There is a difference between "I don't like this story because FOO" and "FOO indicates that the author is BAR."
If I may quote the author: "In this case, however, I think that the context of where the story was originally placed might open up some new avenues of discussion around audience expectation." I simply followed her own suggestion in opening up new avenues of discussion around the context which she provided and audience expectation. I'm sorry it did not drift in approved directions and will endeavor to not rock the boat again.
A voyeuristic perspective need not be explicitly sexual; to draw a rough analogy I'll return to the previous note on "rape-cry-shower-scene. ...the distinct feeling that this is private pain they should not be watching or at least not lingering upon.
Given that prohibiting the use of the Rape-Cry-Shower scene (RCS) on the basis that private pain should not be watched would bar everything from Hamlet's graveyard soliloquy to the near-entirety of the romance and mystery genres, I would say this is largely a matter of personal preference; the question becomes whether the RCS was used effectively, which is why I asked why you felt it wasn't used well here. [/quote]
The parsing is getting complicated here. The point above was in response to your statement that you do not see the story as voyeuristic. I strongly disagree, and gave a lengthy explanation of what a voyeuristic perspective in storytelling is, how it applied in the story, and noting specifically that it need not be sexual, nor that its use is forbidden (giving examples where it is used successfully). Your expansion that 'viewing private pain is forbidden in literature' is needlessly hyperbolic as I specified at some length that there is a distinct difference between contemplation, understanding, and simply wallowing in another's misery. "It is the lingering aspect, the emphasis upon the wrongness of the observation (essential for a voyeuristic viewpoint), and the helplessness of the observed that move starkly from contemplation or understanding of a terrible event to outright wallowing in the character's misery." I even pointed out their subjectivity already.
We know only how they ended up and not how they got there. We don't know if the boyfriend fought against his dismemberment, or accepted it for the enrichment of his family. Or even if the family was in on it or tricked as well. There is no detail or exploration in the other victim's loss of agency, and the outline of the world they live in is insufficiently detailed to make clear assumptions (we still don't know if it's illegal or not). The only agency this story truly focuses on is the agency of the girl, and her abandonment of it.
You appear to be suggesting that the paucity of detail in the world supports your allegation that a voyeuristic sensation is the sole point of the story.
Incorrect. I am suggesting that the paucity of detail involving all of the other characters' agency loss (indeed it all occurring offscreen) means that the story is really only contemplating the agency of the main character, and therefore it is her willing abandonment of agency which is the central concern of the story. This passage was in response to your comment "It certainly is about the loss of agency, but everyone other than the protagonist has had their agency taken (or tricked) from them." My concern has always been with the thematic core of the story, and it is devoted solely to the gradual abandonment of agency (willing victimization) of the main character. Nor did I ever allege that "voyeuristic sensation is the sole point of the story." You are conflating me with someone else. I have stated that I feel the story is voyeuristic, and shown at some lengths why I feel this is true, but my central concern with the story is its constant obsession with victimization of the main character. The voyeuristic aspects further this obsession, but occur only in the last third or so of the story. As I stated initially, I did not find the world sufficiently defined or the character sufficiently fleshed out from her rather emotionally monotone construction, but characterized these as "lesser problems" I had with the story, not the essential problems.
Which means the next two paragraphs concern very minor details I wasn't really digging into, but briefly:
The story fairly specifically states that body harvesting is permitted on most (or at least a significant number) of other stations, in that the home station is singled out as unusual in banning it.
A subtlety of language here, but you are referring to: "On any other station, no parent in their right mind would let their unentitled kids run free, for fear they’d be taken by a body harvester on a job for some rich-ass client. Banwith Station didn’t allow that; you got born with a withered arm, you lived with it, so there were lots of kids running around." I couldn't figure out if that meant it was legal, or a matter of authorities looking the other way for rich people. (Like Cocaine trafficking.) Or looking the other way for some things (limb selling), but not others (child stealing). I basically had no clear context for her encounter with the police officer, the rich woman, the doctor, or any other authorities. I further can't make sense of the child market: you can sell your kids for money, but kids can be taken off the street... which would be theft... which would be illegal? Or not? And if not, why don't the rich just harvest the poor en-mass? Your gauche interpretation is interesting, but I didn't find anything in the story to support that: the doctor openly declares that his "equipment" is new. And further, if gauche, why do it? We're told specifically there are cosmetic options, so why get grey-market items if they're not considered socially superior? Just to be evil? (I do concede the single point of "did the family know" as the mother evidently did, but I meant the -entire- family, kids included.)
I cannot see objective evidence supporting your contention that the world and background are thinly drawn.
...did you just ask me to objectively prove my opinion?
I make the comparison with payday loans quite consciously; it seems to me that the protagonist's lack of resources to trade other than her own body
Except the main character has a rather startlingly powerful skill set at hacking, leading to many posters to wonder at her immediate jump to willing victimization to further her investigation.
There is a clear thematic link between the individual loss of agency and the helplessness everyone seems to feel in this universe, which in turn supports a variety of real-world connections. It seems to me that story that was intended solely as "tragedy porn" would not bother with the resonance between individual and societal plights.
As I stated originally, "Mechanical problems with the story's setting got in the way of the obviously intended commentary on class:" In other words, I disagree that there is anything like a clear thematic link in the story that enables clear construction of societal class themes. (I gave several examples in the initial post.) Your listed themes are interesting, but I do not find more than cursory support for them in the story, and you're forced to do a lot of filling in to make them work. Instead, the story employs most of its efforts and wordcount in obsessing over the victimization and suffering of the main character.
I also hated Sucker Punch, and for much the same reasons as you. However, Sucker Punch is not particularly similar to this story. For one, the elaborate special effects, the highly sexualized outfits, the exoticism of non-Caucasians, and the exaggerated weaponry and gore in Sucker Punch all indicate that it is intended as spectacle, and in particular as a spectacle to appeal to immature straight white males. That, to me, is the problem with the movie, not its core plot of a desperate woman using her body as a last token of exchange in order to help another.
I disagree: the core problem is the framing of willing abandonment to rape as an entertaining, flashy spectacle. If you take away the rape, you have flashy stupid entertaining spectacle. Vapid, but not particularly evil. It's the core concept of getting to watch repeated flashy scenes of metaphorical sex framed as willing submission to rape (the context of the "real life" scenes makes it clear the girls are abusively institutionalized, while the fantasy scenes have them initiating the seduction). The camera gets to linger on their fetishized sexuality in elaborately staged scenes that take up the majority of the screen time, when anyone paying attention realized they're in the process of being violated. It's this obsessive contemplation that makes the film voyeuristic (and also lascivious, as opposed to here) and highly distasteful.
(Notably, you can impress various themes upon that film as well. Themes of female empowerment in a patriarchal society. Doesn't make it any less voyeuristic, and the film only gives cursory support to this concept, spending the majority of its time on sexy scenes.)
"Cerbo un Vitra Ujo" contains almost no spectacle; the closest we get to titillation is the explicit nature of the sex scene in Doc's apartment, and given that reaction to that scene has been almost universal revulsion, I would say that it was either intended to repulse, or else the author was comically incompetent.
As I've repeatedly stated, this is not a sexual voyeurism, but an obsession with victimization. I agree about the lack of spectacle. The startling similarities I noted are thematic (which, as always, are my central concern): the population with no agency, the abandonment to become a victim and loose all agency, the framing of rape as a tool to be used by the victim, surgical disassembly (physical here, emotional there), etc..
(Given that she has achieved significant success as a professional author in a wide variety of genres, I would further hypothesize that general incompetence is a highly unlikely scenario.)
Why does she even care about my critique then? And provide context? And snarkily name-drop to contradict my point?
However, I don't think the argument that it was not intended to do anything other than generate an emotional thrill will hold any water; it is too deliberately crafted for that.
I've no insight into intention: we've declared the author off-limits. I can only speak to the finished form of the work. I find thematic obsession with victimization, and mechanical problems with the story obstructing any coherent social commentary. The parts I found deliberately crafted were voyeuristically wallowing in the character's misery.