Our Shared Shelf discussion

I see a lot of books have been suggested. I would like to say that when a book is suggested there should be a content advisory as to the language used, profanity, violence etc.

I bring this up because I recently started reading The Colour Purple, and within first few letters (or chapters) I found it difficult to continue reading because of the crass language used and the amount of violence and graphic description.

Hey, Ashwin! Yours is indeed a legitimate concern. I wouldn't see any problem in doing this with the official reading list! The Bookshelf, though, is a bit difficult to manage in that sense, as there are books by the hundreds! We do have a general disclaimer advising that forum members participate at their own discretion regarding these issues, which I hope will be useful. I'll bring the topic up with the rest of the admin team, though! :)

Moved to "Helpful Resources and Group Ideas"

Because we have very different ideas of what is appropriate, offensive, and so on, I'd rather suggest checking reader reviews - since we are on Goodreads after all - as quite a few people, who are particular about for instance language will have mentioned this in their review. If many make some comments on content, perhaps skip the book?

Aglaea wrote: "Because we have very different ideas of what is appropriate, offensive, and so on, I'd rather suggest checking reader reviews - since we are on Goodreads after all - as quite a few people, who are ..."

I agree that this is probably the best strategy. Unless it is a very new book, there are ways to find out the content "rating" with a quick google search. Plenty of places that give an overview of the content without spoilers.

Aglaea wrote: "Because we have very different ideas of what is appropriate, offensive, and so on, I'd rather suggest checking reader reviews - since we are on Goodreads after all - as quite a few people, who are ..."

Yes that is certainly what I will do henceforth until mods decide to put up an advisory on the official list as Ana said.

Also, about different ideas of what is appropriate / offensive, I think IMDB has done a wonderful job with Parental guide, where they list out and rank a movie based on violence, nudity, sexual content, frightening etc. It is certainly something Goodreads can emulate.

Because this whole topic is so important, I would like to see as many sites and directions as possible. Yes, it will take refinement.

I don't mean to be harsh, but I feel like there is a fine line between content advisory and censorship.

I can see including trigger warnings for things like rape or domestic abuse. But warnings for crass language or profanity? I should think that we here are mature enough to recognize such content as reflecting both the world we live in and the message the author is trying to convey.

@Amanda: I am strictly against any kind of censorship. As adults we should not be told what we can see / read and what we can't. However, when we are about to read something, it is only fair to know what we are getting into, so that we have a choice of whether or not to go ahead -- personal choice.

I disagree. I think those kinds of content advisories can be extremely misleading and would discourage people from reading important materials.


The Color Purple, for example. I don't think I would have picked it up if I'd been told ahead of time that it was filled with the n-word and gratuitous rape. But I'm extremely glad I did.

I think I understand both ways of looking at it, Amanda and Ashwin. And from my point of view, it seems that you aren't talking about the exact same thing.

I agree with Amanda in her first comment, as there is a fine nuance, which can be censored away simply because of issuing a warning instead of having people skip over sections. The warning is such a huge red flag that might not at all be appropriate in size compared to the content, and then this sort of self-censorship becomes quite dramatic as a result.

Also, is a curse word or other "questionable" material of such horrible character that we can't deal with them even when they are reflecting truth in a way that isn't about rubbing the word in the reader's face, but it's just how things are/were? The thing is, shielding us from truth like that simply because something is uncomfortable, will change quite a lot how we view the world in general. Cursing has been shown to keep a mind healthier than if there is no cursing, and people who abhor cursing just because at times become overly sensitive, as there is a difference (major!) between merely cursing, and cursing at another person.

I don't think content advisory is required if one knows how to choose a book. If you are choosing a book, you must also read first few pages of the first chapter apart from the blurb. That's how I always choose books for myself. Because blurbs can be attractive but not necessarily the language I expect from the book. I read blurb, chapter titles, few pages of chapter and if everything suits my reading - I buy books. I don't think I need any content advisory stamp on my books.

Yeah, as I mentioned before, one should just apply their own discretion. When I was a child, I was told the shelves in the library that I was not allowed to browse without an adult, and there was a minimum degree of supervising involved to ensure that whenever I read something for adults, it wasn't too much for me. So maybe just the online version of that? Reading a blurb or the synopsis should be enough to know whether it's the right book for you or your child. :)

Goodreads itself has pages dedicated to individual books that include synopses and member reviews. A member with concerns about content need only click the book's page and read a bit to make an informed decision about the book's content.

Feminism has to work with some adult and sensitive material in order to fully represent the issues at stake. I think members should be aware that some books are going to have content that reflects this. It is easy enough to read a quick synopsis.

Not to mention, as Emma wrote when she announced The Color Purple for February, she is choosing books that she has not yet read, so it would be unfair for her or the Mods to make content warnings for material she or we have not yet read ourselves. That is probably the biggest reason that I'd recommend to a member with concerns about this to do some quick research themselves. With Goodreads as the host for the club, it makes it even easier to do this.

I would really appreciate trigger warnings, too. Although the moderators haven’t read the book before it's beeing picked, they have probably read the synopsis (or anything else in order to decide which book they pick), so they can easily give a content warning about the topics that are discussed in the book. And reading a synopsis can already be triggering for some people. A trigger warning gives people power to make informed decisions for themselfes what kind of content they avoid and what they expose themselfes to. Because it is not just about preferences or „what suits my reading“. Maybe they are struggeling with mental illness or self-harm or are recovering from a traumatic experience of abuse or a hate-crime. Trigger warnings help them to handle and control their own healing process. „Trigger warnings should impower the audience and not instruct them.“

I’m shocked by some answers here. I think this ignorance is ableist.

Please consider reading this article about what tirgger warnings are and why they are important. http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/01/w...

„Trigger warnings are important because they make it possible for people – particularly mentally ill people – to participate in certain spaces.“

Amanda, there is no fine line between content advisory and censorship, because those are two completely unrelated things. Censorship supresses certain content. Content advisory leaves the content intact, it just informs consumers what’s in it by labeling it. It’s the same with food, there are warnings for ingredients that can cause an allergic attack.

The article also suggests how to find out about which trigger warnings group-members need (because really anything can be triggering for someone). „Some groups simply ask: They open a thread asking members which trigger warnings they need.“

Maybe a thread could be opened where members could ask other members for Content Advisory on each book, because some of us have already read them and could likely provide information. Plus if someone has something specific they would prefer to be aware of they could mention it there. We probably won't catch everything and no one should expect that. But we could at least try to help each other out.

Also I'd like to point out that just because someone asks for a heads up about certain kinds of content that doesn't necessarily mean they will refuse to read a book with that content. They might not read it. But also they might choose to go ahead and read it but be more careful to save it for a time when they are able to get support or have someone to talk to if needed. Trigger and content warnings aren't censorship because the reader is free to go ahead and read the book (or not) as they choose.

Haydée wrote: "I’m shocked by some answers here. I think this ignorance is ableist."

This is in no way meant as rude, condescending, belittling or anything else negative, but simply a neutral analysis of the situation. You are supposed to see ignorance, or put in other words, I'd be shocked *not* to see ignorance.

What the writer in the article you linked to is asking for is an enormous paradigm shift in how the world globally and collectively treats one another. We are ridiculously far from treating others with respect and kindness at all times, whilst managing to pull off a healthy balance between selfishness and selflessness. In many situations we aren't even wanting to hear each other, to ponder what words mean (whether there was an attack in the first place or not, or possibly we may have misunderstood another's writings), etc. And once that has been said, not everyone *wants* to treat others nicely. Not everyone *wants* to grasp how others are thinking, feeling, and functioning.

This group was also not founded on the grounds that it was understood and agreed upon, before entering the group space, that this should be a "safe space" (as per your linked article).

Had we been forced to read through Group Rules which include more than the yellow box I always see pop up before posting, then accept that among others trigger warnings/content advisory are to be used throughout, at all times, it'd be fair game to call out everyone on shocking ignorance. But it wasn't part of the deal. And the human population is still getting used to the idea of taking care of others, let alone actually caring about others.

With that said, I think it is a great idea to ask people to add their own wishes for content advisory / trigger warning tags at the beginning of threads and/or posts, but again, a huge number of readers probably never even heard of this concept in as great detail as is outlined in the linked article.

Not having all the information about all the different things that people suffer from isn't malicious or active ignorance, but simply not having information, and not everyone will study psychology, sociology, or psychiatry either. Not all group members will read this particular thread either. My own conclusion therefore is that we will keep seeing content that could trigger other members, not because someone intends to hurt another, but because from the beginning it wasn't a requirement when signing up to be aware of one's writings at all times.

Bunny wrote: "Trigger and content warnings aren't censorship because the reader is free to go ahead and read the book (or not) as they choose."

Before reading the article Haydée linked to I had no idea that "trigger warning" and "content advisory" are used synonymously. My own talking about censorship was in relation to other stuff than trigger warnings, I'm not a cruel person. Just thought I'd mention this due to previous misunderstandings or miscommunications.

It'd be really helpful if opening posters could link to definitions etc. necessary material to understand precise meanings of particular concepts in a group such as this. We shouldn't assume that everyone has heard exactly all sociological, psychological or psychiatric definitions of anything or everything under the sun, in particular if an expression consists of "normal" words that can be interpreted separately or together in entirely different ways, than what they are used as when referred to in a niche definition.

Thanks for the link Haydee. Even I was not aware of trigger warning; I will henceforth adopt the concept in my social media and other posts and will do my best to spread awareness on this.

I borrowed the term "content advisory" from IMDB. I apologize for any misunderstanding. Here is a link to Content Advisory for the movie Schindler's list by Steven Spielberg:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108052/p...

Since it concerns movies the content advisory is used as a Parents' Guide that is apart from the MPAA or other certification authority ratings. IMDB says this about content advisory:

"Since the beliefs that parents want to instill in their children can vary greatly, we ask that, instead of adding your personal opinions about what is right or wrong in a film, you use this feature to help parents make informed viewing decisions by describing the facts of relevant scenes in the title for each one of the different categories: Sex and Nudity, Violence and Gore, Profanity, Alcohol/Drugs/Smoking, and Frightening/Intense Scenes. "

In context of this discussion, as most of us are adults or at least are in a position to make a decision for ourselves if such facts are stated it will be helpful.

Well, see, that definition by IMDb is quite different from the concept presented in Haydée's link, so it is no wonder we have a vast range of interpretations. The important part is to find common ground, I think. No worries, Ashwin, there was no judgment, at least not from my direction!