I've gone back and forth for several days on whether I should comment on this story. I try to be helpful and offer constructive criticism when I don't like a particular story, but in this case my reaction to the story was so very negative on every level that I'm at a loss as how to proceed without simply sour lambasting. Having followed up by looking at the author's blog where she expounds upon the Snow Queen connection, I do appreciate the apparent seed of the story in which a young girl attempts to rescue her magically-dispersed lover. However, that is about the only part I do appreciate.
My largest problem with the story lies at its structural and thematic center. This story is victimization porn. Figuratively as well as literally. Our main character begins the story as a victim; she is to be left behind by her lover as he "advances." She is further made a victim by his apparent neglect to correspond. In both cases, she is victimized passively. When she hits a stall in the subsequent investigation, she conciously decides to become a victim again by offering herself to the man she suspects killed her lover, first as an apparently willing seductee, then explicitly sexually. The narrative places us explicitly in her head during and after she's violated with extensive emotional detail so as to drive her victimhood home. When she makes the turning-point discovery that lies at the heart of the story, her active, concious decision is to be completely passive, and again be sexually victimized as a distraction so she can take action. And how does the story conclude? We're told that she will be horrifically victimized with pornographically tortuous medical procedures over an enormously long time until she is dead. Weirdly, all of the rest of the victims in the story are entirely victimized offscreen. All the victimization in the story is horrifically entered into willingly, leading to some puzzled questions about how this "design house" exactly works. It doesn't matter how it works! It only matters that it acts upon victims.
This 'character' is not a character. She is a victim, and nothing else. This is a story arc in which our clever, intelligent female character progresses from being passively, emotionally victimized to actively causing herself to be sexually and then surgically victimized. I give the reader credit for recognizing this at the core of the tale and reading it with that particular quavering note from the first line. The overall effect and impression of the story I can only sum up with a rather nasty colloquialism: this is a 30 minute rape-shower-cry scene.
(I wondered initally at the odd phrasing in the opening warning; telling us to expect a scene of "forced sexual intercourse." I suspect it was to forestall the explicitly nasty discussion attached to the word rape: "can you rape the willing?" I've no straightforward opinion, nor interest in discussing that nasty topic here.)
That was my central difficulty with the story, but I had lesser problems as well. The entire tale for me was given away in the first line. Such an absurly specific metaphore telegraphed the central twist immediately. It was so obviously given away that I kept expecting some twist to controvert expectations and was sadly disappointed. Mechanical problems with the story's setting got in the way of the obviously intended commentary on class: is this harvesting legal? If yes, why did the woman with the eyes react badly? Why was it not widely known? Why bother with the deception after the fact? Why weren't the retinal and fingerprint records re-certified (giving away what had happened) to recognize the new owners, especially since they likely use them for identification? If no, why not contact authorities? Why was the doctor so casual in talking about it, and so readily took her to see him? (Are there no "stings" in the future?) Where did the rest of his family go? Did they sell just him (the pretty one), all of their children, or were they all victims taken in by a scam and all diced up somewhere? If there are artifical (cosmetic) options, why do people want the real ones? If it's a status thing, that needs to be said. If it's a practical thing or an expense thing, that needs to be said. This is important because it's directly interfering with the interpretation of the story's thematic elements. Is this a story about the rich preying on the poor out of simple evilness? A story of limited resources (working body parts) going to the undeserving? About a society that can't be bothered to care about the fate of the poor? About a society where the poor are so mercenary that they sell their own family members to uncaring 'knackers' to advance? We don't get any details that enable us to sort these themes out, because the story simply doesn't care: just watch the victim get victimized.
To be clear, I am not dissecting this story because of the sexual violence elements. I am not easily "squicked' and reacted much more strongly to the apparent thematic cores in this story than to any aspect of the sex. Sex, even sexual violence, being a part of the human experience today (and projected future) certainly has a place in storytelling. I object not to the element, but the way in which it is employed.
In conclusion, I found the story grossly self-indulgent and voyeuristic. It was well-presented with excellent audio and I appreciated the warning on the front end. Nor do I condemn EP for running it: I've listened for years and never expected to like everything. This particular story, however, had very large problems.