Editor's note?

[KeithD]

I agree that surprise can be powerful. It surprises me that people who are so willing to recognise the positive side of that power are so reluctant to accept that surprise might also be powerful in the context of "surprising sexual assault survivors with content about sexual assault", or that this might be a harmful surprise.

No one's forcing a sexual assault survivor with triggers to tool around on a pornographic Web site, especially one with a Nonconsent category.


(And sorry about the sr71plt posting. I was checking that account and forgot I was in that account when I posted. You can take that post as being one by keithd.)

 

[Bramblethorn]

I can just imagine the disclaimers that might be attached to famous novels:

Gone with the Wind:
Warning: This novel contains scenes of underage sensuality and pedophiliac desire, racial stereotyping, white supremacy, and celebration of pro-Confederacy views.

Charlotte's Web:
Warning: This novel contains many scenes with a spider, so people with arachnophobia are warned not to read it. It also contains scenes related to violence against animals and unethical farming practices, and stereotyping and speciesism relating to various animal species, such as pigs, rats, and sheep.

Every single edition of Charlotte's Web that I've ever seen has a picture of a spider on the cover, along with the word "web". This might be considered a pretty strong clue that it contains a spider.

It:
Warning: This novel contains extensive scenes involving a clown. People with fears of clowns are cautioned not to read this novel.

There have been many different editions of IT, but again, most of them feature Pennywise prominently on the cover. Short of retitling to "IT: THE CREEPY CLOWN OF DERRY WHO LIVES IN THE SEWERS AND KILLS PEOPLE", it's hard to see how they could be any more obvious about the fact that this book features creepy clown content.

But if an author provides that kind of information as a "content note" or "trigger warning" instead of in the picture and the title, then it's bad and ridiculous and harmful to the reader's enjoyment?

*scratches head*

ETA: although none of those examples would actually be "trigger warnings" per se, because none of those things are common PTSD triggers. They're phobias, which ain't the same thing, and a lot of the ruckus about trigger warnings comes from people not knowing what words mean.

 

[Bramblethorn]

No one's forcing a sexual assault survivor with triggers to tool around on a pornographic Web site, especially one with a Nonconsent category.

I think we can do better than "nobody's forcing them to read it". There are rather a lot of assault survivors in the world, and many do enjoy some kinds of porn. If we can make the site friendly to such people with something as minor as a content note here and there, that seems like an obvious choice.

(I've already said that anybody who reads in the NC category has only themselves to blame if they encounter NC content; this thread started out with discussion of stories with NC content outside the NC category, and my comments here are directed at that.)

(And sorry about the sr71plt posting. I was checking that account and forgot I was in that account when I posted. You can take that post as being one by keithd.)

No worries, I didn't even notice that. Your posting voice is distinctive enough that I tend to recognise your posts from the text alone, without even registering the username.

 

[KeithD]

I think we can do better than "nobody's forcing them to read it". There are rather a lot of assault survivors in the world, and many do enjoy some kinds of porn. If we can make the site friendly to such people with something as minor as a content note here and there, that seems like an obvious choice.

Umm, no, because then you are still taking on the responsibility to be the babysitter for a hundred different and varied presumed squeams for thousands of different readers (while ignoring hundreds of other possible phobias) and not helping them to gain control of themselves and be responsible for their own lives and actions. You are being an enabler of them not growing up and becoming independent adults.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Umm, no, because then you are still taking on the responsibility to be the babysitter for a hundred different and varied presumed squeams for thousands of different readers (while ignoring hundreds of other possible phobias) and not helping them to gain control of themselves and be responsible for their own lives and actions. You are being an enabler of them not growing up and becoming independent adults.

Can you please point me to where I advocated doing anything on the basis of "a hundred different and varied presumed squeams"?

I'm not arguing that people should warn for every possible trigger. I don't think anybody in this thread has argued that. I'm talking about one specific, easily foreseeable, very common trigger. Please don't invent strawmen.

(Also, as per my edit above, "phobias" and "triggers" are not the same thing, and the difference is important here.)

 

[KeithD]

Can you please point me to where I advocated doing anything on the basis of "a hundred different and varied presumed squeams"?

I'm saying that's how many (and more) you'd have to account for once you started catering to any of a thousand reader's individual triggers. I'm not saying you advocated it; I'm saying you haven't accounted for that being where this would have to lead once you started down that road.

Why is it so hard to see that it's a person's own responsibility to come to and use this Web site--or not?

 

[KeithD]

I find it 'funny' that people need to come up with ridiculous examples to ridicule a good point. A bad example never makes a good point.

What ridiculous example and what good point, re this thread?

 

[KeithD]

One ridiculous example: not intended to become personal, but Charlotte's web, and the need to warn for spiders, seems exaggerated.

Good point: it is debatable to use certain warnings for some stories; debatable is NOT the same as correct, but there are good points for both sides. You don't have to agree with them, but saying they are not debatable makes you look very narrow minded.

Thanks. Nothing I was focused on.

 

[SimonDoom]

One ridiculous example: not intended to become personal, but Charlotte's web, and the need to warn for spiders, seems exaggerated.

Good point: it is debatable to use certain warnings for some stories; debatable is NOT the same as correct, but there are good points for both sides. You don't have to agree with them, but saying they are not debatable makes you look very narrow minded.

My novel examples were intended to be humorous, not serious, although I dont think they are that far off as illustrations of where the logic of triggering can go if carried to its logical conclusion.

 

[JasonClearwater]

I've had an editor's note once before, indicating a story contained content out of its category (incest in a GM story, because fuck it, what trumps what?).

I see it less as preventing PTSD in the reader, more as preventing the author from being roasted alive by 'surprised' readers.

On the one hand, I agree with Keith D; if you have triggers, it's your responsibility to do your best to avoid them. I say this as someone who was assaulted as a teenager, and who's experienced PTSD since, triggered, ironically, by the discussion around the #metoo movement. Like many, I tend to sexualise my trauma as a way of keeping it managed, so tend to wander towards non-consent content, rather than away from it.

But if you're not in the non-con section of the site, I think it's fair to have an author offer a warning that non-consensual content's in their work so you can avoid it. I don't feel that a simple 'contains non-con' warning is likely to be much of a spoiler-alert. It doesn't give the story away, but if someone's feeling fragile, they can skip your story. And fair enough, too. I've seen people triggered (triggered meaning re-traumatised, not just driven to write an angry diatribe) by unexpected rape/non-consent content, and knowing an episode of PTSD might last an hour or weeks, or even months, I'd rather include a warning than see someone go through that for the sake of protecting my plot.

I sometimes forget to includes those warnings if I'm honest, but this thread's reminded me I shouldn't slack off in that regard.

That said, other than non-con, and perhaps horror, I can't see much reason for putting in a warning for the reader's sake; perhaps incest, as in real life I'm fairly certain incest is generally traumatic. Otherwise, if you're writing in one trump category, and you don't want to get nailed to the wall in the less-fun way by surprising your readers with another trump category's content, prefacing it with a warning isn't a bad idea.

A note: to my mind, you shouldn't have to 'warn' people about GM/cuck content, but I do anyway, when I write outside of GM, since homophobia always seems to come with a side-serving of rage. Technically, an expression of sexuality shouldn't be inherently 'traumatic' to a reader, and I admire those who refuse to include warnings when they have GM content in other categories, who have their work buried in a landslide of hatred, despite the hundreds of likes their work accumulates. Hate from entitled wankers who just want the whole world to be straight and bland and binary, where only women are raped, and men are always in control, and who can't stand anything outside of those parameters; those are the truly fragile snowflakes. Not the genuine trauma survivors who just want to enjoy their porn without having to adopt the foetal position for the next three days.

Anyway, that aside, the editors' warnings don't bother me, and I try to eliminate the need for them by calling out crossover content in my author's notes whenever I think a story needs it.

 

[SimonDoom]

Every single edition of Charlotte's Web that I've ever seen has a picture of a spider on the cover, along with the word "web". This might be considered a pretty strong clue that it contains a spider.



There have been many different editions of IT, but again, most of them feature Pennywise prominently on the cover. Short of retitling to "IT: THE CREEPY CLOWN OF DERRY WHO LIVES IN THE SEWERS AND KILLS PEOPLE", it's hard to see how they could be any more obvious about the fact that this book features creepy clown content.

But if an author provides that kind of information as a "content note" or "trigger warning" instead of in the picture and the title, then it's bad and ridiculous and harmful to the reader's enjoyment?

*scratches head*

ETA: although none of those examples would actually be "trigger warnings" per se, because none of those things are common PTSD triggers. They're phobias, which ain't the same thing, and a lot of the ruckus about trigger warnings comes from people not knowing what words mean.

As I wrote elsewhere, my three novel postings were meant to be an amusing comment on the warning concept rather than serious illustrations of its application.

I concede you have a fair point concerning the use of such warnings in the context of non-consent/rape. If a story with such elements is posted in another category a reader may be startled and upset. I'm not persuaded that such warnings really are necessary at a site like this, but my mind isn't closed to the idea. I have two concerns, one of which is illustrated by the OP's own story.

One is that the warning concept may be over-applied. I think that's the case with the OP's story. It has elements of reluctance and economic duress leading to the heroine's nude exposure, but it's not really a true non-consent or rape story. I think the use of the warning does a disservice to the story and may scare people away from it.

The other point is the one KeithD raises. While you may argue for a limited application of the warning/disclaimer concept, the concept, once applied, is likely to grow until warnings and disclaimers are requested for all sorts of things people don't like. I'm not sure if it's possible to quantify this, but without doubt it is happening. People call for books to be removed from libraries because they contain the "N" word, or have other features that people deem racist or sexist or transphobic or hostile to a particular religious belief or objectionable in some other way. I do believe there's a moral hazard associated with the adoption of warnings -- that it normalizes hypersensitivity. It's very hard to quantify this or point to evidence upon which everyone is going to agree, and you may not. But I feel like there is evidence of it all around us. The attitude toward "offensive" material in art is very different from what it was 30 years ago, and I think it's a bad trend.

People can disagree, I suppose. I'm a middle-aged, straight, non-religious white man, and I take offense at very little. Others have different perspectives and I respect that.

 

[Hypoxia]

This is overthought, people.

Without pay, we authors produce smut for a large audience. Nobody forces them to read, or us to write. A tiny fraction of readers who don't like what we write throw bad words at us. We can ignore whiners because they don't know who or where we are, or we can let them bother us. I don't let them bother me.

Them who dislike your or my writing can read something else. I am not defined by a happy audience. Are you?

 

[Zeb_Carter]

This is overthought, people.

Without pay, we authors produce smut for a large audience. Nobody forces them to read, or us to write. A tiny fraction of readers who don't like what we write throw bad words at us. We can ignore whiners because they don't know who or where we are, or we can let them bother us. I don't let them bother me.

Them who dislike your or my writing can read something else. I am not defined by a happy audience. Are you?

Agreed, if they say they don't like something what are they reading it for? 'cuz they're trolls.

I write for myself. I do have those who like what I write and express their appreciation.

For those who complain about typos, grammar, etc., I have one question... What do you expect for free?

 

[Bramblethorn]

I'm saying that's how many (and more) you'd have to account for once you started catering to any of a thousand reader's individual triggers. I'm not saying you advocated it; I'm saying you haven't accounted for that being where this would have to lead once you started down that road.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

 

[Vix_Giovanni]

This is overthought, people.

Without pay, we authors produce smut for a large audience. Nobody forces them to read, or us to write. A tiny fraction of readers who don't like what we write throw bad words at us. We can ignore whiners because they don't know who or where we are, or we can let them bother us. I don't let them bother me.

Them who dislike your or my writing can read something else. I am not defined by a happy audience. Are you?

ALL THIS.

Throwing in my two cents. I thought the consensus was Laurel’s only added these editor notes to stories with incest and non-consent. The reason could be to inform readers. It could be to protect readers’ sensitivities. It could be for a number of other reasons.

I thought the decision was strategic and a solid business decision. My stories are a legal question (when is incest not incest) and toe the line. I agree with her that readers should know there’s incest content if I post outside of I/T. There’s some writers who, for example, post entire stories in Romance that are between twin siblings, or thinly veiled blackmail non-con.

I think it’s odd we’re debating the effects and affects of words when we are smut writers. We literally are demonstrating the power of the written word on people’s thoughts and physical actions everyday!

Hate words and trigger words have same/similar visceral effects on people as erotica. You don’t have to have PTSD to respond negatively/fearfully to a story. That’s why politicians and propagandists and marketers use words the way they do. Some writings have less literary and commercial value than their hatemongering.

Here’s a Polish study about the direct effects of hate speech on prejudice desensitization, and a NYT opinion article on the neuroscience of hate speech.

 

[SimonDoom]

ALL THIS.

Throwing in my two cents. I thought the consensus was Laurel’s only added these editor notes to stories with incest and non-consent. The reason could be to inform readers. It could be to protect readers’ sensitivities. It could be for a number of other reasons.

I thought the decision was strategic and a solid business decision. My stories are a legal question (when is incest not incest) and toe the line. I agree with her that readers should know there’s incest content if I post outside of I/T. There’s some writers who, for example, post entire stories in Romance that are between twin siblings, or thinly veiled blackmail non-con.

I think it’s odd we’re debating the effects and affects of words when we are smut writers. We literally are demonstrating the power of the written word on people’s thoughts and physical actions everyday!

Hate words and trigger words have same/similar visceral effects on people as erotica. You don’t have to have PTSD to respond negatively/fearfully to a story. That’s why politicians and propagandists and marketers use words the way they do. Some writings have less literary and commercial value than their hatemongering.

Here’s a Polish study about the direct effects of hate speech on prejudice desensitization, and a NYT opinion article on the neuroscience of hate speech.

A problem with relying on a study like this is it has nothing to do with fiction. Stories that contain words that offend (such as the N word) or relate events that may disturb or trigger people (such as stories that contain rape scenes) are not hate speech. Does reading such stories desensitize people to violence or giving offense? I don't know, but I doubt it. Readers of Huckleberry Finn will encounter the N word used many times. I very much doubt that readers of that story are more likely to be desensitized or to hate other people. The opposite seems more likely to me.

 

[Hypoxia]

I thought the consensus was Laurel’s only added these editor notes to stories with incest and non-consent.

Laurel warned of GM content in an LW story. GM was a sideline, not central. She didn't bother to mention it was GM Incest. If Laurel sees more trumping content in a story, she's more likely to post in that category. I've had Group moved to Incest despite cousins, and LW moved to Non-Con despite non-resisting.

The reason could be to inform readers. It could be to protect readers’ sensitivities. It could be for a number of other reasons.

Or Laurel may slip warnings in with a sly grin, giving the trolls a heads-up, to provoke them.

 

[Vix_Giovanni]

Thanks for clarifying that, Hypoxia ! And ay, yay, yay; I’ll have to try to stay on Laurel’s good side haha!

A problem with relying on a study like this is it has nothing to do with fiction. Stories that contain words that offend (such as the N word) or relate events that may disturb or trigger people (such as stories that contain rape scenes) are not hate speech. Does reading such stories desensitize people to violence or giving offense? I don't know, but I doubt it. Readers of Huckleberry Finn will encounter the N word used many times. I very much doubt that readers of that story are more likely to be desensitized or to hate other people. The opposite seems more likely to me.

Fake news/ Alt Facts are fictional but they’re reported on Fox (and other media) in the guise of news all the time. Propaganda is fictional. But as noted by the CIA:

“Books differ from all other propaganda media primarily because one single book can significantly change the reader’s attitude and action to an extent unmatched by the impact of any other single medium.” (Church, Bk. I 193).

I still find the distinction you’re trying to make kind of odd. Yes, hate speech is a legal term and so there’s a strict scrutiny standard of review. There’s likewise a standard of review whether a written act is an assault. I listen to a lot of rap: every use of the N word etc isn’t hate speech. I watch Law & Order SVU: every description of rape isn’t offensive.

But don’t ignore information on the broad just because it doesn’t meet the specific; words have effect. The effects of hate speech are worth knowing, and are used in fiction. We wouldn’t argue that words make readers more sensitive and empathetic. I find it odd that as writers we’re debating that they can desensitize.

There are studies that people are desensitized when exposed to fictional violence in literature (and herein, article by B. Gavin.)

Do people learn/become desensitized to violence through fictional novels? Here’s a Smithsonian exhibit with Nazi kids books. This is an article about novels touted in the Alt-Right and KKK. These organizations have used fictional literature to desensitize.

I’m not sure why you keep bringing up Huck Finn. I agree that Huck Finn is an empathetic anti-racism book but I think it’s a poor choice of an example to this point. Sure, Hemingway said it was one of the first great American novels. But the NAACP has said it’s dangerous and racially desensitizing.

It’s not canonic without contest. Most people I know my age have never read it (I graduated HS in 2007; I read Huck Finn but not in school.) You may bemoan that; but is it any more “critical” to read Huck Finn than to read Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry or Things Fall Apart or Kaffir Boy or Autobio of Frederick Douglass?

It’s controversial whether the book has more literary value than racial desensitization among children (n.b.—J. Reinhardt’s order agrees the language of Huck Finn is uniquely demeaning but that judicial rule over all classroom reading would be too chilling an effect on first and fourteenth amend. rights. The 9th Cir. returned the case to the trial court to probe the allegations of race harassment in the child’s classroom arising after reading the book... that’s shorthand for saying the 9th Cir. believed the child proved the desensitizing effect and resulting harassment.) And it’s arguable Mark Twain intentionally utilized the strong effect of words on readers to urge an empathetic confrontation of race desensitization.

 

[SimonDoom]

Thanks for clarifying that, Hypoxia ! And ay, yay, yay; I’ll have to try to stay on Laurel’s good side haha!





Fake news/ Alt Facts are fictional but they’re reported on Fox (and other media) in the guise of news all the time. Propaganda is fictional. But as noted by the CIA:

“Books differ from all other propaganda media primarily because one single book can significantly change the reader’s attitude and action to an extent unmatched by the impact of any other single medium.” (Church, Bk. I 193).

I still find the distinction you’re trying to make kind of odd. Yes, hate speech is a legal term and so there’s a strict scrutiny standard of review. There’s likewise a standard of review whether a written act is an assault. I listen to a lot of rap: every use of the N word etc isn’t hate speech. I watch Law & Order SVU: every description of rape isn’t offensive.

But don’t ignore information on the broad just because it doesn’t meet the specific; words have effect. The effects of hate speech are worth knowing, and are used in fiction. We wouldn’t argue that words make readers more sensitive and empathetic. I find it odd that as writers we’re debating that they can desensitize.

There are studies that people are desensitized when exposed to fictional violence in literature (and herein, article by B. Gavin.)

Do people learn/become desensitized to violence through fictional novels? Here’s a Smithsonian exhibit with Nazi kids books. This is an article about novels touted in the Alt-Right and KKK. These organizations have used fictional literature to desensitize.

I’m not sure why you keep bringing up Huck Finn. I agree that Huck Finn is an empathetic anti-racism book but I think it’s a poor choice of an example to this point. Sure, Hemingway said it was one of the first great American novels. But the NAACP has said it’s dangerous and racially desensitizing.

It’s not canonic without contest. Most people I know my age have never read it (I graduated HS in 2007; I read Huck Finn but not in school.) You may bemoan that; but is it any more “critical” to read Huck Finn than to read Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry or Things Fall Apart or Kaffir Boy or Autobio of Frederick Douglass?

It’s controversial whether the book has more literary value than racial desensitization among children (n.b.—J. Reinhardt’s order agrees the language of Huck Finn is uniquely demeaning but that judicial rule over all classroom reading would be too chilling an effect on first and fourteenth amend. rights. The 9th Cir. returned the case to the trial court to probe the allegations of race harassment in the child’s classroom arising after reading the book... that’s shorthand for saying the 9th Cir. believed the child proved the desensitizing effect and resulting harassment.) And it’s arguable Mark Twain intentionally utilized the strong effect of words on readers to urge an empathetic confrontation of race desensitization.

I think both you and Bramblethorn raise good points, and that both of you support your points with facts. This is a good example of an issue where different people make different factual assumptions that may or may not be correct, myself included. I personally DO think that Huck Finn, or the first two-thirds of it, anyway, is one of a handful of masterworks in the American literary canon and that any effort to push it out is seriously misguided. But there's no objective way to debate that point. I graduated from high school a generation before you, so my perspective is very different.

I enjoy a debate where those on the other side take the issue seriously and marshal facts to support their position. You've got me thinking. It's nice to have an intelligent discussion in social media for a change.