On The Peculiar Impulse To Ignore Content Warnings and Then Take It Personally
Author’s Note: As usual, these are my own observations about how we interact with fiction online. This isn’t about people with trauma responses being “weak” or “wrong”, it’s about what happens when we treat clearly labelled content like a moral trap instead of something we can choose not to consume.
---
Author: (Waves a giant sign reading THIS CONTAINS EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS IT CONTAINS)
Reader: (Reads it anyway for reasons known only to God) I can’t believe I found exactly what I was warned about. Reading this ruined my day!
I feel like somewhere along the line, content warnings stopped being tools for informed choice and started being treated like invitations to a dare.
Author tags their work meticulously: every trigger, every taboo, every uncomfortable element.
Reader sees the warnings, recognises them, and instead of going “Ah, not for me,” they think, “How bad can it really be?”
Reader does, in fact, have a bad time.
Reader concludes the real problem is the existence of the story, not their decision to read it.
At that point, we’re no longer talking about protecting vulnerable people from unexpected harm; we’re talking about someone opening the box marked dead dove and then demanding to know why there was a bird in it.
Let’s be very clear: You're absolutely allowed to be upset by fiction and you're absolutely allowed to say, “This makes me uncomfortable, so I need to step away.”
But there’s a difference between:
“This hurt me, so I won’t read stuff like this again.” and
“This hurt me, so no one should write or read stuff like this again.”
The first is curating your experience, the second is controlling everyone else’s.
Warnings exist to give you the power to do the first one.
It seems like some people treat the warning labels like a challenge, and then, when it upsets them, they blame the storyteller despite the labels.
It’s like walking into a horror maze, staring at the “Flashing lights, jump scares, blood, screaming” board, and saying, “Sure, but I didn’t think there’d be flashing lights, jump scares, blood, and screaming.”
What did you think was going to be in there, soft jazz and someone handing out biscuits?
“Heads up: this story contains X, Y, and Z. Proceed or don’t, but you now know what you’re walking into.”
Now they’re sometimes treated as:
“This content exists under a fragile moral licence, and if it upsets me even with a warning, then clearly the warning wasn’t enough and the content itself is the problem.”
And that’s the uncomfortable shift. The warning stops being a tool for informed choice and starts being treated like a flimsy disclaimer attached to something people think shouldn’t exist at all.
With that being said, here’s the uncomfortable bit: curating your own reading experience requires responsibility.
You have to know your limits. You have to close the tab, walk away, mute the tag, or block the author if you have to. The trouble is, that for some people that seems harder than launching into a righteous rant about how this kind of story should never exist in the first place.
Of course, as a writer, If you’re playing with heavy topics, you should:
Avoid bait-and-switching readers with a wholesome façade and hidden horror
Listen when people say, “Hey, you missed a big trigger in your warnings”
Transparency matters, but once the warnings are there, once the “Dead Dove” label is plastered across the top in thirty-point font, the responsibility shifts. The writer's told you what’s in the box - opening it is now your choice, and (this is key) you’re allowed to not open it.
There’s also this odd prestige economy around suffering over fiction. People will say things like:
“This fic absolutely destroyed me, 10/10 recommend.”
“I'm ruined. I've been emotionally obliterated by this book. Read it!”
We’ve turned “this upset me deeply” into an unusual marketing copy. So when someone says, “Hey, this really got to me,” it’s not always clear whether they mean “in a cathartic/powerful way” or “in a deeply unsettling way I wish I’d avoided.”
So, for anyone who needs it spelled out:
You’re not boring if you don’t want to be wrecked by the things you read.
You’re not weak if you avoid certain topics.
You’re not morally superior for stomaching things that make other people need three business days to recover.
You’re just a person with specific needs who's allowed to pick what they put in their brain.
Curating your reading experience looks like:
Learning which triggers are hard limits and which ones you can handle in certain moods.
Using filters, tags, and block lists like the safety tools they are.
Saying, “Actually, no, I don’t want to read X today.”
Quitting halfway through something when you realise it’s going somewhere you can’t follow.
No one will give you a medal for walking away from content you don't enjoy, but future-you will be grateful you did.
On the flip side, when we refuse to curate, and instead rage at the existence of anything that can hurt us even with warnings, we create a hostile environment for storytellers.
“If I write about X, even with warnings, I’ll get harrassed.”
“If one person ignores the warnings and then gets upset, they might try to get me dogpiled.”
So they stop writing risky stories and soften the edges off everything so no one can be upset “on purpose.”
The point of “Dead Dove” in this context isn’t “never write about dead doves.”
If you’re going to put a dead dove in the box, label the box.
If you don’t want to see a dead dove, do not open the labelled box.
If someone else does want to see it and they open the box happily, that’s their business, not evidence of their moral corruption.
Fiction is allowed to be disturbing and you're allowed to opt out. Both of those things can be true at the same time.
We need stories that can go to ugly, complicated places. We also need readers who feel comfortable saying, “Not for me,” before they’re knee-deep in content that hurts them.
Warnings aren't dares, they’re signposts. You don’t earn moral points for charging past the “here be dragons” sign and then filing a complaint about the dragons.
Curate your experience and protect your peace. Warnings exist so you can make informed choices, not so you can ignore them and put the story on trial afterward.
Not every box needs opening, and not every story is meant for you.
About Narrative Side Effects:
Narrative Side Effects is an essay series where I explore how we read fiction - our love of messy, morally dubious characters, so-called “problematic” topics, and the endless arguments that flare up around them. Want to read more of my ramblings? Check out the links below:
On the Curious Belief That Authors Endorse Their Monsters
On the Troubling Notion That Dark Stories Should Be Fixed
On the Odd Impulse to Treat Fictional People Like Real Ones (and What It Costs Us)
janainaart
baratheonpilled
areudirty
annaxmalina
origamiaround
prguitarman
kaledo-art
blakekathryn