#you need to be able to judge harm based on actual presence of harm

[onewomancitadel]

The really weird thing about the sort of semi-prevalent attitude (in more implicit and explicit forms) that what you do in fiction is real, not that it has realistic consequences but even is even its own type of imaginary harm (which is like... legitimately crazymaking on its own) is that if you extend that beyond erotica and/or enemies-to-lovers of whatever is targetted du jour, if, say - and this is the prominent example that comes to mind - you put your character through trials and tribulations, how are readers not meant to wonder a) how much you specifically want to harm the character in question - that it is a real harm! and b) hmm maybe you're a bit fucked up for cooking up a narrative like this, aren't you? No matter how much it reflects the actual human condition of suffering.

So it is untenable, as always, because it is crybullying and a reactionary politics but its own contradictions come to the fore quite easily if you apply it logically. Beyond that, when I gestured to implicit beliefs, I do think that people really do feel, on some subconscious level, that storytelling is real, and when your author is particularly mean to your favourite character, it feels like they're hurting them on purpose. I think that's a function of narrative, not aberrant, but it's not surprising how it feeds into, or has some aetiological influence on 'anti' antics.

At the heart of it, though, is something that really sterilises storytelling, and I think this is anti-humanistic in its own way! Storytelling is cathartic! And it's incredibly odd to foster a panopticon that judges how much harm you secretly want to inflict on other people, or indeed imaginary characters, based on... basic narrative challenges and trials and tribulations and sometimes - even - torment. There are much more concrete ways to judge that which don't fundamentally compromise narrative or actually encourage pathological behaviour.