse will be as troubling to those warned, as those not.

K

(03-28-2016, 08:04 AM)shemthepenman Wrote:  

(03-28-2016, 07:16 AM)Leanne Wrote:  Thing is, if you're not troubled by Lenny squishing a mouse, you miss a significant part of why the novel is important.  Warnings, labels, whatever -- they're really just shortcuts enabling things to be pre-judged.

true, but i kinda meant 'deeply troubled', in a clinical sense.

 

And here is where I worry.  There seems a significant number of people want a diagnosis or strive for the attention of being troubled.  There is secondary gain here, and it scalds me to see it.

Yep. It's as if any emotion outside of some baseline dictated by a little man in a locked room is somehow aberrant and needs a diagnosis.

People react. Anyone who doesn't react is dead or a sociopath, and even a sociopath will react when you swing a hammer at his head.

how on earth do they know a book will if a book will be emotionally unpleasant for them unless they've read it
parents need to parent, libraries need to lend book. not only are bad books allowed online; so is porn death rape and violence.

(03-27-2016, 08:33 PM)ellajam Wrote:  

(03-27-2016, 08:27 PM)billy Wrote:  there's censorship and there's stupidity, this one falls in the 2nd category. if they can be in a library, most kids should be allowed to read them.

Here they are pulling books off the shelves of libraries when they are available online. And these are college students, supposed adults, who want to be warned if they are going to experience an unpleasant emotion. What ever happened to developing empathy and an understanding the human condition?

(03-28-2016, 10:09 AM)billy Wrote:  how on earth do they know a book will if a book will be emotionally unpleasant for them unless they've read it  
parents need to parent, libraries need to lend book. not only are bad books allowed online; so is porn death rape and violence.

(03-27-2016, 08:33 PM)ellajam Wrote:  

(03-27-2016, 08:27 PM)billy Wrote:  there's censorship and there's stupidity, this one falls in the 2nd category. if they can be in a library, most kids should be allowed to read them.

Here they are pulling books off the shelves of libraries when they are available online. And these are college students, supposed adults, who want to be warned if they are going to experience an unpleasant emotion. What ever happened to developing empathy and an understanding the human condition?

well, if a child has been sexually abused, i think it is safe to say that a book dealing with rape may be, rightly, determined as potentially emotionally unpleasant for the child. hence a warning could be of benefit, at least, temporarily. that is, it doesn't hurt none. and we can all get on our philosophical high horses and be all "children shouldn't be wrapped in cotton wool" etc. but not wrapping children in cotton wool is different from actively throwing them to the wolves. this isn't sparta, we're not rearing warlords, here.
and "parents need to parent" is of little value in a world whereby children are subjected to all sorts of shitty parenting. "aha, this child, raped by their mother and father. . . nope, i refuse to make concessions, by virtue of my artistic sensibilities, and forewarn her that this book may inspire unpleasant memories; i'll just assume the principle 'parents should parent' will do the trick, safe in the knowledge my ideal is valid." now, if thinking something 'should' be the case is charity done, and removes all responsibility for actively doing something beneficial, then consider me a fucking saint. i never do anything good, but i always think that i should.
and, in short, it comes down to what is the difference? the benefits against the detriments. putting a 'trigger warning' on a book, at the very worst, will deter a kid from reading something. fuck em. we don't want those little cunts reading them anyway.

the topic is about classics, i just presumed it still was okay texas chainsaw massacre might be in the adult section of a library if they have one. the classics however should be open to people of all ages. when parenting fails. help services should kick in, sadly it's not a perfect world. that said, i'd like my kids to have the choice of reading or not reading. i can only speak for them. should they ever get molested or raped i will obviously tell them to read the blurb of all books on their inside covers less they have flashbacks. okay, my grandkids. [my kids are all grown up fed on horror films and wuthering heights; i know; i ruined the poor things. we took in more kids than doctor barnardoes over the years, i would never dream of telling them 'don't read that book' i may explain what it's about but i'd never say no to a book they chose. i cut my reading teeth on newspapers and porn mags kids get so much shite and filth piled on them that a book choice wouldn't make an iota of doing harm. do we stop molested kids from watching the news? why stop them reading books? and a heads up, a trigger warning will only inspire a kid to read the book more avidly, i say this because i was once a kid; i know about these things

(03-28-2016, 11:34 AM)billy Wrote:  the topic is about classics, i just presumed it still was okay texas chainsaw massacre might be in the adult section of a library if they have one. the classics however should be open to people of all ages. when parenting fails. help services should kick in, sadly it's not a perfect world. that said, i'd like my kids to have the choice of reading or not reading. i can only speak for them. should they ever get molested or raped i will obviously tell them to read the blurb of all books on their inside covers less they have flashbacks. okay, my grandkids. [my kids are all grown up fed on horror films and wuthering heights; i know; i ruined the poor things. we took in more kids than doctor barnardoes over the years, i would never dream of telling them 'don't read that book' i may explain what it's about but i'd never say no to a book they chose. i cut my reading teeth on newspapers and porn mags kids get so much shite and filth piled on them that a book choice wouldn't make an iota of doing harm. do we stop molested kids from watching the news? why stop them reading books? and a heads up, a trigger warning will only inspire a kid to read the book more avidly, i say this because i was once a kid; i know about these things

i agree with all that, and like i said before, 'don't read this' warnings are a shortcut to getting kids to read something; i say stick warnings on all the classics.
anyway, i didn't read the article entirely, just skimmed it. i was under the impression that the 'trigger warning' thing was more of a catchy slogan type deal; not an out and out 'you shouldn't/can't read this' mandate.
and in terms of a warning, the opposition to it is pretty weak, because the concept itself is pretty weak. it just seems like a new thing for grumpy people to be grumpy about. "mutter mutter. . . they're putting warnings on books now. . . huff and puff. . ." alternatively, warnings on books are just a way for the do-gooders to persist with their do-goodery; which is just as trivial. if i didn't suspect everyone being thick as shit, i could even imagine a secret government initiative that sets up these little schemes to keep the grumpy cunts happy, grumbling about some nothing, instead of strapping bombs to their chests, or going mental in a playground with an automatic weapon.