Paul SB - Incompatible, sub20 - 4793 words

[Paul SB]

Here we are again! 

Thanks as always for taking a look.

 

This submission includes two entries.

 

In Entry 31 A finds someone creeping around in the secret lab. The incident explains the existence of the lab, and the motivations behind its creation. It does not, however, resolve the issue, and the lab remains an unresolved issue at the end of the story. I’m planning two more books, but I haven’t actually decided what to do with the embryos and the virus. My question is: do you think it’s necessary to tie up this end for the story to be complete, or is it okay to leave it a mystery?

 

Entry 32 starts with A watching the news and getting pissed off when the Bishop of Mars opines that the aliens should be thrown out of the Solar System. A new escapee arrives and he’s in terrible shape, with a story that reveals something important about the role of the Church in society. The entry ends with a major bombshell cliffhanger, which will lead right into the climax of the story. It’s a slow-paced chapter, but I feel it should be, given what is about to happen in the next few entries.

[Appol PhD they/he]

Overall: I think it’s okay for the lab to remain unresolved because it’s pretty clear the purpose is more about how it relates to ideology and responses to corporate patriarchy than a plot arc. It’s good to get some info on why it is the way it is this chapter, and importantly we see it starting to affect A which is good. That being said, I think we need more of a complex push and pull from A. I think it’s fine for G to spout a bunch of authoritarian nonsense dressed up as scientific and left-wing, and I don’t expect A to unpack the eugenics, bioessentialism, and ecofascism at play in what G is saying. But I think it’s important for A to get some inkling that G is being just as authoritarian in the other direction and grapple with that with how much she’s suffered from authoritarianism herself, even if she doesn’t come out with a great solution right away.

As for the second chapter, I like how it follows up on the gender dynamics, though I think we need a bit more setup so it feels a bit less out of the blue. If we get more context on the trends of escapees that shows the need for A to help out, I think it could feel more connected to the story than the broader news reel we get.

As I go:

Pg 2. We’ve gotten some of A’s emotions and the conflict hook for the chapter, but they seem pretty disconnected. How does the presence of an intruder connect to A’s emotional arc?

Pg 5. I think we could use more on A’s reactions here. I think there’s an interesting push and pull with G saying stuff that appeals to A but being very authoritarian in a way that shouldn’t sit quite right with A, even if she doesn’t have the background to point out the biological essentialism. Right now she’s not engaging with that.

Pg 12. At this point it feels like we’re jumping around a lot. I think we need less on the general news overview and more focus on the hook of why A is getting pulled into this now

Pg 13. The way A’s talking about this reads as odd, at least by modern-day Earth standards. Since she’s in a similar position, could she provide more specifics on what’s grounding about being with the AR?

Pg 14. I think it makes more sense to lead with what the owner did instead of R’s identity, since when it comes up it seems unrelated and like there could be weird implications that the story believes rather than criticizing.

Pg 16. Nice hook at the end!

Edited April 29 by Appol PhD

[Paul SB]

Okay, I've expanded a bit on A's conversation with G. I'm not sure how anyone would get an ecofascist vibe from her, since ecofascism is a weird variant fascism that accepts the reality of climate change but scapegoats non-white people and especially immigrants for it. But bioessentialism and eugenics, absolutely (though nowhere near as messed up as what happened in Margaret Atwood's "Oryx and Crake). G's issue is really about hubris, the assumption that she knows the right thing for everyone and has the right to impose her will on the whole species, even if her intentions were to solve problems facing the whole species (like potential extinction). Here's some of what I added:

 

“That’s why you wanted a virus that would sterilize them, not kill them.” It made me feel better that she was not driven by hate, the way so many other people are, and not just men. My forehead scrunched together. It might have been my one chance to get some real answers from someone who actually knew what she was talking about. However, “Either way, though, you were kind of trying to play god with humanity. How do you know your plan would work, and not cause problems you didn’t think of?”

Gladstone’s face fell. The look on it said, ‘guilty as charged’ clearly enough. “At least I can claim that I was young and have learned since then. But one thing I can’t shake is the feeling that we have to do something or we’ll go extinct. I’ve often been told to think of free market capitalism as being the economic equivalent of biological evolution. That’s used as an argument against the idea of having any sort of economic planning. But more than ninety-nine percent of all species that ever lived went extinct. If we just do what’s natural and never plan anything, our chances aren’t great.”

I nodded, but wrapping my head around her words took some serious effort. I kind of understood. People looked at business like a kill-or-be-killed, dog-eat-dog world, and the ‘winners’ claimed that their success proved their worth as human beings. But most people aren’t that vicious, really. I didn’t see how people could survive if everyone acted like self-centered sociopaths. Gladstone was probably right that being constantly told that you are a worthless lazy bum if you aren’t rich motivates people who aren’t naturally that competitive to become self-centered, greedy sacks of rust. It seemed like I needed more time to mull that stuff over, so I changed the subject.

 

 

BTW: Did you recognize the Robert Sapolsky reference?