Strega:

I don't think it's subtle accidentally. If it was just there to provoke, don't you think he'd have made it clearer?

I actually think (and let me emphasize, this is ONLY my opinion) that the reaction he wanted is probably exactly the one one I'm having: to go through the piece once, enjoying the mythic, and then only at the end or on a reread, realize the man we've been sympathizing is a multiple murderer, specifically of a woman he had a sexual relationship with. I agree with Debet, that Gaiman sometimes writes boundary-breaking stuff to make his strongest impact, but I reserve the right to say, "THIS is way outside any boundary I feel comfortable enjoying."

I mean, if that is genuinely how you'd sum up the story...

As far as Tink, Susan, and the unnamed friend are concerned, that IS the story. They don't know about Raguel, and are too busy being eaten by their own microbiome to care.(They are connected to it, both by the narrator and Raguel, and by Debet's point about the broken nature of love in this universe) But to deny them their perspective is to, again, reduce them to objects that only exist to make an emotional impact on the reader.

(I think my definition of Women In Refrigerators may be broader than most; I pretty much mean the existence of a female character who only exists to make emotional impact on a character or the reader by her death.)

Debet:

I think Gaiman consistently lives right on that boundary for your point a. Like, he has a summer house there.

That much we agree on, no question.

an indication that forgiveness, wiping the slate clean, lead to him having a good life

I have an extremely large problem with someone who isn't the wronged party extending forgiveness. And that IS something we see in the world around us, more often than triple homicide, etc.

I should probably emphasize, I'm not claiming anyone's interpretation is invalid, just insisting that mine isn't, either.

(I think my definition of Women In Refrigerators may be broader than most; I pretty much mean the existence of a female character who only exists to make emotional impact on a character or the reader by her death.)

Under that definition, Jenny from Love Story would apply, and I think she's a lot more than that. Just one example.

Out of curiosity, what would you call a male character who exists only to make an emotional impact through his death?

I don't think it's fair to summarize the plot from the perspective of minor characters.

As a side note, I'd prefer if you abbreviated my handle to DE or Debet.

Under that definition, Jenny from Love Story would apply

Can't comment, sorry. Never read it.

Out of curiosity, what would you call a male character who exists only to make an emotional impact through his death?

Oh, you can definitely have Men In Refrigerators, though I can't think of an example right now(Maybe in yaoi manga?). But the blow-on-a-bruise effect applies, it's always a worse offense when it happens to a female character.

I don't think it's fair to summarize the plot from the perspective of minor characters.

No real person is a minor character in their own life. And a good writer(Which Gaiman surely is) shouldn't write a character as if they were.

Also, I've edited to produce bafflement. Sorry.

it's always a worse offense when it happens to a female character

Why? If you're considering any death of a character to be Fridging, regardless of purpose or relationship to the protagonist (or, as originally conceived, the male hero), it shouldn't matter. Death is death.

I don't think Jenny is fridged because I think we have a real sense of her personality pre-mortem(I like her better than him, actually.)And, do diseases count? I always think of "Fridging" as more a murder thing.Like getting off on the pretty young corpse at the same time as you raise the stakes, blah, blah, But maybe I'm not clear on the concept.

I always thought of "fridging" as introducing a female character who becomes a romantic interest just to kill her off and give trauma to the (male - usually) protagonist.

That's why people reacted so strongly to Tara's death - as it existed primarily as a plot-point to drive Willow to the dark side. Though, there was also the whole "dead lesbian" trope that they played into inadvertently.

Because female characters have a history of being used as extensions of and motivators for male characters, instead of people in their own right. The blow-on-a-bruise effect means two characters of different genders will be perceived differently, even if the circumstances that befall are the same. See xkcd.

And I'd say diseases do count, but, again, I realize my definition may be wider than most's.

ETA: Also, DavidS's point about Tara's death.

chrismg-

I reserve the right to say, "THIS is way outside any boundary I feel comfortable enjoying."

That's absolutely cool. I consume a fair amount of media that I would not recommend to others without a lot of caveats. And there's stuff other people are fine with that makes me go "yeeeee, no thanks," and sometimes I can't really explain why because it's primal. So if I am pushing buttons you can say, "I just don't like it, and it's visceral, and that's all I can tell you."

I'm not trying to convince you that you should feel differently, because that's a jerky thing to do. And sometimes I'm a jerk but I try not to be a jerk that way? I'm just trying to 1) understand your reaction and also 2) understand why what you're reacting to doesn't bother me. (Because it's all about me!)

to deny them their perspective is to, again, reduce them to objects that only exist to make an emotional impact on the reader.

I guess... I don't know where this ends? Does any story with a victim of violence have to be from the victim's point of view? And/or, do you prefer stories where there's explicit justice -- if characters do bad things, they are punished accordingly within the story? Doesn't whatever happens to every character in a story only exist in order to impact the reader?

Maybe counterexamples might help me understand what in particular bothered you? I guess my leading questions are: do you generally dislike unreliable narrators? Do you feel like it's a betrayal to make you identify with a character who did something you find unforgivable? I can understand those things intellectually. To me one of the points of fiction is to be drawn into the experience of someone you would not even try to identify with otherwise. But that's me.

Does any story with a victim of violence have to be from the victim's point of view?

Not necessarily from their point of view, but.....Remember, the bit you quoted was about how I summed up the story from Tink's point of view. Think of it like a remix: the author should ask himself, "If I tell the story from this character's point of view, what does it look like?" And Gaiman either didn't do that for Tink, or didn't mind that, from her POV, the story was "I called my ex-boyfriend over for a hookup and he killed everyone in the house". And I can't help seeing it as noteworthy that this is very different from how it looks from the POV of the (male) narrator or any of the (coded male) angels.