I enjoyed your chat about favorite authors. I, too, lean more toward favorite books than favorite authors (particularly when it comes to poetry). I am a HUGE fan of P.G. Wodehouse. (I was introduced to his books by my parents.) I think the humor arises from a combination of word play, particularly in dialog, and taking genuine delight in the foibles of human nature. It is never being mean-spirited.
I was very interested in the ending discussion of trigger warnings. I understand that people who have been traumatized don’t want to read anything that would trigger the emotions of that trauma, but writers/publishers should be able to provide an accurate enough description of the book’s content that people who would find it upsetting or objectionable will choose not to read it.
“I didn’t consent to reading that when I bought the book” makes no sense. It’s almost as if this person thinks the author should have consulted her before writing the book. What I find most troubling about the trigger-warning movement is the conversations among authors of the need to self-censor what they write. It occurred to me just now that book banning and insistence on trigger warnings are two sides of the same coin.
That’s an interesting thought, Liz, about trigger warnings being a kind of anticipatory censorship. I’m of mixed minds about the whole issue, but lean toward the book description as the place to tell potential readers about the nature of the content. And as I wrote in a recent post, one always has the option to close the book if it offends.
Writers Supporting Writers 
I enjoyed your chat about favorite authors. I, too, lean more toward favorite books than favorite authors (particularly when it comes to poetry). I am a HUGE fan of P.G. Wodehouse. (I was introduced to his books by my parents.) I think the humor arises from a combination of word play, particularly in dialog, and taking genuine delight in the foibles of human nature. It is never being mean-spirited.
I was very interested in the ending discussion of trigger warnings. I understand that people who have been traumatized don’t want to read anything that would trigger the emotions of that trauma, but writers/publishers should be able to provide an accurate enough description of the book’s content that people who would find it upsetting or objectionable will choose not to read it.
“I didn’t consent to reading that when I bought the book” makes no sense. It’s almost as if this person thinks the author should have consulted her before writing the book. What I find most troubling about the trigger-warning movement is the conversations among authors of the need to self-censor what they write. It occurred to me just now that book banning and insistence on trigger warnings are two sides of the same coin.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That’s an interesting thought, Liz, about trigger warnings being a kind of anticipatory censorship. I’m of mixed minds about the whole issue, but lean toward the book description as the place to tell potential readers about the nature of the content. And as I wrote in a recent post, one always has the option to close the book if it offends.
LikeLike