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.

I'll add that I think the best narratives hinge upon characters making an ethical choice. Frodo chooses to not destroy the ring (for example.) But the protagonist doesn't have to make the right choice and it's often a better story when we feel the wrongness or the injustice or the complexity of the situation. Forcing the story to hit ethical beats instead of dramatic ones almost always becomes thin and didactic.

I will add that using tropes that reinforce social norms is often a sign of poor writing. Think of how racial stereotypes weaken our ability to enjoy past literature because we just wince when we encounter it*. However I don't think Gaiman was guilty of that sort of thing in Murder Mysteries. (Murder Mysteries, though is IMO one of Gaiman's weaker works, very artistically flawed. I may or may not go into that some time But (again IMO) it has nothing do with "fridging".)

• Examples: African Americans in just about any Hollywood movie pre-1962 or so. Prince what's his face the African Prince who wants to be white in Dr. Doolittle.

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

Avoid? Absolutely not.

I'm with Strega and Amy on this. Especially because I think that there's no requirement on art or storytelling to be an ethical platform. The primary purpose of storytelling is to entertain.

I admit, I am a fan of the horror genre, I've read a lot of splatterpunk, AND I think that American Psycho is (in some ways) a hysterical black comedy. So I know my tastes/opinions are not everyone's. But I think it is entirely possible to write ethically uncomfortable things and have them still be worthwhile.

Or to put it another way, I've quit reading far fewer books because of something I found troubling or upsetting than I have ones that bored me or felt like the author was Hammering Their Message Home.

Froot Loocifers:

I guess I'd concede that it's an interesting question. But

Oh, I agree that making avoidance an absolute rule is a bad idea - absolutes are a great way to screw things up, in art or life. But if you agree it's worth considering, then you may start to see where I'm coming from?

Tara's death, again, might be an example where avoidance wasn't possible. In fact, I'll go farther than that: Given our existing cultural context, it may have been impossible for Gaiman to tell the story with the impact he wanted, without causing this kind of revulsion in one group or another. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be told, but does mean that some groups('cause if I'm the only one I'll eat my copy of Heinlein in Dimension ) will find the art damaged and lessened by the choices he made.

(Is any of this making sense? I think it's past my bedtime.)

BTW, really nitpicking here, but Hec there are exceptions - writer who produced really good literature that was propaganda or didatic literature. Shaw. But I'll admit that Shaw was an exception - a didactic artist, a truly literary propagandist.

does mean that some groups('cause if I'm the only one I'll eat my copy of Heinlein in Dimension ) will find the art damaged and lessened by the choices he made.

Sure, but I think a writer shouldn't give more weight to those issues than they give to the story they want to write.

I'll eat my copy of Heinlein in Dimension

Which is where I can point at a story and say "No, not reading that ever again, thanks" with regard to Farnham's Freehold. That's my example of being repulsed by narrative choices.