Trigger Warnings on Books

Kristen Lamb had a stunningly well written blog post on Tuesday. It expressed her thoughts on a subject that's been on my mind lately: the thought of “trigger warnings” on books. I find myself ambivalent on the subject. On the one hand, I can see the reasoning behind people getting upset it, falling into the cultural facet of Empathetic Correctness. On the other hands I can see how warnings that would help people with PTSD and similar things prepare themselves for finding the scene in a book.

Huffington Post has a very interesting take on it. Their opinion is that it's not as bad as we're thinking, though it does have the potential to become a problem. A lot of what they say has to do with the fact that it would just be a few words on a syllabus warning those who have suffered past trauma that it's coming up, not that they aren't required to read the book for their classes.

The Guardian has a different point of view. They say that it's one step away from book banning. They hold forth on the fact that it's catering to a overly sensitive crowd of students who don't want to deal with the harsh realities of real life.

As I said, I can see the potential of both situations. On the one hand, I can see needing a few trigger warnings on things such as violent rape scenes, acts of domestic violence, things like that which could send someone spiraling back into a flashback of a terrible situation. But I also don't think that there needs to be trigger warnings for every little thing that might offend someone.

There's a difference between offending someone and actually triggering anxiety/fear flashbacks. The first is an act of pedantry. The second is something that can cripple someone emotionally. In dealing with the trigger warnings on books, if there is a violent rape scene I can see a warning about that in the book. It gives a person who has been raped the information it's coming and they can know what to expect, even brace themselves so they don't react as violently.

I use trigger warnings in some of my blog posts because I don't want someone having a flashback and losing control. I warn them what's in my post so they know what they're facing. This has driven some readers away. But others have come back and told me how much they appreciated the warning so they can prepare themselves for it.

There is such a thing as being too Empathetically Correct. The current trend for that is very disturbing. People aren't looking for success because they're being told everyone is the same. No one is reaching for anything because they expect to be given the same privileges as everyone else. The idea of over generalizing trigger warnings smacks of this.

Let's take a breath and do more research on it. I think everyone should get their voices in on this and let your opinion be known. If you're for it, that's great. If you're against it, that's great. Keep things civil and discuss it in the comments. Let me know what you think of all of this.

Internet panic attacks

I want to talk a moment about causing yourself a panic attack when you read an article online on what you think is a reputable site. It can happen to all of us. I know it happened to me last week. I saw this article here and about had a heart attack. I'm on food stamps and being forced to buy products made in Idaho would wipe out my budget faster because they're more expensive.

Now, I've done more research and none of the other local news feeds have picked up on this. Which means they either don't see it as big news or it's not going to happen. I don't really know which one it is. But I've also checked the Department of Health and Welfare's site and I don't see anything on there about it either. So I don't know if it's going to happen or not.

I trust Boise Weekly because they've had some interesting articles but sometimes I don't know how accurate they are. No one else reports on them. So I never know if it's accurate or just not reported. But what's important here is by reading something, I need to stop reacting to it and do the research first.

That's what we all need to do. There's a lot of stuff on the internet and a lot of it is not accurate or even true. We can't take a page at face value. Snopes is a good place to look for some things. It can debunk or confirm some of those stories people post on Facebook or you get in the email. Always check another source – or two, or three – before you decide it's true.

What about you? Has there ever been an article you got upset about before researching it? What was it about?

Reading, writing, and articles

First, an article I just read made me laugh.

You mean it's strange to be an adult and read teen lit?

I've been reading books that were outside my age group for most of my life.  When I was younger (we're talking elementary school here, folks, so figure almost 25 years) I was reading books that were for kids that were in middle school/junior high.  I got to junior high age and I was reading Anne McCaffrey (Pern, the FT&T telepath books, the Crystal Singer books), Andre Norton, Piers Anthony, Mercedes Lackey, and others like that.  I was reading books that were at a college level by the time I was a freshman in high school.

I still read books like that, but is it so strange that when I'm looking for something to give my mind a rest I turn to YA literature?  The Twilight series, the books by Tamora Pierce (her first 2 series at least), and the Harry Potter books are just a handful of those I've read that are classed as YA.  It's restful and fun, and they're easy reads when I want something light and fluffy (ok, so they're not exactly "light" and "fluffy", but compared to my usual authors of choice they are).

I still prefer Neil Gaiman, Joshua Palmatier, Andre Norton, Anne McCaffrey, et al.  Every now and then, however, I want a break from the books that make me think and want something I can read and not have to worry too much about it.

Barnes & Noble is selling out?

I don't think Barnes & Noble closing a few stores that aren't doing as well and putting a little more focus on the Nook is a bad thing - except for those poor people working for B&N's stores that may be closing.  Their stock has dropped.  So have their sales.  But check out book sales over all.  E-books are rising, regular books are falling.  It sucks but people are after convenience and you can carry dozens if not hundreds of books on your Kindle/Nook/iPad while you should only conceivably carry 2-3 books at a time (unless you're like me with 5+ books lingering in your purse/backpack/duffel bag.)

I've been really against e-books since the beginning.  I'm an old fashioned reader.  I like my paper copy books.  The truth is, though, with our increasingly digitalized society, e-readers are going to continue to drive regular book publications out.  Eventually, and my guess is within the next 5-10 years, we're going to see less of a market for mass market paperbacks or trade paperbacks and more of a market for the e-books. What that's going to mean for people like me - who are struggling to get published - I can't say.  But here are some different things I've read about the whole ebook debate.

Short blog post by Dan London
Good point...what about the libraries?

In regards to my writing...

• "Jehnna's Tale" is written, and in need of editing.  I've got a 7500 word limit and I'm sitting at over 11,000 words right now.
• "Project Solange" is in general outline form - as in there's a few short paragraphs about how the story is going to go.  I'm going to start that one relatively soon.
• "Platinum and Shadows" is also in general outline form.  That's another one I'm starting very soon.
• "It's Not Easy Being Green" - my submission for a horror contest - is halfway done.  I expect to have it finished by the end of this month and edited by mid September.
• WIP is...well, a WIP.  I have to rewrite a bunch of Book 1 because I hit a major plot blockage.  When I finally cleared it, I realized it changed way too many things.  *sigh*

Just a short one today

Today someone posted this link on Twitter, and out of curiosity I clicked the link.

The link in question

Antibiotics, I think, will not fall completely by the wayside.  There will be a bigger push to try other remedies - maybe even *gasp* some natural remedies.  I think what the writer of the article, and many doctors and medical professionals, fails to realize is that the truth of the matter is we've overused them.

We don't need to do away with them completely.  We just need to stop handing them out like candy for every little situation.  Offer more homeopathic solutions and utilize the vast pharmacopeia that Nature provides.

Now, I'm not one of those who won't use regular medication.  It's easier for me to get the regular medication than herbal remedies right now as it is.  But I won't go to the doctor if it's not something serious, I won't take medication if it's not necessary, and I'm more likely to try to find another method before I take the meds that I'm prescribed for certain situations.

Short and sweet: antibiotics are still useful but we need to remember that they're NOT the answer/cure all for everything.