I definitely want to talk through the issue. And I'm also interested in trying to figure out what a workable set or required warnings would be.
There is definitely a bad faith reason to avoid trigger warnings -- the edgy, shock value justification. I personally believe that suspense doesn't require surprise, so I have no problem banning things done just for shock value. And if someone is adamant that the thing wasn't done for shock value, but was just badly handled, then we can go forward from there.
Though there is a whole other question of the logistics of banning someone. It is in our guidelines that people who harass other members or who are "repeatedly disruptive or insulting" will be removed from the group, but we have never actually had to invoke it. We also struggle with what to do with people who are just kind of jerky but not actually abusive. Again, so far, we've been able to hash things out, but there's no formal process.
There are also bad faith uses of trigger warnings. Analogous to reporting and take-down mechanisms online that can be used to harass and silence content creators. This is a talking-point of right wing freedom of speech absolutists. But is, also, I think a real issue. Just because I'm progressive, doesn't mean I think that call-outs that use progressive language can't be used to bully, harass, and silence people. But I haven't seen anything like that in our writing group. So, I want to write the guidelines in such a way that they are hard to use to harass people. But it's not my most pressing concern.
There is always the question, Is a requirement for trigger warnings going to inhibit people's ability to write about complex issues. Like, does naming the thing at the beginning of the process make it harder to write honestly about one's experience. And also issues about, What if I call this abuse, and the reader pushes back against that. Am I wiling to open myself up to that pain.
But I think the central question is what do you do about squicks (instead of PTSD triggers) in the context of a memoir writing workshop. We're supposed to be focusing on the work and not on the writer's life, but I don't see how you can say you are squicked by the facts of the writer's life without it getting very personal.
And when you’re talking about PTSD, then the harm to the reader is more pressing than the harm to the writer. But for a squick, in most cases it isn’t.
There's always an issue of whether the writing is doing what the writer intends it to. If readers are universally squicked by something, the writer should know that, but that is something that would come out during the discussion.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2019-03-26 04:01 pm (UTC)There is definitely a bad faith reason to avoid trigger warnings -- the edgy, shock value justification. I personally believe that suspense doesn't require surprise, so I have no problem banning things done just for shock value. And if someone is adamant that the thing wasn't done for shock value, but was just badly handled, then we can go forward from there.
Though there is a whole other question of the logistics of banning someone. It is in our guidelines that people who harass other members or who are "repeatedly disruptive or insulting" will be removed from the group, but we have never actually had to invoke it. We also struggle with what to do with people who are just kind of jerky but not actually abusive. Again, so far, we've been able to hash things out, but there's no formal process.
There are also bad faith uses of trigger warnings. Analogous to reporting and take-down mechanisms online that can be used to harass and silence content creators. This is a talking-point of right wing freedom of speech absolutists. But is, also, I think a real issue. Just because I'm progressive, doesn't mean I think that call-outs that use progressive language can't be used to bully, harass, and silence people. But I haven't seen anything like that in our writing group. So, I want to write the guidelines in such a way that they are hard to use to harass people. But it's not my most pressing concern.
There is always the question, Is a requirement for trigger warnings going to inhibit people's ability to write about complex issues. Like, does naming the thing at the beginning of the process make it harder to write honestly about one's experience. And also issues about, What if I call this abuse, and the reader pushes back against that. Am I wiling to open myself up to that pain.
But I think the central question is what do you do about squicks (instead of PTSD triggers) in the context of a memoir writing workshop. We're supposed to be focusing on the work and not on the writer's life, but I don't see how you can say you are squicked by the facts of the writer's life without it getting very personal.
And when you’re talking about PTSD, then the harm to the reader is more pressing than the harm to the writer. But for a squick, in most cases it isn’t.
There's always an issue of whether the writing is doing what the writer intends it to. If readers are universally squicked by something, the writer should know that, but that is something that would come out during the discussion.