thx. have a better word for "unfirewalled"?

k. is all the hUBBUB, Clamor stuff clear? confusing?

How/why borderline squicky?

ah, got it, thanks.

I see some minor fixes as easy here: no reason Heuspross can't be a woman, or Nera can't have occasion to think of the project earlier, or her role there be a little more proactive. With slightly more work maybe the relationship with Malka can be less of a total loss, or at least we can see some of the positive sides of it.

But those are somewhat superficial fixes. The fundamental problem is that the story doesn't work unless Nera is somewhat of a nebbish: making her a fundamentally stronger person, or in less of a socially vulnerable position, defeats the purpose. And I think that sexism being a lot of the mechanism of her social vulnerability works for precisely the reason you suggest: it's a harder nut to crack than capitalism, notoriously flexible and resurgent, and in some sense worsened by, yes, an elongated adolesence stretching into middle age -- not just as a result of social media, but demographics, reduced social strictures, individualism, etc., continuing a trend that's been going on since Victorian times (being 40 in 2010 is a good deal more like being 15 than it was in 1960 -- the "15" that was invented around 1960, that is, not the 1880 version of 15 which was more like being 40, instead of the other way around, if you see what I mean).

I say Nera is a nebbish, but she is also meant to be courageous. But the consequences of her being courageous can't be made less severe -- either externally in terms of reputation, or internally in terms of her being unable to shrug off or easily defy the strictures of reputation -- without losing the story's essence. It's a story about a reputation economy whose character is generated by the question "who suffers?" A stronger, more proactive character with better friends would not be the person who suffers in a reputation economy, and I'm also not sure that the choice to make the ways in which Nera is not a stronger, more proactive character with better friends to be gendered ways is the wrong choice.

Do you see a better solution here -- other than the superficial fixes noted above?

OK. I think the story would certainly work if the ways Nera was socially vulnerable were non-gendered ways -- if she was a flake or an unreliable geek as opposed to being emotionally needy and destabilized in the specific ways that women are specifically rendered socially vulnerable by sexism -- e.g., trying to attain self-worth by seeking to be attractive to men who are more interested in the men's own lectures than in the women in question, or being unable to effectively trust other women, or generally seeking emotional sustenance from outside because they cannot trust themselves within.

But I have the sense that that would declaw the story somewhat -- let post-'33 society off the hook, like, "in the future sexism will only be overt and external, but women will have thrown off their internal shackles and thus recognize it and oppose it resolutely circumstances otherwise permitting" or something.

I'm not saying your reaction is off, I'm very interested in the squick. But the answer cannot be to write only strong women -- never needy women who define their self-worth through men. The depiction of the existence of such women is not inevitably an attack on women; done right, it can be a depiction of the world's ongoing attack on women. So the question becomes, how have I done it wrong? You see what I mean? Simply turning aside from the task by making Nera weak in general ways, rather than results-of-sexism-ways, seems like a cop-out.

Here's one relevant question: do you think the problem here is one of worldbuilding (one has to justify the continuance of such effects of sexism in a 2060 story the way you once argued one had to justify or explain the absence of the singularity...) or of character (the problem would be the same if this were a contemporary story about a woman courting asshole guys, getting ditched by her friend, and ending up lonely and self-blaming)?

Grateful for your time as always. Pending further thoughts I am doing my writing-the-other homework and soliciting feedback from women smart and articulate about sexism -- grilled Haddayr on the issue and sent it out with pleas to Meghan and Jackie for a crit -- now don't bias my sample by talking with them about it until they do their first read :-)

Hey Jackie

No, you did wonderfully. It's my own fault for doing this on such a squeezed deadline. I appreciate your very precise critique (in particular your giving me, e.g., specific page numbers where interest waned or flagged). The goal would precisely be to tighten things up, saturate the whole story with the stuff I figured out at the end, change the order of things as you describe, and to make manifest what's under the surface in such a way that Haddayr's very generous reading becomes the reading available (even if not consciously articulated) to the majority of readers ... without hitting them over the head.

I do fear I don't have time to do all this. So my plan is to do two passes, a superficial tightening and reordering, and then a more ambitious attempt to get at the harder, and esp. gender, stuff. Of course I so don't have time to do two passes between now and (or during) readercon. But I'm sure it can be at least slightly improved by your comments...

The story is Nera's, but I hope some readers -- a minority -- might take Sergei's side.

Not on this timeframe, though it's an interesting suggestion and maybe worth a try.

But I would probably then want to have the character oppressed in some stereotypically male way anyway then.

Yeah, and actually that story is "Falling". No, I think the issue is what you said: to expose the contingency.

Haddayr got it the way I meant it. Very often I think the way to deal with critiques is to make what the readers who liked it saw visible to the rest of the readers. I don't think I should do something different; I think I should make it clear I'm doing what I'm doing on purpose

Meghan, thank you for your excellent critique. God, I only hope I have time to actually do something with this story, which the publisher wants to post Monday. I wrote it on way too tight a schedule, and fear it will be seriously flawed. Ergh.

I agree with you about structure, pacing, and that the story should be about the tyranny of the internet -- in part, because it's also hopeful about getting past money, even if only to something that sucks differently. I think the reason that I wanted to make her do something minor, rather than a total break, is that that makes it more that you have to be constantly on your guard, the grueling work of husbanding your reputation -- and not about an unsual, radical act of dissent. And I kind of like the irony of her losing reputation *not* by boldly defying the new order, but by being uncool and defending it too hotly.

I was thinking consciously about "WE HEART VAMPIRES!!!!!!" at times -- like the irony of Bob's being officially bisexual, using it like a fashion accessory to further cement the straight privilege with which she ultimately humiliates George. Here in 2010, a generation past Stonewall, the sexual politics of high school haven't changed that much despite a revolution in the rhetoric. One can imagine Bob and George's essential situation in 1960 (I was thinking a lot about 1960 since my story's set in 2060, and we are at the midpoint, right?) playing out in the same way -- the difference is just that in 2010 we have the irony of Bob's superficial allegiance to fashion-bisexuality, which doesn't make George any less of a freak in their social system (even if Stonewall *does* allow her that little bit of room in which she imagines, in the coda, an escape into adulthood and a life alone in which she would be right). So I wanted it like that -- Jorg and Sergei get all the privilege of the reputation economy, including the privilege of scorning Nera's too-passionate defense of the reputation economy.

The thing I wish I could make it clearer about Torsten (which you are not alone in not getting; I think only Haddayr read it this way) is that in a sense, despite Torsten being six, it is kind of a real contact of equals. Torsten, being truly of this post-money, reputation world, actually sees Nera clearly and has a bravery unavailable to his seniors, something like that? Or can afford to have it? It is a retreat, she is hanging on to a scrap of social world at this point, but Torsten isn't meant to read as a blank sign of humiliation, "reduced to caring for a mere child". He is that, externally -- Jorg and the commenters might see it that way -- but internally it is meant to be also a sign of ironic hope -- that Torsten, the real inheritor of this future (despite being disempowered currently, as a child), is another human creature who sees Nera for who she is...?

So, any ideas how to quickly pull that off in between panels at Readercon by Sunday, I'll be grateful. Ha ha. Thanks though for your crit, seriously, you are right on.