Against Cautionary Literary Practices

Written by Harsh

The writer has employed he/him as universal pronouns for everyone. The writer is aware of expressing gender neutrality in the written expression. However, the text was getting more and more complicated, not only because of the theme but also due to the non-gendered language. Hence, the choice to use he/him as a universal pronoun was made. However, wherever possible, the writer had tried to retain neutral gender expressions in this essay. 

Of all kinds of freedoms that a person enjoys, exercising the freedom to choose a book of one’s own interest is the most pleasurable. A reader, in this sense, is truly a free being. A reader prepares an exhaustive list of books to-be-read, writing down the names of books that are worthy of their attention and to be mentioned in the list. A reader chooses, with utmost care the titles of the books, scrutinizing them, as he stands on the aisle in a book store. When a reader visits a book shop, he ponders over the blurb of the books he takes in his hands, checks the spine of the book, taking it in one hand to another as to determine how well it fits in his grip. He looks at the quality of the pages, weighing it against the words printed on them. He ponders over the first few pages of the book, as on those thin pages lies the responsibility to evoke any sort of excitement, thrill, or feelings of joy in him. These few first pages determine whether any book will go home along with him. At last, he looks at the information given about the author of the book. He frowns at the utter humility, or in contrast to it, with the boastfulness an author has tried to give an impression of himself or herself.

There is certainly some sense of freedom in standing still among the large number of books and choosing only a  few to take along. The ultimate sense of freedom lies in spending one’s time consumed in things or an activity that one honestly cares for–an idea very much against the societal expectation of continuous achievement and attainment of ultimate success. In this sense, a reader appears like a rebel too. And like most rebels, he insists on his freedom and individuality, sometimes too much, in order to preserve the sense of freedom that comes along with the perks of being a reader. However, as it goes ‘there is no absolute freedom no matter how much one searches for it’, a reader’s freedom is curtailed with cautions as he reads at the top of the cover of book ‘Trigger Warning’ or ‘Reader Discretion is Needed’. Nothing makes a reader happy more than exercising his freedom to choose a book. And nothing irks this lover of freedom than these warnings or cautionary literary practices.

A reader’s frustration and dismay at the appearance of the words ‘Trigger Warning’ at the cover of a book or at the beginning of an article, is taken as an attack on his curiosity. Let us all agree that a reader, by virtue of his nature, is a curious being. The suggestion pertaining to the ‘much needed discretion’ humbles the curiosity of a reader. Simultaneously, it cools down the enthusiasm that a reader holds as a self-proclaimed adventurer. Reading a book is like venturing on an adventure unknown, or perhaps even knowing of some of the dangers on the way that lie ahead. A blurb of the book is, thus, to be understood as a gateway to the adventure. It should tell the reader, the worshipper of freedom and individuality, about the adventure lying ahead without scaring or frightening him. It is this sense of mysteriousness that works to  give enough information to hold a reader’s attention but not enough to make him feel satisfied, and propels a reader to venture on the adventure called reading. In choosing a book, a reader chooses his pain, his suffering, his excitements and his sympathies. What marks an adventurer and a reader identical is the desire to  choose their own dangers. What distinguishes them from each other though, is the utility of a warning for each of them. The adventurer might need cautions and warning in order to comprehend the severity of the adventure undertaken so as to save himself from fatal accidents. Whereas, a reader gets upset at the idea of warnings because it limits their reading experience.. A blurb is sufficient for the reader to get a peek into the world an author.. An additional note of exercising discretion is a warning unwanted and uncalled for. And whatever is unwanted and uncalled for, is a limitation on the exercise of freedom by an individual. 

Venturing into the nature of freedom that a reader exercises and vehemently defends at the face of an attack, many argue that such freedom does not exist. It is also argued that a reader in exercise of his freedom to choose a book or a text might be under the influence of public opinion on literature, literary politics and social media. It is also argued that the pursuit of reading as a hobby is an elitist vocation. That books are essentially cultural capital and are accessible to a certain privileged section of society. These arguments fail to acknowledge the fact that since absolute freedom does not exist, the pursuit of freedom is only possible within limitations imposed upon it. It is only when one acknowledges the limitations and restraints upon one’s own individuality that one deals with one’s notion of freedom in a better way. So, it might be true that a reader might be under the influence of public opinion on literature, literary politics of his own time or the social media; but in responding to a text or book he is free, absolutely. He chooses his own interests, likes and dislikes. He chooses what he wants to retain and memorize from a book. In choosing a book he chooses the way he wants to get influenced too. Self-education as a goal of reading particularly fosters individuality and critical thinking. And in preserving his own individuality, a reader ultimately asserts his freedom. To the latter argument of seeing reading as an elitist vocation, it seems that the upholders of these arguments are not aware of the existence of public libraries, digital and publicly available archives and markets, the one where one can buy used books at much affordable price. But then comes the question of the reader’s responsibility in responding to a text. Does responsibility limit the freedom of a reader? What if the much-needed discretion and trigger warning is nothing but a responsibility in the guise of cautionary literary practices? 

In my opinion, responsibility could be seen as an extension of exercising freedom. Seldom could it be seen as a limitation on freedom. In the realm of discussion over enjoyment of rights, it is imperative that one’s right is another’s responsibility and vice-versa. A reader in exercising his will to read a text already showcases responsibility. From choosing a book to read it meticulously page by page, word by word, is an act of being responsible. As discussed at the beginning of the article, a reader chooses all that he wants to choose by choosing a text or book. In one’s choice of a book or text, one ultimately stands responsible to oneself. As selfish as it sounds, a reader is accountable and responsible to himself. A reader does not care to change the world rather a reader changes his own perception of the world. His way of influencing or molding his own mind is a deliberate act of choice. This deliberate act ensures responsibility against his own self and since the reader emphasizes on his freedom, this paves a way for extension of exercising freedom, rather than limiting it. But can a reader not go astray while exercising his freedom? Do not the literary cautionary practices such as Trigger Warnings help in sensitizing the readers by reducing distress and sense of overwhelmingness?

The answers go many ways and in neither of them, I, as a reader, agree that trigger warning sensitizes the readers by reducing distress and sense of overwhelmingness that could be a result of text’s engagement with difficult or distressing themes such as violence. As I already mentioned, a reader is absolutely free in choosing a book and simultaneously in choosing the pain, suffering, empathies and embarrassment and other emotions. Literary cautionary practices such as trigger warnings do not leave space for such feelings of enjoying absolute freedom. In appearance these practices appear to be sensitizing, but in substance it is a limitation on the curiosity of the reader. Furthermore, rather than sensitizing, sometimes, it paves way for sensationalism, i.e. there remains a chunk of books that make one feel so heavy at heart that the emotional experience of reading those books takes precedence over the literary qualities in the books. An example of such sensationalism could be the book A Little Life by Hanya Yanaghiara, whose depiction of the themes such as violence, abuse, suicide and a survivor’s will to live against the odds of difficulties in life took readers to blogs and social media to show the experience of reading. Whereas while depicting the suffering of the protagonist, the writer had fallen into the trap of generalization, such as rendering truck drivers on national highways as potential pedophiles. However, these literary choices remain outside the purview of discussion as the book and the experience of reading it supersede the discussion on literariness of the text. A Little Life has stood out as an epitome of the literature that requires trigger warnings. But could such sensationalism ever be equated to the practice of literary criticism? In my opinion it could never be the case. Literature has always offered a heightened sense of feeling and emotions. Could the lovers of literature ever agree to trigger warnings on the most beloved of the books that have left deep impressions on their mind? Books that have left them sympathizing, empathizing, weeping and agonizing in their thoughts, without compromising the literariness of the text. I cannot ever imagine Woolf’s to the Lighthouse with a trigger warning, despite the extreme emotions a child feels at the hands of an authoritative father has been depicted so passionately. The same is with Kunju’s Hungary Humans, a novel that depicts the hypocrisy of men living in temple-town of Thanjavur in Tamil Nadu in India, living a religiously pious lives on one hand and indulging in passions of all kinds on another. The novel had instances of child-abuse and sexual exploitation among men. The trigger warning would only elude the sensory pleasure that the book evokes in the reader, as the reader is about to share the humiliation, dilemma, exclusion and depravity of humanity that characters go through in the novel. What would Rebecca by Maurier look like if it would be given a trigger warning for the crime that happens in it and the moral corruption that it promotes in the name of preserving love between the nameless female protagonist and Mr. Maxim. Should Roy’s depiction of child abuse, the tragic death of Sophie Mol, the murder of Dalit character Velutha at the hands of the police and ultimate climax of shared incestuous intimacy between twin siblings in The God of Small Things bring the trigger warning? I hardly agree. The argument is that literature softens humans by exposing them to the extreme of emotions and experience. And anything that limits this experience, is certainly a limitation on curiosity, creativity and freedom of thoughts and expression. Then, the question shall arise, what about those who are readers but at the same time survivors of the cruelty of our times? And those are the ones who are often shown as beneficiaries of the literary cautionary practices. But is it enough caution to lessen the uneasiness or discomfort felt through reading?

Against this question, I propose the moment of catharsis that a literary text can produce between the characters of the story and the reader. Sometimes, at some level, each story, the fate of some characters, touch a delicate yet fundamental part of the reader’s personality. Such moments of catharsis are often moments of consolation and relief as the reader could relate to any character or event in the book. Such moments of catharsis forge solidarities that defy the concepts of time and imagination. And for those who could not experience a catharsis, they will find themselves thinking, pondering and culminating over the characters and events, leading to a sense of enhanced understanding and empathy toward humanity in general. It is particularly true for the literature that is written by or from the perspectives of the marginalized in society. The Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath has illuminated the path for the aspiring artists, comforting the artists exactly when there is no one to share their fatigue, a result of their creative imagination not finding a way of exposure in any way possible in the society. The Catcher in the Rye by J. D. Salinger has been a classic on the theme of teenage angst. It has provided the readers with an insight into the agony and turmoil going on in the mind of a teenager oppressed by the school and family system. Such depictions and themes often lead to development of empathy and understanding among readers. It also opens the possibilities for change in the existing system through a change in the inner realms of an individual. Is it then possible to defend the cautionary literary practices at all?

I conclude by saying ‘No’. Sensitization or softening of the heart is inherent in the act of writing and reading. Any value that is inherent in something cannot be coerced from the outside. If one does so, it renders it null by logic of internal contradiction. If literature, as argued throughout the essay, has sensitization and softening of the heart as its aim inherent in itself; then the need for cautionary literary practices stands nullified. Moreover, the imposition of any such practices, thus, can only be seen as a barrier or a limitation on the enjoyment of literature and freedom of such enjoyment. As I suggested, a reader is both a free being and a responsible being in the act of engagement with literature. If freedom is what constitutes an essential part of literature, author and reader, then let us hold it to save the humane aspect of writing culture and keep it free from anything that limits its potential.