DP FICTION #124A: “Irina, Unafraid” by Anna Clark

edited by David Steffen

It’s hard to reconcile Irina Treloar in her youth with the stunt-star who jumped through the moon. Archived family memories collage a girl with hunched shoulders and nail-bitten forearms against the unchanging backdrop of her room. From her room, she checked the shuttle livecast when her mother travelled for work. She agonised over friendships she couldn’t maintain. She watched the occupied system expand without stepping foot outside. This Irina, revealed through exclusive interviews and unprecedented access to private records, was far from the audacious woman known to the worlds.

The Treloars share these memories reluctantly, responding to widespread criticism of the late Irina. Before her death in the moon tunnel, she cultivated an image of indomitability, defining herself by her feats and keeping private any past struggles. In recent weeks, after leaked records revealed an implanted neural fear inhibitor, that image has tarnished with charges of recklessness and fame-seeking. Janie Mars, previous title-holder for the longest solo spacewalk, labelled her rival a coward.

Now, the family is speaking out. Irina Treloar, interplanetary daredevil, had an anxiety disorder. This, they argue, was more central to her stunts than any implanted circuitry.

Her symptoms manifested early. Former teachers describe her as a subdued but imaginative child, with the ability to invent a demise for every possible scenario and a compulsive need to plan for each eventuality.

“She was obsessed with death,” says her mother. “When she was little, she wouldn’t stay on a shuttle after the safety announcement. That was before she stopped leaving the home.”

By fifteen, even tools meant to help her anxiety had become restrictions. “It was like superstition,” her father tells me. “She was advised to exercise, so every morning she did fifty push-ups. No exceptions. A skipped ritual meant a bad day. She called it her anxiety noose, always drawing tighter. She hated herself for tying the knot.”

When FthanoPera Pharmaceuticals advertised for a neural implant trial, the family encouraged her to apply. This is how Irina came by her fear inhibitor: legally, before Dion’s Law was passed, and before she ever considered attempting a dangerous stunt.

Neural fear inhibitors rose to notoriety during the trial of coach and asteroid skier Francis Pelor, who cited inhibitor influence to plead diminished capacity for the manslaughter of pupil Dion Jones. After the judgement, in which Pelor’s training was deemed criminally unsafe, the family of Dion successfully campaigned to stop their production. The implant functions primarily by suppressing specific signals from the amygdala, preventing the secretion of stress hormones. From its inception, neuroscientists have voiced concerns about the impact on personality and decision making; concerns that Irina and those closest to her shared.

Her relatives, and the authors of the implant study, emphasize Irina’s caution and meticulous action-analysis. In the early weeks after becoming a recipient, she would plan every element of her day before its activation, and according to the results of the study, she never deviated from her predetermined intentions. Relatives also claim she was conservative in her use from the beginning. The implant’s archived data backs this up. Still, it’s an uncomfortable parallel: both Pelor and Irina pushed human possibility until they found the fatal edge.

Her sister refutes the comparison. “Pelor relied on his implant to participate in his sport. Irina used her stunts to prove that she wasn’t reliant on the implant. She wanted to feel agency over fear, and using the inhibitor would’ve defeated the purpose.”

This gets us to the heart of Irina’s motivation. She wanted to be free. Her first forays beyond the confines of anxiety happened under the inhibitor’s influence, but after each success, Irina would repeat it with her device shut off. She attended school in person. She met with friends. She took a shuttle to a Mars waypoint station. Soon, her successes didn’t involve the device at all.

“She always knew her fear was irrational,” says her sister. “That made it worse—more ingrained, more humiliating. To beat it, she needed to prove she was capable. Proof of experience, the security of an escape switch. Then, she needed proof that fear couldn’t confine her again.”

A pattern emerges: if it frightened her, Irina defeated it. For seven years, she had been unable to leave home. Thirteen months later, she became the youngest person to summit Olympus Mons on Mars. I’m shown her certificate, and the implant logs that demonstrate she achieved the feat with her inhibitor deactivated.

Around this time, she received her first offer of sponsorship. Soon, she was appearing in entertainment feeds across the solar system, surfing the gas clouds of Neptune and spelunking extra-terrestrial caves in a brand-plastered spacesuit.

“Money didn’t motivate her,” insists her sister. “It was about proving anxiety wouldn’t define her. Being in control.”

Was she in control? It sounds to me like this relentless pursuit of fears to conquer had become another ritual. I put it to her family. “Maybe she wasn’t,” her father concedes. “But she called it freedom. We weren’t going to point at her happiness and call it another cell.”

We move topic to the moon tunnel. Like many others, Irina’s interest sprang from the popular Our Haunted Solar System exhibition, in which the tunnel and its lurid history prominently feature. Friends took Irina to see the show, billed as a simulated ghost tour for the Space Age, for her thirtieth birthday. She returned obsessed.

“It [the moon tunnel] was a deep, dark hole laced with superstition. Of course she had to confront it,” says her mother with a watery smile.

Deaths have followed the tunnel since its beginning as a mining operation. Three engineers caught in a collapse while repairing an excavation bot. A survey team of ten. Fifty labourers in a decompressed mess chamber. When tourism giant Astronia proposed joining two shafts into one tunnel spanning the breadth of the moon, it was hailed as the most ambitious engineering project in generations. The refractory reinforcements at the core, once believed impossible, remain a scientific marvel. Millions flocked to the pod ride, but three fatal collisions and high maintenance costs saw the tunnel close to the public.

Irina proposed to traverse the tunnel in a record-breaking 3400-kilometer free fall. Her sponsors secured the permit.

The following events are well documented: Irina, broadcasting and wearing only her fortified spacesuit, jumped into the tunnel mouth, disappearing into the dark with the eerie lethargy of moon-motion. This footage is deceptive. With little drag to moderate her velocity, she quickly accelerated to incredible speeds, only slowing when she transcended the core and the mass behind surpassed the mass in front. Gravity now worked against her. On the other side, slightly inset into the tunnel, waited a platform where she was expected to complete her deceleration.

Here, things started to unravel. The calculations regarding ordinarily negligible atmospheric resistance and wall friction contained an error. She undershot, tumbling back.

Upon realising she wouldn’t make it, her team prepared a craft to catch her back at the initial jump site. Perhaps this contingency wasn’t sufficiently rehearsed, because a storage box close to the edge became dislodged during the preparations. Irina and the box fell towards each other, picking up momentum. They collided approximately five kilometres from the core. Irina died upon impact.

I ask if, in the light of her premature passing, her family wishes she’d never had the inhibitor.

“No,” her mother says. “It was her choice. She used it when she needed it, and we’re grateful she had it for those times.” She points me to a lone spike concluding the implant’s data.

There are still many uncertainties surrounding Irina’s death, including charges of negligence against members of her team, but the Treloars take comfort in this: when she fell to her end in the heart of the moon, Irina was unafraid.


© 2025 by Anna Clark

1298 words

Author’s Note: My inspiration comes from wasting too much time watching sports-drink-sponsored videos of extreme athletes. Partly. It also comes from my personal experience of anxiety (not entirely like Irina’s), which was debilitating for a number of years; even though it’s no longer nearly so acute, I’ve spent a lot of time wondering about the line between reasonable caution and negative avoidance. Ultimately, though, Irina’s story was written from curiosity about risk-takers and the people who love them, even when they all understand where it might end.

Anna Clark is a shipyard pipefitter in Cornwall, UK. When not fixing boats or swimming in the sea, she can be found writing fiction (often of the speculative variety) on the rocks by the beach. Her fiction has been published in Factor Four Magazine, Gwyllion, and Baubles from Bones. She sometimes hangs out on Bluesky under the handle @annaclark.bsky.social.


If you enjoyed the story you might also want to visit our Support Page, or read the other story offerings.

Diabolical Plots Lineup Announcement! (from July 2024 Window)

written by David Steffen

Hello! I am here to announce the original stories that were chosen from the general submission window that ran in July 2024.

First, some stats:
# of Stories Submitted: 1323
# Rejected (First Round): 1220
# Rejected (Final Round): 57
# Withdrawn: 15
# Disqualified: 2
# Rewrite Requests: 6
# Accepted: 23

Note that the overall numbers might include some authors twice in some circumstances. This can happen if an author withdraws before any of the first readers read it, they are allowed to submit another story in its place. Also, if a submission becomes a rewrite request, if the author submits the rewrite while the window is still open then the rewrite would become a second submission to the window. Or a combination of these could make several submissions for a single author.

The overall submission count is lower than the previous window by about a hundred, but there was still plenty of great stories to choose from, enough that we had to send rejection letters for many stories we would have been happy to publish.

This year we recruited a new first reader team because our first reader team carrying over from year to year had grown smaller over a couple years as some first readers got busy with other life things and couldn’t come back. The team with a bunch of new members worked their way through the queue with amazing speed while giving each story the same full opportunity as every other story–many hands make light work. This helped keep the window flowing as the editors never had to wait for a submission to have two votes on it (as you can tell by this announcement coming out almost 6 weeks earlier than last year’s announcement despite the window running about the same time of the year!). Our first readers are an amazing crew and we appreciate their immense help! Check out our staff page for a partial list of our first readers if you want to learn more about them!

If you have any comments or questions feel free to comment here or to send us a message through our contact form.

Changes Since the Last Window

We did have a few relevant changes to the submission system software since the last submission window.

In previous years, we did occasionally request rewrites from authors if we thought a story was almost an acceptance and we had something specific and concrete that we could request that (if the author was interested) could move it to become an acceptance. This was always handled outside of the submission system, where one of the editors would mark it as a Rejection but would edit the rejection letter to request chances and invite the author to send in changes. Changes in these cases were generally handled by having the author email one or more of the editors directly, and wasn’t handled by the submission system at all, which made it harder to keep track of, harder to collaborate on (need to forward it to other editors for them to see rather than being in a central location).

After the window last year, just before posting the summary, the submission system has been set up now so that a submission can be marked with the terminal status of Rewrite Request. When a Rewrite Request response is sent, it automatically also includes a special one-time resubmit link. The author can use this at any time. They can use it during the same window, which will bypass the usual one-submission-per-window limit. They can use it when there is no submission window. The link expires after a year (just for data cleanup purposes) but we can regenerate a link after that year on request. When a submission comes back into the system it will be treated somewhat differently, such as notifying both the Editor-In-Chief and the requesting editor. It will also bypass the usual requirement for two first readers to vote on it before it’s resolved, because it has already been seen by editors and was of interest enough to cause a Rewrite Request result. In addition, the submission system links to both the current text and the original text so the editors can compare what has changed if they like.

We also added the ability to handle solicitations to authors through the system. We occasionally solicited authors before, but it was always handled entirely out of the system which again made it harder to coordinate and keep track of it. This works very similarly to the Rewrite Request, producing a one-time link. The main difference is that a solicitation can be generated out of nowhere instead of requiring an existing submission record to start from.

And, since last year we added to the submission form an option for the author to enter Content Notes for the first reader team. We’d tried this in a previous year but had gotten some feedback on the way it was implemented that prompted us to pause the idea and come back to it later when we had time to take the feedback into account. Content Notes are never required but are appreciated! Our first reader team appreciates having a heads up on things like whether the story has the death of a pet, or spousal abuse, or things like that: that way a first reader can either brace themselves for it, or can choose to skip over it if they choose to and let another first reader who is more ready for that to handle it. When our first readers are often reading dozens of stories a week (sometimes even more!) that it can be very taxing to walk into stories with some topics without having a head’s up first and these content notes are very helpful. Authors, though not required to do this, seemed to use it very conscientiously, as stories that our first readers thought should have a warning usually had a relevant warning. So we appreciate authors participating in this when they are able!

The Lineup

The Witches Who Drowned
by R.J. Becks

On the Effects and Efficiency of Birdsong: A Meta-Analysis
by F.T. Berner

The Unfactory
by Derrick Boden

The Glorious Pursuit of Nominal
by Lisa Brideau

Irina, Unafraid
by Anna Clark

The Statue Hunt
by E. Carey Crowder

The Matador and the Labyrinth
by C.C. Finlay

Please Properly Cage Your Words
by Beth Goder

The Rat King Who Wasn’t
by Stephen Granade

In His Image
by R. Haven

The Interview
by Tim Hickson

Paths, Littlings, and Holy Things
by Somto Ihezue

The Year the Sheep God Shattered
by Marissa Lingen

Resurrection Scars
by Sheila Massie

Application For Continuance: vMingle Restroom Utility (RedemptionMod)
by Ethan Charles Reed

Will He Speak With Gentle Words?
by A.J. Rocca

Laser Eyes Ain’t Everything
by Effie Seiberg

(Skin)
by Chelsea Sutton

When Eve Chose Us
by Tia Tashiro

The Octopus Dreams of Personhood
by Hannah Yang

The Saint of Arms
by Mason Yeater

Skin as Warp, Blood as Weft
by Lilia Zhang

Our Lady of the Elevator
by Shiwei Zhou