Weekly questions’ comment sections are left open for one week. This thread is now locked.
In a recent interview with The Times of London, actor Matt Smith complained about the concept of “trigger warnings” before episodes of television. Here’s a snippet.
“It’s OK to feel uncomfortable or provoked while looking at a painting or watching a play, but I worry everything’s being dialed and dumbed down. We’re telling audiences they’re going to be scared before they’ve watched something.”
Actor Judi Dench has also recently expressed surprise to the U.K.’s Radio Times that theatergoers were being routinely warned about distressing content: “I can see why they exist, but if you’re that sensitive, don’t go to the theatre, because you could be very shocked. Where is the surprise of seeing and understanding it in your own way?”
Meanwhile, actor Ralph Fiennes has complained that theatergoers have “gone soft” in an interview with the BBC. “The impact of theatre should be that you’re shocked, and should be that you’re disturbed, I don’t think you should be prepared for these things,” Fiennes said. “It’s the shock, it’s the unexpected, that’s what makes an act of theatre so exciting.”
This is all my longwinded setup to the following question about the arts:
How do you feel about trigger warnings on art? Specifically, before a stage play/musical, TV episode, or film starts? Or, what about outside a museum exhibition that will contain images or other materials that might distress some visitors? What if they appeared on the jacket of a book?
I live in a country where everything seems to be labeled with a trigger warning, and I often find it infantilizing. That said, I also recognize some people do have serious traumas and medical issues that might benefit from such warnings. But that also said, I don’t know how any story exists that doesn’t cause distress to at least one person — except the most milquetoast version of one where everything interesting, even regarding visual mechanics, has been sanded away to protect even the most sensitive viewer. I’m aware everything I just said is self-contradictory.
When you comment, please bear in mind this is a controversial subject and some people will disagree. Hell, I disagree in part with me. So, do so considerately and thoughtfully or your comment will be removed.
Thanks for reading 5AM StoryTalk! This post is public so feel free to share it.
While I guess some people find them useful. I think anyone who is easily triggered should take the responsibility to do some research before they see films and television shows. There's SO MUCH that can be triggering that as a creator or teacher of the work of art it can be very difficult to know what all the trigger points might be and how to label them.
I'm curious about this as well. I'm a victim of gun violence, and it has affected my life in ways I'm sure I don't even know. I'd imagine it's one of the most prevalent forms of violence in our country, just given the statistics. Should almost every action/crime show on television and every big budget action flick have a trigger warning? Also, kind of ironic that the word TRIGGER is applied to this, and we seldom see it in the context of warning people about gun violence in media.
I'm pretty PC, but I think the trigger warnings are overdone. Art is difficult. Art is confrontational. Sometimes the shock helps us process our past. My wife and I recently saw "I Saw the TV Glow" and we came out of that brutalized, but we had some productive, cathartic discussions regarding our upbringings and young adulthood because of it. If we had known how emotionally violent the film had been going in, we might not have gone. I'm so grateful we did though.
I'm with Dench. I don't do roller coasters because I don't enjoy the experience, and have never been interested in horror movies. So, fine, I just don't do some things which many others (e.g. my house) enjoy. Problem solved.
As a playwright and theatre creator, I respect the use of trigger warnings especially for things like violence and talk of suicide. I think they're a useful addition to program notes and, honestly, if it better prepares people for seeing a show with themes or events that might upset them then there's no harm in it. I don't make art to violently upset or provoke people. I make art to enlighten audiences and make them think about an issue or topic. There's been a few pieces of theatre I've seen in my life that could've used with trigger warnings. In every case, the lack of a trigger warning that left me feeling unmoored also left me feeling like the artist was a hack or an ego-maniac and I never went back to see something of their's again. Shock for shock's sake is BS.
I'm not sure if including violence in a play is inherently shock for shock's sake, though. If violence is organic to the story, then it has every place in it, no? I'm just going through comments now, and asking questions (not challenging). In your case, you say, "if it better prepares people for seeing a show with themes or events that might upset them then there's no harm in it," but also say you want to enlighten audiences. How do we enlighten an audience that has been discouraged from engaging with a subject they don't want to think about?
Great question. I don't use them much, but I did on my story Dead Girl; partially because it's wrapped up in the meaning of my story, but also because it features a dead six-year-old. Writing it gave me nightmares. Reading it would disturb me. I get where these people are coming from, but I can't help but wonder whether the reasons they give as to why they don't like them are the real reasons they don't like them. Is it that they don't want things spoiled for the viewer, or is it that they think this is part of a larger cultural shift? I say who fuckin cares? People want to add a TW - great. If not, that's okay, too. haha
I think there's a very valid question about who decides what is triggering, but also why some things are included but others are not. In deciding what is triggering, you inevitably deny other people's trauma. I absolutely understand strobing lights, that's a medical issue, but for me I wonder where the line is. It's all so subjective and arbitrary that inevitably even trigger warnings insult somebody.
I think the question is valid, I just disagree with a lot of the artists in this thread. I've never been upset with a TW. It's never--not once--ruined a story for me. And as for where the line is, well, as an indie author, that's my call. ;) Would I mind if a publisher put a TW on my work? I really don't think I would.
Thanks for kicking off this discussion. I'll be thinking about what you said about denying other people's trauma. I hadn't heard that before. I always enjoy a thread where I come away with a new perspective.
Not to go Flannery O’Conner on this, but shock has always led to revelation. It’s no new philosophy- look at depictions of hell in the church - of suffering.
That said, never having censored my children’s reading - or viewing (except for gratuitous violence when they were young) George Saunders threw me so far in Lincoln in the Bardo I urged my adult daughter - the mother of a small boy -to stay far from it until much later.
I don't use them. I can see the point in a very limited way for people who are sensitive because of their health...yet I resist. I feel they can give too much away.
No issue here with trigger warnings nor food labels. I like to know if what I am buying is certified organic or has an ingredient that might upset my digestive system. If a show uses strobe lights, its good information to a photosensitive epileptic. It allows for prospective ticket buyers who have a sensitivity to attend the shows that don't trigger them rather than to avoid media all together.
Do you have a line? In any given episode of television, I could list twenty triggers, I expect. "This one would offend a conservative rather than liberal Evangelical. This one would offend an immigrant. This one would trigger a victim of gun violence. This one would trigger a victim of child abuse. This one might trigger transphobes. This one would offend some, but not all Indigenous people." I'm just curious how many trigger warnings should or can be included and who decides what is triggering or not?
I don’t believe trigger warnings as a law. I believe in them as a way to encourage people to see the work of creators without fear. Akin to the idea of genre. When one goes to a slasher film, one might feel disappointed if no blood and guts and another might have nightmares for weeks. The person who gets nightmares might still choose to go. I can’t imagine why some people are bothered by nudity or colorful language as it’s part of everyday life. I believe that giving people the opportunity to avoid adverse reactions can avoid campaigns to outlaw something or make it more restrictive. It’s about informed choices. Foods that contain GMOs are not labelled but for those who wanted to avoid GMOs, organic certification is helpful. ANd that is who the certification is for… those who want to avoid GMOs. The “trigger warnings” can be in the form of a rating system for all films or by film reviewers for those who find that helpful.
I have witnessed trigger warnings being weaponized during a playwriting workshop I attended. A student lectured the teacher because she had us read snippets of published plays and something in one of those snippets had upset this person so much they felt compelled to tell the teacher off and demand a trigger warning before any study of plays. The student then logged of the Zoom after lecturing and refused to continue the workshop because of the trauma of reading these plays, which frankly, weren’t graphically violent.
It was really horrible to witness this and it felt very manipulative and unnecessary. I think trigger warnings are used against artists to compel them to fall in line and submit. They can be dangerous because of this.
But we should have warnings for graphic violence and strobe effects. People do have visceral reactions to this stimulus when viewing images, film, tv. PTSD is real. Sarah Kane’s play “Blasted” is one of the few plays that very graphically depicts both rape and cannibalism on stage. People should know in advance they are going to see anything at that level.
I do think it is weaponized, as you say, and often far more by the Left than the Right (I hate using these terms, but it illustrates a point about the political interest in controlling content). In some ways, the Right is more admirable in the bluntness of censorship whereas the Left uses other socially tactical means to try to induce groupthink. You can fight censorship, but it's harder to fight the student you cited, for example, or others like them who expect never to be made uncomfortable by art. I mean, how do you go to art school or take a playwriting workshop and only expect to encounter art that makes you feel safe? We're not supposed to feel safe all the time. The world isn't safe. Sometimes, we have to be reminded of that or we're deprived the opportunity to empathize with others' experiences (including trauma).
Well articulated. The hardest thing to do is to push back because it frames you as being unable to empathize. And that makes you a target for being called out for not being Left enough in certain artistic or activist circles. It can make you a target of other attacks. It is easier to comply and offer apologies, or comply and stay silent. But it’s wrong to allow this. Artists and writers must push back. Because it’s very narcissistic to do what people do when they call others out for not including trigger warnings. I suspect it is done to control others, especially original thinkers and artistic people.
I want to know if an animal dies (like Keanu’s dog in “John Wick”, which nearly ruined the movie for me), but otherwise I’m game for pretty much anything. I prefer to go into most art (of any medium) not knowing too much or about the artist.
With very rare exceptions, I don’t read or watch horror or supernatural books/films/TV. Does that mean the genre label is also a trigger warning?
Second thought.
I am sure my books will be ‘triggering’ for some people. There’s same-sex intimacy, for example, though not graphically described. My feeling about that is I am not interested to pandering to homophobia. But where do you draw the line?
This is a really difficult one for me. I'm currently in therapy, unpacking a lot of violent childhood trauma. I've had to learn to manage my own exposure to triggers through research and asking questions about general themes etc. My issue is that trigger warnings seem almost pointless to me now, because they're literally on everything, and also incredibly vague. "Contains sex" doesn't tell me anything. Is it consensual sex? Is it graphic, subtle, or merely implied? "Reference to suicide" - what kind of reference? Is the word mentioned once, or is the entire plot about someone planning to end their life? For me personally, that makes a massive difference. If I'd gone by the trigger warnings alone, I wouldn't have just binge watched Heartstopper Series 3, which was possibly the most wholesome, sincere bit of TV I've seen in a long time.
I think my point is that trauma is so personal, you can't classify it with a few keywords. And when you try, it almost seems to makes those words taboo.
I don't care for them. I wish people who wanted them could get a Q-code they could access that could give them the info they wanted while letting the rest of us avoid the issue.
It does seem like they remove the agency of audience members to navigate the world on their own terms. I'm rewatching "ER" right now, and there's a trigger warning about death and disturbing images. But I sat down to watch an ER series, so it's implied - which means I found this specific trigger warning infantilizing and insulting to my intelligence.
I’m baffled that anyone would be watching a show about adventures in an emergency room, and they might not be somewhat aware that they will encounter death and disturbing images. This stuff is ridiculous to me.
I appreciate the sentiment, but they act like spoilers too often. If you warn about sexual violence, for example, I know that someone is getting hurt before the creators intended me to. This frustrates me as I work hard to avoid spoilers. In some cases, it is a big deal. I want an option that can be accessed by those who want it, say on a website, that is avoidable by those who don't. I know how impractical this sounds, but it is the internet age. Maybe we could ask Siri or Alexa.
I do appreciate the spoiler point here, as well as the fact that any device or computer can easily provide you an answer to your concerns before you watch something.
Hate em - unnecessary. Yes this sounds like Get off my lawn territory but we’ve become an over protective society. This bleeds into content vs art territory also. We need more art and less content. Then trigger warnings would be unnecessary because people would know what they’re getting into
This is a really great question and I’ve read the comments with interest. I am concerned that there is a cultural shift towards trying desperately not to offend anyone in any circumstance which cannot possibly be good for art, but as someone with no need of trigger warnings, I might not be best placed to comment on their usefulness. I don’t know that they are generally necessary but I’m not convinced they actually lessen the impact of a piece of art that has value beyond shock tactics.
I think the effort to make every audience member happy and to never offend any so that they don't engage is an increasing nightmare for artists today. Specifically because it's the "money people" who are asking for this shift. The edges of everything are being sanded away and, in the resulting featureless gray mush, nothing interesting or transformative can happen.
I mean, does the presence of a trigger warning enable artists to still create art which may be triggering rather than sanding it down? I absolutely think that provocation is an important element of art. It puts me in mind of your Norman Rockwell essay actually.
I think in instances related to illness - IE eating disorders, suicide, etc it’s important to make people aware that it could be triggering to harmful behavior - but to put it on everything just because it might make someone uncomfortable does a disservice to art and thought provoking content
Curious (probing, not challenging): have you considered how many illnesses cause trauma and for various reasons to different groups of people? For example, cancer. It kills a lot of our family members; I have a lot of friends with kids with cancer, horrifyingly enough. Another might be organ transplants. My father died from organ failure following one. It's...hard when I watch things that pertain to this. My mother was morbidly obese. Of all things, indifference to or cruelty towards or humor about the obese enrages me. I don't turn it off, but I wonder at people's lack of empathy and I judge the art in this regard. Whose trauma gets the warning and whose doesn't?
How do we know what will trigger someone versus being healing? And are some things timing, and how do we “warn” without spoiling? And also being brave and bold without being cruel?
Trigger warnings are emotional spoilers (and sometimes plot spoilers as well).
As a Gen X artist, I am offended by the concept of Art that "too sensitive" for itself or its audience. That kind of pre-filtered attitude results in art that is less-than-helpful; it's hurtful. The point of Proper Art (as defined by James Joyce in A Portrait of the Artist As A Young Man) is to aesthetically arrest the observer and allow them to transcend the boundaries of their fixed egos.
Many people have said that the beginning of Bambi traumatised them. They were kids and didn’t expect it. That response makes me wonder how they would have coped with the original versions of fairy tales, which scared me as a college student studying them. It’s a cultural difference between the US and other countries.
I just finished the book “James” and it has some horrific scenes, but I knew that it was a story about a man who was enslaved, and that in itself is fair warning. I suppose if I had trauma that’s triggered by specific content I would tread carefully. I dont think it’s the artist’s responsibility to anticipate that for me.
I guess I’m opposed to them in general, but there are probably specific examples that might require some kind of warning. As I’ve aged, flashing lights can make me almost instantly dizzy and nauseous, so I suppose I’m glad to know they’ll be coming. I don’t think you need a warning to know watching Schindler’s List or going to the Holocaust Museum in DC is going to be upsetting. Though, I’m always surprised when I go to a very “R” rated movie, how many parents will bring their younger children. But in general, I think it’s good to be shocked by art (including Book Two of your Psalms…)!
Haha! Yes. BTW, I’m loving the book so far, but have been prevented from reading for a couple of days. Planning on spending a few quality hours tomorrow. And to be clear, I’m not offended or shocked by words themselves. They’re just letters strung together that someone, somewhere, at some time decided to give meaning to, negative or otherwise!
If the theme of the work is clearly advertised in some way, I don't think a warning is necessary - unless it's a photosensitivity warning. That's why most content has a classification
Wasn't it once said that art is to disturb the comfortable and comfort the disturbed . I think it's a personal choice if you are super sensitive just stay home .
Tricky one. I don’t find them useful, personally, but accept that others might. I do know that I don’t want to be unsurprised or unconfronted by art of whatever type; I see that as part of the enjoyment, or part of the purpose, of art. Some of the stories I read as a child would probably not escape a whole raft of TW’s today, but I’m glad I read them without. The tradition of those tales serving as warnings to children, in themselves, is a long one. But the world is different now.
I have no complaint with trigger warnings. I grew up Gen X in New Jersey--think Kevin Smith and Chelsea Handler--so they're totally unnecessary in my personal case, but I don't mind steering away someone who would feel actual pain. They're the right thing to do.
Cole, saying that the topic is controversial and that some people may disagree serves as a trigger warning in itself. When did we become so sensitive that we feel triggered by everything? A few years ago, three young ladies in my film class refused to watch Vertigo because they claimed Hitchcock "used women as objects in his films, rather than as real people." First of all, I disagree with that perspective. I suggested to them that if they feel so strongly about it, they should avoid inviting Hitchcock to dinner in an alternate universe or refuse to walk his dog. But what does that have to do with appreciating one of the greatest films ever made? This kind of thinking must stop, and educators need to push back against it.
In my view, art should be approached with a willingness to engage with its complexities, including its historical context. While it’s valid to critique the portrayal of women in classic films, dismissing an entire work due to its creator’s flaws risks closing off valuable discussions about artistic intent and societal evolution. Instead of shunning works that challenge us, we should strive to understand them, learning from their shortcomings while recognizing their contributions to film history. This critical engagement is essential for fostering a deeper appreciation of art and its role in reflecting and shaping culture.
Well, in this case, my trigger warning was a request for civility. These weekly questions are enjoyable, but they can cause a variety of people to express themselves in clumsy ways and go at each other. I want to engage in more interesting questions, but I selfishly don't want to deal with policing comment sections. As for your approach to critical engagement, I tend to agree with you.
For most things, apart from very small productions, a person concerned with triggers can find out the content of the art they are about to experience with about 30 seconds and an internet connection.
That seems to me the easiest solution. For those who need or want warnings—look it up before you watch something you worry might trigger you! For everyone else, proceed with the excitement and anticipation of not knowing what’s about to happen.
A few years ago in a writers group, I shared my efforts to create a contemporary revenge thriller based on elements in the Trojan War. I was obliged to endure comments from seemingly normal attendees who dropped pearls and wrung hands over how Helen of Troy was an enduring example of women subjugated by toxic masculinity and how a strong trigger warning was needed. Ixnay on trigger warnings.
People trying to impose contemporary culture onto historical cultures are...adorable. When you do this, you create fantasy. That's fine, but it needs to be understood to be fantasy. If we rewrite history, it leads to ignorance and, in the delusion that history wasn't as ugly as it was, we forget what we've gained and, often, are still at risk of losing again given the 21st century's cultural backpedalling.
In my opinion, trigger warnings are only needed for things like depiction of rape, or strobing effects that may trigger epilepsy. In the case of "depiction of rape" or "canibalism" it would be fair to warn viewers so that they may exercise their choice to not consume that media as doing so may further impact their already visceral trauma. I would prefer to be shocked to my core than avoid something that impacted my feelings. The unsettling effect of my recent post on Frank&U (https://franku.substack.com/p/happy) would have been reduced if I had included a warning (although it really doesn't need a warning), as some friends of mine told me it brought up buried feelings about a similar incident that happened to them. I did preface it by saying that it was written for Mental Health Awareness week in New Zealand when I posted the link on my social media accounts.
Trigger warnings don't belong on anything else, imho. That's what the film censor and age and R ratings are for. As for product labeling, I do like being told that something I am about to consume has high levels of sugar, etc. Saves me from having to pick up the product and read the small print.
Real question because you're not the first to bring up the word: why cannibalism? Who has been traumatized by cannibalism that requires a warning about it? I would think gun violence would require it far more, no?
There's just something almost genetic about it, I guess. I could not finish watching the movie about flight 571 (crashed in the Andes, they ate corpses to survive). or even Yellowjackets (didn't finish watching). I mean, I'm not vegetarian. I've killed sheep to eat. But the idea of long pork just makes me want to vomit ever since I saw The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover without knowing what it was about. So yeah, if it contains depictions of cannibalism, I'm not into it. This contrasts to gun violence, where society is almost even desentisized to it. If a car backfires, my reaction is not to drop to the ground but to look around for someone holding a gun.
I just remembered Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal. I knew going into watching the film/TV series that there would be cannibalism among other things. It didn't stop me from appreciating the art that went into them, but I dunno, exception to the rule?
Adult content is often marked as such and it should continue to be marked as adult content that may be unsuitable for certain people - like children or those who are sensitive to things such as flashing lights. Those who are troubled by personal matters, such as content that may trigger a strong reaction, should already have a built in mechanism to help them avoid such things.
I too am somewhat conflicted on this issue. In general, I agree that trigger warnings are infantilizing. On the other hand, while scrolling through Notes recently I was subjected to some horrific images of violence which I found utterly sickening. I immediately blocked the sender, but I can't unsee them, and I had already blocked "explicit content". Apparently Substack doesn't consider images of dismembered bodies to be explicit content!
They need to be used with caution, and only when absolutely necessary. You cannot use them as a means of, for example, shaming men for just being men or white people for just being white people, because that is horrifically unjust.
What do you mean by shaming men for just being men or white people for just being white people? I'm uncertain what kind of trigger warnings these are in reference to, but they're all very different around the world.
While I guess some people find them useful. I think anyone who is easily triggered should take the responsibility to do some research before they see films and television shows. There's SO MUCH that can be triggering that as a creator or teacher of the work of art it can be very difficult to know what all the trigger points might be and how to label them.
I'm curious about this as well. I'm a victim of gun violence, and it has affected my life in ways I'm sure I don't even know. I'd imagine it's one of the most prevalent forms of violence in our country, just given the statistics. Should almost every action/crime show on television and every big budget action flick have a trigger warning? Also, kind of ironic that the word TRIGGER is applied to this, and we seldom see it in the context of warning people about gun violence in media.
I'm pretty PC, but I think the trigger warnings are overdone. Art is difficult. Art is confrontational. Sometimes the shock helps us process our past. My wife and I recently saw "I Saw the TV Glow" and we came out of that brutalized, but we had some productive, cathartic discussions regarding our upbringings and young adulthood because of it. If we had known how emotionally violent the film had been going in, we might not have gone. I'm so grateful we did though.
I SAW THE TV GLOW is a great example of a film that being warned about, in any way, could only diminish.
I'm with Dench. I don't do roller coasters because I don't enjoy the experience, and have never been interested in horror movies. So, fine, I just don't do some things which many others (e.g. my house) enjoy. Problem solved.
As a playwright and theatre creator, I respect the use of trigger warnings especially for things like violence and talk of suicide. I think they're a useful addition to program notes and, honestly, if it better prepares people for seeing a show with themes or events that might upset them then there's no harm in it. I don't make art to violently upset or provoke people. I make art to enlighten audiences and make them think about an issue or topic. There's been a few pieces of theatre I've seen in my life that could've used with trigger warnings. In every case, the lack of a trigger warning that left me feeling unmoored also left me feeling like the artist was a hack or an ego-maniac and I never went back to see something of their's again. Shock for shock's sake is BS.
I'm not sure if including violence in a play is inherently shock for shock's sake, though. If violence is organic to the story, then it has every place in it, no? I'm just going through comments now, and asking questions (not challenging). In your case, you say, "if it better prepares people for seeing a show with themes or events that might upset them then there's no harm in it," but also say you want to enlighten audiences. How do we enlighten an audience that has been discouraged from engaging with a subject they don't want to think about?
Great question. I don't use them much, but I did on my story Dead Girl; partially because it's wrapped up in the meaning of my story, but also because it features a dead six-year-old. Writing it gave me nightmares. Reading it would disturb me. I get where these people are coming from, but I can't help but wonder whether the reasons they give as to why they don't like them are the real reasons they don't like them. Is it that they don't want things spoiled for the viewer, or is it that they think this is part of a larger cultural shift? I say who fuckin cares? People want to add a TW - great. If not, that's okay, too. haha
I think there's a very valid question about who decides what is triggering, but also why some things are included but others are not. In deciding what is triggering, you inevitably deny other people's trauma. I absolutely understand strobing lights, that's a medical issue, but for me I wonder where the line is. It's all so subjective and arbitrary that inevitably even trigger warnings insult somebody.
I think the question is valid, I just disagree with a lot of the artists in this thread. I've never been upset with a TW. It's never--not once--ruined a story for me. And as for where the line is, well, as an indie author, that's my call. ;) Would I mind if a publisher put a TW on my work? I really don't think I would.
Thanks for kicking off this discussion. I'll be thinking about what you said about denying other people's trauma. I hadn't heard that before. I always enjoy a thread where I come away with a new perspective.
Not to go Flannery O’Conner on this, but shock has always led to revelation. It’s no new philosophy- look at depictions of hell in the church - of suffering.
That said, never having censored my children’s reading - or viewing (except for gratuitous violence when they were young) George Saunders threw me so far in Lincoln in the Bardo I urged my adult daughter - the mother of a small boy -to stay far from it until much later.
So - no warnings, imo.
To each their own. I don’t need trigger warnings. But some people have already lived the shock.
Go Flannery Go!
I don't use them. I can see the point in a very limited way for people who are sensitive because of their health...yet I resist. I feel they can give too much away.
No issue here with trigger warnings nor food labels. I like to know if what I am buying is certified organic or has an ingredient that might upset my digestive system. If a show uses strobe lights, its good information to a photosensitive epileptic. It allows for prospective ticket buyers who have a sensitivity to attend the shows that don't trigger them rather than to avoid media all together.
Do you have a line? In any given episode of television, I could list twenty triggers, I expect. "This one would offend a conservative rather than liberal Evangelical. This one would offend an immigrant. This one would trigger a victim of gun violence. This one would trigger a victim of child abuse. This one might trigger transphobes. This one would offend some, but not all Indigenous people." I'm just curious how many trigger warnings should or can be included and who decides what is triggering or not?
I don’t believe trigger warnings as a law. I believe in them as a way to encourage people to see the work of creators without fear. Akin to the idea of genre. When one goes to a slasher film, one might feel disappointed if no blood and guts and another might have nightmares for weeks. The person who gets nightmares might still choose to go. I can’t imagine why some people are bothered by nudity or colorful language as it’s part of everyday life. I believe that giving people the opportunity to avoid adverse reactions can avoid campaigns to outlaw something or make it more restrictive. It’s about informed choices. Foods that contain GMOs are not labelled but for those who wanted to avoid GMOs, organic certification is helpful. ANd that is who the certification is for… those who want to avoid GMOs. The “trigger warnings” can be in the form of a rating system for all films or by film reviewers for those who find that helpful.
I have witnessed trigger warnings being weaponized during a playwriting workshop I attended. A student lectured the teacher because she had us read snippets of published plays and something in one of those snippets had upset this person so much they felt compelled to tell the teacher off and demand a trigger warning before any study of plays. The student then logged of the Zoom after lecturing and refused to continue the workshop because of the trauma of reading these plays, which frankly, weren’t graphically violent.
It was really horrible to witness this and it felt very manipulative and unnecessary. I think trigger warnings are used against artists to compel them to fall in line and submit. They can be dangerous because of this.
But we should have warnings for graphic violence and strobe effects. People do have visceral reactions to this stimulus when viewing images, film, tv. PTSD is real. Sarah Kane’s play “Blasted” is one of the few plays that very graphically depicts both rape and cannibalism on stage. People should know in advance they are going to see anything at that level.
I do think it is weaponized, as you say, and often far more by the Left than the Right (I hate using these terms, but it illustrates a point about the political interest in controlling content). In some ways, the Right is more admirable in the bluntness of censorship whereas the Left uses other socially tactical means to try to induce groupthink. You can fight censorship, but it's harder to fight the student you cited, for example, or others like them who expect never to be made uncomfortable by art. I mean, how do you go to art school or take a playwriting workshop and only expect to encounter art that makes you feel safe? We're not supposed to feel safe all the time. The world isn't safe. Sometimes, we have to be reminded of that or we're deprived the opportunity to empathize with others' experiences (including trauma).
Well articulated. The hardest thing to do is to push back because it frames you as being unable to empathize. And that makes you a target for being called out for not being Left enough in certain artistic or activist circles. It can make you a target of other attacks. It is easier to comply and offer apologies, or comply and stay silent. But it’s wrong to allow this. Artists and writers must push back. Because it’s very narcissistic to do what people do when they call others out for not including trigger warnings. I suspect it is done to control others, especially original thinkers and artistic people.
I want to know if an animal dies (like Keanu’s dog in “John Wick”, which nearly ruined the movie for me), but otherwise I’m game for pretty much anything. I prefer to go into most art (of any medium) not knowing too much or about the artist.
Thanks, Cole! I enjoy your notes and posts.💕
First thought.
With very rare exceptions, I don’t read or watch horror or supernatural books/films/TV. Does that mean the genre label is also a trigger warning?
Second thought.
I am sure my books will be ‘triggering’ for some people. There’s same-sex intimacy, for example, though not graphically described. My feeling about that is I am not interested to pandering to homophobia. But where do you draw the line?
This is a really difficult one for me. I'm currently in therapy, unpacking a lot of violent childhood trauma. I've had to learn to manage my own exposure to triggers through research and asking questions about general themes etc. My issue is that trigger warnings seem almost pointless to me now, because they're literally on everything, and also incredibly vague. "Contains sex" doesn't tell me anything. Is it consensual sex? Is it graphic, subtle, or merely implied? "Reference to suicide" - what kind of reference? Is the word mentioned once, or is the entire plot about someone planning to end their life? For me personally, that makes a massive difference. If I'd gone by the trigger warnings alone, I wouldn't have just binge watched Heartstopper Series 3, which was possibly the most wholesome, sincere bit of TV I've seen in a long time.
I think my point is that trauma is so personal, you can't classify it with a few keywords. And when you try, it almost seems to makes those words taboo.
I really appreciate this comment. Trauma is indeed personal. How do you define it for anyone with a few key words? It doesn't seem possible.
I don't care for them. I wish people who wanted them could get a Q-code they could access that could give them the info they wanted while letting the rest of us avoid the issue.
It does seem like they remove the agency of audience members to navigate the world on their own terms. I'm rewatching "ER" right now, and there's a trigger warning about death and disturbing images. But I sat down to watch an ER series, so it's implied - which means I found this specific trigger warning infantilizing and insulting to my intelligence.
I’m baffled that anyone would be watching a show about adventures in an emergency room, and they might not be somewhat aware that they will encounter death and disturbing images. This stuff is ridiculous to me.
I appreciate the sentiment, but they act like spoilers too often. If you warn about sexual violence, for example, I know that someone is getting hurt before the creators intended me to. This frustrates me as I work hard to avoid spoilers. In some cases, it is a big deal. I want an option that can be accessed by those who want it, say on a website, that is avoidable by those who don't. I know how impractical this sounds, but it is the internet age. Maybe we could ask Siri or Alexa.
I do appreciate the spoiler point here, as well as the fact that any device or computer can easily provide you an answer to your concerns before you watch something.
Hate em - unnecessary. Yes this sounds like Get off my lawn territory but we’ve become an over protective society. This bleeds into content vs art territory also. We need more art and less content. Then trigger warnings would be unnecessary because people would know what they’re getting into
This is a really great question and I’ve read the comments with interest. I am concerned that there is a cultural shift towards trying desperately not to offend anyone in any circumstance which cannot possibly be good for art, but as someone with no need of trigger warnings, I might not be best placed to comment on their usefulness. I don’t know that they are generally necessary but I’m not convinced they actually lessen the impact of a piece of art that has value beyond shock tactics.
I think the effort to make every audience member happy and to never offend any so that they don't engage is an increasing nightmare for artists today. Specifically because it's the "money people" who are asking for this shift. The edges of everything are being sanded away and, in the resulting featureless gray mush, nothing interesting or transformative can happen.
I mean, does the presence of a trigger warning enable artists to still create art which may be triggering rather than sanding it down? I absolutely think that provocation is an important element of art. It puts me in mind of your Norman Rockwell essay actually.
I think in instances related to illness - IE eating disorders, suicide, etc it’s important to make people aware that it could be triggering to harmful behavior - but to put it on everything just because it might make someone uncomfortable does a disservice to art and thought provoking content
Curious (probing, not challenging): have you considered how many illnesses cause trauma and for various reasons to different groups of people? For example, cancer. It kills a lot of our family members; I have a lot of friends with kids with cancer, horrifyingly enough. Another might be organ transplants. My father died from organ failure following one. It's...hard when I watch things that pertain to this. My mother was morbidly obese. Of all things, indifference to or cruelty towards or humor about the obese enrages me. I don't turn it off, but I wonder at people's lack of empathy and I judge the art in this regard. Whose trauma gets the warning and whose doesn't?
How do we know what will trigger someone versus being healing? And are some things timing, and how do we “warn” without spoiling? And also being brave and bold without being cruel?
Yes, exactly. Sometimes we can vicariously exorcise our trauma, even if it’s incremental.
And sometimes maybe the timing in relation ?
Trigger warnings are emotional spoilers (and sometimes plot spoilers as well).
As a Gen X artist, I am offended by the concept of Art that "too sensitive" for itself or its audience. That kind of pre-filtered attitude results in art that is less-than-helpful; it's hurtful. The point of Proper Art (as defined by James Joyce in A Portrait of the Artist As A Young Man) is to aesthetically arrest the observer and allow them to transcend the boundaries of their fixed egos.
That doesn't happen with trigger warnings.
Many people have said that the beginning of Bambi traumatised them. They were kids and didn’t expect it. That response makes me wonder how they would have coped with the original versions of fairy tales, which scared me as a college student studying them. It’s a cultural difference between the US and other countries.
I just finished the book “James” and it has some horrific scenes, but I knew that it was a story about a man who was enslaved, and that in itself is fair warning. I suppose if I had trauma that’s triggered by specific content I would tread carefully. I dont think it’s the artist’s responsibility to anticipate that for me.
I guess I’m opposed to them in general, but there are probably specific examples that might require some kind of warning. As I’ve aged, flashing lights can make me almost instantly dizzy and nauseous, so I suppose I’m glad to know they’ll be coming. I don’t think you need a warning to know watching Schindler’s List or going to the Holocaust Museum in DC is going to be upsetting. Though, I’m always surprised when I go to a very “R” rated movie, how many parents will bring their younger children. But in general, I think it’s good to be shocked by art (including Book Two of your Psalms…)!
My novel has something to shock and potentially offend everyone. It's a very equal-opportunity piece of art in this way.
Haha! Yes. BTW, I’m loving the book so far, but have been prevented from reading for a couple of days. Planning on spending a few quality hours tomorrow. And to be clear, I’m not offended or shocked by words themselves. They’re just letters strung together that someone, somewhere, at some time decided to give meaning to, negative or otherwise!
If the theme of the work is clearly advertised in some way, I don't think a warning is necessary - unless it's a photosensitivity warning. That's why most content has a classification
I think they can sometimes be valuable, but are frequently over used.
Wasn't it once said that art is to disturb the comfortable and comfort the disturbed . I think it's a personal choice if you are super sensitive just stay home .
Art certainly means this to me.
Tricky one. I don’t find them useful, personally, but accept that others might. I do know that I don’t want to be unsurprised or unconfronted by art of whatever type; I see that as part of the enjoyment, or part of the purpose, of art. Some of the stories I read as a child would probably not escape a whole raft of TW’s today, but I’m glad I read them without. The tradition of those tales serving as warnings to children, in themselves, is a long one. But the world is different now.
I have no complaint with trigger warnings. I grew up Gen X in New Jersey--think Kevin Smith and Chelsea Handler--so they're totally unnecessary in my personal case, but I don't mind steering away someone who would feel actual pain. They're the right thing to do.
Oh, dear. I think “Trigger Warning” might need a trigger warning.
https://youtu.be/MnHTLh6ruW0?si=W6tJLsrwvevw7iyF
Cole, saying that the topic is controversial and that some people may disagree serves as a trigger warning in itself. When did we become so sensitive that we feel triggered by everything? A few years ago, three young ladies in my film class refused to watch Vertigo because they claimed Hitchcock "used women as objects in his films, rather than as real people." First of all, I disagree with that perspective. I suggested to them that if they feel so strongly about it, they should avoid inviting Hitchcock to dinner in an alternate universe or refuse to walk his dog. But what does that have to do with appreciating one of the greatest films ever made? This kind of thinking must stop, and educators need to push back against it.
In my view, art should be approached with a willingness to engage with its complexities, including its historical context. While it’s valid to critique the portrayal of women in classic films, dismissing an entire work due to its creator’s flaws risks closing off valuable discussions about artistic intent and societal evolution. Instead of shunning works that challenge us, we should strive to understand them, learning from their shortcomings while recognizing their contributions to film history. This critical engagement is essential for fostering a deeper appreciation of art and its role in reflecting and shaping culture.
Well, in this case, my trigger warning was a request for civility. These weekly questions are enjoyable, but they can cause a variety of people to express themselves in clumsy ways and go at each other. I want to engage in more interesting questions, but I selfishly don't want to deal with policing comment sections. As for your approach to critical engagement, I tend to agree with you.
For most things, apart from very small productions, a person concerned with triggers can find out the content of the art they are about to experience with about 30 seconds and an internet connection.
That seems to me the easiest solution. For those who need or want warnings—look it up before you watch something you worry might trigger you! For everyone else, proceed with the excitement and anticipation of not knowing what’s about to happen.
A few years ago in a writers group, I shared my efforts to create a contemporary revenge thriller based on elements in the Trojan War. I was obliged to endure comments from seemingly normal attendees who dropped pearls and wrung hands over how Helen of Troy was an enduring example of women subjugated by toxic masculinity and how a strong trigger warning was needed. Ixnay on trigger warnings.
People trying to impose contemporary culture onto historical cultures are...adorable. When you do this, you create fantasy. That's fine, but it needs to be understood to be fantasy. If we rewrite history, it leads to ignorance and, in the delusion that history wasn't as ugly as it was, we forget what we've gained and, often, are still at risk of losing again given the 21st century's cultural backpedalling.
In my opinion, trigger warnings are only needed for things like depiction of rape, or strobing effects that may trigger epilepsy. In the case of "depiction of rape" or "canibalism" it would be fair to warn viewers so that they may exercise their choice to not consume that media as doing so may further impact their already visceral trauma. I would prefer to be shocked to my core than avoid something that impacted my feelings. The unsettling effect of my recent post on Frank&U (https://franku.substack.com/p/happy) would have been reduced if I had included a warning (although it really doesn't need a warning), as some friends of mine told me it brought up buried feelings about a similar incident that happened to them. I did preface it by saying that it was written for Mental Health Awareness week in New Zealand when I posted the link on my social media accounts.
Trigger warnings don't belong on anything else, imho. That's what the film censor and age and R ratings are for. As for product labeling, I do like being told that something I am about to consume has high levels of sugar, etc. Saves me from having to pick up the product and read the small print.
Real question because you're not the first to bring up the word: why cannibalism? Who has been traumatized by cannibalism that requires a warning about it? I would think gun violence would require it far more, no?
There's just something almost genetic about it, I guess. I could not finish watching the movie about flight 571 (crashed in the Andes, they ate corpses to survive). or even Yellowjackets (didn't finish watching). I mean, I'm not vegetarian. I've killed sheep to eat. But the idea of long pork just makes me want to vomit ever since I saw The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover without knowing what it was about. So yeah, if it contains depictions of cannibalism, I'm not into it. This contrasts to gun violence, where society is almost even desentisized to it. If a car backfires, my reaction is not to drop to the ground but to look around for someone holding a gun.
I just remembered Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal. I knew going into watching the film/TV series that there would be cannibalism among other things. It didn't stop me from appreciating the art that went into them, but I dunno, exception to the rule?
Adult content is often marked as such and it should continue to be marked as adult content that may be unsuitable for certain people - like children or those who are sensitive to things such as flashing lights. Those who are troubled by personal matters, such as content that may trigger a strong reaction, should already have a built in mechanism to help them avoid such things.
I too am somewhat conflicted on this issue. In general, I agree that trigger warnings are infantilizing. On the other hand, while scrolling through Notes recently I was subjected to some horrific images of violence which I found utterly sickening. I immediately blocked the sender, but I can't unsee them, and I had already blocked "explicit content". Apparently Substack doesn't consider images of dismembered bodies to be explicit content!
They need to be used with caution, and only when absolutely necessary. You cannot use them as a means of, for example, shaming men for just being men or white people for just being white people, because that is horrifically unjust.
What do you mean by shaming men for just being men or white people for just being white people? I'm uncertain what kind of trigger warnings these are in reference to, but they're all very different around the world.