I know you said you weren’t happy with it, but I am! The end especially. The first half seems the weaker as far as having maybe some superfluous words. I think the speech about the name could be a little cop-cliche-ish, and to me describing Stevens as just “catatonic” doesn’t convey surprise or shock so much as actual injury. Aand that’s my two cents of critique, but mainly I’m entertained!

It’s a fun read, although it feels like something’s missing. The grammar and structure are fine, but I find it a bit, wondering. Like the point of it isn’t tied down solidly enough. But that might just be me.

I agree that the argument over the proper name is a bit cliched, but it was such a clever idea I can’t complain too much.