Searching for the answer for the as-of-now latest NAR Trivia Quiz question, I came across this story. (For those who don’t want to read it because of the potential animal cruelty, a recap: several fish die because of the negligence and stupidity of their temporary caretaker.)
Seeing that KillerTomato occasionally asks us here whether a given story needs certain warnings, in some cases specifically animal abuse/cruelty, I thought I would propose it here that this story should get such a warning.
But what do you all think? There is quite a lot of animal death, but it happens in the backstory, not during the story. Still, pet death is pet death and harmful negligence is negligence.
There isn’t a backstory? There’s the story, that story includes a lot of animals dying as the consequence of the “friend’s” negligence, and I remember spending most of that story being worried for the cat as well.
Absolutely needs an animal cruelty warning, the whole thing is distressing.
Yes, you’re right. What I meant was that the animals’ mistreatment/death isn’t being described in the story in real time, as some might argue that’s what it takes for a story to be considered needing the animal cruelty warning.
Ah, I gotcha.
I don’t think it’s necessary for a story to have explicit descriptions of animals suffering in ‘real time’ in order to require the ‘animal cruelty’ warning. The question is whether this story will distress people who are distressed by cruelty to animals; and it will.
This one had me raging and freaking out until I found out what happened to the kitty… Thank goodness for kindly neighbors. PS, cat owner, former fish/shrimp owner. Loosing the breeding colony of shrimp (cherries and red crystals) killed my passion for aquatic pets.
I have now flagged the story, asking for it to be preceded by an “animal cruelty” and/or “animal death” warning.
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.