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.

Angel-Os

And far as what I'd have preferred...If the point was "even in a messed-up universe, mistakes can be undone", then the article he read should have been about three girls found alive after they'd been reported dead. Because as it stands, The only one who evaded consequences for the mistake was the narrator, everyone else had to deal with the whole ball of wax, from funerals to whoever wound up going to prison for it.(Hey! Maybe it was Susan's father! That'd be funny, right!)

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?"

But writers don't do that, unless it's for fun. You choose a POV character(s) for a reason, because you want them to be the people experiencing and relating the story. Your story is about *that character's* journey through the events.

And some of them will be secondary. Third person POV doesn't mean everyone automatically gets an equal number of words.

You choose a POV character(s) for a reason, because you want them to be the people experiencing and relating the story.

I don't mean actually tell the story from every character's perspective, no. But surely it's worthwhile to at least ask yourself what it looks like to your supporting characters? And again, from the perspective of the female characters, it looks a lot more nasty, brutish and short than from that of any of the male/coded male characters, in a way that fits into existing narratives about women and sexuality.

And again, from the perspective of the female characters, it looks a lot more nasty, brutish and short than from that of any of the male/coded male characters, in a way that fits into existing narratives about women and sexuality.

But you don't write to make sure no one's feelings are hurt. You write to tell a particular story, and there are all kinds of ways to do that. You make that choice for a reason -- the whole point is how this one person interprets the events.

Let me put it this way: Do you think, "Should you write in such a way as to avoid reinforcing harmful narratives about women and sexuality" is a valid and/or interesting question?

Do you think, "Should you write in such a way as to avoid reinforcing harmful narratives about women and sexuality" is a valid and/or interesting question?

No. Writing is art and storytelling, not an ethical platform, unless a writer wants it to be. And most of those who do aren't really very good writers.

I guess this is is the bit I don't get:

the author should ask himself, "If I tell the story from this character's point of view, what does it look like?"

Why "should?" Honest question: what is the point of fiction for you? Why is considering a story from every character's POV this fundamental? Should unjust things not happen in fiction, even if they happen in real life all the time? That is the part I just don't understand. And I really would like to understand it. I feel like I almost do, but... when "should" comes into it I lose the thread.

To me the author should try to tell a good story. And that's it. I recognize it's not the end-all for everyone but when you say "surely it's worthwhile to..." my response is, "Well, if that doesn't improve it as art, then no, it is not worthwhile." That's where I feel the disconnect -- I think for you there is something more important than "is this a good piece of art" and I'm not dismissing that, but I don't understand what that criteria is.