I think "the dogma against triggering" is not accurate.
As far as I know nobody ever claimed you shouldn't write anything that could ever trigger people. That's impossible.
What I do advocate for (and practise) is informed consent. I list potential trigger warnings in my fiction, so that a reader can make an informed decision whether they wish to expose themselves to it.
@ashtardeza@bookstodon … sounds like a constructive approach. What do you make of Nayeri's suggestion that we need to listen – or read – with empathy, openness and understanding?
But also respect trauma and triggers. Give people the information to make an informed choice. Let everybody decide how far out of their comfort zone they'll step.
I mostly took umbrage with the article (and summary's) premise that there is some huge push to only write happy, comfortable stuff and that writers are being forced to censor themselves.
That just feels untrue to me, and a misrepresentation of valid concerns.
@ashtardeza@fictionable@bookstodon it's good if you've been insulated from that - I'm very glad! But there is in fact a huge push from purity culture to remove triggering content from books. Simply disbelieving others just because it personally hasn't iminged on you doesn't help.
Accepting that your experience is not universal is really important, especially when someone is saying 'hey, there's a real problem here'.
It's important to check what area of your privilege might have insulated you
That is a fair point. I'm aware of books being banned on moral grounds, usually by religious groups. If that's what you mean by purity culture than I agree.
What I took issue with is that the terminology used seemed to refer to "cancel culture" and avoid triggers. That is mostly a false narrative pushed by conservatives.
So, I wasn't so much saying "This hasn't happened to me so it's untrue" and more pointing out that this is a common strawman argument.
Add comment