Thread: Trigger Warnings Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020335
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Professors at Cambridge University have listed trigger warnings on some of Shakespeare's work. Titus Andronicus specifically.
I'm not sure how I feel about this. One one hand, attempting to deal with sensitivity is progress, but on the other hand, we seem to be creating hyper-sensitive people.
For myself, what triggers unpleasant memory isn't predictable so perhaps I am not seeing this in the same way normal people do.
There is a line between "suck it up and deal" and living in an hermetically sealed room. It isn't the same for everyone, of course, and too long has the former camp held sway. But academia seems to be shifting rapidly towards the latter.
Again, I am not planting my flag in this, I'm conflicted.
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
Having lived a safe life, and knowing I have, I tend to err the on the side of caution.
When I first heard about trigger warnings I thought the world was turning to shit with delicate snowflakes unable to cope. At times I still do...
But if a trigger warning (we need a better name) helps someone who has gone through rape, or violence, prepare themself as they need to, and not be surprised, I am for it.
Not sure where I stand on turning down texts, based on warnings, if that was an option. As I said, apart from some minor bullying my life has been safe. So it is easy for me to read/view most texts.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
Trigger warnings are similar to movie ratings IMHO, they are intended to give you a heads-up as to what to expect.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Trigger warnings are similar to movie ratings IMHO, they are intended to give you a heads-up as to what to expect.
That would appear to be what was intended in the case cited in the OP. But nevertheless I share lilBuddha's interest - and opinion - in the matter.
Having said that, I'm never quite sure whether citing what happens in universities is a good idea beyond discussion of its own set of merits. Unis are a particular sort of place.
Posted by Egeria (# 4517) on
:
In the case of Titus Andronicus and similar works, I don't see why there should be a fuss about trigger warnings. I wish there had been notices on some of the books (and movies) that I've read (and seen), so I would have been better prepared. And I've no history of trauma. Incidentally, I was watching Richard III one night with a grad school acquaintance, and she ended up leaving the room.
When I teach a class that covers the subject of mummies, I mention at the beginning that I'm going to show some slides of mummies. I don't know--someone in the class may simply feel a little uncomfortable with pictures of human remains. No one has ever objected to my slides, but still I feel it's better to let students know ahead of time. (I've had to look away from the screen during a talk on experimental mummification!)
It's pretty silly on the other hand to howl about the word "health" as a trigger word, or object to a mention of cupcakes in an advertisement.
As for the word "snowflakes," that seems to be a current far-right favorite slur for attacking people, especially students, who object to racism and misogyny. When it turns up in a blog post or newspaper column, the author immediately loses any credibility with me.
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
sometimes I think that life should come with a trigger warning.
Huia
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I'm not sure how I feel about this. One one hand, attempting to deal with sensitivity is progress, but on the other hand, we seem to be creating hyper-sensitive people.
I tend to agree with your conflict ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I'm a little bemused by the fact that the trigger warning is attached to the lecture. This is Cambridge - if you show up to a lecture on Titus Andronicus, it is reasonable to expect that you have at least read the play, in which case you'll know what happens in it.
I think the warnings are fair game - in general, if I was to expose someone to something outside the generally-accepted rules of polite society, I'd want to warn them about it. But some things are self-evident: if you're a medical student, you're going to see - in photo, video, and real life - all kinds of gruesome injuries and illnesses. You're going to see people who have been beaten, tortured and raped, and you're going to have to deal with it.
I tend to think the same goes for literature - you're going to need to expect to read the canon, and you should be aware of the topics that appear. I'd probably put a special warning if I was going to screen a particularly graphic TV adaptation of Lear or something - that's something that people might not expect.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
In college I knew a marine biology master candidate who was really bothered by the fact that orcas killed harbor seals and sea lions, the animals she studied. I couldn't figure out how she made it through her undergrad work let alone how she would sound in her orals.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
I far prefer a warning of some sort to the unwarranted amendment of the work. I saw a production of the rarely performed Merchant of Venice recently. It was a great production, pulled no punches, and I took it as a very powerful and disturbing attack on racism. At the end, they put in a scene concerning Shylock's daughter which took the edge off it a bit, and I was a little disappointed. However, the company is experienced, feted, and does almost exclusively Shakespeare so I wasn't too disappointed. I was more disappointed with the overuse of slow walking in a production of Julius Ceasar, but again, the director of that production has developed into a very fine actor indeed, and blew me away with her interpretation of Richard III.
Bottom line: Bell Shakespeare can do what they like with the Bard. I am their devoted fan. Anybody else better be prepared to justify themselves. RSC, you get a pass too. I haven't seen the production, but I strongly suspect that the New Yorkers who trumped up Julius Ceasar were too heavy-handed and should have let the work speak for itself.
Relevant Bottom Line: Warnings are fine. Messing with the work is bad, but there is a long tradition of changing the plays in the course of developing a production and that's fine. Just don't put anyone in a Trumpsuit. Nobody wants to see that.
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
Caesar, Mr Toad; Caesar.
quote:
Originally posted by Egeria:
As for the word "snowflakes," that seems to be a current far-right favorite slur for attacking people, especially students, who object to racism and misogyny. When it turns up in a blog post or newspaper column, the author immediately loses any credibility with me.
I know of Marxists journalists who use the term for the poor lefty who can't handle any criticism, considering it a personal attack, or who seemingly take offence at anything and on behalf on anyone, even when not warranted. Also heard them referred to as "the offence brigade". So I see it coming from both sides.
[ 22. October 2017, 07:06: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
As a general tendency, IMHO society has become far too accommodating to the tender feelings of snowflakes, both imaginary ones and in some cases real ones. If a person can't cope with the issues raised by literature from less sensitive eras, they should not be studying it. It's bad for a person to be allowed to get the idea that they are entitled to have either the past or other cultures sanitised to suit their sensitivities.
I also fear that it also makes people inadequate to challenging some categories of evil when they encounter it in their own society.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
Having a friend with PTSD as a result of childhood abuse, and a wife whose depression is highly susceptible to outside stimuli I'm pretty happy with the idea of trigger warnings to allow people to prepare themselves mentally or, where appropriate, absent themselves from proceedings if something is going to be too hard for them to cope with. The idea that people with mental health issues just need to toughen up and stop being "hyper-sensitive" can piss off. Where I draw the line is demands that topics be avoided entirely in media or in academia because they might be triggering for some people. Give people information and help them practise self-care.
Oh, and anyone who uses the term "snowflake" without irony around me is likely to see (metaphorically) what happens to a snowflake hit by a flamethrower.
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The idea that people with mental health issues just need to toughen up and stop being "hyper-sensitive" can piss off.
Agree. But I notice, and here I say I am one of the afflicted (bipolar), there is some quite unhelpful behaviour pushed by the media with the aim of helping, as if the mere fact the issue is raised, and people can "share" [how Western middle-class!], solves the problem. Or the need to push Lifeline and Beyond Blue [help agencies] after every story that even mentions mental illness [e.g. story on gunman who was mentally ill...give everyone the numbers to help them afterwards "if this story has distressed you"]. It's the bloody news...he shot people...it should distress you. Strangely after reporting on 250 dead overseas we get no such aides to help us in our distress. I'm all for the normalisation of mental health, but there are ways to go about it.
As someone who goes up and down, I honestly do struggle to find a happy medium between avoiding anything that may set me off and going in gung-ho to not let it beat me. But I know what sets me off, as those who have it far worse than me do, so a bit of warning on the unexpected can be a good thing. I can't imagine what a rape victim must feel seeing a sudden, unexpected rape scene in a cinema. Perhaps nothing. Perhaps a hell of a lot. In that case I would want them informed.
And while I think it a good word, I'll try and delete snowflake from my vocabulary here to keep me safe from flamethrowers.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
‘Gunpowder’ was on TV last night.
Goodness me, I was looking away for half of the programme! We were a bloodthirsty lot in the 17th century.
Gunpowder
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
Is there any reasonable objection to discrete warnings? Do they do harm?
Should there, though, be a warning that "The following trigger warning may cause offence on the grounds that it assumes you are an ignoramus"?
Personally I think a lot are silly, some are not ( but no real harm is done.
And it's probably a lot to do with avoiding complaints or even litigation.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
A (very) conservative friend of mine posted a picture of football players kneeling during the national anthem. His caption was to the effect of
quote:
So you deride those liberals who don't like statues about the Civil War and now you are all upset by the sight of players kneeling - Snowflakes.
I remember defending an art professor I had in college who was accused of sexually harassing a female student because he showed Robert Mapplethorpe photos to his photography class.
At the time I remember thinking "How can anyone get to be old enough to go to college and not know that they might see nudes in a college photography class?"
Since then I have come to perceive that:
1. Everyone views every experience through the lens of their own history.
2. Being offended is a way of trying to control your environment.
Somewhere there can be a balance between not deliberately, or carelessly, providing offense or trauma and letting the vocal control the conversation.
As to whether or not someone has gone too far with trigger warnings, college students are entitled to know what they getting into. On the other hand a simple "this play contains violence" gives warning without judgment and gives dignity to the right of college students to make their own minds up about things. Trigger warnings does not give dignity to the ability of college students to figure out things after adequate warning and seems a bit patronizing.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
AB--
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Trigger warnings are similar to movie ratings IMHO, they are intended to give you a heads-up as to what to expect.
Yes. Great way to put it.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
E--
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I also fear that it also makes people inadequate to challenging some categories of evil when they encounter it in their own society.
Actually, they've probably *already* run into evil, and *that's* why they're sensitive.
Kind of like with watching horror movies: People who love them may think they're perfectly normal, and anyone who doesn't love those movies is a wimp. OTOH, some people can't stand horror movies because they've already had horror and massive fear in their own lives.
Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on
:
The trigger warning is a good compromise. Nothing is avoided or glossed over, but people who know they don't cope well with certain topics can at least prepare themselves, even if they don't choose to stay away. There may well be students in the audience who have been assaulted or abused and who get panic attacks or flashbacks. It's better to know it's a "trigger" play (and Titus Andronicus is truly horrible) so you can mentally prepare yourself beforehand and sit near an exit for the lecture.
In a way it's more necessary to have trigger warnings for a tiny minority of lectures than warnings on films. Most people don't watch horror films as part of an academic qualification (OK, maybe some do). And while it's socially acceptable to scream, shed a few tears under cover of darkness, or pop outside for a comfort break in a film, you can't do those in a lecture.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
Ian C. wrote:
quote:
Caesar, Mr Toad; Caesar. [Smile]
Oh God, I've meddled with Shakespeare. Right now I need a running around the room screaming emote.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
A good point made in the comments section on a Guardian article on the subject.
“Aren't these easily offended people the same sort who campaign to get their version of the truth made the only truth?”
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
Firstly, minor rant about missing the point on the topic (while generally agreeing with many of his posts), which I think is relevant.
quote:
David Mitchell in the guardian
The first was that Cambridge University lecture timetables are being labelled with “trigger warnings” about the plots of various literary works, including The Bacchae and Titus Andronicus. So English literature undergraduates are being protected from the knowledge of, among other things, what one of Shakespeare’s plays is about, in case it upsets them. [/QB]
NO, NO NO, they are being protected WITH the knowledge of, ...
That said, I was kind of relieved that I found what the plot of Lucrece was before attending a performance/recital but after committing to attend it (for it was well done and moving, but to have wanted to go would have been creepy).
[x post with a post linking to the article]
[ 22. October 2017, 12:47: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
A good point made in the comments section on a Guardian article on the subject.
“Aren't these easily offended people the same sort who campaign to get their version of the truth made the only truth?”
I agree, and I agree with David Mitchell's article.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
For those with genuine trauma in their past, foreknowledge of exposure is kindness.
For those who have brought this small measure of kindness into disrepute by co-opting the language of mental illness in order to effect social control, then they should be ashamed of themselves. Assuming shame in itself is not triggering.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
For those with genuine trauma in their past, foreknowledge of exposure is kindness.
As someone who has had more than one traumatic incident and who must navigate more than one prejudice; it is not this simple. If I am in a situation which discusses something I've gone through (or my very identity), I am usually OK. (A class, a talk, an online forum) Because, I think, there is a foreknowledge that certain topics will arise. Not because there are warnings posted, but because this is the way life works. I more often find myself vividly recalling traumatic events in random situations that seemingly have no connection to those events. There is no possibility of trigger labelling this. Now, this is me, and I do not presume everyone operates the same.
-----------------
Shakespeare is a grey area, to me. How can one be in a uni class and have no clue as to the background? But it is possible, of course.
But there are instances which boggle the mind.
Trigger warning on a A Jewish history class that the Holocaust might be mentioned? A religion and Civil Rights class needs trigger warnings about its very subject?
Seems mental.
In the past, "suck it up and deal" was very much the rule of the day. This does not work for many situations, but that wasn't spoken of either, so damaged people would be ignored.
Trigger warning every possible trigger is impossible and the attempt is more harmful to progress than helpful to sufferers.
The right road is in the middle of that. Somewhere.
We are toughened and strengthened by the adversity we live through.
We are broken by the lack of sympathy and support.
The right road is in the middle of that. Somewhere.
Safe spaces make us feel a needed protection.
Safe spaces isolate us from the real world and each other.
The right road is in the middle of that. Somewhere.
For every-time I think to my self "what a precious snowflake" there is another where I bemoan a complete lack of understanding what another is going through.
So I don't know.
[ 22. October 2017, 14:30: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
One problem with trigger warnings is that once expected and you forget to give one, now you're in trouble. Like bicycle helmets, they appear valuable but may not actually prevent injury and may create unforeseen problems. I would like to see actual data that they actually do something, and more than testimonials of some individuals saying they are good.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
You mean studies like this?
Jengie
Posted by wild haggis (# 15555) on
:
I was horrified to hear of these "warnings" in uni lectures. These aren't 8 year olds! Surely uni is a place to discuss, discover and form opinions that may be different from where you started out. Uni is a place of discovery, not being wrapped in cotton wool.
Goodness, there would be precious little literature that I could read if I judged everything as a no go area because of what has happened to me throughout my life.
Reading things outwith your experience, exploring uncomfortable issues and hearing views different from your own, helps you clarify your own thinking. That is surely what learning at this level is about.
It's not just reading and discussing everything you agree with. You will never grow morally, intellectually and spiritually if you cut yourself off from everything disagreeable.
When it comes to that, should we then be telling the Christian salvation story - betrayal, gory death etc.
How silly can you get! Talk about wrapping people in cotton wool...............Thinking of that: when cotton wool meets water it goes soggy and disintegrates.
Is that a metaphor?
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Not sure what I think of trigger warnings generally, but they do strike me as fairly pointless on twitter (which is where I tend to encounter them) because by the time you've processed the warning you've read the tweet.
Plus I don't see how putting trigger warning on links to mainstream coverage of the Harvey Winestien case helps. Typically these reads as TW: sexual harassment. But then, you are already thinking about sexual harassment so how does it help.
A warning as to whether something contains explicit description or visuals is of more value I think.
When I was studying gcse history we went to the Imperial War Museum and they had a video installation on the liberation on the concentration camps. There was a warning before the entry to the exhibit, I remember us debating with the teacher about going in to it. I still remember what I saw - though I don't think that is a bad thing. But they didn't call it a trigger warning, and I wonder whether the terminology is part of what is getting people's backs up.
I was once, around age 17, shown footage of atrocities carried out in Yugoslavia - people trying to drum up support for intervention. We weren't warned and that was worse - maybe because it was current and in colour as well as without warning - and that is still stuck in my head.
[ 22. October 2017, 16:51: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
You mean studies like this?
Jengie
This might help you understand more completely: Why everyone should wear helmets and this Exploring driver attitudes towards cyclists. Briefly, the purported benefits of forcing helmets leads a whole heap of unintended and unforeseen consequences with negligible statistic change in catastrophic head injuries.
In the same vein, I wonder if we have anything concrete about trigger warnings. For example: Do trigger warnings cause students to not take certain classes, to skip certain lectures, to do poorly on particular assignments or exams? Do trigger warnings cause professors to skip certain content or to gloss over some details.
In another parallel, we have a provincial ministry of education which prescribed curriculum and textbooks for kindergarten to grade 12. Because of religious preferences of some communities, it became known that warnings about the teaching of certain biological topics in high school (reproduction and evolution) were being avoided because of such warnings.
[ 22. October 2017, 17:15: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Personally trauma of any kind is something that is worked through one way or another, probably on and off through our entire lives and mostly in the privacy of are own heads.
That isn’t to say it shouldn’t be externalised or ever talked about if it helps to do so. I guess ex-service people provide an upper end of the scale example. In many of these cases people’s horrific experiences are kept to themselves, or only spoken of very late in their lives. A loud bang, or other stimulus is more likely to trigger those experiences than a play, TV or radio show which has been put on for entertainment, (the opening scenes of 'Saving Private Ryan' excepted).
For some reason as I’ve got older there are things, (violence related), on TV which I no longer want to watch. Medieval torture scenes being one of the things. When I saw that 'Gunpowder' had a warning of upsetting scenes I knew to give it a miss. So helpful to a degree, yes. Not that I'd demand trigger warnings, there is the off-button, leaving the room, or closing of the eyes option.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
This might help you understand more completely: Why everyone should wear helmets
That is a completely fucking ridiculous article. The chart therein demonstrates how statistics are rubbish without context. It does not one thing to argue against using helmets whilst cycling.
quote:
and this Exploring driver attitudes towards cyclists.
Drivers have a negative attitude towards cyclists for two main reasons. One, some drivers are arseholes. Two, many cyclists are aresholes.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
A warning as to whether something contains explicit description or visuals is of more value I think.
When I was studying gcse history we went to the Imperial War Museum and they had a video installation on the liberation on the concentration camps. There was a warning before the entry to the exhibit, I remember us debating with the teacher about going in to it. I still remember what I saw - though I don't think that is a bad thing. But they didn't call it a trigger warning, and I wonder whether the terminology is part of what is getting people's backs up.
I was once, around age 17, shown footage of atrocities carried out in Yugoslavia - people trying to drum up support for intervention. We weren't warned and that was worse - maybe because it was current and in colour as well as without warning - and that is still stuck in my head.
Very good examples; my experience agrees. Which suggests to me that where and when such warnings are provided is worthy of determining.
I still have scenes from the movie Dead Man Walking - Sean Penn's character is executed on screen via lethal injection in what I understand is docu-reality. On the other hand, the scenes in The Killing Fields which is about genocide in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge did not affect me the same way. The second was more brutal than the first.
Then we have Netflix shows like Outlander and Game of Thrones which show violent rape directly without warnings. Which I understand many people watch without troubles.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Perhaps we need trigger warnings of trigger warnings so people who are triggered by trigger warnings can avoid seeing or hearing them, then the rest of us can get on with ignoring them if they don't apply to us and taking whatever action we deem appropriate if they do.
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
...
Not that I'd demand trigger warnings, there is the off-button, leaving the room, or closing of the eyes option.
If those weren't options, trigger warnings wouldn't be much use (actually that's not quite true, like the soldiers at D-day*, you could still prepare).
And without trigger warnings, those actions aren't as effective, coming late, as they could be (assuming for the moment that's a good thing).
*I think it may have been the G comments that held them as examples as 'not-getting a trigger warning'. (I'm pretty sure basic training mentions that).
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
This might help you understand more completely: Why everyone should wear helmets
That is a completely fucking ridiculous article. The chart therein demonstrates how statistics are rubbish without context. It does not one thing to argue against using helmets whilst cycling.
quote:
and this Exploring driver attitudes towards cyclists.
Drivers have a negative attitude towards cyclists for two main reasons. One, some drivers are arseholes. Two, many cyclists are aresholes.
Glad you get the point. The helmet laws and stats used to support are equally problematic and annoying.
On your second, one important difference, car drivers don't get killed by cyclists. Which is a completely different topic: false equivalence among roadway users (drivers, pedestrians, cyclists). Second, a misbehaving driver has far more harm potential. Third, infrastructure favours cars over other road users. Restrict cars and provide separate convenient infrastructure for other users creates safety. The key issue is to stop car drivers from hitting cyclists (and pedestrians) which is a driver behaviour issue not a cyclist issue.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
I need a trigger warning for threads that may contain references to the cycle helmet debate. I am becoming obsessed by it. I am delighted by the way the statistics fail to support the common sense view that helmets are bound to be good, but creeped out by the unrelenting attempts by many to nonetheless try again and again to make the case for compulsion.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
hatless <= how could I not love this?
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
hatless <= how could I not love this?
It’s one of the reasons I chose my name.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
I wonder what happens to people after college if they have become accustomed to receiving trigger warnings. Most of us have some raw spots, and most of us have developed coping methods--tuning out or whatever.
If someone is accustomed to being protected by trigger warnings and they suddenly find themselves in a world without warnings, how do they cope?
Moo
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
My spouse has PTSD, so perhaps I can answer that question.
We do a lot of vetting of entertainment and social activities. But let's say my spouse is caught up in some situation where triggering things might occur -- a violent assault scene in an otherwise benign movie, or a standard worship service that suddenly gets loud and handsy and spontaneous. What happens to my spouse is fight pr flight response -- full- blown panic attack, shortness of breath, pounding heart, need to flee the scene...or belligerence to the point of irrationality, directed at noone and everyone. An inabity to let that go for the rest of the day, or beyond. Depression and self- recrimination after that.
So does she appreciate knowing ahead of time what to expect of a situation, so she can choose whether/how to engage with it? Yes.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The helmet laws and stats used to support are equally problematic and annoying.
Wrong, but this is veering to far too to even be a tangent to pursue on this thread.
[ 23. October 2017, 04:16: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I don't know if anybody really gets accustomed to being protected--too much stuff slips through even the most careful "protection". I've got PTSD too, and I do my own protecting by reading up on stuff (movies, plays, etc.) ahead of time so I know if it's likely to have something I can't handle. But I still get caught out occasionally (e.g. former boss required me to watch Hotel Rwanda) and then you have to do what you can do--hide in the bathroom, develop a stomach ache, something. I'm too old to just stay there and take it if there's any other option now.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
I went to university in the early 1980s and we had trigger warnings then, though they weren't described as such. But we were warned in advance if the next lecture was going to include graphic details of rape, sexual abuse of children, or abortion.
We were also given a trigger warning about a lecture which was going to cover the collapse of the zoology building in case the class included any members of the families of those who died.
I find the idea that trigger warnings are a new thing surprising. Surely they have a long informal history; the change now is that they are becoming formalised?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
The change is that they have become politicised.
So we now have trigger warnings for sexism, colonialism, ableism, racism, homophobia and transphobia (but not usually for class privilege...), alongside those for violence and rape and disturbing images.
And I think this is what's muddied the waters. I am not a mental health professional. Most people aren't. But I'm guessing that most people would say that depictions in literature or film of people being raped would actually be quite distressing for readers/viewers who've been in/close to situations like that, whereas a film set in nineteenth century India under British rule wouldn't be inherently distressing to someone from India in the same way. Yet the two are conflated.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
"Snowflakery" is like the term "political correctness".
Each can be used appropriately and inappropriately.
For example, it is not PC, but common decency and consideration, to condemn the use of the word "nigger" these days, but it is loony PC, and cultural vandalism to boot, to try to ban or bowdlerise Huckleberry Finn or To Kill A Mockingbird because they record the use of the epithet.
Likewise it would not be a surrender to snowflakery, but wise and responsible, to warn a congregation that you were going to talk about something like rape or child abuse in next week's sermon, but arrant snowflakery to feel the need to warn of, or object to, references to violence in an optional university history subject.
[ 23. October 2017, 08:21: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
I dislike the term snowflake intensely. AFAICT it is mostly a symptom of Boomer entitlement which is used to defend their own privileges and show contempt for those younger than them. It is intended to put the younger generation in our place despite the fact that our elders actually have made our lives considerably more difficult than their own. Actually millennials have plenty to complain about, what with the unaffordable housing and massive student debts and impending collapse of the Social Security system.
That said, I much prefer the term “content note” to “trigger warning”. Partly because it’s much less loaded, and also because you don’t necessarily have to have PTSD to find a particular subject upsetting. Some people just aren’t good with violence. I’m one. There’s a reason why I never watch Tarantino movies. I agree that you can’t really study English literature without reading King Lear, but holy cow, it’s violent. (Personally I’ve never been able to make my mind up whether the eyes-putting-out scene is more appalling when you know it’s coming in advance or when you don’t know and it takes you by surprise.)
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
Things that trigger a response can be weird. At one time Christchurch was experiencing aftershocks at an average rate of one every couple of hours, so we went on line and played guessing game as as to the strength of the latest one and where it was centred. Then turned on the news and heard a report of an earthquake overseas, and burst into tears.
Huia
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
To me the problem with trigger warnings is where to stop.
Many people have all kinds of experiences and issues in life, almost anything appearing anywhere in public is at least possible to trigger flashbacks - and other stuff that comes out of that - in someone or another.
That said, I think it is right to badge some things as being particularly problematic and particularly likely to be an issue for people.
It seems to me that this is about risk assessment. One can't really predict that seeing a particular product would trigger someone who associates it with an attack (if it is something that is a normal part of life and that many people are using in the normal way). But I think it is fair to say that scenes of extreme violence, sexual violence etc if they appear in unexpected places might be badged.
And for me that includes some of Shakespeare, no question. And also Huckleberry Finn.
It's not about being a "snowflake" and it isn't about "banning" things. But it is about being sensitive to people who might unexpectedly see things that could hurt them.
A few examples:
My wife once had a fairly extreme reaction to seeing something in a photography exhibition. As it happens, it wasn't the actual photo but the words alongside which caused the reaction. I don't think it is being a "snowflake" to think about what causes the reaction and to think about whether another exhibition might cause a similar reaction, hence a trigger warning might be useful.
My child when younger picked up 50 Shades of Gray in a charity shop. In that instance, I acted as a trigger warning. Not because I wanted the book banned, but because I was worried about the effect of that rubbish on a young mind. I wouldn't be worried now because my child is older and more able to process that kind of thing.
Once when I was browsing in the shop attached to an art gallery, I picked up a magazine which depicted without warning stylized violence, with nude models bundled into uncomfortable positions. Whilst it clearly isn't something which is as bad as things-that-exist-on-the-internet, I was thinking at the time it could be a bit of a shock for someone.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
OK, what does this trigger? Is there any implicit moral restraint of adult consensual sexual permissiveness in Christianity apart from untreatable super-gonorrhoea risk?
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on
:
As I understand it a TRIGGER warning specifically is not a general warning that something may be upsetting or offensive but a specific warning to those who may have a big reaction to a subject for mental health/person history reasons. For example, you would put a trigger warning on a rape scene so that anyone who had been raped would know in advance.
I think conflating trigger warnings with general warnings isn't helpful because it makes the actual trigger warnings seem less significant.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
OK, what does this trigger? Is there any implicit moral restraint of adult consensual sexual permissiveness in Christianity apart from untreatable super-gonorrhoea risk?
Is that a response to something I wrote? If so, I don't understand it.
I'd have thought that someone who experienced sexual violence might well feel unwell if they happened to accidentally see it in an art magazine.
Of course, there is the question of whether someone browsing an art magazine ought to expect to see stylised sexual violence.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
I think conflating trigger warnings with general warnings isn't helpful because it makes the actual trigger warnings seem less significant.
That's true, although where is it happening? Even the issue with Shakespeare is arguably about seeing something that could trigger something in a victim of violence (or whatever).
--
Regarding the general issue of "general" warnings;
On the one hand, it might be fair to say that Shakespeare has been around long enough that students ought to be aware of the content - but couldn't one also say the same about the holocaust or slavery?
Students have to learn some time. They're going to be first exposed to the images of the holocaust and the lynching stories somewhere.
They might walk into an exhibition knowing it is about the holocaust but be unaware of the images or unaware of how it might affect them.
It seems to me to be a fair use of the term "trigger warning" to be a warning, particularly towards vulnerable groups, that there could be something here that triggers strong emotions (and might dredge up various other things). Pre-warnings might not mean that people are pre-armed with the knowledge that they're going to get, but it seems to me to be a fair thing to try.
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on
:
Surely we are accustomed to warnings in news programmes on TV that 'This report contains images that aome viewers may find distressing'.
What's new?
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
I think conflating trigger warnings with general warnings isn't helpful because it makes the actual trigger warnings seem less significant.
That's true, although where is it happening?
I meant I thought it was happening in this thread - that the two things were getting conflated. Both kinds of warnings can be valid but they are not the same thing.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
OK, what does this trigger? Is there any implicit moral restraint of adult consensual sexual permissiveness in Christianity apart from untreatable super-gonorrhoea risk?
Is that a response to something I wrote? If so, I don't understand it.
I'd have thought that someone who experienced sexual violence might well feel unwell if they happened to accidentally see it in an art magazine.
Of course, there is the question of whether someone browsing an art magazine ought to expect to see stylised sexual violence.
'strewth! Send three and four pence we're going to a dance! Sorry, I was trying out at least two birds with one stone and failed to hit any. Where did the violence come from?
In a community where we're dominantly liberal on sexual orientation and on another axis tend to be liberal on sex; who does what, where, when beyond gender configurations, I thought I'd try a multi-trigger question prompted by the BBC.
[ 23. October 2017, 11:56: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by wild haggis (# 15555) on
:
What I want to know is:
If you can't go to lectures because you can't abide violence, and you are studying English which includes Shakespeare, how are you going to pass your exams for your English degree?
It can get seriously silly.
Maybe I should stop writing because it involves spelling and I was thumped every night because I couldn't learn spellings - I'm dyslexic!
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by wild haggis:
What I want to know is:
If you can't go to lectures because you can't abide violence, and you are studying English which includes Shakespeare, how are you going to pass your exams for your English degree?
It can get seriously silly.
Well, y'know, different people are different. Maybe this was an exaggeration and unnecessary - or maybe there was someone who was absolutely comfortable reading the text and absolutely comfortable watching actors giving the lines but has a problem if - hypothetically, I've no idea what actually happened - the lecturer spent a lot of gory time exploring something of the background to the violence.
quote:
Maybe I should stop writing because it involves spelling and I was thumped every night because I couldn't learn spellings - I'm dyslexic!
I don't understand this.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
In a community where we're dominantly liberal on sexual orientation and on another axis tend to be liberal on sex; who does what, where, when beyond gender configurations, I thought I'd try a multi-trigger question prompted by the BBC.
I don't know Martin. When I was a student I spent a lot of time studying botany (and other biological subjects focusing on things that didn't tend to move very quickly). Parts of that involved violence (of a kind), reproductive and sexual behaviour of various organisms.
I suppose if part of that course had included graphic sex of a kind we did not shy away in plants - but instead about humans - one might have an argument that it isn't anything shocking because we're all adults here and we live in a permissive society and so on.
I can't think at the moment what possible connection it could be to plants, but let's just imagine that there was something connecting the ideas.
I say that it is perfectly possible for someone who is scarred by human sexual abuse to talk normally about plant sex without the need for a trigger warning. But y'know, surprise surprise, that person might be triggered if the conversation suddenly turned towards human sex.
Yes, it is different with Shakespeare. But I'm not convinced it is so different. It depends who the audience is, it depends on what is being said during the lecture, it depends on how prepared everyone is for the discussion.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Excellent point, but I don't know how we got there (it'll be me), not that it matters.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Surely we are accustomed to warnings in news programmes on TV that 'This report contains images that aome viewers may find distressing'.
What's new?
Well, a few possibilities...
As a matter of basic social snobbery, "populist" mediums like TV and pop music are subject to greater regulation than "elite" mediums like writing. Fundamentalist Christians, for example, fretted about Iron Maiden singing, with at least nominal disapproval, about The Number Of The Beast. They didn't seem to care nearly as much about W.B. Yeats outright CELEBRATING the slouching of said creature toward its birth.
Also, television is arguably a more "envelopoing" medium than books, by which I mean, it's sort of "all around us", and while, yes, technically you can turn it off, it's such a part of our everyday environement, most people are just sort of resigned to passively consuming it.
Whereas books you have to go out of your way to buy and read, so you'll presumably give some thought to what's inside the covers before doing so. Hence, less of a perceived need for trigger warnings.
Also, there is the simple cognitive difference between seeing something and reading about it. "What has been seen cannot be unseen" is a cautionary preface. I know of no similar expression related to reading.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
Martin: What?
Re the overuse of " triggering": I agree that the concept can be misused by people who may simply be made uncomfortable by some topic. When you have or know someone with PTSD, who has very concrete symptoms of physical as well as mental distress, you don't have a lot of sympathy for, say, a,college student who claims " triggering" at the thought of reading The Odyssey because there's sex and violence in it...or maybe because they just don't want to read it.
But I'm not sure me-too-ism can be controlled. Think about the gluten- free phenomenon, and how people with no digestive problems embrace gluten-free eating despite a lack of evidencle that it doesn't benefit anyone who doesn't have a diagnosed gluten intolerance. Some people always want to appropriate someone else's issue for their own purposes (whether they're cognizant of that fact or not.)
I don't care for the term " trigger warning" either, outside a clinical context.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Since we're discussing Shakespeare...
I stayed away from Julius Caesar at the height of the hell-that-was-my-church-life in 2004 because I couldn't cope with the literal backstabbing and themes of betrayal, and all my PTSD was boiling over at the thought.
That said, I wouldn't expect anybody to have to warn me that Shakespeare/JC had a violent scene in it. If I hadn't known already, I would have found out when I did my due diligence before choosing to (not) go.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
That said, I much prefer the term “content note” to “trigger warning”. Partly because it’s much less loaded, and also because you don’t necessarily have to have PTSD to find a particular subject upsetting.
I would agree on this. Form matters.
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
But I'm not sure me-too-ism can be controlled. Think about the gluten- free phenomenon, and how people with no digestive problems embrace gluten-free eating despite a lack of evidencle that it doesn't benefit anyone who doesn't have a diagnosed gluten intolerance. Some people always want to appropriate someone else's issue for their own purposes (whether they're cognizant of that fact or not.)
I think this is part of what bothers me about trigger warning phenomena.
Though the gluten-free mania has been a godsend to those with real problems, such as celiac's disease, I don't think the trigger warnings will provide as much benefit to trauma victims.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
I also meant to say, no evidence of benefit. In case some of yoi are wondering if I'm drinking, LOL...we are shopping forr an Internet provider, so at the moment I'm tapping away at my small- screen smartphone with my fat fingers. Sometimes I catch my typos in edit mode, sometimes not.I used to proofread for a living, so this situation drives me crazy.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
On the one hand, it might be fair to say that Shakespeare has been around long enough that students ought to be aware of the content - but couldn't one also say the same about the holocaust or slavery?
In this particular context, it was a lecture about Titus Andronicus at Cambridge. If you haven't at least read the play before going to the lecture, you're at the wrong university. This is not General Hand-Holding 101.
In the more general case, there's a question about what you do with the content warnings. Outside the ivory tower, there are lots of things that people have to do that are profoundly unpleasant. Some police officers have to look through photographs and videos of the worst kinds of child sexual abuse, in order to try to identify the victims, gather evidence for prosecution, and so on. If you are yourself a victim of child sexual abuse, you might not find yourself able to cope with that, which just means that you're not suited for that particular role.
If, on the other hand, encountering any rape victim is going to give you debilitating flashbacks to your own rape, perhaps you're not suited to a career as a police officer at all (if you're a cop, you can probably avoid getting on the "watching child porn" detail, but you can't avoid being the available car when someone calls in a rape.)
So I suppose I'm OK with content warnings (specific content warnings, not the anodyne "some viewers might find this distressing" nonsense) particularly where the content might be a surprise or more extreme than expected. People's responses are likely to be so varied to such a range of potential triggers that it's got to be down to the individual to manage their exposure, and seek help/advice from the tutors if they think they can't cope with a particular topic.
And depending on the topic and the subject, the answer might be "well, OK, try this instead" or it might be "this is too important - if you can't manage this, we'll need to find you a different course to take."
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
In this particular context, it was a lecture about Titus Andronicus at Cambridge. If you haven't at least read the play before going to the lecture, you're at the wrong university. This is not General Hand-Holding 101.
Not quite, it was the timetable of lectures.
I did languages at Cambridge. Generally speaking, there are far more set texts on any literature course list than it is humanly possible to read and do justice to. You are expected to work out which ones interest you most and study them. If you are affected by triggers then one way of making that decision might be by identifying which texts are least likely to cause you problems.
Also, unless things have changed recently, Cambridge lectures are public. The Lecture List is a public document that is sold in bookshops and stationers. Anyone can turn up, not just students enrolled in the course.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Though the gluten-free mania has been a godsend to those with real problems, such as celiac's disease, I don't think the trigger warnings will provide as much benefit to trauma victims.
That's not what my adult child with celiac disease says. Rather, the gluten free mania has made many to think it is a mere dietary preference like being vegetarian rather than something to which exposure can lead to days of severe symptoms and physical health compromise. With specific situations of carelessness or dismissiveness.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
Not really trigger warnings but increasingly soaps on the TV tend to have end-credit announcements along the lines of 'If you've been affected by any issue in this programme then contact our helpline number etc...'.
While I think it's very laudable, there's always a selfish part of me that wants to scream back; yeah, I've been affected by your shite, predictable, lazy, repetitive plot-lines where character development and dramatic integrity has yet again been sacrificed for the sake of fucking ratings and award-shows, and now I feel depressed, world-weary and completely enervated. What are you going to do about THAT!
Don't worry about telling me not to watch by the way. It's only when the Mater visits that I feel compelled to be sociable and stay in the room while she trawls through another saga of adultery, murder, dishonesty, and stupidity that represents most of British soap these days. It's a standing joke between us! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
Random thought: I wonder if the bowlderization of children's literature has anything to do with the overuse of " trigger warnings."
My granddaughters' parents are so obsessive about vetting their books for violent, racist, etc.content that we can't read them, say, the Little House books by Laura Ingalls Wilder because Pa gives spankings, anialls get butchered, etc. Andrew Lang's fairy tale collections? Nope.Alce in Wonderland? Nope.
What happens to this generation when they hit high school age and have to start reading un- censored loterature?
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Also, unless things have changed recently, Cambridge lectures are public. The Lecture List is a public document that is sold in bookshops and stationers. Anyone can turn up, not just students enrolled in the course. [/QB]
And you've got 8 weeks*, waiting till after you've read the play to decide it's not the best one to study is wasting prep time that could have been spent on the MWoW.
(and if the exams are anything like physics, even though 'Shakespeare' is compulsory there is space to gamble on dropping one topic, and hope like hell the others don't do anything evil).
*I don't know if 'Shakespeare' fills one term or has one 'topic' each term.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Though the gluten-free mania has been a godsend to those with real problems, such as celiac's disease, I don't think the trigger warnings will provide as much benefit to trauma victims.
That's not what my adult child with celiac disease says. Rather, the gluten free mania has made many to think it is a mere dietary preference like being vegetarian rather than something to which exposure can lead to days of severe symptoms and physical health compromise. With specific situations of carelessness or dismissiveness.
Fair play, but I was referencing the availability of gluten-free items, something an acquaintance of mine with celiac's has found that has made her shopping easier. So a mixed-bag, then.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Random thought: I wonder if the bowlderization of children's literature has anything to do with the overuse of " trigger warnings."
Nothing new. Grimm's Faerie Tales were reworked from the second edition on.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I did languages at Cambridge. Generally speaking, there are far more set texts on any literature course list than it is humanly possible to read and do justice to.
Yes, of course. I remember my language-reading friends skimming a rather large number of books every week, and properly reading a subset of those. I don't think any of them would have wasted their time by attending a lecture on something they'd never seen, unless they were keeping a friend company. But, of course, YMMV.
(Is that "public" meaning anyone, or "public" meaning any member of the University?)
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
But you're assuming no-one would look at the Lecture List until they've read the text.
Whereas it seems likely to me that students would look at it at the start of the year to make calculations like 'Titus Andronicus isn't until February - I don't have to read it until January.'
(I was told that lectures are open to the general public although I suspect the number of people who avail themselves of this opportunity approaches zero.)
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Ricardus--
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
But you're assuming no-one would look at the Lecture List until they've read the text.
Whereas it seems likely to me that students would look at it at the start of the year to make calculations like 'Titus Andronicus isn't until February - I don't have to read it until January.'
Hmmm. When I was in college here in the US, I don't think we ever had a lecture list, per se, for in-person classes. (Usually did, for online classes.) We did get textbook lists; but sometimes that was before the first class, and sometimes during the first class.
As to when students would read work for a February class: probably the weekend of the first full week of the class. If not later.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
(I was told that lectures are open to the general public although I suspect the number of people who avail themselves of this opportunity approaches zero.)
I've tried to fact-check this but haven't found anything suggesting it is true.
It is entirely possible it was true at one point (or perhaps it just means that anyone who is a "member of the university" can attend lectures or something) but it looks like the university has a specific programme of public lectures to which the public are invited.
Of course many universities are now much more security conscious than they were, I doubt even Cambridge would be keen to have random people using their facilities in the general way today.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
But you're assuming no-one would look at the Lecture List until they've read the text.
Whereas it seems likely to me that students would look at it at the start of the year to make calculations like 'Titus Andronicus isn't until February - I don't have to read it until January.'
(I was told that lectures are open to the general public although I suspect the number of people who avail themselves of this opportunity approaches zero.)
Only thing approaching figures I could find is this from 2007 here.
[ 24. October 2017, 07:35: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Only thing approaching figures I could find is this from 2007 here.
Which I think refers to specific programs of public lectures - rather than allowing public access into 'normal' undergrad lectures.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
Yes, on Googling I think mr cheesy is correct and I misunderstood, misremembered or made it up completely.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Random thought: I wonder if the bowlderization of children's literature has anything to do with the overuse of " trigger warnings."
I believe the vast majority of 19th century bowdlerization was done by clerics in order to protect public morals and had nothing to do with trigger warnings
Posted by irreverend tod (# 18773) on
:
What hasn't been mentioned by any UK residents is a recent article somewhere or other in the press (can't be more specific) that suggests we should be reading the King James Version of the bible in schools as it is properly graphic and doesn't soften some of the OT bits. The reason being that the kids see such graphic stuff that it wouldn't be a shock. No suggestion of a trigger warning as it isn't felt to be needed. Reactions?
On a more personal note if there is a sudden loud shot/explosion type noise near me, I'll be under the nearest table with my heart going like a jack hammer. You don't get trigger warnings for that so I have to put up with it.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by irreverend tod:
What hasn't been mentioned by any UK residents is a recent article somewhere or other in the press (can't be more specific) that suggests we should be reading the King James Version of the bible in schools as it is properly graphic and doesn't soften some of the OT bits. The reason being that the kids see such graphic stuff that it wouldn't be a shock. No suggestion of a trigger warning as it isn't felt to be needed. Reactions?
I think there are very few bible stories which should be read by children without proper context. Even then, a large number are not suitable for young children (and some are not really suitable for anyone).
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
For those with genuine trauma in their past, foreknowledge of exposure is kindness.
You have the right word.
If a warning is written as a kindness and read as a kindness, no problem.
If it's written as a kindness, and read as something else (an entitlement ? patronising ?) then there's a failure of communication. Which both parties, writer and reader, should attempt to resolve.
If it's not written as a kindness, but as something else (disclaimer of liability ? display of keeping up with social trends ?) then the writer is fair game for any mockery that's going...
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
Trigger warning (It's a cute dog)
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Random thought: I wonder if the bowlderization of children's literature has anything to do with the overuse of " trigger warnings."
I believe the vast majority of 19th century bowdlerization was done by clerics in order to protect public morals and had nothing to do with trigger warnings
True, but I think these days, "bowdlerization" is used to mean any instance of removing words or passages from a text because they're considered objectionable.
And I'm not sure if the original bowdlerizer(that would be Bowdler) was trying to protect the public generally, or just provide a suitable text for reading to children.
The Family Shakspeare
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Don't be unkind about Bowdler: sometimes his alterations enabled a child to make sense of things.
For example, his removal of a vital 's' in Othello to give the line She played the trumpet in his bed gave a (to the schoolboy mind) reasonable cause for killing Desdemona.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
lol. I know what it says to my schoolboy mind.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
And I'm not sure if the original bowdlerizer(that would be Bowdler) was trying to protect the public generally, or just provide a suitable text for reading to children.
Well, the younger part of the public.
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
For example, his removal of a vital 's' in Othello to give the line She played the trumpet in his bed gave a (to the schoolboy mind) reasonable cause for killing Desdemona.
The bagpipes would have been worse.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Not really trigger warnings but increasingly soaps on the TV tend to have end-credit announcements along the lines of 'If you've been affected by any issue in this programme then contact our helpline number etc...'.
While I think it's very laudable, there's always a selfish part of me that wants to scream back; yeah, I've been affected by your shite, predictable, lazy, repetitive plot-lines where character development and dramatic integrity has yet again been sacrificed for the sake of fucking ratings and award-shows, and now I feel depressed, world-weary and completely enervated. What are you going to do about THAT! ...
That gets a ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
If one were allowed to extend it to 'serious' drama that projects modern issues back into the past so as to make history more 'relevant' or to proselytise for the establishment's pet hobby-horses of the moment, I'd give it another. Viz Victoria, which has to include an obligatory gay sub-plot for which, as far as I know, there's no historical evidence whatsoever.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
In addition to things he considered improper, Bowdler deleted all mention of God. ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
There is a line in "Romeo and Juliet" where he changed, "She is with God." to "She sleeps in the churchyard."
I can't imagine why he did this.
Moo
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
In addition to things he considered improper, Bowdler deleted all mention of God.
There is a line in "Romeo and Juliet" where he changed, "She is with God." to "She sleeps in the churchyard."
I can't imagine why he did this.
Moo
Probably, at that date, because of a belief that it was irreverent that God should be mentioned in the theatre.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
But Bowdler wasn't suggesting that his work should be used in theaters; it was for family reading.
Moo
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
My guess would be that some of the things considered okay for Christians to do in Shakspeare's time would have been regarded as a little off-base by the 19th Century.
For example, Prince Hamlet is portrayed both as a righteous Christian, AND as a wannabe vigilante seeking eye-for-an-eye vengeance on his uncle. That was probably accepted as laudable behaviour in Tudor England, where people could be executed for all sorts of trivial crimes, but there might have been a bit more doubt about that creeping in by the time Family Shakspeare was written, especially among people who gave serious thought to what the Bible teaches.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
For example, Prince Hamlet is portrayed both as a righteous Christian, AND as a wannabe vigilante seeking eye-for-an-eye vengeance on his uncle.
Actually the one thing Hamlet was NOT depicted as, is a wannabe vigilante seeking eye-for-eye vengeance on his uncle. He machinates to make his uncle feel guilty. But never does anything at all toward killing him. That's the heart of the play -- why the hell doesn't he act? Why doesn't he try to kill his uncle? He never does kill him, or plot to.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Well, I've always read the play as assuming for its moral premise that revenge is a good thing, but Hamlet for whatever reason can't bring himself to do it.
Now, if you think that his reluctance to act is resulting from some belief, shared by Shakespeare, that revenge is wrong, then my interpretation doesn't work. That was never how I interpreted Hamlet's inaction, however. I think the idea is we are supposed to want him to take revenge against his uncle, but he messes everything up by hesitating.
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
In addition to things he considered improper, Bowdler deleted all mention of God.
There is a line in "Romeo and Juliet" where he changed, "She is with God." to "She sleeps in the churchyard."
I can't imagine why he did this.
Moo
Possibly because she committed suicide and therefore wasn't (in his opinion) fit for heaven.
Interesting though, because I understood that historically suicides were buried outside the churchyard.
Huia
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Well, if Bowdler deleted ALL mention of God, as has been stated, then there might have been no particular reason for the Juliet exemption, beyond adherence to his general policy.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
quote:
If one were allowed to extend it to 'serious' drama that projects modern issues back into the past so as to make history more 'relevant' or to proselytise for the establishment's pet hobby-horses of the moment, I'd give it another. Viz Victoria, which has to include an obligatory gay sub-plot for which, as far as I know, there's no historical evidence whatsoever.
I hate it when I pick that stuff up. I much prefer it when I miss it and can bliss out.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Huia--
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
In addition to things he considered improper, Bowdler deleted all mention of God.
There is a line in "Romeo and Juliet" where he changed, "She is with God." to "She sleeps in the churchyard."
I can't imagine why he did this.
Moo
Possibly because she committed suicide and therefore wasn't (in his opinion) fit for heaven.
Interesting though, because I understood that historically suicides were buried outside the churchyard.
I wonder...
Just now, I was looking up the possibility that Ophelia was pregnant. (I recently saw an episode of "Midsomer Murders", where Cully was playing Ophelia. She handed a rue bouquet to someone, then said "and rue for me, too". In herbal medicine, rue can be used as an abortifacient, among other things, so pregnant women aren't ever supposed to use it. Unless, of course...)
So I did a search, and I'm hardly the only one to notice Ophelia's rue line in the play. I just skimmed the list of hits. Rue is frequently mentioned, and some think some of the other herbs mentioned could be combined for the same effect.
Maybe that's also why Hamlet told her "get thee to a nunnery", which I understand *can* be a reference to a brothel.
And I also came across the idea that Juliet was pregnant.
I don't know what the official, common, or privately-among-women attitudes towards pregnancy outside of marriage, and abortion of that pregnancy.
I don't know if or how that might figure in with ideas about the women's fate.
Perhaps they might have been thought of as "more sinned against than sinning"? One hit suggested Hamlet might have raped Ophelia. From what I remember of him, that seems unlikely.
FwIW, YMMV.
[ 27. October 2017, 07:53: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Moo--
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
In addition to things he considered improper, Bowdler deleted all mention of God.
There is a line in "Romeo and Juliet" where he changed, "She is with God." to "She sleeps in the churchyard."
I can't imagine why he did this.
Maybe he didn't believe that people went directly to Heaven? Some think that the dead actually do *sleep*, until they're called upon.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
In addition to things he considered improper, Bowdler deleted all mention of God.
There is a line in "Romeo and Juliet" where he changed, "She is with God." to "She sleeps in the churchyard."
I can't imagine why he did this.
Maybe he didn't believe that people went directly to Heaven? Some think that the dead actually do *sleep*, until they're called upon.
I thought Bowdler was just putting out an edition of Shakespeare suitable for reading in the family circle. I didn't think he was correcting it for Christian doctrine.
Moo
Posted by andras (# 2065) on
:
The wonderful thing about poor old Bowdler was that he missed the really filthy stuff, presumably because it went right over his head.
And the line about Playing the strumpet in my bed is from Cymbeline, not Othello. But yes, Bowdler did change it as noted.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Now I want it to be "She sleeps with the fishes."
Posted by argona (# 14037) on
:
I wrote a short story about an incestuous father. Nothing explicit, till he was made clear at the very end, though a reader might easily have seen the reality. When I read it at a writers’ group I wondered if I should say something first, but I knew everyone well and in the event, didn’t. Nobody seemed to have a problem with it, but can I presume they really didn’t? I don’t know.
Later, I submitted that story to a reading event who didn’t use it, though they had accepted everything I’d given them before. But then it was a strong event that time, some great stories and you can’t win them all.
I’m with LilBuddha on this, in the middle but not sure where that is. Trigger warnings for an event which will nonetheless happen seem ok but when that can slip so easily into censorship, as with no-platforming, there’s a worry.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
For example, Prince Hamlet is portrayed both as a righteous Christian, AND as a wannabe vigilante seeking eye-for-an-eye vengeance on his uncle.
Actually the one thing Hamlet was NOT depicted as, is a wannabe vigilante seeking eye-for-eye vengeance on his uncle. He machinates to make his uncle feel guilty. But never does anything at all toward killing him. That's the heart of the play -- why the hell doesn't he act? Why doesn't he try to kill his uncle? He never does kill him, or plot to.
Lewis described him as "a man given a task by a ghost." which puts him neatly into the dilemma of "is this a real and truthful ghost, so I should do what it says? or is it a damned spirit impersonating Dad, and for me to obey it would be plain murder?" Thus the testing with the play-within-a-play, and so forth. "A ghost told me to do it" is pretty thin grounds for regicide.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Well and good, but where in the play is Hamlet depicted as someone seeking to kill his uncle? I don't see it.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Well and good, but where in the play is Hamlet depicted as someone seeking to kill his uncle? I don't see it.
I believe in the scene where Claudius is supposedly praying, Hamlet verbally states that he is going to kill him, but then elects not to, as he thinks that murdering him during prayer will send his soul to heaven.
I guess you could read this as anti-vengeance, since Hamlet is so desperate to maximize his uncle's suffering, he passes on the opporunity to act. But I think we're still meant to think that Hamlet screwed up by not killing Clauidius, especially when it is then revealed that Cllaudius would have gone to hell anyway(as he was not really praying).
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Isn't it at the end of Act 1, when the Ghost reveals itself as Hamlet's father and tells the prince that Claudius murdered him, that Hamlet vows vengeance?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
The closest he gets to that actual form of words is this:
HAMLET
Haste me to know't, that I, with wings as swift
As meditation or the thoughts of love,
May sweep to my revenge.
Which comes BEFORE the ghost's retelling, not after it.
Hamlet does say after the ghost encounter that he's off to pray--which suggests some qualms.
As for when he does finally determine to kill Claudius, he seems to be decided at this point, in Act V, after he returns from his abortive trip to England with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, having discovered Claudius' letter instructing the English to kill Hamlet. He retells the matter to Horatio, who replies:
HORATIO
Why, what a king is this!
HAMLET
Does it not, think'st thee, stand me now upon--
He that hath kill'd my king and whored my mother,
Popp'd in between the election and my hopes,
Thrown out his angle for my proper life,
And with such cozenage--is't not perfect conscience,
To quit him with this arm? and is't not to be damn'd,
To let this canker of our nature come
In further evil?
Very shortly afterward comes the swordfight where everybody dies and Hamlet does in fact kill Claudius. There seems not to have been any earlier opportunity between the two passages.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Well and good, but where in the play is Hamlet depicted as someone seeking to kill his uncle? I don't see it.
How about Act III, Scene IV? Hamlet kills Polonius while mistaking him for Claudius.
(Remember, kids - make sure you know who's behind the tapestry before you stab!)
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
Don't let me interrupt the Hamlet tangent, but I tend to agree with the authors of this Atlantic article, including their suggestion that universities should discourage trigger warnings.
I both have PTSD and have worked in university settings (in the US) where I have seen trigger warnings seemingly used by students to discourage discussions that make them uncomfortable (because who is really comfortable with all discussions of all the horrible things that happen in the world?) while not doing much to help students who actually have PTSD. They also have a way of expanding, such that once implemented students sometimes start requesting them for every possible thing that might upset someone (contains depiction of disordered eating, body shaming, disability, heteronormativity, etc.)
Even the increase in awareness of the existence of PTSD (and its symptoms) comes with benefits but also costs. On the one hand, there has been an increase in the number of people who apologize to me in grocery stores and libraries after my exaggerated startle reflex displays itself (and who then ask if I'm military). But, as people were saying about the increase in the numbers of people claiming a gluten allergy when they simply have a gluten-free preference, there seems to have been a decrease in the number of people willing to provide the accommodations I sometimes (but rarely) need and request. (Because they provided a trigger warning that was completely useless to me and somehow know what PTSD involves better than I do? Because they're sick of students and others avoiding work with the excuse of the week? Who knows).
On a personal level, I didn't need trigger warnings for any of my classes. As others have said, my actual triggers are so bizarre and personal (and frequently involve sights, smells, sounds, etc.) that it would be impossible for someone who doesn't know me well to even guess what they are. I tended to know when a book was likely to contain references to violence or sexual assault before I read them (who doesn't know Shakespearean tragedies contain violence?). And when I was in school all books were read before class, such that if I had an issue with any of the material, I could use my coping strategies at home without interrupting the class. I did walk out of one event (which wasn't a class/lecture, but a fiction reading by a guest speaker) but not because of the material presented, but the way the speaker was acting. Doing so involved a confrontation with him, and doing what I needed to do involved telling all of the people in the room information that I would rather not have revealed about myself to a bunch of strangers, but that could have been avoided if people would just let others leave situations they find uncomfortable (particularly if they're there voluntarily).
I tend to be more supportive of trigger warnings for visual materials such as movies or plays. IME those are more difficult for people to block out than words on a page, they are more likely to contain some of the sights, sounds, and actions that act as triggers for certain people, and they are (IME) watched during a class/performance/whatever, where people can be both surprised by the material and where they can find it difficult to employ their coping strategies. But I'm aware that I may be generalizing too much from my own experience.
I wouldn't want to deny any professor the right to use trigger warnings, especially if they have taught a particular class before and know that the material is extremely difficult for some students. However, I do think the expectation that they be provided is ridiculous and not to be encouraged. I also know any number of people (mostly but not exclusively military) who are fairly pissed off at this point that their illness is being used by others as an excuse to squash dissent and avoid topics that they believe need to be discussed.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Lecturer gives some context as to the reality of this story
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
I don't know. If you're attending a university course, and the course outline is provided, along with the reading list, assignment list, and you do you due diligence as a student to review things before class and lecture, and tutorials or labs if they are part of the course, you should be prepared to discuss the content without babysitting. If you haven't done your homework on the class, whose fault might it be?
I don't agree with avoidance, but I do agree with preparation. Which is what we did in the past. I'm not going to discuss my etiology, but I react very strongly to information about interpersonal aggression, but I will be damned if I'm going to let past trauma (nor current) stop me from addressing issues. If you require trigger warnings perhaps you want to seek some counselling of psychological therapy?
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
No Prophet wrote:
quote:
I don't know. If you're attending a university course, and the course outline is provided, along with the reading list, assignment list, and you do you due diligence as a student to review things before class and lecture, and tutorials or labs if they are part of the course, you should be prepared to discuss the content without babysitting. If you haven't done your homework on the class, whose fault might it be?
Granted, I was a pretty slack student in university, but I don't recall reviewing or previewing most of the material before formally studying it, unless it was something I was independently interested it.
When I saw, for example, that my American Literature class had Miss Lonelyhearts on the syllabus, I didn't rush off to read a summary of it to find out what I was in for(and thus could have been possibly traumatized by the descriptions of anti-homosexual violence in public washrooms, had that been an issue for me.)
I'd assume most students had preview habits similar to mine in this regard. That said, yes, if a particular student is someone who worries about being upset by unpleasant topics on the reading list, he or she CAN use the syllabus in the manner you suggest.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Sometimes, professors will fill a course with very depressing and disturbing novels, one right after another, without a thought as to the possible/probable effect on students--who are often in emotional distress, anyway.
And, sometimes, students can find reasonably polite ways of saying "WTH were you thinking? We are becoming depressed, unto suicidal thoughts!" that get through to the professors, who express total cluelessness and shock.
And, sometimes, the professors are wise enough to revise and rearrange the current course.
And all the students say "Amen".
--Epistle to the Professorate, 3:16
(And yes, it's true.)
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
^ If reading a series of depressing novels is enough to give you thoughts of suicide, I think maybe your problems go considerably beyond the reading list, and would be better dealt with by consulting a therapist, not by asking for the syllabus to be purged or re-arranged.
That said, I can see an aesthetic case for spacing out depressing novels, as it be kind of monotonous to read the same mental-outlook book after book. I'd say the same thing about books that are inordinately cheerful.
Though that suggestion might be a problem in courses arranged according to historical chronology.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
It was a wide-spread reaction, in a large class. Unremitting doom and gloom, with no breaks between books/films. Only reason that changed is because students spoke up. Together. In class. Producing shocked reactions from profs. They were thinking purely in terms of "ok, we need to cover this, and will ask that", rather than considering that students might actually have human reactions to the stories.
College students are often emotionally fragile, even if they don't look it--particularly those living on campus. Being away from home; new circumstances; new rules; trying to figure out everything from What To Do With The Rest Of Their Lives, to how to pay for texts *this* term, to dealing with a stranger as roommate, to not realizing that certain combinations of courses will so overload them that they'll need to drop a couple; etc. Lots of college kids have meltdowns of one type or another, or suicide attempts. Some drop out--for a while, at least--and go home.
That's before the actual content of any one class.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I don't know. If you're attending a university course, and the course outline is provided, along with the reading list, assignment list, and you do you due diligence as a student to review things before class and lecture, and tutorials or labs if they are part of the course, you should be prepared to discuss the content without babysitting. If you haven't done your homework on the class, whose fault might it be?
Homework which could involve reading the Lecture List. Which is where the trigger warning was placed. So I don't really understand the problem.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
The problem is thatbif I don't put some sort of warning and students react, am I blamed? I don't teach at univ any more; I think I might ask a complaining student and dept head some fairly pointed questions about expectations at univ levels. How is that univ teachers get calls and emails from parents of 20+ year olds these days?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The problem is thatbif I don't put some sort of warning and students react, am I blamed? I don't teach at univ any more; I think I might ask a complaining student and dept head some fairly pointed questions about expectations at univ levels. How is that univ teachers get calls and emails from parents of 20+ year olds these days?
I doubt it. My child's university has pointedly stated that they don't deal with communications from parents unless the student has specifically stated that they want a parent to be an advocate for a good reason.
I don't understand why it is a tough concept that a lecturer maybe recognises that a particular lecture is covering some difficult ground and that there might be students who need to be made aware of that.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
I don't think it is, but I also do not agree with any requirement to provide such warnings. It's one of those nice things to do, but mustn't be required.
I am remembering lecturing and discussing in seminar/tutorials with students re ritual and sexual abuse, Greek literature and myth, among other things. Maybe we were insensitive back then, but we'd be raised in a one TV channel universe which broadcast nightly southeast Asia bombings and mutilated bodies, race violence by cops, the FLQ and briefly tanks in Canadian streets, riots etc. We seemed to be immersed in violence back then in real life. Is it different today? Though we had a better music soundtrack.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Granted, I was a pretty slack student in university, but I don't recall reviewing or previewing most of the material before formally studying it, unless it was something I was independently interested it. [/QB]
No doubt.
But if you're an especially trigger-y person, you ought to be aware of it, and take reasonable self-help steps like googling "Lonelyhearts/synopsis".
If you're not easily triggered by anything, you can go on your merry way without such extra steps.
As the years go by and I recover from my PTSD, I find less and less need to google. Though I find that just knowing something nasty is going to occur in the film/play/book etc. is often enough to keep me from freaking out. I knew it was coming, and can handle it fine.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
It was a wide-spread reaction, in a large class. Unremitting doom and gloom, with no breaks between books/films. Only reason that changed is because students spoke up. Together. In class. Producing shocked reactions from profs. They were thinking purely in terms of "ok, we need to cover this, and will ask that", rather than considering that students might actually have human reactions to the stories.
College students are often emotionally fragile, even if they don't look it--particularly those living on campus. Being away from home; new circumstances; new rules; trying to figure out everything from What To Do With The Rest Of Their Lives, to how to pay for texts *this* term, to dealing with a stranger as roommate, to not realizing that certain combinations of courses will so overload them that they'll need to drop a couple; etc. Lots of college kids have meltdowns of one type or another, or suicide attempts. Some drop out--for a while, at least--and go home.
That's before the actual content of any one class.
I think my university years might have been a little different from that of the people you know.
Yeah, I went through a couple of periods of stress and depression myself, even visited the doctor about it. But I'm pretty sure that was never reflected in my reaction to the curriculum. And, to be perfectly honest, I don't think I ever heard another student, however encumbered with dark moods, complain about that either.
If anything, the students I knew had a HIGHER capacity for black humour and acerbic irony than likely prevailed in the general population. And I tend to think this would be true of university students as a whole. The comics-section of campus papers are usually notorious for absolutely pulverizing the boundaries of good taste, for example.
And aren't things like Southpark(with jokes about everything from pedophilia to Nazism) aimed primarily at people in their twenties?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
University students, just like real people, are varied. And internally inconsistent.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
How is that univ teachers get calls and emails from parents of 20+ year olds these days?
Nobody I know has had calls from parents checking up on their (adult) children, although they all have possibly apocryphal stories about it happening to someone they know.
(I have a couple of friends at a local college which has a few high school kids taking a course or two. They do speak to the parents, but children who are currently enrolled in high school aren't in quite the same situation.)
On the other hand, lots of people have stories about parents of new students haunting the campus for the first couple of weeks in order to "help" their child settle in.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Just because I tripped over this (David Mitchell apologising for being a part of the original furore), the lecturer who included the trigger warning responds. The trigger warning was specifically about a lecture discussing the portrayal of rape in media, including in Titus Andronicus. The intention was to forensically examine rape and its portrayal and he thought anyone who had been raped or assaulted might need to be forewarned.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0