REVIEW: “Stairs For Mermaids” by MM Schreier

Review of MM Schreier, “Stairs For Mermaids,” Flash Fiction Online 147 (January 2026): 10-13 — Purchase here. Reviewed by Sara L. Uckelman.

Content note: suicide.

This is a story about big sisters and little sisters, and the first-person plural narrator lends the story an edge of universality, telling the reader that this is what all big-sister-little-sister relationships are like. I don’t know if I would have enjoyed this story more or less if the relationship the narrator depicted as universal at all resembled my own big-sister-little-sister; would the story have been more resonant, or less, if I had been the kind of little sister that the narrator seems to think all little sisters are? I don’t know.

Sara L. UckelmanLeave a comment

REVIEW: “Rice Child, Dragon Child” by Jessie Roy

Review of Jessie Roy, “Rice Child, Dragon Child,” Flash Fiction Online 147 (January 2026): 22-25 — Purchase here. Reviewed by Sara L. Uckelman.

This felt a bit like a modern day “Sophie’s Choice,” with the narrator forced to decide between the future of her dreams and a future of security, each choice coming with its own hidden, unknown costs. I loved the setting and the central plot mechanism — the narrator’s gogok that can slice dreams away from one person, preserving them to give to another.

Sara L. UckelmanLeave a comment

REVIEW: “Swampland” by Erin Brandt Filliter

Review of Erin Brandt Filliter, “Swampland,” Flash Fiction Online 147 (January 2026): 19-20 — Purchase here. Reviewed by Sara L. Uckelman.

This story was classed as “literary,” but in fact it is quite speculative — the first page left me a bit worried that it would just be an ordinary, descriptive, literary story, but the second page takes that step away from reality and mere descriptive and dives into consequences: Why any of it matters. Definitely enjoyed the second half much more than the first!

Sara L. UckelmanLeave a comment

REVIEW: “The Kill Registry” by Brian Howlett

Review of Brian Howlett, “The Kill Registry,” After Dinner Conversation 3, no. 12 (December 2022): 67-80 — Subscribe here. Reviewed by Sara L. Uckelman.

Content note: Murder, domestic abuse.

This is the sort of spec fic I love: Take an outrageous premise, and see where it leads. In this case, the outrageous premise is “everyone gets one bullet — one free kill that they can use at any point in their life, no questions asked, no consequences.” (The most unrealistic part of it was the story behind how the premise got implemented in the first place — a Louisiana politician took the idea from a Geneva PhD student, and America loved it. When will America ever voluntarily limit the number of people one can shoot with impunity?)

Howlett combined this premise with some decent writing quality, making this one of the most fun stories I read in this issue. The only thing that let me down was how dumb the narrator’s use of his bullet was, in the end. It was just plain old misogyny.

Sara L. UckelmanLeave a comment

REVIEW: “The Bargain” by Thomas J. Weiss

Review of Thomas J. Weiss, “The Bargain,” After Dinner Conversation 3, no. 12 (December 2022): 48-65 — Subscribe here. Reviewed by Sara L. Uckelman.

This was an intriguing “first contact/take me to your leader” story. Neither of the characters involved in the titular bargain are involved out of choice, and both hope to reach the same outcome, which makes the bargain particularly interesting. With richer characters and more of an actual storyline, this was one of the stronger stories in this issue. While bits of it made it clear how white-western the viewpoint it was written from was, it was also clear that the author tried to diversify the cast list. A solid effort.

Sara L. UckelmanLeave a comment

REVIEW: “Male Privilege” by Alan Winnikoff

Review of Alan Winnikoff, “Male Privilege,” After Dinner Conversation 3, no. 12 (December 2022): 27-46 — Subscribe here. Reviewed by Sara L. Uckelman.

(Note: After Dinner Conversation pairs spec fic stories with philosophical reflection questions. In some reviews, I’ll engage with the questions; in some, I won’t.)

Content note: Sexual assault.

I really did not enjoy this story: Brendon, the main character, has no redeeming qualities. For most of the story, I wasn’t 100% convinced that I was supposed to enjoy it, that Brendon was supposed to generate any sympathy in me or that I should’ve expected any female character in it to be anything other than a foil for a man.

But the opening discussion question asks (paraphrased) “but, really, did he really do anything wrong?” which is a question that can only be asked by someone who thinks there is a possibility that the answer is “no”. So apparently someone must’ve thought there was a shred of acceptability in Brendon.

I try to keep my reviews relatively measured, even for stories that I don’t like. But with this one, I feel compelled to say: Don’t read it.

Sara L. UckelmanLeave a comment

REVIEW: “Mrs. Robinson” by Veronica L. Asay

Review of Veronica L. Asay, “Mrs. Robinson,” After Dinner Conversation 3, no. 12 (December 2022): 5-25 — Subscribe here. Reviewed by Sara L. Uckelman.

(Note: After Dinner Conversation pairs spec fic stories with philosophical reflection questions. In some reviews, I’ll engage with the questions; in some, I won’t.)

This was a proper Gothic tale, hitting the right notes of ludicrousness and horror, and providing a suitable setting for the moral quandary that Asay wanted to interrogate. The final reflection question paired with this story, “To what extent should we judge Benedict or the narrator by modern values given that they were working within the unjust rules of inheritance and prejudice of their time
period?”, is one of the more interesting questions that have been asked concerning the stories I’ve read in this issue, and I suspect is one that would lead to lively conversation.

Sara L. UckelmanLeave a comment

REVIEW: “Lev’s Pawn Shop” by Megan Neary

Review of Megan Neary, “Lev’s Pawn Shop,” After Dinner Conversation 3, no. 12 (December 2022): 83-91 — Subscribe here. Reviewed by Sara L. Uckelman.

(Note: After Dinner Conversation pairs spec fic stories with philosophical reflection questions. In some reviews, I’ll engage with the questions; in some, I won’t.)

For a journal that is ostensibly about engaging with philosophy and philosophical questions, I’ve been surprised at how big a role religion (mostly, pretty conservative Christianity) has played in the stories in this issue. This isn’t because I think philosophy and religion are antithetical to each other, but rather because I think they are not the same thing, and when I’m promised one and I get the other, that’s worth noting. I wonder what this story might have been like if instead of Lev being motivated by Bible passages, he’d read Mill on utilitarianism, or Kant on deontology, or Aristotle on virtue, and that had been what changed his behavior.

But, I enjoyed this story of redemption more than I enjoyed some of the others in this issue, so thumbs up for that.

Sara L. UckelmanLeave a comment

REVIEW: “Everyone’s Gay in Space” by Julie Sondra Decker

Review of Julie Sondra Decker, “Everyone’s Gay in Space,” After Dinner Conversation 3, no. 12 (December 2022): 109-131 — Subscribe here. Reviewed by Sara L. Uckelman.

(Note: After Dinner Conversation pairs spec fic stories with philosophical reflection questions. In some reviews, I’ll engage with the questions; in some, I won’t.)

I found this story to be a rather blunt take on the central moral issues involved — childbirth, abortion, disease, eugenics. I also found it to be full of judgement, unhappy relationships, and homophobia. The overall lack of nuance made the whole story feel very heavy-handed, and didactic, and that made it not particularly enjoyable to read. No one likes to feel that they are being moralized at.

There was also not nearly as much space gayness (gaiety?) as I expected, given the title of the story.

Sara L. UckelmanLeave a comment