Reader response theory explores the idea that it is not author’s text that matters, but how the reader perceives it. While there are four types of reader response theory identified by Tyson, I was most interested in the psychological reader response theory because of the weight personal experiences have on the text. Through psychological reader response theory, the text is understood not as what is written down, but what the reader thinks about it and how their experiences [in]validates it.

When initially reading the chapter, I couldn’t help but think that reader response theory was stupidly subjective (not stupid, but so beyond subjective that it reached a whole other level). It wasn’t until I was reading through the section about psychological reader response that I understood why it was okay for the reader to be so  subjective with the text–because their past experiences control the text. Reading that section of the chapter made me think of all the times I read something and had a visceral reaction to it, and validated those feelings. I would like to think that I can normally pull myself out of that subjectivity and speak about the piece objectively, if not only by stating the facts of the work and what it’s doing, but thinking about those types of responses is really interesting when considering the use of trigger and content warnings on texts.

Trigger and content warnings are effectively the same thing–seeing a “TW” or “CW” on a piece of media quickly indicates to the reader that they are about to interact with material dealing with sensitive topics. Typically the “TW”  or “CW” is followed by an indicator of what the sensitive content is– sexual assault, abuse, gun violence, suicide,  etc. These warning allows the reader to either 1) get into the correct head space to interact with that text or 2) give the reader the opportunity to avoid interacting with the content altogether without feeling guilty. By giving the reader these options, they are playing into the argument of psychological reader response, but are telling the reader upfront that that type of response is a strong possibility.

These warnings are most often used on social media platforms like Twitter, where people use the thread feature to talk about a topic in as much space at they need to, while recognizing that some of their followers may not want to interact with that content–in the world of social media, one can quickly get sucked into post after post of emotionally draining content, seeing a “TW” or “CW” can allow a user to decide whether or not they want to take on any additional emotional baggage.

(CW: school shootings and gun violence.) This week, one of the major trending videos on Twitter was a “back-to-school essentials” ad released by the Sandy Hook Promise account (the ad can be viewed here https://twitter.com/sandyhook/status/1174291982857883653). This account which, according to their bio, is committed to, “protecting children from gun violence with programs that work,” is based out of Newtown, CT, where the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting took place in 2012. The ad, which is seemingly to showcase essential back-to-school items, shows how these items can be used save lives in a school shooter situation. The effectiveness of the ad comes from the calmness of the children’s voices as they use their supplies to save their own, and other’s lives–some of the more compelling essentials are mundane things like a skateboard, which a student uses to break a window and get out of the building, and a knee-high sock, that one student takes off their foot to wrap around a wounded student’s leg as a make-shift turnakit, and the student crouching on the toilet texting their mother on their new phone.

While the ad is extremely effective in showing why we need gun control (the actors are like 12 tops and speak very calmly throughout the video), it can be extremely triggering for Twitter users who have also been in school shootings or who have been involved in any shooting (which, unfortunately, is a lot of people). While Sandy Hook Promise tweet did not include a “TW” or “CW,” it did say, “This PSA contains graphic content related to school shootings and may be upsetting to some viewers,” and goes on to say that if watching it is “difficult for you, you may choose not to watch.”

account, Sandy Hook Promise Verified. “Sandy Hook Promise (@Sandyhook).” Twitter, Twitter, 18 Sept. 2019, twitter.com/sandyhook.

Promise, Sandy Hook, director. Twitter. Twitter, Twitter, 18 Sept. 2019, twitter.com/sandyhook/status/1174291982857883653.