You make some good points, Walter. However, it's not the publishing industry that dictates how stories are told but the buying public. My husband's college roommate judged the value of entertainment based on how much "shoot 'em up" it contained. I'm sad to say his attitude wasn't and isn't unique.

When you consider the film industry, almost anything without violence is dismissed as a "chick flick."

Regardless of those who complain that the multi-racial casting of the show Bridgerton is, in essence, cultural appropriation and historically misleading, it's a huge hit. Almost anything can find its audience these days.

Do novelists and screenwriters have an obligation to correct inaccurate perceptions about marginalized groups or is their principal goal to entertain?

It's certainly not the primary goal of publishing houses and production companies. Their goal is to make money, period. If most people enjoyed stories celebrating animal cruelty, they would not shy away from providing them. "Shouldn't" is rarely part of the of their decision-making process.