(fixed the typos from 5am)
I do enjoy reading the tags in my notifications about the content warning poll, angry at it being a "leading question" And it' is's like, you mean because I listed out the two usual mentalities that go with those answers??
"the fanficification of books (derogatory)" I think was the funniest one, as if giving your readers heads up that your book deals with topics that might trigger somebody's PTSD or anxiety is somehow this horrible thing that is ~ ruining literature ~ and "the implications that media containing sensitive topics is unsafe" because yes...it *is* unsafe for people who would need that content warning in the first place??
Just because *you* do not have violent flashbacks to an extremely traumatic event when you read about it in fiction unexpectedly, doesn't mean everybody else is the fucking pinnacle of mental health as well??
And we need to care about everybody?
Hell, having content warnings at the beginning of your book, if that stops somebody from reading it because they find that content triggering, guess what? You're also saving yourself from possibly getting a bad review from somebody that if they *didn't* have that content warning, would have read the book unaware of what it contained, and then had the whole experience ruined by whichever topic they can't handle!
"it will spoil the story"
1) you don't need to go into exact detail or blow by blow about what exactly happens with the topics, just list out what is applicable.
2) if your story can be "ruined" by a reader knowing in advance that a character is sexually assaulted, or experiences child abuse, or experiences a pregnancy, or experiences a miscarriage, or has family member die.... That sounds like you're using these heavy topics *purely for shock value*, and if knowing of their *mere existence ahead of time* will somehow "ruin" your story--
-- if your story doesn't "work" without that shock value....
....It sounds like you really need to go back to the editing stage and make your story actually stand on its own weight, and not merely prop it up with shock and horror.
All good writers should understand:
if your plot twist only works when it comes *entirely out of left field with no way to know it's coming*, it's not actually a good plot twist, because that also means you didn't actually foreshadow or set it up properly.
If your entire book can be quote "ruined" by you merely listing off that it contains "death of a family member"....
...Sorry, but that also heavily implies that your story is *only good on the first read*, because saying that knowing what happens will ruin it, also implies that any actual meaning is lost the second time through, when the reader *already know what happens and in far more intimate detail*, than they would have from a simple, two-word content warning.
And if you don't want to read the content warnings yourself... it's extremely easy to skip fast by simply turning the page just like everybody else does to skip past the acknowledgments or authors note at the beginning of most books?
No one is forcing you, personally, to read the content warnings of a book if you don't want to.
It's just like the list of ingredients on the back of food packaging: *most people* don't even glance at the ingredients and would just as soon shrug if the list vanished, but to others, knowing what is in the food, no matter how small of an amount it is, can be *literally life saving*, either from allergies or other medical reasons.
There's a reason I listened the "no" option as " I don't believe in content warnings for books":
Is because that is the 100% most common reason I see given by people who don't want to book content warnings in books, and like, that's me putting it as nicely as possible, because most of these people in these writing groups who hate content warnings *also actively disparage* people with PTSD or trauma for being "weak" or "not ready for the real world"--
--- as though their fiction book is exactly the real world, and not a *product* that they're actively selling to people for *profit*.
If you wouldn't argue that TV shows and films shouldn't have *any* kind of rating or content warning system at all, and that people should just watch movies without knowing the rating or why that rating exist, you *should* be supporting content warnings in books!
Because at the end of the day books are *a paid product that is sold for entertainment*, and the same people who wouldn't read your book because of a content warning, are the same people who would have read your book unknowing, and suffered horrible anxiety or panic attacks as a consequence.
Hell, content warnings don't even necessarily mean that people who need those warnings aren't going to reada book-- it just means that they can make a fucking informed choice, and prepare themselves for encountering that topic!
