You Couldn’t Make It Up

Lassie....
We used to sob our little hearts out watching that.
We loved it!

Do you click, click, click Jane Judge?

she said i cried and sobbed for ages so she dropped me round her friends house I think the kangaroo died. Anyway the fumes from her friends hash and whiskey obviously affected my memory

What? Skippy died? Oh no. I had no idea.

Why didn't he tell anyone he wasn't feeling well?

The flying doctor didn’t know what clickclickclickitis is and there was no google in those days

songstress60

The millenials are the most pampered, spoilt snowflakes that have ever been born. Warning signs on classic novels. What next! Young people are pathetic wimps. How would they have gone on in my dad's day? He was born in 1925, no NHS, forced to leave school at 14, conscripted to WW2 at 18, and turned down for a war pension when he had a tropical fever that left him with permanent intestinal damager. Young people need to get in the real world

Sorry is this a spoof ?

It depends on what some might have experienced in their lives. I don't see a problem with such warnings, I do think it shows consideration and care for others and is commendable that it's something that has been thought of.

Lucca, the post by songstress60 does have a MontyPython Yorkshireman feel doesn’t it

but is she a very naughty boy?

A synopsis for a a young child’s film has stuck in my mind….

“ Contains scenes of mild peril” I think it might have been Paddington

Say no more.

As far as films go, I think that warnings are far better than blanket age-based restrictions imposed by people with no knowledge of the individual children who might want to watch them.

When mine were small, I went by my own knowledge of my children and what would upset them when deciding what to let them see. Sometimes they watched videos with certificates above their age range, and at others I would say no to their seeing things that I knew would scare or upset them. Admittedly they were a lot younger than student age, but the principle is the same - people have different trigger points, whatever their age. I don't watch supernatural films as I know they will give me nightmares. I don't think that makes me a 'pampered spoilt snowflake' or a 'pathetic wimp', thanks very much.

All these years later, I now realise that my life has been scarred by exposure to: assassination of Julius Caesar; adultery of Anthony and Cleopatra; the putting out of Gloucester's eyes in King Lear; elder abuse in King Lear... And to think I have exposed generations of my pupils to these horrors. How can I forgive myself?

A couple of things ocurred to me after had closed down the internet last night. One was that the books that were getting the warnings were in a Literature degree. I don't know how such books are chosen these days, but way back in my day, they would have been both for technical excellence in the writer and for the perceptive accounts they had written of how the characters interact with one another and with the situations created by the era and environment. Any works that didn't include both these elements would have less chance of being "literature". So ALL literature can be expected to contain passages that wil be disturbing to someone who has experienced a similar situation. Any student undertaking to study literature surely expects one or more of the writers featured in their course to mention whatever subject touches a raw nerve for them? They are not newcomers to fiction.

The second thing is that a synopsis of the plot and tone of any book that is well-known enough to potentially turn up in a literature course can easily be found, and is often the first thing that anyone reads of it (for some people that is all that they ever read, with the minimal aim of not completely failing their exams) Potentially tramatic passages will be mentioned there.

I wonder if I am missing something in all of these posts.

I don't think that letting someone know that there is going to be content in a book, or film, or play that might be upsetting to them for personal reasons is at all 'mollycoddling' or likely to make them into 'pathetic wimps'.

Neither does it mean that standards are dropping, that students won't still be expected to read 'difficult' texts, or that they will be 'excused' the bits that they may find 'triggering'.

All that is happening is that they might (if this goes ahead, which it hasn't yet - it is being discussed) be given warning that there may be something in a text that might upset them, so that they don't come across it in a public space when they don't expect it.

Would you take a friend to the cinema to see The Notebook if her husband had just been diagnosed with Dementia, and not warn her of the content before getting the tickets? If so, there is nothing I can say, but if not, isn't this the same principle?

"Would you take a friend to the cinema to see The Notebook if her husband had just been diagnosed with Dementia, and not warn her of the content before getting the tickets? If so, there is nothing I can say, but if not, isn't this the same principle?"
That's absolutely right and proper, Doodledog, because you would know the specific relevant circumstances of that particular friend.
But that cannot apply to a whole class of undergraduates. At matriculation, would each of them have to select from an extensive list of topics which might possibly upset them? Of course, the list would have to come with its own warning: naming the topics included in the list. And that warning would therefore have to come with its own warning...
That's obviously ridiculous, but it serves to illustrate the potential pitfalls encountered down this particular rabbit-hole. And who can guarantee that every topic in a particular work which might merit a 'trigger warning' has been identified? Having reached old age, I am pretty much inured to the most lurid descriptions of sex, violence and death etc - but still get extremely exercised by the inappropriate use of apostrophes. Would my particular needs in this area be met if I were to sign up as a (very) mature student? I doubt it, and so I might be very tempted to sue.

I think everyone is thinking of the student (nothing wrong with that) and no-one of the lecturer who is teaching these books - and a literature course covers many books. You are encouraged to "read round the syllabus" as widely as you can and to show that you have done so by referring to parallels in other works, so you could be reading non-stop.)

The professor prepares lectures on all the aspects of each book, and the relationships between that author and other earlier, contemporary and subsequent writers, and the relevance to historical and biographical details and so on. In addition to the time spent doing that, they are now expected to comb the text of each book they mention (which the student may then read) for all the passages that may disturb one of the hundreds taking the course. If a student knows they have experienced and are sensitive to accounts of, say, a rape, they could be on the lookout themselves for relevant passages and preparing to face them.

Bodach No-one is saying that a student would be able to sue if they were upset. To suggest that looks like grasping at straws to make a case against something that irritates you.

I don't think a lecturer would be expected to comb the texts either, Elegran. They will know the ones they are teaching well enough to be able to tick off a checklist of possible 'triggers'.

I take your point about wider reading, and yes, of course students have to take responsibility for their own choices of reading; but I'm sure that the vast majority of them will be doing so already. As far as I can tell, the discussions are round texts that will be closely examined in a classroom situation, not general reading done in private. I'm not sure whether this initiative is necessary (in fact I'm sure it's not in most cases), but I don't understand the sneering and antipathy to it so many posts on this thread - even if it's not strictly necessary it's not going to do any harm, is it?

Just about every great work of literature that I have ever read have had passages that disturb - and anger - me.

Some of Dickens' narrative is grim... Conrad is a racist, but not by the standards of his day. Zola is depressing in his extreme form of 'realism', and Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath is upsetting from start to finish. And what about 'All Quiet on the Western Front'?

There must be some students who've had shocking experiences in their lives and lived through episodes that have traumatised them. I can well believe that there are some works that will definitely trigger their trauma. They are not Snowflakes, they are young people dealing with distress.

I don't know what the answer is. Maybe a synopsis of each work so that they can decide whether to read it or not?

There are definitely some books I read that I would not choose to read again - or read in the first place if I'd know how they would have affected me. I remember at age 17 reading a novel in a coffee shop in London and the realisation of what I was reading affected me so much, I had a panic attack and had to run out. Thing is, it wasn't even anything particularly disturbing, just a haunting description of someone faced with a dawning reality about life, loneliness and the futility of it all. The panic attacks and consequent depression was quite long lasting.

How could anyone have warned me about that? And I can't even remember the name of the book or its author...