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.

Aha.

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?

I guess I'd concede that it's an interesting question. But my answer to it as phrased is:

Avoid? Absolutely not.

I admit, some of what I've posted has come closer to saying, "The artist MUST use THIS process" than I'm comfortable with, because that's definitely wrong. But...would you say it's worthwhile if it keeps the art from being damaged? Because from my POV, three dead girls in a (permanently?) unsolved case does damage the art.

Writing is art and storytelling, not an ethical platform

See, this is where we disagree: I don't see those as separate things. The ethical position of a work(and all of them have one, even if it's trivially good or trivially bad) is PART OF the nature and quality of the art, as much as the POV, perspective, etc of a painting is.

The ethical position of a work(and all of them have one, even if it's trivially good or trivially bad) is PART OF the nature and quality of the art, as much as the POV, perspective, etc of a painting is.

Narratives should dramatize ethical questions. That's what the best art does. It shouldn't advocate an ethical position, because that's what bad art does. Relating to your point about minor characters, the best art does understand the story from everybody's perspective and acknowledges the humanity of all the characters. From a practical standpoint, however, (especially in a short story) some characters will be there to advance the plot.