I agree that it was not the best explanation (some important details are skipped sometimes because we think everyone already gets them).

So let us imagine a situation that would make it better. Assume that Alice and Bob are cycling on a tightrope, each of them carrying a balancing beam and that each of them is at the exact center of their balancing beam. Let us also assume that Alice and Bob are moving towards each other, each with the same speed and that you are overseeing the circus.

The idea of this situation is that clearly Alice and Bob appear symmetrically. When they cross each other, let us assume that they are carrying objects that need to be transfered between the ends of the beams and that one of them has some hooks (let us say Alice), while the other has some rings that need to be put in the hooks.

From your point of view, when they cross, Bob can clearly put the rings in the hooks and he does it for both at the same time so he does it and clearly everyone in the Circus applauds.

Now, look at it from Alice's point of view. If the horizontal bar that Bob is carrying appears shorter than hers, he will miss and Alice's history would be inconsistent with yours. Also if it is larger. But if you already agree that the trick was a success, it must be the case that Bob's balance beam is the exact same length as Alice's as far as Alice is concerned.

Now, do some hocuspokus and imagine that the beams are magically converted into the mirror clocks I described. I know in the picture it does not seem that the vertical clock are symmetrical, so that might be confusing you. But then move them so that they are centered and maybe the rest of the argument will make more sense.

Put in other words: there is no Lorentz contraction in directions orthogonal to motion.

Let me know if this helps.

and if this was supposed to be an incredibly suspense-filled moment, i am quite disappointed. that and happy that i didn't have to read the boring parts. this was bad enough.

but overall, it certainly has potential to be something fantastic and entertaining.
i would suggest writing it as a screenplay instead of a book since you don't like to pay attention to details very much.
i am a biased party reading something like this. You wrote it almost as though you're watching it happen in your head and not using an outline. I hated reading all the plays in school, even ones which are entertaining to see played out, such as Hamlet. I hated the crucible and i hated all the Shakespearian rambling.
Change your format and become a screenplay writer not an author.

Answer mine?