Trigger Warnings: Yes/No/Context

A "trigger warning" is a notification that a work contains material that may be "triggery" to some readers/viewers/listeners. It differs from a content rating in that it's usually more specific, due to the specific nature of traumatic triggers. Commonly known triggers include rape, torture, and various kinds of abuse.

In some cases,such as fanfiction, the trigger warning may be placed at or before the beginning of the story. In other cases, reviews of the material may give a trigger warning.

On the pro-warning side, people who are easily triggered appreciate not getting halfway into a story and then freaking out. They want to know in advance what to avoid so as not to get traumatized.

On the anti-warning side is the argument that certain stories gain their power precisely because they blindside the audience. For them, revealing the possible triggers to cater to a small number of the audience will spoil the effect for the larger audience that has no such reaction to trauma.

It's also possible that there are contexts within which trigger warnings are more valid than other contexts where they are needless.

What are your thoughts? Have you ever been triggered by a story? Ever had a story spoiled for you because of a trigger warning? Ever decided whether or not a story needed a trigger warning?

I mostly use a friend of mine as an example, who has a severe spider phobia. For movies, random spiders used to send her into all out panic attacks / her leaving the room screaming.

So I think at least in the internet world, where Anything Goes, it's very useful.

I think that reading reviews is generally the best idea with respect to this sort of thing. If you are really made so uncomfortable or are so traumatised by a subject that reading about it ceases to be a viable option in all but the most controlled circumstances, it is probably in your best interest to look out for it. Granted, I can totally understand not wanting to go out of your way to always check if something that you might read contains something that you want to avoid, but still, putting the responsibility on the author to warn you that something they wrote might upset you given certain circumstances is unfair.

There is also the obvious issue of how claiming to be triggered by things has been abused by people of, shall we say, a melodramatic persuasion. What would you warn of? Where would you draw the line? I hate sounding so conservative about these matters, but sometimes I find my fellows jump the gun too often for fear of insensitivity without giving the issue real thought.

I think that should a work be a bit heavy, a simple;

"Warning: This work contains disturbing, graphic, and sensitive material. Viewer discretion is advised."

should be enough.

See, I have a problem with warnings for things like that because of the specificity and rarity of the issue relative to the frequency of the subject. Phobias, while horrible things, tend to attach themselves to things that most people would consider harmless or merely mildly unpleasant. PTSD triggers, on the other hand, tend to be rarer, more universally troubling things—domestic violence and sexual abuse, for example—and are usually a lot worse for the sufferer. Running screaming from the room is one thing; reliving a rape or a vicious beating is another.

Caveat emptor. I can't protect you from everything that might be a trigger. The range is too wide. The reader will at some point have to assume responsibility for their decision to read.

edited 3rd Jun '14 4:48:44 PM by Night

Ditto. I'm not going to criticize anyone else for using trigger warnings, but I don't intend to use them myself.

I don't know of anything I would be triggered by, but I accept that there are many people who can end up in serious danger by accidental exposure to something. (Trigger warnings for epilepsy are kind of an obvious thing to do.) And shock value, honestly, is overrated - it only affects your audience once, and then quickly subsides, probably before they've even finished reading. Lasting impact derives not from the surprise, but from the content itself. For that matter, plot events that come as a complete surprise are badly foreshadowed, and there are any number of ways to provide an accurate warning that doesn't actually give anything specific away.

On the other hand, though, I also think people often use trigger warnings frivolously. I guess I draw the line, in loose terms, between "traumas" and "phobias". Medically speaking, you can't actually be traumatised by a situation in which you were never at risk. (I unconditionally refuse to provide trigger warnings for spiders... Arachnophobia is possibly the most excessively self-diagnosed mental condition in the world, and running in panic from the room or freezing in terror still aren't usually risky to oneself and others.)

And wow. Huge ninjas.

edited 3rd Jun '14 5:17:18 PM by Noaqiyeum

On a couple of fanfiction lists I've been on, certain authors felt it was so important to keep the surprise of rape or torture a surprise that they not only did not put on trigger warnings, but deliberately rated their stories "G". When caught, they were generally disinvited from the mailing lists, but the damage was already done, and they would often argue in Wall of Text format that their actions were justified because those people claiming to be triggered were "too sensitive."

Now that, I would consider very wrong. I have issues with ratings systems in general, but outright lying with them is pretty indefensible.

I will not use them.

End of story.

Well, since you ask my story is very closely going to revolve around my new job, collecting for the Indigenous Foundation, with the funds going towards helping to stop aboriginal youths from taking up a life of crime. Because that is very much my story where Jessie is an aboriginal cop, she's big, tall, beautiful, strong, tough, athletic, nice, kind, in other words an Ideal Hero and she becomes involved with indigenous youths and tries to prevent them from taking up a life of crime.

I am aware that there would be a number of triggers in writing such a story and it is my hope that some time down the track I can talk to some in the aboriginal community about them. It's not about condemning their race, quite the opposite in fact, but the reality is things such as aboriginal criminals claim they are persecuted because they are black. That is something I very much want to address, as well as how there is a disproportionate number of indigenous criminals. In some ways I would be exposing things some might not like, but in doing so it is my hope that I can write on how to prevent these things from happening.

Now by necessity there are a few triggers, as well as spoilers, one being that several members of the youth gang who are the primary antagonists are aboriginal, but the leader and the worst of them is white. That might be something that could be interpreted as racist, white man being over black man even though this example is negative. The aboriginals for the most part are people Jessie in particular and to some degree police, social workers, ect try and help, are seen as not beyond saving. Were it an aboriginal who was the gang leader and the worst of them that could well be seen as being so much worse.

Or to reveal a massive spoiler, late in the novel one of the gang members is armed, shooting, putting lives at risk and will not take no for an answer so the police are forced to shoot him. I've tentatively made the fourteen year old shot dead aboriginal, again it is nothing racist in doing so but it will address the massive reaction when this sort of thing happens for real, it will address that sadly some are too far gone from saving (part of the motivation for doing the donation collecting is because there have been aboriginals going down the path of the Columbine shooters who are beyond help, and how that can be prevented from happening if there can be help to stop indigenous youths from taking up a life of crime) but being just a youth might be too much of a trigger for some, an aboriginal youth in particular.

Certainly I want to be as respectful as I can be to the indigenous community, by the same token I want to be as confronting on the problems, address the issues as much as being respectful or without being condemned would allow. So it's certainly something I am very much looking at.

On a slightly different topic to go into a bit of detail about what you are talking about SKJAM when Australia had a R rating for games last year I was shocked, shocked that the content or trigger warning for Metro: Last Light was for sexual violence and rape. This being right after seeing Dead Island: Riptide in stores, the Zombie Bait edition, the trailer and having somehow missed the storm that was the first game's trailer did not help. And I am disheartened whenever I see sexual violence as a content or trigger warning. With that said, these are tame in comparison to film and television, or even in games that hold a lesser rating. The allusion is there for sure, but I think what we see of Faith in Buffy the Vampire Slayer is alluded to and portrayed as a rapist more.

I'm not sure if I would say it's a trigger, I had been all over the Faith example to the point I discover and point out that one of her first scenes hints at it and later ask if I am going over the top in saying she is a rapist. I do think it is disappointing both ways in that sexual violence is used in a few games as well as how positively mild they are in comparison to other works and the content that may or may not merit an R rating. My views may differ from other people's particularly the Australian censors but if you are going to have an R rating either use it when sexual violence is the whole point (say the human trafficking in Watch_Dogs was the whole game) or don't even bring it up and have it as a catch all adult themes (the suicide in Riptide) and the other content or triggers that would earn it such a rating.

I have to say at first I didn't really understand trigger warnings and opposed them, then I did understand them and I still oppose them, at least the way they are commonly used.

First of all there is a difference between being reminded of an experience, and reliving it. Text in general only does the former, real life situations do the latter. Unless someone read you a certain story before raping you as a child, a text is unlikely to give you the feeling to be in the situation you were before. At best, trigger warnings can only avoid reminding you about your past, but even that doesn't really work. I mean for me trigger warnings - even if not actually relevant for me - read like this:
"Do you remember the trauma you had? That horrible thing that happened? This story might contain references to your trauma. So please remember all about it and determine if the story has similarities. For your protection, of course. I absolutely don't want to remind you have that bad events in the past. And I don't want you to think about white elephants."

So, if you want to give trigger warnings, just do a quick content summary and avoid words like "trigger-warning", "trigger" or "content-warning" for example. The concept of a trigger warning is imho useful only in situations were the idea actually originated from - in semi-private settings like self-help groups.

I think a general 'This work contains mature or disturbing themes and content. Please read/watch/whatever at your own risk' should be sufficient for most people- really sensitive/easily triggered audience members could go online or ask a friend to screen something for them. That being said, I understand why people would put more specific warnings on their work.

In general, I appreciate trigger-warnings because I have issues that are very common triggers (depression and abuse). I don't freak out when I watch or read something and get surprised for whatever reason, but I appreciate the fore-warning because it helps me brace myself in case I do remember what I went through.

It makes sense in theory, but the whole POINT of media is to make you feel/experience something vicariously through what you watch/read. Hence, trigger warnings are very useful because even if you can't cover EVERYONE'S potential triggers or reactions, you can at least try to get a general "Trigger warning: This has mature situations" or something like that can avoid spoilers.

Trigger warnings show that you have respect for your audience and you want them to be prepared for whatever's happening in your story. If you want to do it without spoiling them, then give a general "content warning" type of thing so they know SOMETHING is about to go down.

And whatever you do, don't do what SKJAM mentioned. Lying and rating something G when they've got VERY unfriendly subject matter is just stupid.

As a variable w = [-10:10], how sensible do you think this decision is?

(Found via this article from the opposition.)

I'd say that trigger warnings on university courses are a good idea, and all the people whining about 'paranoia about giving offense' really need to get hit over the head with the clue stick. Triggering PTSD flashbacks and anxiety attacks is a much more serious thing than simply causing offence, and if trigger warnings help people avoid that (by allowing them to prepare themselves ahead of time, mostly), then that's surely a good thing? I've yet to see a coherent argument against their use in this context, anyway.

Books... are a different thing. I'm not sure there. I probably wouldn't use the actual phrase 'trigger warning' (it looks too bloggy and unprofessional), but I can't think of many good reasons not to include a warning of some sort if the book contains (for example) graphic descriptions of rape or something.

@Sharysa
Please note that I made a difference between remembering and reliving something. There's a notable difference between those to issues. The former is, well, just remembering. The latter can be described as the feeling that it happens again, right here, right now, with all the emotional horror that includes.

And while remembering is uncomfortable, it doesn't really compare to "reliving" in severity. Depending on the severity of your experience, remembering is part of your daily life anyway.

I'm not absolutely against summarizing content. This even benefits people who have no relevant unpleasant memories. Maybe you want to read a fun story, not one containing violence and death, independent of any abuse or something like that in the past.

And to be honest, personally I have the feeling that trigger warnings are more demanded by drama queens, than by people with actual PTSD. Drama queens who think what they experienced is the worst thing ever, and who can't imagine how far down it can go, how much worse it can get. Maybe I'm wrong about that. But I did notice that many "normal" people think they know what's going on, while they absolutely don't. Well, I could go on and on, but for now, this is going into a direction that will be a little to personal for me.

Most people with PTSD get triggered by situations, not by content in a story. It's a lot easier to put down a book that is making you uncomfortable than to escape a situation that replicates whatever trauma you experienced. Also, most well-written stories will have content that matches the tone of the piece. Simply by the style of writing in books like Lolita and A Clockwork Orange, one can usually tell that there's going to be mature content to match. If the description is too graphic, you can simply stop reading.

If you're living a life where everyday things such as words on a page are sending you into PTSD flashbacks, then you need to get serious psychological help.

Found this article from a psychiatrist who questions the effectiveness of trigger warnings and argues that the proper response to students with PTSD is to create tools to guide them towards proper treatments.

I have to agree with that. As callous as it sounds, I think it's coddling and dangerous. You can't expect the world to bend around to suit one's desires (or even needs). Pain has a purpose: to alert us to damage, so we can prevent it. If you need a trigger warning, that is in and of itself a warning that you need to seek help.

On a different note, I always wondered what was the point of the warning at the beginning of TV shows. In all likelihood, most people are going to tune in to the channel after it's gone.

I know that there are certain shows that depict dead aborigines for example and there is a warning at the beginning that it may offend some viewers. There had never been, to the best of my knowledge, anything about dead white folks and some may think it is going too far, but the issue may be valid.

Like how we have games these days that warn of the threat of sexual violence. That is something I would be uncomfortable about were it anything on the scale seen in other media. Sure sex, violence, language and such are things kiddies shouldn't see, and if there was a warning about something like suicide I might choose to give it a miss, personal preference. So I guess if you want the trigger warnings then there is a point to them, and having it adult themes is a little ambiguous.

So people who are in the process of being treated for PTSD should just not consume media of any kind?

I don't think that's what he meant, although I agree that it was problematically phrased.

I certainly hope that isn't what he meant.

I've heard the argument that therapists don't use trigger warnings because they're coddling, so the general public shouldn't either and people who rely on them should seek help instead, though, and I find it lacking for two reasons. First, because therapy is not an instant cure, and it's ridiculous to insist that trauma patients insulate themselves from media until they've recovered, as aforementioned. And second, because therapy takes place in a controlled and personal setting that the therapist constantly adjusts to the needs of the patient, which public media won't ever, can't ever, and shouldn't ever try to be.