The part of this UVA Jackie “hoax” Rolling Stone/Washington Post story that’s concerning me is whether a young girl was having trouble adjusting to college life, the classes, the beautiful people, the ugly people, and/or adjusting to the difficulty of passing finals, for reasons other than an unknown event outside study (date/partying). And whether difficulty caused her to look for an easy excuse to blame any shortcomings (Netflix/internet addictions) on…?

Or, was this really a terrible fraternity rush/assault and/or date rape that caused her to withdraw?

One of these scenarios also needs to explain the desire to embellish and/or fabricate/lie, if only partially (and why some of related deception occurred before the supposed assault). Unless “Andy” is lying or misremembering, Jackie told Rolling Stone some mistruths beyond simply misremembering the name of the frat (one that just happens to have a unique history). You could explain the discrepancies as a useful way to avoid any readers identifying her. The attackers would think this was someone else, and not know it was Jackie. She could also be avoiding letting her friends know that the article was about her.

Yet, why does Jackie, in her own words, later describe this supposed event as “the tragically beautiful past” when seemingly relating it to the April 20th, 2014 S04E03 of Game of Thrones episode ‘Breaker of Chains?’ Does Jackie watch the episode where brother Jamie Lannister rapes his sister, Cersei, after the death of their son, the horrible King Joffrey Baratheon? But don’t worry, even though we’re watching rape for entertainment purposes, the show isn’t ruined.

Or does Jackie just read an article like this the following day?

Then on or about April 21st, Jackie writes that she’s going to work on a “new book” as a sequel to her/the “tragically beautiful past,” when she finishes recovering. She claims that individual lives are parts of “a series.” Did she write a previous book about her past? Did she see her life as part of an HBO series?

Was Jackie looking to write? How elaborate was her description to Rolling Stone? Was it written or verbal? Was this partially motivated by a desire to write a fictionalized “book” based on her life?

Did Rolling Stone know about this when they allowed her to fact-check the details of her own story? Did Rolling Stone fact-check Jackie and anything she previously wrote or intended to write? Does letting Jackie fact-check her own story go so far as letting her actually write portions of the Rolling Stong article? Does this fact-checking authority make Jackie an anonymous journalist for Rolling Stone?

Did she equate her life as a show? Has the false telling of this “story” to Rolling Stone ruined it? Is “the show” ruined? Or will all this notoriety be turned into a book/movie deal with a prime-time ABC interview?

I wonder about our education system a lot. I wonder how much this is at all related to the trouble kids seem to be having with “the system.” And/or how these things relate to all the other crap that comes along with being a human, like men who think it’s okay to serially rape women because the women they’ve previously raped have never reported it.

If it’s true that Jackie had to change from choosing an Ivy league school to UVA because it was cheaper, how would the parents feel about her potentially failing finals at a school they could barely afford? Did a fabricated assault serve as a useful excuse for poor performance?

Updated 12/10:

The Washington Post filed an updated story after talking to UVA students/friends. It seems to show that, among other things, Jackie created a fictional 3rd year chemistry student, and used a photo from a guy she knew in high school. She then gave a fake number to her friends to show the fictional junior was interested in her, and to make one of her friends jealous (who had rebuffed her).