Anybody want to join this analysis?

[deelaundry]

Bammel? Sabine? Spoggly? Namaste?

queenzulu makes a compelling case for a House-AU of mine being anti-feminist here. It's very thought-provoking. Anything you'd be interested to add? I'd love to hear more analysis and opinions.

Please note that this is critical analysis of text/writing, not of me as a person. There is implication throughout the commentary about an author's responsibility for the end product of a work, which is an important idea that needs to be considered.

Comments

[taiga13.livejournal.com]

It was clear to me, but I KNOW you. I'm not sure how I would have perceived it if I didn't know the author, but I still think I would have perceived that the author meant the reader to be appalled - there was so much emphasis on women's lot in this story, it was made so clear how bad their state was. It was like a Margaret Atwood story.
One thing that wasn't clear to me was how James ended up in the pillory in the first place. Greg says he wants James to speak his mind, to be his equal, so why did he have James pilloried for doing just that? Because other men saw it? Could he have refused to punish James?
Are you planning on writing more in this ficverse? I'd be curious to see how House and Cameron's children are raised.

[deelaundry.livejournal.com]

Yep, it was because other men witnessed James "being disrespectful." If they'd been alone, House wouldn't have mentioned it to anyone (even though not reporting it is a violation of the Code). As James says at the end, James will have to act as a man at home and as a woman -- based on their society's restrictive rules about that -- when around other people.

No, there's no way Greg could have refused to punish James. As it said in the fic, the Code is clear that the "offended party" has to carry out the discipline.

I have planned sequels but I don't know when I'll finish them. Could be years : ) The next sequel, though, would definitely be about Cameron and the children of the House line.