To Warn or Not to Warn: Trigger Warnings Stir Drama in Classic Theatre

The curtain has lifted on a fiery new debate in the world of theatre: should classic plays like Romeo and Juliet come with trigger warnings?

In Glasgow and beyond, theatre companies are experimenting with content advisories for well-known works such as Sherlock Holmes and Shakespearean tragedies. These warnings alert audiences to themes like suicide, violence, and mental distress, topics that, while centuries old, remain deeply affecting for modern viewers.

Supporters argue that trigger warnings are a thoughtful way to create inclusive and trauma-aware environments, especially for younger or vulnerable audience members. They see it as part of a broader cultural shift that values emotional well-being without compromising the art itself.

But not everyone is applauding. Critics say this practice risks condescending to audiences and undermining the raw emotional power of theatre. They argue that classic texts are meant to challenge, disturb, and provoke, and that audiences should engage with discomfort, not be shielded from it. For them, adding warnings is a slippery slope toward creative censorship.

This debate touches on larger tensions in the arts world: the balance between freedom of expression and social responsibility, and the evolving expectations of audiences in an increasingly sensitive era. While some see trigger warnings as respectful and responsible, others fear they dilute the impact of timeless works.

As theatregoers, directors, and critics weigh in, one thing is clear: this is not just about Shakespeare, but also about how we reinterpret historical literature and art in modern times, without losing what made it powerful in the first place. Whether seen as helpful or harmful, trigger warnings have become an unexpected act in the ongoing drama of how we engage with literature on stage.