Content warnings for a memoir workshop

[fandomnumbergenerator]

I manage a memoir workshopping group, and a new member wants a more formal content warning policy (not because of specific triggers she wants to be warned for, but because she was an instructor at small liberal arts college for a semester and felt they were very useful). A long standing member of the group who has been a professor for decades is opposed to requiring trigger warnings (she has more of a 70s liberal take on most social issues, and also has seen trigger warnings used as a way to manipulate the administration into censuring adjunct professors).

The current policy is:

Writing presented in the group may contain references to or descriptions of death, illness, abuse, unhealthy family and relationship dynamics, sexual assault, racism, sexism, or homophobia, as well as explicit sex or drug use. We do not generally use trigger or content warnings, though specific warning requests will be taken seriously.

Elsewhere in the guidelines, it says that people need to briefly introduce their work before they start reading, so there should never be a situation where a potentially triggering topic is a total surprise. But the way the topics are addressed might be more graphic in one section than another.

I am working on a project about my boyfriend's death when I was 24, and the piece I brought to the group last week included a description of a dead body, and so I warned people in an email. Everyone appreciated the warning, but none of the people who actually attended the in-person meeting wanted to change the policy (the new member who wanted the change the policy wasn't there).

We are looking for new members and I am trying to craft policies that will work for people we don't already have a good working relationship with.

None of the workshopping classes I took included content warning requirements, so I feel like I don't really know where to start.

I also feel like triggers are incredibly personal. I usually use "Creator Chose Not to Use Archive Warnings" on AO3 because almost every story I write has some fleeting reference to the character having sex when they were under 18 or some past traumatic experience.

And in my memoir writing, I'm still grappling with what to call things. Like what level of creepiness on my father's part requires a trigger warning? When I am still trying to come up with a stable way to frame my experiences for myself.

Comments

[kara_mckay]

I like the current policy with brief introduction. As you say, triggers are very personal. I used to know someone for whom country music was a very real trigger. It's not my story to tell, but I can say that it was no joke. Hearing country music was very bad news for this person. Thing is, the world's sharp edges can only be bubble wrapped to a certain point. This person had to deal with the fact that she might hear country music coming from someone's vehicle or through the open door of a bar, and she had to plan how to avoid those things to the best of her abilities. And, sometimes she couldn't, and it was bad for her when that happened. Sometimes the reality of something and its seriousness, and the degree to which the world around a person can be responsible for managing it for that person just don't match up.

To my mind, a writing workshop is, at the get-go, a potential red flag environment. A person knows going into it that they might encounter things that are distressing, and if they have a serious, devastating trigger on the level of this woman's country music trigger, they'd probably be better off staying out of it. Giving people a general heads up about the possibility of encountering the most typical triggers feels like a good plan, and asking people to introduce their individual works feels like an extra layer of safety. Beyond that, it just seems like extra layers of bubble wrapping that will be stressful for some people and still won't insure that no one will ever bump up against something distressing.

[fandomnumbergenerator]

I feel like I'm less concerned about the bubble wrapping aspect, and more wanting to protect the writers. But I'm trying to articulate what that means to me.

First, there's the issue of how any policy could be used to harass a writer. And so you make certain decisions about what is allowed and how complaints are made and what the response to complaints is to prevent your guidelines from being used in bad faith. This hasn't been a problem for our writing group so far, but it's something that I think about a lot. And to the degree that there is a legitimate objection to trigger warnings in an academic settings, it's that the requirement for trigger warnings they can be used in bad faith to shut down discussion or harass an instructor.

But it feels like there is a danger that is most acute in a memoir writing group, which is that writers are still working on naming the experiences that they're writing about. And so a requirement to label an experience abuse or sexual assault or childhood sexual abuse seems like it is going to really inhibit someone's ability to write about complicated experiences.

And sometimes a reader's reaction to something can be really alienating to the writer. I remember the forward to a lesbian novel I read where the woman writing the forward described fisting as "people who seduce you and then punch you in the most private places" and as a reader I was totally grossed out by the concern trolling of it. I can't even imag8ine how it felt to the author.

Content warnings seem to work on AO3, and to not create a chilling effect. But again I wonder how many people are just using "Creator Chose Not to Use Archive Warnings" because they don't want to be accused of mis-categorizing a fic that they don't think is non-con, but someone else might.

[kara_mckay]

Ah, I see where you're coming from. I don't have a lot of real life experience, and none within the last five or six years with group interactions, so it's sometimes hard for me to imagine how things shake out in those settings. Online, people are a lot more likely to be confrontational and unpleasant, I think, whereas I think most people in real life don't go out of their way to make things difficult without a good reason or unless they have some heavy duty personal investment in the matter. But, you can read that opinion and those that follow as equivalent to someone saying, "As a third generation potato farmer, here's my take on the New York subway system."

I guess my concern would be how to decide whose experience or interpretation is the one that needs to be privileged and/or protected. If six people have the same experience, you'll get six different stories; thirty-six readers will come back with thirty-six at least slightly varied interpretations of them. I'm not in the camp that says they're all equal, but I slide a little closer to that than I do to the idea that there are right and wrong ways for an author to feel about and respond to their own experiences, or that the author's interpretation is the one that should always be privileged.

I can see the flipside, whereon you could have people using this take on personal validity as a way of forcing hateful or threatening attitudes on a group, and maybe even changing its composition if people feel uncomfortable enough with what those people are doing. Maybe that sort of thing would be better addressed in terms of behavior and focus expectations, though? As you've said, asking people to label their experiences can be troubling in and of itself, and that getting much more specific than a contents list can feel like a request to self-judge. One of the reasons I think people who post at Ao3 are less susceptible to self censorship (I don't say immune; I was just bitching about the homogeneity of fanfic last week) is that they're only asked to use broad, general warnings and then tag as they see fit.

[fandomnumbergenerator]

In terms of who or what needs to be protected, I think the most common person who gets hurt in a writing critique is the writer. A bad critique (especially one where it feels like it's about you and not about what's on the page, or something where you feel like you are being required to do something that you are totally incapable of doing) can really shut down your ability to keep writing.

Which is not to say that the author is always right. Just that constructive criticism needs to be constructive.

But if someone in the group has PTSD triggers, then the balance of who is most likely to get hurt switches to the person with the trigger.

As I'm thinking more about it, I feel like the issue may be about squicks vs triggers. So far, I have never workshopped with anyone who had specific triggers that we were trying to accommodate (even though everyone was writing about trauma in one way or another). It has always been about squicks and hot-button issues.

And once I frame it like that, it seems more important to protect the writer from people saying "the immutable facts of your life squick me" than to protect the reader from being squicked

Though a perfectly valid thing that a reader can say to a writer is, "You may not realize how much this description of XYZ is viscerally upsetting your readers, and you may want to either change how you write about it or be more intentional about the effect you're having." And that's a place where different readers can argue back and forth about what reaction they had to that particular passage.

[kara_mckay]

It sounds like you're really figuring this thing out! And, I think you're right on the mark with the distinction between triggers and squicks, and how they work in this setting. Having to slap a warning on part of my life experience because someone finds it icky would distress hell out of me. This might be something really good and useful to talk with your group about -- the idea that saying, "Writing about X is just nasty," or "I don't want to hear about X because it grosses me out," is the opposite of helpful, but saying, "I'm not sure that this way of describing X is getting it across in the way that you want," is constructive. And, it might not be a bad idea to talk with them about what a trigger actually is. I don't know about real life, but online it surely does seem that quite a lot of people think it's just an all-purpose word for any negative response to anything a person sees that they don't like.

[fandomnumbergenerator]

Part of the reason that I'm trying to get a lot of this in writing is that the guidelines are sort of a screening tool. If somebody emails the moderator (currently me) asking to join the group, the first step is for them to read the guidelines and to get back to me if they think the group will be a good fit. So the document has to do a lot of work.

I am toying with the idea of actually using the word "squick" in the guidelines, but that would probably just be confusing.

Triggers are complicated because there are PTSD triggers, but also behavioral triggers around compulsive behaviors (drug use, alcohol, self harm, disordered eating). And then things like phobias. And I'm trying to figure out when an overview is sufficient and when a specific warning would be required.

Here's a draft of the new trigger warning guidelines:

Content warning guidelines:

We aim to create a space that is respectful of the experiences of both presenters and readers, and to make the workshop accessible to people with a history of trauma.

Requests for specific trigger warnings will be taken seriously. Contact the moderator if you would like to make your request anonymously.

Writing presented in the group may contain references to or descriptions of death, illness, injury, pregnancy loss, disordered eating, self harm, suicide, addiction, abuse, unhealthy family and relationship dynamics, child abuse, sexual assault, racism, sexism, and homophobia, as well as explicit violence, sex, and drug use.

Presenters are expected to engage with sensitive content in good faith, and to not try to shock or surprise readers. Please provide an overview of your project that alerts readers to sensitive content your work deals with, and be sure that this overview is provided to any new or visiting members of the group. You may also choose to preface specific sections with an additional warning.

Readers are expected to engage with the details of other member’s lived experiences in good faith, and to distinguish between content that makes them uncomfortable or that they disagree with and content that triggers them. Readers are free to discuss their reaction to content they find upsetting (the writer may not realize the effect a particular passage is having on readers) but should be careful of shaming or silencing the writer.

[kara_mckay]

Sorry -- I kinda lost track of the "written" part of guidelines. Loss of focus and forgetfulness are features of my particular malfunction.

I think your new guidelines look good. To me, they show concerns for the individual and a safe, confidential route for individuals with triggers to follow while also providing general category warnings, requesting overviews, and stating behavior expectations. It looks like you've got it nailed down fairly well. I can see where you're coming from with wanting to use "squick," which is such a wonderful fit for some of what you're saying, but I have to agree that it's also a very fandom specific word. Shame it never caught on anywhere else.

I hope this all works out for you and your group!