July 2020
I am downvoting for the following reasons:
- The clinical tone feels faulty: phrases such as "It is impossible to think about them without being currently exposed to them or knowledge of them" feel redundant in phrasing and generally unrefined in tone. Much of these problems, I feel, could be sorted out by reading through this out loud and picking up on any awkward/non-clinical syntax or grammar.
- There are a few instances of run-on sentences and paragraphs where most of the sentences are of similar length and structure, both of which contribute to this article feeling clunky for me.
- The dialogue in the log doesn't have a lot of character to it, and in my view wasn't particularly captivating to read: due to this, the exploration log feels lifeless and uninteresting, and doesn't give me a good feel for the story at hand.
- The note at the end feels bloated and unearned, and I didn't feel empathetic for the site director due to there being a lot of extraneous information put forward here. There are also a lot of parts which felt melodramatic — the last paragraph in this regard stands out to me the most.
Overall, the narrative at place here doesn't particularly grab me. It doesn't make me feel a lot due to there being little to no reason for me to care about the direction of the narrative, and either side of the story feels undeveloped and incomplete. There isn't really anybody to latch onto or sympathize with throughout, and the attempts to do so (i.e., the exploration log & the note) were lost on me. In the end, this just feels disjointed and inconclusive, and as such I didn't get much out of this.
That's all from me. Thanks for your time.
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this review do not reflect the opinions of SCP Wiki staff as a whole. Please respond to barredowl or contact the captain of the Site Criticism Team, SoullessSingularity, for any questions or concerns relating to this review.
June 2020 (8)
Hello, I'm barredowl! I will be performing a review on behalf of the Site Crit Team today.
[[collapsible show="[+] Show review" hide="[-] Hide review"]]
General
For the first half of this piece, I think you've got a really potent tone going. The poems, along with the notes accompanying the Yesod convention, sets a really nice solemn and mysterious feel to this piece, and I really enjoyed it. That being said, the interview took me out of this piece a little, and to me spoiled a lot of the article's staying power for me.
I think my main problem with the interview is that it feels very exposition-y, but doesn't really give away this information in a particularly satisfying or interesting way. The interview is just unusually stuffed with new information all the way through, and while that may be all well and good in terms of conciseness, here it feels a little too… convenient. There isn't a lot of buildup leading to the conclusion, and the interview just fizzles out, and doesn't really end with as powerful a stinger as it could have been. There's just so much to ingest that it just ending feels very wrong.
You do have a window for how to format this information: the Yesod convention in particular sorta leads into going into detail as to what the Travelers Behind God really mean, but the fact that it doesn't do this and instead tells this in a separate interview and with less subtlety feels like a wasted opportunity to me. I think the interview and the abridged introduction could perhaps be morphed in this regard, so it feels a little more resolute but not unusual that we're being told all this information.
For now, this is a downvote from me, but I will note: there's a lot of value stowed away in this piece, and something interesting which can come from the first half of this piece. However, unfortunately, this particular execution just didn't do it for me.
Line-By-Line
The control unit should retain a temperature of -150 °C (with subtle leeway.)
Period in the parentheses should be moved towards after the parentheses. Additionally, I'm not too sure "with subtle leeway" is particularly clinical: I would personally rephrase it to something like "with a margin of ±## °C" or just "±## °C".
—-
If at any point SCP-5972 is to enter its activated state whether it be from sudden power surge, or from the subsequent deactivation of both the normal and emergency cryogenic equipment, […]
The punctuation here is a little off for me. Consider:
If at any point SCP-5972 is to enter its activated state, whether it be from sudden power surge or from the subsequent deactivation of both the normal and emergency cryogenic equipment, […]
[…] then SCP-5972 is to be stored in a standard anomalous object safe within any available storage site within Site-89.
Two instances of the word "within" in close proximity to one another. For flow purposes, I would suggest rewording the sentence so that you could remove or replace either one of these.
SCP-5972 is able to move for short periods at a time, through the use of levitation.
Extraneous comma emboldened; for grammatical purposes, I would remove that.
SCP-5972 is immobile during periods of intense cold2 SCP-5972 is able to engage in movement within random intervals, with no set limit in a given time period.
Missing punctuation mark after the word "cold".
Each tablet measures 80 cm by 80cm, […]
Inconsistent spacing between "80" and "cm".
Montefiore expressed interest in reaching an agreement, and explaining the groups activities in exchange for protection.
I would reword the above to:
Montefiore expressed interest in reaching an agreement, explaining the group's activities in exchange for protection.
Raises hands up to the ceiling, dramatic.
Change "dramatic" to "dramatically".
There is a lot of snow were we travel.
"were" —> "where"
[[/collapsible]]
That's all from me. Thank you for your time!
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this review do not reflect the opinions of SCP Wiki staff as a whole. Please respond to barredowl or contact the captain of the Site Criticism Team, SoullessSingularity, for any questions or concerns relating to this review.
Hello, I'm barredowl! I will be performing a review on behalf of the Site Crit Team today.
[[collapsible show="[+] Show review" hide="[-] Hide review"]]
General
Simply put, I loved this. This really puts a face to Daevite horticulture, and in doing so has a lot of unique character to it. The high point for me in this article was the excerpt from SCP-140 describing this anomaly: the window into the thought process and what these bees represent for the Daevite community was very intriguing to read through. There's a lot of powerful statements made here which are just delightful, such as the one about the Daevite's legacy being of failure. They work very well to create a great article, regardless of any prior knowledge of the Daevites. In addition, the build-up to the final statement is just excellent. Really powerful stuff.
I don't have any real glaring complaints with this: I thought this was a very good piece which used its length sparingly and used it to tell a compelling story about the failure of the Daevites. Hard upvote on this one.
Line-By-Line
This is commonly, but not exclusively, pollination.
I feel like this line could use a little more clarification that this is in reference to the interaction.
[…], which is in the shape of Daevite temple.
Please correct me wrong, but I think there should be an "a" between the words "of" and "Daevite" here.
Addendum 0000.1 —
Addendum 0000.2 —
Placeholders still present in these.
[[/collapsible]]
That's all from me. Thank you for your time!
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this review do not reflect the opinions of SCP Wiki staff as a whole. Please respond to barredowl or contact the captain of the Site Criticism Team, SoullessSingularity, for any questions or concerns relating to this review.
Hello, I'm barredowl! I will be performing a review on behalf of the Site Crit Team today.
[[collapsible show="[+] Show review" hide="[-] Hide review"]]
General
There's some details I'm iffy about in this, particularly because I think they could have been executed a little better. The environmental storytelling in this, for example, still feels a little hamfisted for my tastes, and some details (such as the menstrual blood) could have either been reordered to the bottom or removed and give the reader some time to let them come to the conclusion here. In addition, I'm not too sure about the discovery log: I feel like some parts of it feel too extraneous and could easily be integrated with the first update log without problem, so it being its own thing is kinda strange.
Overall, though, I think I generally enjoyed the romance story put down here, and I definitely got a lot out of this piece in general, but there are still some issues which I think could be sorted out later on; for now, this is a tentative upvote.
Line-By-Line
Fourteen SCP-4724-A instances were recovered, but all expired within a month, due to congenital defects, strokes, and a lack of proper digestive tracts.
The emboldened comma to help the sentence flow should be removed.
The two approach the freezer in which SCP-4724-N is held, POI-7484's arm fully regenerated.
While this is technically correct, I found myself getting a little confused by how this sentence in particular was phrased. I would personally add the word "with" after the comma to clarify the dependent clause here.
[[/collapsible]]
That's all from me. Thank you for your time!
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this review do not reflect the opinions of SCP Wiki staff as a whole. Please respond to barredowl or contact the captain of the Site Criticism Team, SoullessSingularity, for any questions or concerns relating to this review.
Hello, I'm barredowl! I will be performing a review on behalf of the Site Crit Team today.
[[collapsible show="[+] Show review" hide="[-] Hide review"]]
General
While the idea behind this could be potentially interesting, the execution just doesn't sell it for me. One issue I have with this is the pacing: how the information is dispersed throughout the article isn't very appealing. The addendum could have been easily and naturally integrated into the description, the discovery feels kinda perfunctory, and the incident log/payoff at the end doesn't feel well-earned or satisfying. I feel like here the possibilities of the idea, along with an interesting storyline which could play along with this idea, isn't properly developed enough for me to draw intrigue from. Rather, this seems fairly reliant on me taking interest in the concept alone, which, unfortunately, just didn't click for me. There are also a couple problems I noticed with the clinical tone here and there, some of which I have denoted below.
If anything, going forward with this article I would suggest thinking about how the piece flows together and connects, either momentarily from structurally. The pieces in this article feel a touch too disconnected and sometimes purposeless, so considering how each piece fits together in the larger article would definitely do this skip some favors. In addition, I'd also consider seeing if developing past this base idea could yield some intriguing results, as I feel this article didn't get to give itself the chance to branch out and do something super interesting. For now, though, this is a -1 from me.
Line-By-Line
Level 3 personnel are to equip gardener gloves to harvesting SCP-5112-A.
This last phrase in this seems a little clunky. I would reword it to either "for harvesting SCP-5112-A" or "to harvest SCP-5112-A".
SCP-5112 specimens are, on average, about 1.15 meters tall as of the last measurement, […]
To remove redundancy, I would remove the whole "as of the last measurement" phrase.
SCP-5112 bushes are reported to blossom daily at around 07:30, […]
I feel like just specifying "07:30" is too broad. Perhaps something like "07:30 AM local time" would work better?
If the containment procedures aren't met within three hours, any instance of SCP-5112-A will wilt and therefore, expire, […]
I would reword this as follows:
If the containment procedures are not met within three hours, an instance of SCP-5112-A will wilt, and therefore expire, […]
If any sentient subject was pricked by the thorns of SCP-5112-A, any instance of SCP-5112-A will wilt and regenerate into a palette-flipped rose, hereby designated as SCP-5112-B.
This sentence has inconsistent tense, in addition to repeating the word "any" two times. Swapping them out with other words and making the tense consistent will help this flow a lot better.
On date 07/01/2011, […]
The word "date" could be removed without problem.
SCP-5112-A wilts and a new blossom grows from the stem in a matter of nanoseconds
Missing a period at the end.
[[/collapsible]]
That's all from me. Thank you for your time!
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this review do not reflect the opinions of SCP Wiki staff as a whole. Please respond to barredowl or contact the captain of the Site Criticism Team, SoullessSingularity, for any questions or concerns relating to this review.
Hello, I'm barredowl! I will be performing a review on behalf of the Site Crit Team today.
[[collapsible show="[+] Show review" hide="[-] Hide review"]]
General
There are two things which I think this article wants to do, but which it never gets to properly develop. For one, the main character here. You definitely have some characterization on its part, but unfortunately I never get invested with the character because, well, they don't really change. The article structure sorta sets for some kind of character growth or for the character to learn something and change themselves because of it, but that moment never really seems to come. Secondly, the exposition of this other world. While this article expounds a lot of exposition about where this stick bug used to be, it personally didn't really build up to anything and just kind of… ended.
I think my other main problem with this is that this doesn't feel like it has a beginning or an end. Nothing really comes out of all this, and I feel like the lack of that is very glaring. If I had to give any pointers on this, I would say to focus on one quality you want to pay attention to (such as, like I brought up earlier, the characters or the previous land) and run with it, extrapolating it into a story where there's some development. Until then, I think that part of the article is in need of some proper narrative development, so this is a downvote from me.
Line-By-Line
The entity is permitted to explore and document its experiences freely. The entity is not permitted to enter restricted areas or explore the facility beyond the botanical wing.
Both of these sentences are of similar sentence structure and begin the same way: perhaps changing up the sentence structure or wording could help them not feel as same-y?
Interaction with the entity outside of testing should remain minimal as to avoid unnecessary sentimental attachments.
I feel like the phrase "the entity" can be safely replaced with "SCP-5053", and its inclusion here feels a little weird.
There are also a couple repeated instances of "the entity" replacing what could be instead replaced with "SCP-5053".
SCP-5053 is a stick bug Phobaeticus kirbyi measuring 53 centimeters in length.
I would personally either put parentheses around "Phobaeticus kirbyi", or rephrase it like:
SCP-5053 is a stick bug, or Phobaeticus kirbyi, measuring 53 centimeters in length.
Euthenized by SCP-5053.
"Euthenized" should be spelled "Euthanized".
SCP-5053:Tork found me out there well beyond Alteria's walls.
Should be a space in between "SCP-5053" and "Tork".
My condolances, SCP-5053.
Should be "condolences".
[[/collapsible]]
That's all from me. Thank you for your time!
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this review do not reflect the opinions of SCP Wiki staff as a whole. Please respond to barredowl or contact the captain of the Site Criticism Team, SoullessSingularity, for any questions or concerns relating to this review.
Hello, I'm barredowl! I will be performing a review on behalf of the Site Crit Team today.
[[collapsible show="[+] Show review" hide="[-] Hide review"]]
General
I feel like this article peaked at its first addendum and after that started to fizzle out. I don't have any glaring problems with the Alpha-1 incident, other than at times the log starts to get a tiny bit too over-the-top and ends up doing fairly generic powerful monster things. However, the ending here (i.e., everything after that addendum) just doesn't have any staying power for me. The further incidents log just act as an awkward interim between the first and the third addendum and don't interestingly convey the fact that this anomaly is lightening up and means no harm. You could really explore with how you can convey this information, but here it's just given in the plainest way possible and I'm left feeling a little disappointed.
As for the ending note, it doesn't do anything new for me. It feels like it's treading the same ground that things like Fear Alone and SCP-2950 have executed before, what with the exposition elaborating on the fact that the anomaly in question feeds off of fear and that the protocols are only there to suspend said fear. It's a moral quandary which has been posed before, and here I don't think it really brings anything new to the table. If this is the structure you're planning to exert, posing a different question and extrapolating on that position a little more in the logs would be what I'd point to for improvement, as the ending here feels sorely undeveloped.
Line-By-Line
Any non-Foundation personnel found within this perimeter are to be immediately quarantined, anmestisized, and released.
I believe the agreed-upon spelling for the emboldened word is "amnesticized" or "amnesticised".
The entity's exact physical characteristics are currently unknown. Its observed effect on Porter's body has included:
- Emits a light upwards of 12,000 lumens.
"Emits" should in this case be changed to "Emitting" to better follow through with the lead-in sentence.
SCP-5322-2 is only able to manifest when the body could support non-anomalous human life.
Switch the past tense "could" to the present tense "can".
It is hypothesized that SCP-5322-2 is "trapped" within the body of Porter, which significantly limits its power.
Highlighted a comma which I think should be added into the original sentence.
Trees within a 50 meter radius begin to "melt."
I have my qualms with when clinical documentation does the quote notation as seen here, and I think here you could add some other clinical language to replace this or perhaps just remove the quotations.
Personnel complain about an acute nausea and dizziness.
The "an" in this sentence could be easily removed for conciseness.
Forward: Vital monitors alerted Director Arthur of increasing temperatures within SCP-5322-1. All personnel were alerted to the potential breach.
"Forward" should be "Foreword".
[[/collapsible]]
That's all from me. Thank you for your time!
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this review do not reflect the opinions of SCP Wiki staff as a whole. Please respond to barredowl or contact the captain of the Site Criticism Team, SoullessSingularity, for any questions or concerns relating to this review.
Hello, I'm barredowl! I will be performing a review on behalf of the Site Crit Team today.
[[collapsible show="[+] Show review" hide="[-] Hide review"]]
General
When you break this article down, there just isn't a lot to it. There's a lot of padding in this piece: there are points where I felt like the article wasn't interested in showing me anything new, and when it did it, it rarely felt relevant at all to the article at hand. I find the ConProcs particularly egregious in this regard, as there's a lot of sentences which could either be combined or removed for redundancy. The logs also suffer from this: instead of building up to any particular conclusion, it just lists off some somewhat strange flora and fauna instances without much rhyme or reason to it. I know that in-universe that's kinda the point (as this god figure tried to experiment with replicating normal life and created all these random creatures), but from an outsider perspective it doesn't make for a particularly engaging read.
I'm also, admittedly, not sure that the interview log here works for me. It feels like it expounds information which could be more easily and satisfyingly explained with the logs, so its inclusion feels unnecessary. It dances around the big point of this whole article and doesn't really interest me when I finally figure out what's happening, and the ending just isn't resolute enough to leave me guessing. The note at the end isn't doing any favors, either — I'm not sure what it's doing there, and it feels entirely out of place given the rest of the article. Seeing as this had a lot of critical pacing issues and wasn't that substantive to begin with, I'm leaving a downvote on this.
Line-By-Line
The area surrounding SCP-5405 is to be monitored at all times for signs of anomalous flora or fauna. The perimiter of SCP-5405 should be surrounded by a six meter high wall.
In this case, "perimiter" should be "perimeter". Also, given that these ConProcs sentences are fairly linked in their subject matter, I think they could be easily combined without problem and would flow a lot better.
Should any spread of SCP-5405 be detected, a squad of MTF Umbra-6 should be deployed to the area, equipped with a Scranton Reality Anchor, and necessary equipment to remove a section of SCP-5405.
Highlighted comma should be removed for flow issues.
A species of tree that seemingly grows roots upwards as well as downwards, wrapping the trunk in odd extrusions.
The inclusion of the adjective "odd" is a little non-clinical. Interchanging it with something like "irregular" or "atypical" would work a whole lot better.
Tests have revealed that it requires nightfall, not darkness, suggesting a natural way for the flora to record time.
This sentence isn't particularly clear in what it means for me. Rewording this might help a fair bit.
it has no sign of wings or vestiges of wings.
This could probably be truncated to "sign or vestiges of wings".
It has a single camel-like hump in the centre of its back, which seems to be without purpose.
The phrase "seems to be without purpose" could be easily interchanged with "vestigial", though that could be a problem with the sentence above also including a variant of "vestigial". Perhaps changing or removing the former would help out here.
Oddly for a living species, it has no way of naturally healing itself.
The inclusion of the word "oddly" also feels very non-clinical here. Interchanging it with a more clinical adjective would certainly help.
A bacterial species, found in extremely high numbers within SCP-5405. Tests show that the bacteria consumes dead material at a vastly accelerated rate compared to that of regular bacteria.
A lot of repetition of the word "bacteria". Rephrasing some of these sentences might help with this issue.
There are also a couple general problems with clinical tone which would be best sorted out by giving this a second read-through and seeing if any non-clinical or clunky phrasing can be sorted out.
[[/collapsible]]
That's all from me. Thank you for your time!
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this review do not reflect the opinions of SCP Wiki staff as a whole. Please respond to barredowl or contact the captain of the Site Criticism Team, SoullessSingularity, for any questions or concerns relating to this review.
Hello, I'm barredowl! I will be performing a review on behalf of the Site Crit Team today.
[[collapsible show="[+] Show review" hide="[-] Hide review"]]
General
As an antimemetic anomaly, I think this gives away its hand way too quickly. The reveal that all these strange anomalous properties are antimemetically based became very obvious after a while, and didn't exactly reveal themselves in an interesting or new manner. Other articles which this reminded me of (such as SCP-4773) gave just enough information for the reader to piece everything together in terms of the anomaly in question being antimemetic and all: here, how you revealed it didn't have much flavor to it (moreso just a description of properties which the reader could very easily piece together as antimemetic), and really only delivered on the bare minimum, and didn't grab me. As such, that part of the article fell flat for me.
Besides that, I'm not really a fan of the main narrative pushed here. How the ending is framed doesn't really have a good-enough buildup to justify itself, and multiple details make what you're going for very obtuse (for instance, the last footnote & the "connection closed for revenge" bit come to mind). Even at that I'm still like, confused at what I'm supposed to feel at the end of this. Emotional? I don't think you properly developed Pounds or the reality-bender here (either characterizing them in obvious ways or not at all) for me to feel empathy for either of them. Horrified? This article doesn't point to anything clear which I should be scared about. There isn't really a satisfying conclusion to Pound's character arc (which, even though it's all but supposed to be the emotional throughline of this story it isn't well-developed), and at the end I'm just… not sure what I'm supposed to get from this. There's potential here, but I think when ideas could be developed properly, they bounce between the extremes of being developed not at all or way too much. Due to me not getting much emotional impact out of this, this is a downvote from me.
Line-By-Line
Following the acquisition of new/more accurate information, […]
For me, "new/more accurate information" is a little clunky, in part due to the reliance of the slash. Perhaps lose the slash and try thinking of how you can rephrase this sentence accordingly?
Matter within the space, both organic and inorganic3, may be subject to spontaneous transmutation into complex manmade objects.
This needs some commas: I've added to this where I think commas could be placed to make this flow better in red.
Specifically, the arrangement of tiles inscribed with the phonetic alphabet arranged in multiple abstract patterns which as of this writing have not been translated.
I'm not sure what this sentence is supposed to mean: adding in some punctuation might clear up some inconsistencies.
Dr. Brookes' research concluded that SCP-3326 doesn't actually transmute matter; rather modifying how humans are able to perceive it.
The word "doesn't" is kinda non-clinical: I'd also suggest rewording that sentence like:
Dr. Brookes' research has concluded that SCP-3326 does not actually transmute matter, but rather modifies how humans are able to perceive it.
They successfully disable the pressurized locking system via what is believed to be a specific electromagnetic pulse of indeterminate frequency caused by the device.
This sentence also reads a little clunkily to me: there are a lot of adjectives here which I think could be cut out or shortened a bit.
(Also, for a general note, the exploration log is a little inconsistent in terms of tense: sometimes it's past and sometimes it's present.)
A search of the doctor's home yielded no result; though a large amount of dust from the home was found to have accumulated in a peculiar fashion within the master bedroom.
I feel like the semicolon here could be replaced with a comma, or if you want to keep the semicolon, removing the word "though" could be just fine.
[[/collapsible]]
That's all from me. Thank you for your time!
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this review do not reflect the opinions of SCP Wiki staff as a whole. Please respond to barredowl or contact the captain of the Site Criticism Team, SoullessSingularity, for any questions or concerns relating to this review.
August 2020 (3💭)
Draft Critique (for Krombopulos_Will)
Spoke over IRC PM, the contents of which I will excerpt here for future reference:
[[collapsible show="[+] Show feedback" hide="[-] Hide"]]
noting that i've finished reading. i'll take a couple minutes to congeal my thoughts.
10:25 PM <Krombopulos_Will> Nice!
10:31 PM <barredowl> so, i think my main concern with this piece is that the last half of this, the chloe bit, comes pretty much out of nowhere and feels disjointed, with little buildup to this moment beforehand to really justify the reader feeling much at the end.
10:31 PM chloe's character is just… sorta introduced straight away, and how the article disperses information about them being a bear killer feels rushed because there wasn't a lot of time spent developing their character beforehand. as such, this is pretty exposition-heavy at the end, and felt sorta dry as a result.
10:32 PM i personally think that going forward with this, more attention should be given to how the stinger of this article (i.e., chloe being caught by the police cause of chloe) is delivered, and whether or not this surprise comes naturally or artificially
10:33 PM as it stands, this feels sorta artificial. the newspaper is pretty exposition-heavy and doesn't tell us this information in a particularly interesting way, and it feels like this should have been explained before, instead of after, all of this is revealed
10:35 PM if you're focusing on the stinger, there are also some details which i feel could also be looked at: the emails, for example, feel like filler when you consider that the main hook at the end has little to do with these personal dramas explained in the letters
10:36 PM those parts, i feel, could be refined to better lean into the main stinger you're going for here.
10:36 PM <Krombopulos_Will> The idea is it's a series of escalating personal dramas
10:39 PM <barredowl> right. i sorta see that, but right now those personal dramas don't seem as… significant, or noteworthy, as the last one in the context of the rest of the article?
10:39 PM which leads to the first half of this and the second half feeling kinda disjointed
10:43 PM idk: right now, it doesn't feel so much as a series of escalating dramas so much as a list - there's not really a crescendo to the end, and personally that whole section feels sorta flat.
[[/collapsible]]
If you have any additional concerns, or want me to take a second look, feel free to contact me over Wikidot PM or IRC. Best of luck!
Idea Critique (for Dr Asteria)
Previously spoke over PM, author asked for clarification on a couple points. Log follows of our ensuing conversation, which I am pasting here for future reference.
[[collapsible show="[+] Show chatlog" hide="[-] Hide chatlog"]]
6:01 PM <DrAsteria> Hey! You free to talk now?
6:01 PM <barredowl> yeah, i am.
6:01 PM <DrAsteria> Okay cool
6:01 PM "my main concern is that the actual meaningfulness of the transformation for our main characters seems kinda one note, and understated. i feel like for this ti work, the actual reasoning for why this is so good for them needs to be elaborated beyond prior transphobia"
6:02 PM So I interpreted this as I needed more to their transition than just transphobia
6:02 PM And pulling from my experiences as a trans woman, I wanted to touch on my gender euphoria when I figured out I'm trans.
6:02 PM For -3 and -4 specifically
6:02 PM <barredowl> alright, so i sorta explained this one poorly.
6:02 PM <DrAsteria> Oh I'm sorry, go ahead.
6:03 PM <barredowl> what i think i was trying to get at was that, as a device to explore gender euphoria, this is… simplistic, and pretty blunt.
6:04 PM and from what i got from the original post, it didn't seem like the story was all too ready to branch beyond this simplicity and tell something unique.
6:06 PM <DrAsteria> That's one of the other things I'm a little confused about. What exctly is simple about it? And what do you mean by that?
6:07 PM <barredowl> what i mean by this it's sorta, a weird and unsatisfying way to push forward the story. they transform, and they're pretty happy. that's great, but ultimately it doesn't mean much when there's little buildup beforehand.
6:07 PM it just… happens.
6:08 PM <DrAsteria> So one of the things I thought of when I read your critique was that -1 only brings people to -2 when they're at their lowest and most vulnerable.
6:08 PM So my thoughts were that -1 seeks out -3 when shes just kicked out
6:08 PM and -4 when she's angry at her proposal getting denied
6:08 PM Because internally shes also struggling with her gender and externally with her job with -3 as the catalyst.
6:09 PM Now I don't know if that's really much of a buildup, though. What're your thoughts on that?
6:09 PM <barredowl> hmm.
6:11 PM i guess this depends at like, how long you stay with the character and develop their character arc after this transition happens.
6:11 PM this transition is, at this point, sorta the end of the character arc, because the person is pretty much satisfied with the main conflict which the article is presenting.
6:12 PM which makes it sorta difficult when, from here, it seems like half of the story is buildup and half of it is the end of the arc.
6:13 PM which is why i'd try to more closely consider the actual anomaly at play here - think about if it solves the problem too neatly, and if that's going to interfere with the rest of the emotional arc you're expressing in the article.
6:14 PM <DrAsteria> I think I should've said this in the post itself but -1 can't give -3 a new family, or give them new legal documents, or stop the Foundation from chasing -4. -1 can only explicitely transform a person and protect them from physical harm.
6:15 PM So -3 and -4 still have tons of challenges ahead of them even after transitioning.
6:15 PM <barredowl> see, i think that might be something to explore.
6:15 PM <DrAsteria> Not exactly "neat" but the idea was that the transition would help you realize what you need to do so you could do it yourself.
6:15 PM You think so?
6:16 PM <barredowl> hold on. i'm going to try and fetch the original idea post and look it over again
6:16 PM <DrAsteria> Okay
6:18 PM <barredowl> by chance do you have a link?
6:18 PM → DrAsteria joined #thecritters ↔ DrAsteria nipped out #site17
6:19 PM <DrAsteria> Agh! Hi im sorry
6:19 PM I accidentally closed the page
6:19 PM So if you sent something, I didn't see it.
6:19 PM <barredowl> oh, was just asking if you had the link to the idea thread
6:19 PM <DrAsteria> http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-13641193/what-i-once-was-is-gone-seeking-greenlight
6:20 PM Thank god I copied the chat into a notepad before closing it
6:21 PM <barredowl> so, to continue on that point, after -3 and -4 transition, nothing really happens of emotional substance.
6:22 PM >
-4 is then contained, however, an incident log then shows -4 helping -3 escape with -1 protecting them. -2 remains contained, however. An experiment log also shows that viewing of the pond by cisgender individuals yields no effect, as well as showing that the transformation is not forceful or painful.
6:22 PM like, this whole bit to me doesn't seem all that important to the emotional arc of both -3 and -4
6:22 PM and there isn't that much of a conclusion. you've got a beginning, and sort of a middle, to this story, but not an end.
6:24 PM <DrAsteria> So what would you be looking for in an end?
6:27 PM <barredowl> in my mind, something which completes the emotional arc. you set down all these conflict in the first half (-3 being discriminated against them being trans, -4's proposal being denied), so the conclusion should sorta… end those off.
6:28 PM <DrAsteria> Well -3 has a new mom/-4 has a new daughter and -4 no longer has her job and isn't struggling with the Foundation's ideals/practices anymore
6:29 PM So lemme also preface this by saying this SCP is a big giant representation of my life being trans
6:30 PM <barredowl> yeah, i realized this. and i'm sorry if i've been insensitive.
6:30 PM <DrAsteria> No no! It's totally okay.
6:30 PM I really appreciate the critique cause it's making me realize things I hadn't thought about.
6:30 PM So as any good critique it's helping me develop it further which is cool.
6:30 PM Anyway anyway
6:30 PM -3 found new family that made her happy and -4 let go of a job that made her unhappy
6:31 PM Which I think would be a satisfying ending?
6:32 PM <barredowl> a little, sorta like that. though, the jump between "character experiences conflict -> character interacts w/ anomaly -> character is happy" is still a touch too simplistic for my tastes, and some development between this points should be kept in mind.
6:33 PM there is still, for instance, the part where we actually get to relate with this character, and empathize with them, so that this happening to them means something.
6:34 PM <DrAsteria> Wdym?
6:34 PM <barredowl> as in, characterization.
6:35 PM <DrAsteria> Elaborate?
6:37 PM <barredowl> basically just, distinguishing your character so that they feel distinct and relatable.
6:37 PM for a character-heavy piece, that would be something to keep in mind.
6:38 PM <DrAsteria> Do you think I have done that already or should I work on it? And if the latter, in what way?
6:41 PM <barredowl> from the idea post, not especially? the characters themselves aren't that well-defined, and there isn't a lot they really do, so i don't really get an insight on how they think and feel.
6:41 PM and as for how to characterize them further in the context of an SCP article? i'd personally recommend looking at other, more recent articles which are character-heavy, and see how they develop their characters.
6:41 PM a great example of this is the author captain kirby: their two most recent SCPs (5552, 3393-ex) are exemplary in their characterization
6:41 PM and they're generally known for their heavily character-focused articles.
6:42 PM <DrAsteria> Okay I'll be sure to read them.
6:42 PM What would you be looking for in a well-defined character, tho?
6:46 PM <barredowl> nothing in specific. but in my view, you should have a set of character traits in your head which your given character exhibits, so that when you push the story forward you should know how they'd react to it.
6:46 PM this guide (http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/let-s-write-characters) explains this to some degree.
6:46 PM dialogue is also helpful for characterizing, as letting your character talk and give an easy window into the character at hand.
6:46 PM <DrAsteria> Okay okay cool cool.
6:46 PM So I think that covers most of the things I had.
6:47 PM So one last thing
6:48 PM After figuring out the specifics of the ending (maybe in some way exploring how -3 and -4 are dealing with their new life), developing the "inbetween" of the major events of the character arc, and developing the characters further. Is there anything else you'd look for in my story? And, if you're willing to greenlight, what would I need to do to make it worth your greenlight?
6:51 PM <barredowl> hmm
6:52 PM i think something else you need to keep in mind with this is to make sure this doesn't get too complicated. like, you're planning to develop both the anomaly and two different character arcs, and i imagine at some point that might get a little cumbersome to handle.
6:53 PM so, going forward, i'd probably say for you to keep it a bit more on the simpler side, because down the line, this may become bloated
6:54 PM i also, personally, am still not too keen on the idea of insta-transitioning as a means to explore gender euphoria, as it's been explored a lot in other media and it still reads a bit played out.
6:55 PM those are my other two main concerns.
6:55 PM <DrAsteria> That is something I kinda wanna keep. Would that keep you from greenlighting it?
6:57 PM <barredowl> ehh, most likely, especially with it being this central to the character arc, and with it being so effortless for -3 and -4 to insta-transition. that is sorta the point of the anomaly, so idk. it's ultimately my opinion and you're free to keep it in.
6:59 PM <DrAsteria> Okay then. Thank you for the help, I'll probably update the idea page within the next few days. If you ever wanna take a look, PM me about it, or what not, feel free to do so.
6:59 PM I think that's about it!
7:00 PM <barredowl> alright, nice
7:00 PM <DrAsteria> Again, thank you so much!
[[/collapsible]]
Idea Critique (for possiblyinMichigan)
Spoke over #thecritters, the contents of which I will log for future reference:
[[collapsible show="[+] Show feedback" hide="[-] Hide feedback"]]
4:29 PM <barredowl> okay, i've finished reading. give me a couple to congeal my thoughts.
4:34 PM <barredowl> i think my main concern with this idea is that there are a lot of details you're working with, but, given the context of this mainly being told through interview logs and whatnot, this might feel a tad… bloated and over-complex.
4:34 PM it might also run the risk of telling a lot more than showing: if the boy here is just, telling the events straight-up, it sorta seems like a missed opportunity to just, show it upfront. and staying within this context for too long could definitely run the risk of becoming boring fairly quickly.
4:36 PM this feels pretty ambitious if you want to flesh it out as comprehensively as you're setting it out here, especially mostly within the framing device of a set of interviews, and even at that there'd probably be too many extraneous details to really get me invested at what this story is trying to evoke.
4:37 PM <possiblyinMichigan> what do you think about an interview shifting to something more similar to a flashback? if i place the interviews last i could do some formatting stuff with the page. My hesitation is that it might make it seem disorganized. What are your thoughts on this?
4:39 PM <barredowl> just for clarification, is this like some kind of format screw? like, it shifts into a freeform prose thing at the end divorced from the SCP format? if so i'm hesitant about how that'd gel with the rest of the narrative, and even at that i don't think that really solves my gripes with this being over-complex.
4:40 PM by "this", i mean what you're proposing here
4:43 PM → •weizhong (opped) joined
4:43 PM <possiblyinMichigan> yes, a format screw is what i meant. how about simplifying the scp itself a bit?
4:44 PM i could keep the idea of heeding the warning of the shadow with a more simple execution
4:44 PM <barredowl> see, that's where i'm at with this - wherein, there are just too many details which you're focusing on and it feels like it's diluting the actual emotional arc you want to display here.
4:46 PM this sorta brings me into my next concern i have with this: that being, i don't think the emotional arc here feels particularly… complete? all that well fleshed out? it sorta ends in an awkward spot, i.e. the boy crying that they don't have a family and there being little to no growth w/ the central character here.
4:47 PM it's just, the boy interacts with the anomaly, they're sad after it, and it kinda ends there. i think focusing on like, how you're going to get the reader to empathize with this boy throughout the story is something you should also pay attention to.
4:48 PM this goes hand-in-hand with my complaints about the idea being over-complex: you're focusing on the details of the anomaly and whatnot, but the actual character arc - the part which the reader is going to latch onto - is sorta expected given what the actual anomaly does.
4:49 PM → •Mew-ltwoverse (halfopped) joined
4:49 PM <possiblyinMichigan> something i didn't have enough space to include in the description is the sizable chunk of story involving the friend and the teen trying to live normal lives
4:50 PM i think that would be where the reader initially latches onto the character
4:52 PM <barredowl> see, i think that's a potentially interesting and worthwhile route to explore.
4:53 PM the biggest problem i have with the narrative as is, is that it's fairly predictable if you only look at the anomaly. right now the story sorta feels like a baseline play-by-play about how /anyone/ would react in this situation, which for me doesn't seem particularly compelling.
4:55 PM this seems like a step in the right direction, in that you're planning to show what makes this person's story unique, and why we're listening to them in the first place. i just think you'd need to extrapolate that into a larger, more conclusive emotional arc.
4:55 PM <possiblyinMichigan> alright. thank you so much for your feedback. I'll continue refining this idea. I've gotta go for now, though. I really appreciate your ideas.
4:55 PM <barredowl> alright, no problem.
[[/collapsible]]
July 2020 (3💭)
Idea Critique (for RoldsNGolds)
Placeholder; will critique soon enough.
Well, this one took a bit longer than expected. Anyway, here goes.
[[collapsible show="[+] Show feedback" hide="[-] Hide"]]
My main concern with the narrative here is that there's a lot you're setting down for this story to go somewhere, but you don't really fully develop a lot of them, making this feel somewhat disorganized. To name a few, the story from the seasoned fisherman, the part about this possibly being a pet and what this means, the capture log, and the insinuation that there are more of these monsters. My question is this — how are you going to connect these into a cohesive story, and for that matter, what does this lead to? You have a lot of different components which could potentially serve as a good story to tell within an SCP article, but ultimately there's just a lot of threads you're putting down which make it a bit tricky to sort out a story which fits all of them. For this, I would suggest streamlining the beginning of your narrative a bit, and considering what parts of the narrative you're laying down are necessary to the plot and which are not. Then, after that, consider where you want to take this story from there. Think about the possibilities which could be explored with this kind of anomaly, perhaps lean a bit more into the character interactions and see if you can logically follow that into a larger narrative with a beginning, middle, and end. Whatever the case, I think that this narrative feels a bit inconclusive, in addition to feeling a tad disjointed, and is in desperate need of being completed and simplified.
Moreover, in regards to the base anomaly at hand, I have my concerns that it might be a bit… Pokemon-y? To elaborate on that, the fact that all these disparate abilities are telegraphed very clearly like this (i.e., they release a scream=they summon lightning, spewing a water spout=summoning a whirlpool) doesn't feel all that natural to me as an anomaly, and often feel a bit tacked-on to the actual anomaly itself, and feel a tad… expected and formulaic, especially with how you're illustrating the abilities. In addition, I also have my concerns that all these different abilities could potentially lend itself to not telling a clear story utilizing the anomaly here, and that the amount of abilities (a lot of which feel extraneous) could obfuscate a clear narrative you want to tell, what with all the variables you would need to consider. Like with the narrative, here I'd suggest closely inspecting the anomaly here and trying to pick out anything which you think won't really be important in the story, and see if you can get some inspiration from your narrative from there with your simplified anomaly. Also, consider the mechanics of the anomaly more closely — does this feel artificial, and if so, is this interfering with a concise narrative you're wanting to tell? That way, you could shape up your anomaly and with it, figure out a way to insert it into the narrative you're conveying with this article.
Overall, I think this needs a lot of work, both on the anomaly and narrative side of things, particularly with working on extraneous details and narrative direction. Going forward with this idea, I would give the following pointers:
- Streamline and remove extraneous details from your narrative. There are a lot of potential directions it seems you're wanting to take the narrative, but I'm not entirely sure if those will fit well together. Consider your narrative as a whole, and see if individual parts you've laid down here are particularly necessary to the plot, or can be removed. Moreover, think about how these individual parts form a cohesive whole, and think about how they can be placed into a story with a beginning, middle, and end.
- Consider how your narrative will conclude. Right now, you've got the beginning of something potentially interesting, but you haven't quite expounded as to what this leads to or what this all means. Using the framework you've set down here, try to think of a way this can conclude and continue — think of, say, potential interactions you could explore, or an emotional throughline you want to follow for this piece, and see how you could translate that into making this narrative more complete.
- Simplify your base anomaly. The base anomaly you have here has a lot of disparate abilities, and, if relied upon heavily, could potentially interfere with the story you want to tell here considering all the variables. As with the narrative, look at the individual moving parts of your anomaly and try to figure out if you can remove some of them to make your anomaly more concise, and after this further think about how the anomaly fits into and pushes forward your story.
I think that's all from me. If you have any remaining concerns, feel free to denote them in a reply to this post or PM me over Wikidot or IRC to take a look at your response. Best of luck!
[[/collapsible]]
Idea Critique (for Jawtricycle)
Placeholder. Will critique soon enough.
[[collapsible show="[+] Show feedback" hide="[-] Hide"]]
Generally, I'm a fan of this concept. I think the base anomaly on its own is suitably weird, and the narrative about this village being taken over, if executed on well, could make this piece into an engaging piece of weird horror. However, in regards of the narrative, I have a couple concerns which I want to see sorted out beforehand.
Firstly, I have my worries that the actual narrative itself isn't particularly in-depth right now. You have a somewhat good idea on how the story's going to start and how it's going to end, but not necessarily what's going to go on in between, specifically. For instance, how exactly are you going to develop the village being taken over, and how is this going to work in service of the horror or mystery you're serving for? Is it going to be gradual, or very sudden? How are you going to illustrate the impact of this happening to the village? I feel like you have a good opportunity to explore this, I'm just not seeing it fully developed here. Going forward with this, I'd like you to consider more deeply how the middle part of this is going to play out, and how it serves the themes and emotions you're going for. Think about how you can properly develop horror as this progresses, so you can really sell the desperation which comes at the end of the story and get your reader emotionally invested into the narrative. Point being, with the right progression and attention put into how this story develops in the middle, you could really get something horrific and engaging.
My second concern, though less glaring, is that the conclusion to this feels unearned, and doesn't feel properly built to. The fact that the researcher just puts on the hat themselves sorta undermines the conceit you're going for, what with the anomalies wanting others to put the bucket on other people, and could potentially interfere with the horror you're trying to evoke here. Moreover, compared to the rest of the article, the part where the researcher just… manages to escape in this almost-comedic way (wherein the researcher distracts this whale-like entity by chatting) also doesn't feel all that merited. I like the implication that the researcher like, mentally became a hermit crab but ultimately it doesn't follow from the guy just… deciding to put it on out of desperation. It also doesn't really particularly mean anything or introduce a lot that's intriguing, other than this guy potentially being part of this whole hermit crab anomaly themselves now. In this regard, I would suggest thinking harder about how this thing is going to end, and see if everything both logically and emotionally progresses in a satisfying way. Perhaps think about properly developing the researcher's desperation for putting on the bucket, or perhaps change it so that he puts on the bucket in a different way (maybe he gets it put on by one of the other hermit crabs?). Also think about a better way to have the researcher escape, and make it consistent and natural from the rest of the piece tonally; also consider the ending, and whether or not it feels natural given the rest of the story. Whatever the case, the conclusion needs some consideration put into it in how it fits with the rest of the piece, both narratively and tonally.
In short, the anomaly here is interesting, and I like the direction you're going with in terms of the narrative, I just think a little more thought needs to be put into its specifics. Going forward with this idea, I would give the following pointers:
- Lay out in detail how the narrative is going to play out. Right now, you have a good idea on how this story begins and how will it end, but in terms of the middle, you haven't really thought out much, save for the general direction of the narrative. Keeping in mind the themes and emotions you want to express via this narrative (such as horror), properly develop on what happens in between the beginning and the end of this story, and consider if it progresses in an intriguing way.
- Consider how your narrative is going to evoke horror. As with the narrative, you haven't really clearly laid out how you're going to sell the reader on the horror situation. Consider what potential kind of horror could arise from the situation you've laid down: what situations and interactions could you include in your story to make the horror more potent? For that matter, think about how these interactions build up, and consider what impact they have in making the reader horrified.
- Think about how the conclusion connects to the rest of your story. Right now, there's a lot of narrative and tonal disconnect with the ending, compared to the rest of the story. Consider how your ending fits in line with the rest of the story, and try to make sure that all of the components in the conclusion can naturally follow from what comes before. In addition, try to stay in line with that feeling of horror you're evoking here, and if necessary, revise some of the events presented so that you can evoke this emotion better.
I think that's all from me. If you have any remaining concerns, feel free to denote them in a reply to this post and PM me over Wikidot or IRC to take a look at your response. Best of luck!
[[/collapsible]]
Idea Critique (for Wowcool)
Placeholder. Will critique soon enough.
[[collapsible show="[+] Show feedback" hide="[-] Hide"]]
My main concern with the anomaly at hand is that a lot of the elements presented in this piece feel… disjointed. There are a lot of details in this idea (the seven weeks thing, the feeling at peace, the ghosts), all of which feel like they could be individually developed into separate things, and putting them into one only really serves to obfuscate a clear, streamlined story you could tell with this. In this regard, I suggest you isolate one part of this idea that you want to focus, and move forward with to make a larger narrative and fully develop. While doing this, I'd also advise you to be conscientious about how much freedom you can let a potential character have while interacting with your anomaly. A lot of the effects presented here, particularly the main 7 weeks thing and feeling at peace at the end, feel kind of interesting, as they're basically planning out what the character is going to feel at every turn, which isn't exactly the most compelling way to have a unique story. It's typically a lot more interesting to let characters speak and act for themselves, rather than having pretty much their entire story (such as with the whole 7 weeks thing) telegraphed out for them. To potentially mitigate this, consider thinking about the themes and emotions you're shooting for in this article, and see if you can revise your anomaly accordingly so that it simultaneously follows these themes you want to tell and gives some more narrative wiggle room.
In terms of the narrative, there isn't a lot here which could sustain an entire article, and as explained above, there are just too many details to easily form a coherent story. Sure, there's the whole 7 week event part, but it just feels very predictable and uninteresting on its own, and would greatly benefit from some kind of external narrative. Really, what I'd suggest for you is to again narrow down what themes or emotions you want to evoke (be it something horrific, comedic, or dramatic), and to think about how you could expand that into a larger story. It might be worth thinking about, for instance, how others react to the anomaly, or how it's used, or how it's affected by other people; really, anything you think would work in service of those themes/emotions you're going for and interestingly incorporate the anomaly at hand. Then, see if you can try to collate all of this into one, larger narrative which your anomaly can cleanly insert itself into with a beginning, middle, and end. Consider factors such as how the story gets the reader emotionally invested, or whether the narrative adequately expands and explores the possibilities this anomaly can open up. If necessary, consult some guides on how to make a narrative: two which I'd recommend for starting out would be this one and this one on incorporating narratives into an SCP article. Whatever the case, try to ensure that your reader has a story to attach to and get themselves interested in, as on its own this anomaly cannot carry an article.
In short, I feel this needs a lot of work, both on the base anomaly's part and the narrative's. Going forward with this idea, I would give the following pieces of advice:
- Streamline the effects of the anomaly. There are a lot of moving, extraneous parts to the anomaly here, a lot of which only serve to obfuscate an actual, clear story that your article could potentially tell. Focus on perhaps one or two effects which you could single out and produce a narrative from, and stick to it without also trying to focus on other unrelated effects which distract from a cohesive story.
- Stray away from strictly planning how your characters will act. Right now, quite a few of the effects you're laying down limit potential characters from expressing themselves into an interesting way (e.g., exactly telegraphing when and when not a character will feel regret when interacting with the 7 week events). While revising and streamlining your anomaly per above, think about how you could simultaneously let your potential characters have some freedom and react to the anomaly in interesting, different ways, while also conveying the desired themes and emotions you want.
- Lay out a structured narrative. Aside from the fairly lackluster 7 weeks thing, there's little story laid out here which I think could adequately support an article. Keeping in mind the themes/emotions you want to work with for this kind of article, try to think of potential dynamics and interactions you could showcase in an article which could lend itself towards something greater you want to evoke, and think about how they could collate into a larger narrative with a beginning, middle, and end.
I think that's all from me. If you have any remaining concerns, feel free to denote them in a reply to this post and PM me over Wikidot or IRC to take a look at your thread. Best of luck!
[[/collapsible]]
June 2020 (23💭, 2📕)
Idea Critique (for Duhon)
Placeholder. Will critique soon enough.
[[collapsible show="[+] Show feedback" hide="[-] Hide"]]
There's potentially something you could get out of this theme of critiquing predatory propaganda, but the base anomaly here feels like a contrived way to push towards that theme, and not one which I think could get this narrative very far. For one, it feels one-dimensional: if all the people affected by this anomaly act pretty much the same way, as ordered by this effect, there's little room for character or nuance to introduce itself, seeing as these people really have no choice but to act this way and no other way. Secondly, it's just not interesting: having somebody being anomalously forced to do or feel something isn't exactly a compelling way to lead into a larger narrative, and there are much more intriguing, in-depth way to kickstart a story than to say that your characters/victims really can't do otherwise. In this regard, I think the base anomaly here needs some workshopping so that it can more naturally set off a narrative and have a little more depth to it. I'd advise you to think of something which could illustrate your intended perspective of your theme here (in this case, predatory propaganda), and see if you could reform this into an anomaly. Also consider how this anomaly plays a larger part in your narrative: what potential character moments, or events could this anomaly inspire on its own? How do people interact/react to this anomaly, and what can this all say about your theme? Whatever the case, I think you should distance yourself from this fairly overplayed effect, and branch out to a new mechanism to express and push forward your narrative. For tips on conceptualizing anomalies and how they can fit into a potential story, I would recommend this guide on ideation.
As for the narrative, right now it feels a bit… incomplete. The main GoI storyline, in addition to not really being elaborated beyond some details about the anomaly's origin, doesn't really feel like it's actively doing anything with the hook you want to establish, or really a cohesive, finished narrative. It just seems like a shallow backstory, which, could be fine if properly reworked to fit the themes you're shooting for, but as of now there really isn't a full structured story you have here. For me, whether or not this includes your GoI storyline, I want you to consider a larger narrative, with a beginning, middle, and end, which your anomaly is included in. Think about ways you could pull the reader forward and get them invested in your anomaly and the possibilities it presents — maybe you focus on how the Foundation uses the anomaly, or another group of interest, or maybe you can focus on how individual characters are affected by this anomaly. Then, continue this narrative thread throughout, trying to explore the possibilities this theme can bring. By the end of this, you should try to have an investing story which pulls the reader forward and gets them emotionally invested/attached to your idea at hand. To help you out with this, I would suggest this guide and this guide on constructing narratives and making sure they fit with your article.
Point being, I think as is this is a somewhat barebones idea, and needs some lifting-up, both on the anomaly and narrative side of things. Going forward with this idea, I would give the following main pointers:
- Stray away from the compulsion effect with a new anomaly. The effect used in this piece just seems like an uninteresting way to kickstart your narrative and make sure your themes come across. Make this anomaly a bit more in-depth so that you can allow characters to naturally come to their own decisions and perhaps set off a narrative by themselves, while still trying to make sure that the anomaly itself fits with the themes you're shooting for, if wanted.
- Consider how this anomaly fits into your story/theme. While not exactly a problem right now, if significant reforms are made to the anomaly, you could run into the problem of not having much of a story to jump off with your new anomaly. While constructing this, consider a story you want to tell using the themes you've laid down, and see how you could reform the anomaly itself so that you could easily tell this story using the anomaly as a jumping-off point.
- Lay out a larger, structured narrative. Right now, the narrative you have set down hasn't really been well-thought out yet. Expand on the premise you've left here: what potential events could follow from the anomaly here, or what possibilities could you explore with it? Also consider potential ways you can use this narrative to get your reader invested and attached: maybe there's a form of driving conflict present in this narrative that you can exploit. Whatever the case, try to make sure all of these details come together to make a cohesive narrative with a concrete beginning, middle, and end.
I think that's it from me. If you have any remaining concerns, feel free to denote them in a reply to this post and PM me over Wikidot or IRC to take a look at your response. Best of luck!
[[/collapsible]]
Idea Critique (for Praecursoris)
Placeholder. Will critique soon enough.
[[collapsible show="[+] Show feedback" hide="[-] Hide"]]
I think the themes you're working here, and the dilemma presented to the Foundation in regards of how to preserve normalcy, are a somewhat viable route for a story, but I feel the anomaly itself is a little shallow and literal with how it communicates said themes. This isn't necessarily a problem right now, as you do seem to have a narrative which adequately deviates from the actual mechanics of the base anomaly, but should you tend towards telling a story exploring how exactly this anomaly relates to the themes you're pushing, it might be worth elaborating upon the actual complexity of the anomaly. Maybe, consider how individual characters in your story decide not to react; perhaps instead of being strictly anomalously forced to do so, there are some personal, illuminating decisions these potential characters make for themselves that you can include. Or, if you're planning to lean heavily into the character side of things for your story, I would suggest ditching the compulsion effect entirely. Whatever the case, I do think you should consider that your anomaly here is on somewhat shaky ground; while the story now isn't overly reliant on it, if relied upon too heavily, its basic, blunt nature as an interpretation of this idea's theme could be a problem. As such, do think about how you would handle your original anomaly (perhaps, make it more complex outside of this simple effect) should the narrative come to this point.
As for the narrative itself, it seems like you're trying to do two things — for one, the whole dilemma about normalcy, and for two, the storyline about figuring out and capturing the GoI. However, none of these really lead into one another or complement each other, and seem like completely distinct things here. They just seem like incongruent narrative threads which don't feel all that natural with one another. In my mind, I feel you should consider how you continue your overarching theme of this normalcy dilemma throughout the GoI storyline — maybe further think about, say, the GoI's motivations for doing this, and how they react to the Foundation, and see how the GoI's perspective could lend a new light on this dilemma you're posing, as right now, there's just not a whole lot in the GoI storyline connecting itself to the dilemma portion. I also think that the main narrative feels a bit incomplete at the moment: you've established a fairly in-depth base for your narrative, but how this narrative continues and ends isn't the clearest. There isn't really a lot of room for your theme here to really conclude in a satisfying way, nor do the hints of the GoI really end for anything. In this case, I would suggest thinking about how this all ends, and about how you could wrap up and adequately sum up the themes you're going for. Perhaps do something with the information given in the last interview; does this tell us anything relevant to the theme, or can it continue the plot forward? Also consider how this last part fits into the larger narrative, and whether the themes and tone stay relatively consistent throughout, all to compound and make a satisfying narrative which relates heavily to your themes.
Point being, I'm generally a fan of the direction you're taking this, I just feel like a couple details need to be tweaked and elaborated upon before I could be comfortable greenlighting this. Going forward with this idea, I would give the following pointers:
- Consider the simplicity of your anomaly, and how it fits narratively. Your anomaly on its own is relatively basic, and, if heavily relied upon, could make the basis for your narrative a bit flimsy and lacking. While not necesssarily a problem now, think about this while advancing your narrative, and see if you can distance yourself from this situation, either by making the actual anomaly more in-depth or distancing your narrative away from the anomaly.
- Integrate the two storylines together. The dilemma and the GoI storyline feel relatively disconnected on their own, and don't really compliment or lead into each other. Think about how you could properly express the theme you're going for while simultaneously continuing the narrative thread about the GoI, and more closely consider how both of these can fit together into a cohesive story.
- Lay out a definitive conclusion to your narrative. While you've got a solid base for your narrative, and have mostly considered how it's going to play out, the conclusion is decidedly less thought out. Think about how your conclusion can underpin your story and make it have a lasting impact — maybe tie the story's theme together, or maybe tell the reader something new which they would be intrigued to hear about as the story concludes.
I think that's all from me. If you have any remaining concerns, feel free to denote them in a reply to this post and PM me over Wikidot or IRC to take a look at your response. Best of luck!
[[/collapsible]]
Idea Critique (for Quadraginta)
Placeholder; will critique soon enough.
[[collapsible show="[+] Show feedback" hide="[-] Hide"]]
As a comedic anomaly, I feel like this could very quickly and easily run its course and fizzle out. With the anomaly pretty much exclusively focusing on the anomaly's sustainability as an idea (see: the testing at the end), I have my concerns that after a while, this just won't have a lot to offer; at its core, it's a very basic anomaly (not to mention, somewhat bland), and over-relying on it story-wise would not do this article any favors, personally. In my view, this could be sorted out in two ways — either make the anomaly a little more complex and sustainable as an idea, or change the narrative so that it isn't as over-reliant on the anomaly as it is here. I feel a little bit of both would help this here, as on its own, the anomaly is also a bit generic, and feels like a very literal/somewhat obvious symbolization of collective road rage. In this case, if you think your narrative is going to more closely focus on exploring the possibilities presented by this anomaly, think about how you could make the base anomaly more in-depth and viable for being relied upon as it is here. Maybe think about other potential narrative threads you want to explore in this article, and reform your original anomaly to better support the story you want to tell. Either way, I think this anomaly could do with some reshaping to better support a larger story and to present new possibilities as for the direction of the narrative.
In regards to the central narrative you're putting down, in addition to the above criticisms on the over-reliance on the anomaly, I don't really think that it alone could really hold up the entire article. The story here just seems extraneous, and doesn't really provide the reader with something to emotionally latch onto. Ultimately, it feels like a small part to a larger narrative, and really doesn't tell us anything other than how the anomaly was found and what its abilities are like, which, as stated before, feels very reliant on the actual staying power of the anomaly; and when there's not much to the original anomaly, that doesn't lead to a very engaging story. Narrative-wise, I'd advise for you to think bigger — instead of these somewhat incomplete discovery/testing segments, think of some potential interactions and pieces of conflict you could have to really explore the concept to its fullest extent and deliver satisfyingly on this article's comedy. Maybe think about how this anomaly emotionally affects people, or maybe play into that "road rage" angle, and see what larger comedic potential this idea could yield. If necessary, change up the original anomaly so you can better explore these narratives. Whatever the case, expand beyond a basic discovery/testing story, and think up a structured narrative which delivers on a satisfying beginning, middle, and end.
Point being, I think this anomaly and narrative feels a bit barebones at the moment. Going forward with this concept, I would give the following pointers:
- Focus on making the anomaly itself a bit more sustainable. On its own, the base anomaly feels a bit simple and unsustainable, most especially if you're wanting to have some testing logs to evoke comedy in this story. Even if you don't decide to have your narrative explore these testing logs and whatnot, consider how you can make your anomaly more in-depth and conceptually versatile; this could also potentially help you out if you're having trouble with figuring out a comprehensive story for your piece.
- Distance your narrative away from the anomaly, if needed. With the anomaly being somewhat bland right now, the fact that this story is so overly reliant on it feels a little unearned. Think about other interactions with this anomaly which don't directly predicate on the anomaly being an object of interest in itself. Consider, say, some potential character interactions in response to this anomaly could help push this story forward, or other moments or events outside of the actual anomaly's effects.
- Lay down a cohesive, structured narrative. The central narrative you're setting down here feels more like the beginning to something larger, and cannot sustain an entire article by itself. Consider other factors you can focus on and run with (such as, say, how others react to the anomaly or how the anomaly affects those around it) to make a satisfying narrative with a beginning, middle, and end, and think about potential comedic moments you can get from this.
I think that's all from me. If you have any remaining concerns, feel free to denote them in a reply to this post and PM me over Wikidot or IRC to take a look at your response. Best of luck!
[[/collapsible]]
Idea Critique (for Ben Levitt)
Placeholder; will critique soon enough.
[[collapsible show="[+] Show feedback" hide="[-] Hide"]]
Anomaly-wise, the humanoid presented here feels very generic and one-note. The fact that it can just… invariably change into a person's greatest fears with little depth outside of their motivation to scare & kill doesn't particularly strike me as something which I could get emotionally invested in on its own, not to mention the actual effects not working for me and feeling bland and one-dimensional. If you're going for a horror kind of narrative here, I'm afraid that doesn't work for me either. The fact that this monster basically forces its victims to be scared 100% of the time, with no real exploration beyond that, just feels like a contrived and uninteresting way to evoke horror, in addition to being a little… predictable. To fix this, I would suggest settling on a more concrete anomaly, as having this anomaly being able to change into literally anything somebody fears could make for a disjointed and confused story later on. Perhaps focus on a type of horror you want to evoke — psychological horror, body horror, bleak horror — and think about how you could tailor the anomaly to make that emotion more potent. Settling on one specific anomaly could also help you characterize this anomaly beyond "it wants to scare and kill people", and maybe this anomaly's character could be somewhat related to its abilities. Whatever the case, I think you need to branch away from having this anomaly pigeonhole its victims into feeling scared and scared only: it's more interesting to let characters come to their own emotional decisions than have an anomaly do it for them.
In regards to the narrative, I'm not confident that it alone can sustain an entire article. It seems more like a part of something larger than a narrative in itself, and really doesn't feel complete because of it, only really serving to try and convince the audience that this thing is worth being scared about, and little else. (Also, I should mention, I'm not sure your story would benefit from being artificially pushed forward by handling suicide like you do here. In this regard, I'd say to think of better, more tactful ways to communicate fear for your skip.) I think here, you really need to think out a larger narrative with a structured beginning, middle, and end. Consider your anomaly as a conduit through which you can tell a story, not a point of intrigue in itself, and with this think about possibilities and stories you could explore which could evoke a certain emotion or theme you're going for. Maybe explore how the Foundation reacts to the anomaly, or how the two interact, or how individual characters are affected by this anomaly. Maybe single on one person's experiences with the anomaly, and extrapolate that into a structured narrative. I think that there needs to be a lot, lot more development here beyond something which doesn't really cleanly tell a story and moreso just… a tidbit about the anomaly without really delving into the possibilities for your anomaly at hand.
Point being, I think this idea needs a lot of work, both on the base anomaly and narrative side of things. If I had to give any main pieces of advice, these would be it:
- Make how your anomaly scares people less contrived. If you're trying to evoke horror, this isn't really the way; having its victims be invariably scared with little depth beyond that isn't exciting or particularly interesting in terms of ways to properly evoke horror. Consider a more unique, streamlined approach to how you want the reader to be scared of this thing — maybe it has motivations outside of just killing people, maybe make the area of horror you're wanting to evoke a bit more specific.
- Consider how you can make your anomaly more concrete. Having this monster being able to transform into pretty much everything seems like a very broad scope for making a simple, streamlined narrative which people will invest themselves with. Instead of having this anomaly transform to suit its victim's individual fears, perhaps consider how you could evoke horror with one single monster's identity, and with that use it as a jumping-off point for a larger story.
- Construct a larger, structured narrative. Right now, the narrative you have put in place seems more like a single part of a larger story. To remedy this, fully think up and lay down a structured narrative with a beginning, middle, and end, taking into consideration factors such as the anomaly's character, interactions and reactions to the anomaly, and others as a way to push forward your narrative and create a satisfying, unified story.
I think that's it from me. If you have any remaining concerns, feel free to denote them in a reply to this post and PM me over Wikidot or IRC to take a look at your response. Best of luck!
[[/collapsible]]
Idea Critique (for Plutotronic)
Placeholder; will critique soon enough.
Apologies I didn't get to this sooner. Anyways, here goes.
[[collapsible show="[+] Show feedback" hide="[-] Hide"]]
There's definitely some horror potential you could get out of the anomaly presented here, what with this technology glitching out ; however, the details of what exactly the anomaly is are a bit unclear, and I feel need some clarification. You state that, for instance, some of the horror is going to be based on being intangible in tense situations, but I'm unclear with what exactly that will entail, or for that matter how that horror will be framed in the context of the article. Like, what at its core does this anomaly do? How exactly are you going to communicate the horror that comes with being intangible like this, and what specific situations do you want to explore with this anomaly? I feel like all of these points need a bit of considering, or at least clarification, as there really isn't a whole lot you laid down here suggesting this.
In regards to the narrative you're setting down, you have a somewhat established view on how you're going to express your narrative (i.e., through recovered logs on missions), but not so much how that narrative is going to play out structurally. I think that the base idea you set down here with the headset is a good starting point, but I'm unclear on how you're going to format that into a story with a beginning, middle, and end. For this, I'd like you to consider how this anomaly flows and gets utilized throughout your story. What possible events and interactions could be explored via the use of this anomaly, and how can that work in service of a theme or emotion you want to express? In addition, be prepared to consider, say, how the anomaly affects people around it, or how people affect it. These kinds of questions can help you set off a larger, structured narrative, and might help you with figuring out such going forward.
In short, I think this idea is very promising, I just think it needs some expanding upon, and even some clarification. Going forward with this idea, I would make the following main suggestions:
- Consider how the anomaly will be framed in the story. Right now, there isn't a lot which really tells me how exactly you're going to explore the horrific possibilities of this anomaly (and, to a smaller extent, what the anomaly is/does itself). In this regard, think about possible situations which could lend itself to evoking horror. How are you going to communicate the fear which comes with this idea, and how is this going to act as a driving force towards your narrative?
- Lay out a larger, structured narrative. You've got the base for something interesting, but you really haven't expanded that into a larger story. Consider how your anomaly here pushes forward the story, and how it can do so; is there perhaps an interaction you want to explore between the anomaly and a character, or perhaps a specific event, which illustrates the horror you're going for? Also be prepared to explore different people's interactions with this anomaly, and how this could lend itself to making a satisfying but still horrific narrative.
I think that's it from me. If you feel the need to clarify some of the details here, feel free to denote said clarifications in a reply to this post and PM me over Wikidot or IRC for me to take a look at your response. Best of luck!
[[/collapsible]]
Idea Critique (for MadEngineer)
Placeholder; will critique soon enough.
[[collapsible show="[+] Show feedback" hide="[-] Hide"]]
As a GaW anomaly, this feels far too… disruptive. From what I've seen, GaW generally tries to keep itself out of the lime-light, and doesn't really want to poke the veil as much as something like this would (see, SCP-4493 for one interpretation of GaW's philosophy on said kinds of things). And yes, even if this is framed within the context of a user not understanding the consequences of their actions, this still feels way too large of an action for someone to just pass judgment on, and doesn't really feel like a believable way to explain why the anomaly is the way it is. I think in this regard, you'll need to do one of two things. You could either change the situation and context in which this anomaly is made away from GaW, or make the anomaly a bit less… blunt. For the latter, I think there's ample room to make the anomaly a lot less disruptive than a giant mound of banana flesh and still preserve that weirdness factor & stick to the themes of extremism you appear to be shooting for. Whatever the case, the anomaly just feels wholly out of character for GaW, and needs some changing up.
In regards to the narrative, I can't help but worry that it might feel a bit one-note. Like, kkrule does something mischievous, he gets in trouble, afterwards some discussion. There feels like there's something which should accompany this — this moreso feels like an inciting incident than the main narrative beat of your story. With this simplicity, though less of a concern than this narrative feeling incomplete, you also run the risk of having this seem a bit too reminiscent of SCP-2433: the general structure and how this ends feels very similar, except this time the anomaly is a lot more complex and disruptive, and it doesn't feel like you've really properly explored like, what an anomaly residing in the White House at GaW's discretion would even look like. Some of this may need some clarification on your part (i.e., what position are you trying to explore in terms of extremism at the end?), but for the most part I think the narrative needs some consideration. Really think about what this kind of situation, what with a GaW member letting something loose at the White House would turn out, and consider on how you can expound beyond the moment here, maybe explore different angles. Consider, for instance, different reactions and interactions you could illustrate and insert in this kind of framing device. How does this anomaly, and likewise the interactions surrounding it, push forward a larger narrative? You have the start of something here, I just think you need to properly expand on it.
In summary, there's a lot to work on here, mostly on the narrative side of things. Going forward with this idea, I would make the following suggestions:
- Make the anomaly's existence realistic/feasible. A large part of this article's basis is its origin in GaW, but this anomaly just doesn't seem believable coming from this group. Either focus on diverting your main narrative to another group other than GaW, or reform this anomaly so that it's more subtle/less disruptive while also preserving the weirdness factor you're wanting to explore.
- Consider elaborating on the themes you're setting down. You seem to be shooting for this article being partially themed around extremism and its roots, but you haven't really properly set down what position you're going to explore in this article. Lay down both what you're wanting to talk about in this article and how this will be framed and extrapolated on within the article.
- Think about how you can expand the narrative. You've got the base for a potentially interesting story, but the narrative presented here feels too simplistic and one-note. Elaborate on both the themes you're presenting here (of extremism and whatnot) and the situation you're setting up, and fully explore, say, possible character moments or interactions which come with this kind of idea.
I think that's it from me. If you have any remaining concerns, feel free to denote them in a reply to this post and PM me over Wikidot or IRC to take a look at your reply. Best of luck!
[[/collapsible]]
Idea Critique (for The_Wise_Guy)
Placeholder; will critique soon enough.
[[collapsible show="[+] Show feedback" hide="[-] Hide"]]
One of my main concerns with this concept is that the stakes and conflict inserted in this narrative feel kinda artificial and out-of-place. The fact that the character just… arbitrarily going into a comatose state or losing consciousness for a while with no real buildup or reason given to it puts me off, especially given that these are some of the main areas of conflict in this story. In this regard, I'd more closely consider which parts of the story push it forward, and consider whether these parts naturally arise or come out of nowhere (in this case, I feel the latter is more prevalent). Indeed, there are certain elements in this piece which could potentially lead to some larger conflict opportunities; the humanoid feeling exhausted and hopeless at the prospect of this anomaly affecting them seems like a potential avenue of conflict, for example. Whatever the case, think of more natural ways to kickstart your story with the use of conflict, and try to extrapolate on them and see if they can be properly built up or developed.
In regards to the narrative, this runs its course after a while and doesn't really have a solid conclusion. I think this is mainly because of the fact that, other than the already mentioned points of conflict which I had a problem with, there isn't a lot driving this story forward. There isn't a lot to invest in emotionally, despite that being one of the main things you're aiming for, seeing as this humanoid doesn't really have a character or motivations which makes us interested in reading more. This lack of characterization also in turn makes the conclusion feel lacking — without any real new character developments to keep us hooked, there isn't really anything to build up to at the end, and because of this the narrative just… fizzles out. To solve this, I'd suggest considering the personality of this humanoid, and how it's perhaps affected and influenced by the anomaly. What interesting character moments can you explore in interaction with this particular anomaly, and for that matter, what does this lead to? How do others react or interact with this character, and is that worth putting in the story? Or, most glaringly, how can you fit this character into a clear, structured narrative with a beginning, middle, and end? I feel like you have the building blocks for an interesting character piece which could get the reader emotionally invested, you just haven't fully structured this part enough for people to really care.
Overall, I think that in regards to the narrative, there's a lot that needs to be sorted out. Going forward with this idea, I would point to the following suggestions:
- Make your story's points of conflict more natural. The major driving forces of the story here feel relatively out-of-place and artificial. To fix this, consider situations which naturally arise from your anomaly, and see how those could act as ways to push forward the story. Also consider in this department whether these moments of sudden conflict pushing the narrative forward are properly built up beforehand.
- To sustain the story, consider the character of your humanoid. As stated above, there isn't a lot pushing the story forward, and a large part of this is due to the fact that your main character doesn't really have a distinguishable personality or motivation. Think about this, and its relation to the narrative; what potential character traits or moments could make the story go into an interesting direction and get the reader emotionally invested?
- Lay out a more detailed narrative involving your anomaly. While you've got the basic idea for what your narrative is going to be focused on, you haven't necessarily laid out how it's going to play out. Keeping in mind the above two points, construct a larger narrative with a beginning, middle, and end which your anomaly is inserted into, and consider how this narrative can work in service of the theme/emotion (in this case, pitying and feeling bad for the SCP) and how you can express this in a story.
I think that's all from me. If you have any remaining concerns, feel free to denote them in a reply to this post and PM me over Wikidot or IRC to take a look at your response. Best of luck!
[[/collapsible]]
Idea Critique (for DeltaF)
Placeholder; will critique soon enough. In the future, keep in mind I take requests only via IRC.
[[collapsible show="[+] Show feedback" hide="[-] Hide"]]
The main effect this anomaly has isn't particularly interesting to me, for much of the reasons OCuin has said above me, in that it feels over-complicated and the inclusion of self harm feels gratuitous and unneeded without giving any indication that you're prepared to handle such a topic delicately, and in turn could be easily replaced with something else. Furthermore, I'm not a fan of the fact that this notebook basically anomalously forces you to play out a very specific line of actions, with not a lot of wiggle room for victims to say or do otherwise. This kind of effect is often seen as uninteresting and contrived, since it feels artificial and unnatural in how it acts as an impetus for a narrative, and it's typically a lot more interesting when you let the characters come to their own decisions and perform actions with their own volition. In this regard, I'd advise that you stray away from this kind of effect, and instead consider an anomaly which could lend itself to a less direct, less blunt interpretation of the theme you're presenting (that being, a subject destroying its attachment to something it's loved for years). Maybe this anomaly could kickstart something which makes fleshed-out characters have a falling-out completely naturally. Really, anything other than this kind of outcome being anomalously forced would be preferable for me.
Moreover, the narrative doesn't seem to me like something which can support an article alone, as it's just one incident which moreso lends a view into how the anomaly came to be, rather than what it in a larger sense means. There's some emotion here, but it feels kind of distant, and could most certainly benefit from a more developed emotional through-line. For this, it's helpful to consider your anomaly as a jumping-off point from which a larger story is told, rather than a point of intrigue in itself. Consider, for instance, how this anomaly naturally affects people around it; what kinds of characters interact with this, and how they react. Perhaps these interactions could more cleanly and naturally illustrate the theme you're getting at of people breaking up after being together for so long. In this regard, I think laying out a more coherent narrative structure with a telegraphed beginning, middle, and end which accompanies this anomaly would help here. While making this, also think about what theme and/or emotion you're trying to evoke, and keep that in mind while thinking of a story for this anomaly.
Simply put, the base anomaly here has a lot of flaws, and likewise, the narrative does too, and both need some consideration and development. Going forward with this idea, I would give the following suggestions:
- Make the central anomaly more natural in how it kickstarts the story. The compulsion effect, in addition to straying into some unsavory territory with the self-harm stuff, is also an uninteresting and contrived way to start a larger story. Instead of anomalously forcing your characters to perform a particular act when interacting with the anomaly, focus on an anomaly which gives different characters a chance to naturally react and interact with the anomaly, perhaps in service of the theme you're shooting for with long love being broken.
- Construct a larger, structured narrative. The lone piece of discovery information on this anomaly doesn't feel like it alone can sustain an entire article. Consider further ways in which the anomaly here can, say, have characters react to it, or have people affected by it, and think about how you could format this into a clear narrative with a beginning, middle, and end.
I think that's it from me. If you have any remaining concerns, feel free to denote them in a reply to this post or PM me over Wikidot or IRC to take a look at your response. Best of luck!
[[/collapsible]]
Idea Critique (for dr-alyx)
Placeholder; will critique soon enough.
[[collapsible show="[+] Show feedback" hide="[-] Hide"]]
The fact that most, if not all of the groundwork for this idea is based around an uninteresting and obstructive compulsion effect isn't very appealing to me. Effects like these, wherein characters are basically anomalously forced to perform or feel a certain way (in this case, being compelled to believe the person, see what they're seeing, and spread it themselves), are almost always seen as an artificial way to kickstart the plot, as it's typically more interesting and less contrived to see characters naturally come to their own conclusions instead of having an anomaly do it for them. The reason I think this particular effect is obstructive is because, well, you're planning to show the different experiences of the people affected, and when 90% of their decisions to get them to this point weren't made by them, there isn't really a lot of room for unique characterization. To remedy this, I would suggest thinking of ways to naturally move the story forward. Think about, say, how different people independently come to be swayed by this anomaly, and perhaps think about what emotions you can convey with these different perspectives. Focus on potentially character interactions you could focus on, both with the anomaly and the narrative, which don't have to be reliant on this effect.
As for the narrative, you have a grasp on how you're going to express the story, but not so much the actual structure of the story. In particular, there isn't really a conclusion to the narrative you're putting down, nor is there really any specific meaning, theme, or emotion you're wanting to express with these pieces put together to form a cohesive whole; everything here is sorta vague and doesn't really telegraph a particularly fleshed-out story. For this, while also keeping in mind the above points, consider laying out a narrative with a beginning, middle, and end which your anomaly/humanoid can easily slot in. Think about, perhaps, how the anomaly affects people around it, or how those react or interact with it, while also thinking about how this will taper off into a satisfying conclusion. This can also go in hand with characterizing the people who were drawn into this humanoid; for this, maybe single on one person affected and have them evoke a particular emotion you want to display. Whatever the case, I think some consideration should be taken in how you want to narratively format and structure this article on hand.
In short, this has a lot of structural problems to it which I think should be sorted out. If I had to give any pointers, here would be my suggestions:
- Distance your anomaly from compulsion effects. Most of the base of this idea is rooted in a played-out, uninteresting, contrived effect which actively interferes with a lot you're wanting to tell here (such as testimony from affected people). Instead of artificially kickstarting the plot by anomalously forcing your characters to do a thing, focus on ways you can naturally get your characters into these situations at hand.
- Naturally characterize affected people. A large part of the story here is rooted in testimony from affected people, but without any indication of what their characters are or why they got into their situation other than the above effect, there isn't a lot to chew on. Think about ways you could include different characters and their individual motivations, or perhaps just one character, and think about how you can slot said characters into your story.
- Lay out a structured narrative. Right now, the narrative you're planning here isn't really clear, only having details here and there with no real endpoint or conclusion. To branch away from this, consider a theme or emotion you're wanting to evoke here, and around that, relying on characters, events, or other things to push forward the story, construct a fleshed-out narrative around this theme/emotion you're going for.
I think that's all from me. If you have any remaining concerns, feel free to denote them in a reply to this post and PM me over Wikidot or IRC to take a look at your response. Best of luck!
[[/collapsible]]
Draft Critique (for siiva)
Placeholder; will critique soon enough.
Whoops, this took a little longer than I expected. Anyway, here goes.
[[collapsible show="[+] Show feedback" hide="[-] Hide"]]
General
This feels like the beginning of something potentially interesting, like it's building up to something, but in the end that buildup doesn't really pay off. Sure, I think you effectively communicated the gravitas of the situation in the interview log, but with a fairly lackluster conclusion (the fact it just… ends with the person saying they need a shower feels like a wasted opportunity for something more resolute), I don't think that gravitas is really utilized well to say, make a larger point about the LLC.
I think this stems from the fact that the first half of the article and the second half aren't really that well-connected. Well yes, there are points where the interview log wraps around to the anomaly itself, it doesn't really… connect in the same vein to where you left off in the first half (that being, the tabview stuff). Those tabs sorta build up to wanting to build a point against how abusive and evil this corporation is, but the log doesn't so much continue with that framework but rather it… just harps on about how horrible and gross these conditions are. Which, could be utilized to make a point against the LLC, but isn't really explored to that extent.
To solve these above problems, I would like you to consider like, how you want to frame this corporation later on. How do you want to follow up with the foundation you laid in the tabviews, what with showing us close-up how horrible this corporation is? What can you do to more definitively branch the first and second half, and for that matter, how can you continue the overarching theme of this corporation being awful? How can you give the author something to chew on other than just how gross the conditions of this place are, and make this gravitas signify something larger? It feels like you've set the groundwork, you just need to execute on it.
Really, other than this I don't have any ginormous, glaring concerns, but I think that this particular structural issue needs to be sorted out. With this, I suggest the following:
- Have the article's buildup pay off in some way. You spend all this time building up to something interesting, what with the development of what this LLC does, but in the end there isn't any satisfying conclusion, particularly considering the end of the interview log. Consider how you could make this buildup more worthwhile, instead of just ending the interview log; think, what in the rest of the article do you think you can expand upon for a satisfying conclusion.
- Connect the first and second half of the article narratively. You've laid down the groundwork for how you want to explore this corporation being awful and abusive in the first half of the article, but don't elaborate fully on it in this article. Using the talk about how bad the conditions are in this situation the LLC produced, extrapolate on what you left in the first half and give this a satisfying conclusion.
Some tertiary stuff which I didn't fully mention above:
- There isn't a lot of escalation presented in the three tabs, and all three entries feel relatively similar; once you've read one of them, you've basically read all of them. To solve this, consider building up the logs to bring forth one realization or point across, or at least build up the intensity from log to log.
- In terms of the body horror, I think this dips its toes into it for the first half and then goes towards generic-ish gore stuff in the second. If you're going to lean into the body horror aspect of the skip, I'd say stick with it throughout — have some descriptions of mouth and gum stuff, go all out, really.
- While the characterization of victims of this body horror stuff is there, you don't really get the reader fully empathizing with the victims in the end. Think about ways you could more solidly characterize the victims here, particularly in the interview log — there's some in the tab logs, I just think you should consider carrying it to the final log as well.
Due to the reasons stated above, if published on the site as is I would likely downvote.
Line-By-Line
Instances of SCP-XXXX are held in a 0.2 mL, 6 x 32 mm vial stored through standard cryopreservation means at Site-66.
I'm iffy on whether or not you should elaborate on the dimensions on the vial? I would personally just keep it at the 0.2 mL detail, as then it looks a little less cluttered and doesn't interrupt the flow that much.
SCP-XXXX is a parasitic life-form similar to Gongylonema pulchrum that inhabits the gums of a human host, designated SCP-XXXX-A, which was purchased by █████████ Dental Applications LLC to use for financial gain.
This is a run-on sentence, and could easily be split into two, easier-to-digest sentences. Also, personally, unless you've got a good reason for it, I would suggest removing the redaction and replacing it with just a plain old name, since here it just feels extraneous. This also applies to all the other blackboxes in the skip — making up a temporary name would work a lot better.
It is speculated that prior to tampering, SCP-XXXX would continue to make calcifications within the mouths of SCP-XXXX-A and eventually expand inward towards the jaw and possibly the throat and brain.
This sentence has tensing issues; consider replacing "would continue" with "continues" and "expands".
SPECIMEN [REDACTED] - 02/08/2020
Again, unless you've got a good reason for it, I'd suggest removing this redaction. Having the number of specimens well, specified could actually help illustrate just how powerful and over-arching this organization is.
Narrative:
Not sure if "narrative" is the right word to use here; maybe "procedure"?
Patient was injected with a local anesthetic prior to administering specimen to gum area. Patient was observed for 35 minutes prior to examination by Dr. Pelman.
Repetition of phrase "prior to"; reword one of the sentences so that it doesn't include this.
Caracas, Brazil
Caracas is located in Venezuela, for clarification.
Dr. Ogle Dr. Ogle, […]
Missing colon after emboldened Dr. Ogle.
But I didn't notice anything… It was strange.
Un-capitalize "It".
It was like a concentration camp… like Josef Mengele himself had somehow come back from the dead and just… did this to these people.
I feel like there's a better way to express what you're going for here without outwardly phrasing it like this, which could rub a lot of people the wrong way; consider switching this sentence out with something else.
[[/collapsible]]
I think that's all from me. If you have any remaining concerns, feel free to denote them in a reply to this post and PM me over Wikidot and IRC so I can take a look at your response. Best of luck!
Idea Critique (for DolorousDoctor)
Placeholder; will critique soon enough.
Okay, this took a bit longer than I expected. Here we go.
[[collapsible show="[+] Show feedback" hide="[-] Hide"]]
My biggest concern with this idea is that the humanoid here has this one main ability (that being, invoking all these different, random anomalous abilities), but there isn't anything interesting done with that. On its own, I think that the concept of a humanoid which randomly cycles through other powers is a contrived mechanism (as story-wise, anything can basically happen and there aren't really any stakes), and instead of distancing itself from this fairly uninteresting idea on its own and delving into something more character driven a la SCP-4051, this just… refuses to do that. I think one detail which stands out to me here as egregious in this regard is the fact that the humanoid doesn't remember all of this. Just seems like a weird thing to have here, and one which just unnecessarily drives your story towards the actual anomaly here, which in itself is not interesting. I think in this regard, you need to distance your story away from the main ability here. This would, for instance, mean considering giving the humanoid here some character: a character can help distinguish your humanoid and help propel a narrative more easily. Plus, it gives your reader something to emotionally latch onto — if the character at the very heart of your skip isn't relatable, then the work will probably suffer because of it. For learning about how to build humanoid skips in this way, I would suggest this guide and this guide on writing characters, and this guide about framing humanoids.
In regards to the narrative, I'm not really a fan of it. It feels a little direction-less and doesn't really have a telegraphed, satisfying conclusion. Like, how are you going to end this skip, and how are you going to make sure your reader is intrigued throughout? To me, unless you're planning to have some character moments thrown in here, (which, would require some introspection as to how the humanoid will act and function in the storyline) I'm not particularly interested in watching somebody just accidentally execute random abilities with little to no buildup throughout. For this, I would suggest thinking of a narrative with a beginning, middle, and end, which has some sort of buildup and in-depth conflict which keeps the piece moving forward. Since this is fairly character-driven, I'd say this also involves thinking about the personality of your humanoid, and how it fits into the rest of the article. For the narrative, think about, say, how the anomaly reacts and interacts with other people, or how people react to it, and think about how your anomaly here can act as a jumping-off point for that larger narrative. Because right now, this doesn't really feel like a structured narrative so much as a base for something larger.
In summary, I think this needs a lot of work, particularly with the character here and how it interacts with a larger narrative. Going forward with this idea, I would point to the following suggestions:
- Do something interesting with the anomaly, or remove it entirely. The concept of an anomaly which can act upon multiple random abilities feels contrived on its own, and nothing in this idea truly branches from that. Either accompany this ability with something more interesting and less random-seeming (such as a unifying character for the main humanoid), or consider changing the anomaly to something which doesn't remove stakes like this base concept does.
- Develop the character of the humanoid here. Since you're going for a relatively humanoid-centered article here, for reader engagement it's very important to have some kind of character for this SCP. Focus on personality traits which this humanoid could have, and consider how those traits could lend themselves as a jumping-off point to a larger narrative.
- Build a structural narrative involving your humanoid. The central narrative you've got going here feels more like the base of something than an actual fleshed-out narrative. Lay out an entire narrative which your SCP here is slotted into with a beginning, middle, and end, and also think about how this narrative could serve to evoke a particular theme or emotion you're going for (in this case, mostly comedy).
I think that's all from me. If you have any remaining concerns, feel free to denote them to a reply to this post and PM me over Wikidot or IRC to take a look at your response. Best of luck!
[[/collapsible]]
Idea Critique (for Agt John Doric)
Placeholder; will critique soon enough. In the future, keep in mind I only take requests via IRC.
[[collapsible show="[+] Show feedback" hide="[-] Hide"]]
I'm generally intrigued with the concept you've got going here, and very much like the themes you're wanting to explore. That being said, there are a couple things I want to bring up which I'd like to see you consider before I'd be comfortable giving this the go-ahead for drafting.
First off, in regards the anomaly, I can't help but feel like it's a little… blunt. It feels like a relatively straightforward, obvious interpretation of the main theme here (that being, measuring success on the achievement of others), and doesn't seem like it could sustain the article very well on its own. This, fortunately, really isn't a glaring concern for me, given that you're aiming to develop a lot more than the base anomaly here (such as with the interview log exploring the creatures' points of view). However, I would still like you to keep this in mind, as if this narrative becomes more reliant on the anomaly itself and not the character interactions you're planning here, this could come up as a problem. Really, for this I would suggest to focus on your main theme and sorta try to branch away from the actual anomaly and get to the heart of the theme here. That way, the fairly basic anomaly won't matter as much.
Secondly, narrative-wise and more glaring of a concern, there are several parts in the narrative which I think could either be reworked or removed, as some of its parts are a little extraneous for me. For instance, for this relatively emotional piece you're going for, I don't really see the function of a lot of the middle portion; namely, the initial log and the people being recovered dead. I think you should consider how you would either frame this in the general context of the theme you're aiming for, or remove it if you don't think it could suit your narrative. Something which might be helpfully explored in this middle portion is, say, the nuanced emotions people can feel when confronted with this situation. I wouldn't say to outright put an interview log; maybe putting something else which could express these emotions would be helpful. Either way, I think you should consider how this middle portion plays into the theme, and what unique role the middle portion could serve in delivering it.
Overall, you've got a very good outline for a good, emotional article, and I very much like the angle you're wanting to explore here, especially with looking at how the people involved in these situations are affected. To summarize, before greenlighting this, I would like to suggest the following going forward with this:
- Distance your narrative from the anomaly. Compared to the very strong narrative you're planning here, the anomaly is relatively weak. Instead of delving into the anomaly itself, try thinking in terms of the themes you're setting down here; properly explore the themes of measuring success by the achievements of others rather than the actual SCP object here.
- Focus on more heavily incorporating the narrative's middle portion. Right now, the middle portion of your narrative doesn't really have a lot of relevance to the story or its theming, or at least evidently. Consider how this middle portion could serve to reinforce the narrative you're going here, whether by exploring the victim's side of "meeting your heroes" or some other event.
In addition, I'd also like you to consider some other, minor structural things with the narrative, such as the conclusion, which I feel could need some elaboration; namely, how you're planning to sum up this article in a satisfying way while also keeping yourself true to the themes of the piece at hand.
Anyway, I think that's all from me for now. If you want to, denote your thoughts in a reply to this post and PM me over Wikidot or IRC to take a look at your response. Hopefully by then you'll have thought of how you can sort these concerns out. Best of luck!
[[/collapsible]]
Idea Critique (for Fintan_Whales)
Placeholder; will critique soon enough. In the future, please note I take requests only via IRC.
[[collapsible show="[+] Show feedback" hide="[-] Hide"]]
I'm in agreement with cybersqyd here that this needs some sort of narrative attached to it in order to properly develop the anomaly and make it more interesting. This idea, if accompanied with a solid narrative, could really be something; it's just that I think you should start developing a cohesive narrative which could lend itself to the emotion you want to evoke. Start wondering about, say, how the Foundation uses, reacts, or interacts with this anomaly, or how the anomaly affects people around it, and consider how exploring these angles could possibly lend itself to evoking, in this case, horror. Then, extrapolate this to a larger narrative which can follow through and conclude in an interesting way. For this, I would suggest this guide on formulating a narrative in an SCP piece, and this guide and this guide about conceptualizing ideas and narratives, respectively.
Some additional advice to keep in mind here; following through with this narrative, I'd also like you to consider this along the way. If you're having trouble with conceptualizing a narrative with the pieces you're given here, maybe reforming the idea to have it feel more in-depth could help with this. There are some parts here where I could potentially point to as areas of growth here. For instance, if you're looking to have an introspective look as to why the monsters jump out and behave like this, maybe elaborating on the character traits of SCP-XXXX-1 instances could help with this. Or maybe if you're leaning into the horror aspect of things, making the way the monsters from the book kill people a little more in-depth and scary might also aid in that feeling. I'm not saying this is a glaring concern which I think you should sort out, just something to keep in mind if you're looking to lean into any particular main emotion for this piece.
All in all, an interesting concept, but the narrative definitely needs some work. Going forward with this, I would suggest the following things:
- Develop a cohesive narrative to enhance the base anomaly. You've got a solid base idea for a narrative, you just need to expand on it. Focus on potential interactions and conflicts you can capture in this narrative, be it how the Foundation reacts/uses the anomaly, or how the anomaly reacts to it, or really anything. Also consider how this narrative could serve to legitimize the feeling of horror you're aiming for.
- If necessary, tweak the original idea to suit the emotion you're evoking. While not really a problem now, if you're having trouble coming up with an evocative narrative to suit your anomaly, perhaps think about changing the original anomaly at hand to better evoke the emotion you're going for.
I think that's it from me. If you have any remaining concerns, feel free to denote them in a reply to this post and PM me over Wikidot or IRC to take a look at your response. Best of luck!
[[/collapsible]]
Idea Critique (for Boolerino)
Placeholder; will critique soon enough. In the future, keep in mind I only take requests via IRC.
[[collapsible show="[+] Show feedback" hide="[-] Hide"]]
Anomaly-wise, the humanoid's abilities here feel all over the place, not to mention a bit generic. There are all these fairly disparate abilities this one person has (releasing a gaseous substance, heightened senses, super strength) that don't lend themselves to any particular character trait and moreso make the humanoid feel generically strong, with little to no depth in the powers themselves. The fact that you don't really describe this humanoid as having any personality traits (which is pretty essential for making a relatable character) beyond "they want to help their tribe and make themselves stronger" really isn't selling me on this. What I would point to is to streamline this humanoid's abilities to say, one ability which lends itself to potentially telling an interesting story, as all these different abilities just serve to obfuscate what actual point you're trying to make with this. In addition, I'd also like you to consider what character traits/flaws this humanoid has and expand on it, which could likewise lend itself to branching off and telling a larger story. This will both serve to make a narrative for your article more interesting to tell.
In terms of a narrative, there also isn't a lot here which interests me. You've got the base for a potentially interesting story — this humanoid wanting to return to their tribe and turn back some of Canada — but since you haven't really laid out a middle or an end to this narrative I can't really say. In this regard, I'd say to develop your narrative further, and consider things in relation to your anomaly. Your anomaly here shouldn't really act as the point of intrigue in itself, but moreso a jumping-off point to tell a larger story; think about, say, how the anomaly reacts to those around it, or how the Foundation reacts or is affected by the anomaly. Thinking about the potential character traits of this humanoid could also aid in figuring out a narrative for this kind of article.
In short, I still think this anomaly needs a lot of work. Going forward with this idea, I would make the following suggestions:
- Streamline and simplify the anomaly's abilities. Right now, this anomaly has a lot of disparate, somewhat unrelated abilities which basically amount to making the humanoid feel like a generic strong superhero. Consider simplifying your list of abilities to one or two related anomalies, and think about how these traits could potentially lend themselves to telling an interesting story.
- Give some personality to the humanoid. Your humanoid, despite the rest of the post suggesting this is going to be a fairly character-driven article, doesn't have much character to speak of. Think of potential character traits which could get a reader attached or relating to this character so that they'll be emotionally invested in following them around, and also consider how it could play into a larger narrative.
- Construct a narrative including your anomaly. You've got a base for a story here, but in terms of how you're going to tell this story and conclude it, you don't really have much planned out here. Using the above two suggestions as jumping-off points for your character, plan out a cohesive narrative with a beginning, middle, & end, which your character here is included in.
In addition, I'd also recommend some guides for this; namely, this one & this one about writing characters, this one for attaching a narrative to your piece, and this one & this one for conceptualizing base anomalies and narratives, respectively.
I think that's all from me. If you have any remaining concerns, feel free to denote them in a reply to this post and PM me over Wikidot or IRC to take a second look. Best of luck!
[[/collapsible]]
Idea Critique (for SergeantStates)
Placeholder; will critique soon enough. In the future, keep in mind I only take requests via IRC.
[[collapsible show="[+] Show feedback" hide="[-] Hide"]]
The fact that the entire story presented here is predicated on trying to remove the mask from this entity, with little to no motivation present for actually doing it, makes the narrative here feel a bit… flimsy. I feel like there's a lot of other ways you could kickstart a narrative accompanying this piece, but this particular iteration just doesn't seem that well-thought out and as such is sort of unbelievable. The narrative here also doesn't work structurally for me: it doesn't feel all that developed and rather feels like you want to take two directions, the mirror mask bit and the incident report, both of which feel particularly lackluster in development. What I would point to here is to commit to one story which this anomaly could neatly fit into, and follow through with a clear narrative with a beginning, middle, and end. Think of your anomaly here as a jumping-off point to tell a larger story, and focus on, say, how the anomaly affects people around it, or how others use, react, or interact with the anomaly. I think if you follow through with this, you could create something a little more in-depth and substantial than what's laid down here.
Anomaly-wise, as is I'm not entirely convinced that this could set forward a cohesive narrative very easily. The two main elements you have presented here, the entity tagging objects of interest and the immovable mask, feel relatively disjointed and don't really have a thread connecting the two. This could potentially obfuscate making a more cohesive narrative, and as such, my suggestions to solve this discrepancy would probably be to focus on one of the effects and try to expand upon it. Both base ideas to me feel a bit bland at the moment, and could also do with some development themselves: maybe extrapolate the premise of the entity anomalously tagging things it likes and expand that into something more simultaneously in-depth yet easy to understand, or think about how you can put an interesting spin on the concept of not being able to remove the mask from this entity. I'm not seeing a lot of development on those ends, and I feel this particular idea is in dire need of such.
In summary, on the conceptual and narrative side of things, this needs a lot of work before I'd be comfortable greenlighting this. Going forward with this idea, I would point to the following suggestions:
- Consider more natural ways to kickstart your narrative. The pretenses by which the narrative here is kicked off feels a little unconvincing. In order to remedy this problem, think about a stronger, more substantiated means of conflict to add to your story to kickstart the central narrative.
- Rework the narrative and make it more substantial. The narrative you have going on here doesn't feel like it alone can sustain an article. Consider your anomaly as a conduit through which the rest of your story is told; with this in mind, think about possible situations which could happen in this narrative, such as how characters react to it or how the anomaly affects people, and delineate this in a story with a beginning, middle, and end.
- Streamline the base concept and expand on it. Right now, there are some disjointed details which clash with each other and could potentially cause narrative problems down the road, and the individual parts to this anomaly feel a little bland. Focus on just one anomalous effect your entity has here and further expand upon it, making it less one-dimensional and more in-depth.
I think that's all from me. If you have any remaining concerns, feel free to denote them in a reply to this post and PM me over Wikidot or IRC to take a look at your response. Best of luck!
[[/collapsible]]
Idea Critique (for Sam Anthony Murphy)
Noting a Wikidot PM request to take a look; in the future, keep in mind I only take requests via IRC.
[[collapsible show="[+] Show feedback" hide="[-] Hide"]]
Unfortunately, I second TheMightyMcB here with my concerns that people won't really be intrigued in seeing this project follow through. Not only is the majority of the SCP wiki not really up for unifying most of these articles into a unified timeline, I'm not really sure that much people would take interest in it either. Dates are a pretty extraneous detail for the most part, and often times do little other than set a pretty subtle and unnoticeable stage for when the anomaly's story takes place. It'd be like trying to catalog where every SCP takes place on a world map, although in this case even less consequential, as where something takes place has a lot more care and energy put into it than, say, when the events of an SCP take place. Even with the +100 rating cap-off, this just seems like a monumental task which little to nobody would have the time to appreciate the effort put into it, because in the grand scheme of things, dates really aren't that important.
I really don't have anything else to say about this, unfortunately. While yes, it might for a moment be interesting, I doubt that a lot of readers would be too keen on a definitive timeline like this because a), like McB pointed out, readers typically don't want anything which tries to unify all of SCPdom into one canon, and especially like this, and b), it just seems like a passing thing to be interested in with little depth beyond it being a timeline. Ultimately, it just feels like a lot of time, energy, and effort put into something which not a lot of people on the site will particularly jive with. Unfortunately, no greenlight.
Anyway, I think that's all from me. If you have any remaining concerns, feel free to denote them in a reply and PM me over Wikidot or IRC to take a look at your response. Best of luck!
[[/collapsible]]
Draft Critique (for DrConte)
Placeholder. Will critique soon enough.
[[collapsible show="[+] Show feedback" hide="[-] Hide"]]
General
In terms of how this article paces itself, there is little which really pulls me forward. Every piece of the article here feels disjointed and relatively self-contained, and don't adequately lead into the next part for me to keep my interest. There aren't questions which each section brings up for the next one to potentially answer, except maybe what happened to Rossi, but for most of the article that's a very minor point and only gets brought back in the final addendum, and not in a really satisfying way at that. In this department, I'd probably consider thinking about how you could more naturally connect the different sections of this piece as a whole. Also think about ways which you could keep the reader invested throughout, perhaps different sections bring up particular questions which the next ones answer. Adding things which keeps the reader interesting and wanting to learn more and considering flow between the different parts would help a bunch and make reading this not feel like a slog. This pacing issue also comes with some tertiary stuff, such as removing extraneous information (for instance, the THANATOS stuff felt a little improperly handled and unnatural and just… didn't play that massive of a role in the rest of the story) and removing redactions (at certain points, this article just expunged important information and threw me off).
Emotionally, I had a very hard time taking this piece seriously. I think this sentiment particularly rings true for the interview: the way the soldier was characterized as being traumatized was extremely on-the-nose and distracting at points, and definitely needed to be taken down a notch. I think to fix this, I would start thinking about more subtle ways to signal to the reader that the soldier was traumatized by these events, such as choices in body language or diction, because here that just felt over-the-top and unbelievable. My feelings about how emotions were handled in this piece are also carried over to the final emails, which also feel a little on-the-nose emotionally. The fact that Rossi very abruptly signs up for the anomaly's plan and only later starts to have some regrets seems a little awkward and unbelievable, and some of the lines on the anomaly's part ("We know everything about you: your past, your present, and I'm pretty sure We could determine your future. I think we could help each other… though you have to believe us. We'll contact you again and everything we'll be clear") just don't lend themselves to the article's own legitimacy and feel particularly cheesy, especially when being a part of the last addendum of this piece. For this, I would also say to take the over-the-top exchange between the anomaly and Rossi and make it a bit more subtle.
Point being, I think the article at this point is kinda messy, has some glaring problems which I addressed above and needs a lot of touching up before I could see it being successful. Here would be my main pointers going forward with this article:
- Focus on the pacing, and consider how your piece flows as a whole. Every part of this skip feels very self-contained, and don't naturally bridge from each part to the next. Think about ways you can not only connect these sections of your article better, but also help the article flow better as a whole. Make sure your reader can stay intrigued and keep on reading instead of feeling the need to stop before finishing.
- Naturally build up intrigue and keep your reader invested. Right now, this feels like a slog to get through, and there's not a lot of forward momentum or ideas to be intrigued on and get the reader interested in reading further. Focus on how you can shape details and make them more likely to attract the intrigue of a reader, such as sprinkling in potentially useful or suggestive imagery or questions throughout the entire piece to see if they could potentially be answered later on in the article.
- Make the dialogue and emotional beats more subtle. The main two outlets of emotion in this story (the interview and the email) both feel far too over-the-top and blunt. Think about ways which you could tone down the dialogue and make it less distracting, and focus on more subtle ways of conveying emotion and character, such as diction or body language.
Some tertiary stuff I didn't mention above which I also think should be sorted out:
- The addendum containing a list of all involved soldiers is sluggish and doesn't convey anything interesting which couldn't be incorporated in, say, the interview. Either remove this part or re-format it so your original point gets across without having to read 15 or so entries detailing unrelated soldiers' loved ones and their fates.
- There are a lot of redactions, some of which are unnecessary and some which are actively obtrusive. Some extraneous information, such as dates, could be filled in with no problem, and parts where information needs to be elaborated beyond a [REDACTED] (such as in the fourth addendum) need to be unexpunged.
- There isn't enough emotional weight put into the last decision by Rossi, and what is there is on-the-nose (see, my above points). This is the last (and one of the most important) things your reader gets to see with your anomaly; thinking about how this last point can satisfyingly end the rest of the article here is key to making a good impression.
If this was posted on the site as is, I would likely downvote.
Line-By-Line
The trajectory of SCP-XXXX is to be monitored by MTF Mu-13 (Ghostbusters), in order to determine its position when it enters an activation stage.
Extraneous comma emboldened.
Local media will portray SCP-XXXX
Not sure if "portray" is the right word to use here, and isn't very clinical? In addition, if the Foundation is controlling this media, I think it's worth clarifying that this is a cover story and not the media independently coming to this conclusion.
A scale used for rating tornado's intensity
Should either be changed to "A scale used for rating tornado intensity" or "A scale used for rating a tornado's intensity".
Due to the events occurred during Incident-XXXX-1-A,
Think "occurred" should be changed to "occurring" or "which transpired"; this particular phrase is a little clunky.
Those servers have to maintain the Headgears functional during missions
This feels a little off. Consider:
The servers which maintain the Headgears' functionality during missions
(Pronounce: Tanatos) Protective device used by agents to protect themselves from generating an SCP-XXXX-1 instance
Since the term is used first for the Servers, I think it's worth putting the pronunciation guide there (that being said, I'm not entirely sure of including it at all — maybe if it doesn't come up later, just replace the Greek lettering with Latin lettering).
Additionally they will administer Class-B amnestics and sedate civilians involved.
Comma after "additionally".
[…] an EF5 class tornado, consequently all civilian deaths are be ignored.
Punctuation:
an EF5 class tornado; consequently, all civilian deaths are be ignored.
action diameter of 6 km
Personally, I think you should denote its radius rather than its diameter. I also have my qualms with "action diameter"; I would rephrase it to:
6km radius of effect
The main anomalous effect of the object is the manifestation of instances of SCP-XXXX-1, which appears when a sentient individual is present in the area.
I would rephrase "instances of SCP-XXXX-1" to "SCP-XXXX-1 instances" to avoid repeating the word "of". In addition, I think you mean "sapient" here, as individuals are typically humanoid and things with human intelligence are considered sapient.
resulting in possible an SK-Class scenario.
Change to "resulting in a possible SK-Class scenario." I also think there should be more lead-in to this sentence for the rest of the paragraph. Consider:
SCP-XXXX-1 instances do not disappear after SCP-XXXX enters a dormant stage; if left to continue, this could potentially result in an SK-Class scenario.
To generate instances of SCP-XXXX-1, SCP-XXXX must enter into telepathic contact with individuals, who can be protected from this with the use of a Θάνατος Headgear.
I would personally rephrase it like so:
To generate instances of SCP-XXXX-1, SCP-XXXX must enter into telepathic contact with an individual; this contact can be obstructed with the use of a Θάνατος Headgear.
Site-77 command assigned the responsibility of design and manufacture of the Θάνατος Headgear to Dr. D. Connor.
"Manufacture" -> "manufacturing", second "of" -> "to".
The is an electronic device built to protect personnel assigned to SCP-XXXX
Missing word or phrase between "The" and "is".
They are powered by the servers located at site-77, which are powered by a generator located in an area not accessible to personnel with a clearance level lower than 4.
This could be shortened, I feel. Consider:
They are powered by the servers located at site-77, which are run by a generator located in a Level 4 clearance-restricted area.
The helmets are equipped with internal TWS4, with a topography of the place affected by SCP-XXXX, with a list of civilians missing in the area and with weather patterns that show the movements of the object.
There are a lot of repetitions of the word "with"; I would rephrase this sentence so that it doesn't include this word so much.
On ██/██/201█ the Kilo Cat-Eyes team was sent by Site-77's HQ to recover civilians.
Comma after the date.
At this point, I feel like there are a lot of SPaG errors which I feel should be easily sorted out with the use of a spell check program such as Grammarly. As such, I will stop with the LBL and ask you to focus on grammar and syntax issues before posting a draft for critique.
[[/collapsible]]
I think that's all from me. If you have any remaining concerns, feel free to denote them in a reply to this post and PM me over Wikidot or IRC to take a look at your response. Best of luck!
Idea Critique (for Quite a large lad)
Placeholder. Will critique soon enough.
[[collapsible show="[+] Show feedback" hide="[-] Hide"]]
In terms of a narrative, I think you're focusing in the wrong place. The narrative you're putting down here more serves to denote what the anomaly is in a descriptive sense, but not what it means. To expand on that, I think the story is too focused on describing the anomaly and fully explaining what it does, but doesn't in the process really tell a story. For thinking of a narrative, it's always helpful to consider your anomaly here not as a point of intrigue in itself (which, the central narrative here very much treats the anomaly like), but as a jumping-off point to a larger story. Think about, say, how people react and interact with the anomaly, what conflict can come out of that to push & pull the story, or perhaps how the anomaly itself affects those around it in an emotional sense. In the end, this should all congeal into one larger narrative with a satisfying beginning, middle & end. Consider the story which you could slot your monster here into. What can this anomaly be able to express in terms of a story?
Anomaly-wise, this is a little all over the place and often poorly defined. There are a lot of arbitrary rules to it, such as the 500 meter radius and rooms changing when you specifically don't look at it, which only serve to convolute the anomaly at hand (and, in a derivative sense, feels very reminiscent of skips such as SCP-106 and SCP-184). With all these details and arbitrary rules which are set down with this monster, there's not a whole lot of wiggle room for a narrative which could be told using it, and the fact that there apparently needs to be a whole list of justifications for various events which the anomaly can get into (as detailed in your central narrative section) just signals that this monster is too overly complex. For this, I'd probably suggest simplifying this anomaly a little so that you could more easily slot a story or different narrative situations into it, in addition to making the base anomaly a lot easier to understand before jumping straight into a narrative.
Point being, this is very rough around the edges, and needs a lot of improvement before I'd be comfortable greenlighting this. Going forward with this idea, I would make the following suggestions:
- Develop a cohesive narrative. Right now, your narrative doesn't really develop anything beyond what the anomaly is and does. Focus about how the anomaly affects those around it or how others affect it, and think of your anomaly as a tool to build a larger story. Perhaps these narrative beats could help better illustrate the mood you're wanting to evoke, be it horror, comedy, or drama.
- Make the base anomaly less complex and more narratively versatile. There are a lot of extraneous, arbitrary details which the anomaly both has and brings up. In this regard, I'd suggest simplifying the anomaly and making it easier to digest, so that way the anomaly can be easily slotted into different narrative settings. The less points you have to bring up to patch any potential holes in how your anomaly works, the better.
I think that's all from me. If you have any remaining concerns, feel free to denote them in a reply and PM me over Wikidot or IRC to take a look at your reply. Best of luck!
[[/collapsible]]
Idea Critique (for Optivicente765 does not match any existing user name)
Placeholder. Will critique soon enough.
[[collapsible show="[+] Show feedback" hide="[-] Hide"]]
Right now, my main concern is that the story here feels undeveloped. With the central narrative section you have here, it seems you're focusing on telling an origin story and how the Foundation found these creatures, and that could be a solid start to a larger narrative, but beyond that story-wise there isn't much here, just… the Foundation finds these things and they find out they're containing something. That alone cannot sustain an article for me. What I'd like you to do is consider the framework you have set up here as a jumping-off point to a larger story which can evoke a grander narrative or emotion. Think about how people potentially use these anomalies, or how characters react or interact with these entities, or how the anomalies affect things around it. You've got a somewhat developed base for this narrative, I just think it needs to be expanded into a larger story with a cohesive beginning, middle, & end. If you're stuck thinking about an interesting narrative these entities can produce, maybe think about changing up the original anomaly itself so that it could better suit a story you want to tell.
My other concern with this article idea is that there isn't a lot of conflict here which pushes and pulls this piece, at least with what you've put down. In this regard it feels very one-note — the Foundation figures out that these creatures are housing an entity inhabiting Venus, and then what? There really isn't any conflict between these two parties which would pull in the reader and get them invested, and because of this the narrative doesn't particularly interest me. In terms of conflict, consider how these two parties interact with one another, and what tension they can produce. Maybe one party wants to keep custody over the entity, and the other one doesn't. Anything which pulls the story forward and gets the reader invested beyond the somewhat bland storyline you're planning here (what with the Foundation finding that this entity contained and not really doing anything in response to it). I think that that part of the story also needs some consideration and thought put into it before this idea goes into the drafting process.
In summary, I think the narrative in this piece needs a lot more work and development put into it. You've got the base for something but you haven't really thought about how to go forward with this base. Here would be my main pointers going forward with this idea:
- Develop the narrative further from the backstory put down here. You've got a somewhat solid base for a larger narrative, but there isn't much development for a middle and end to the narrative you have here. Think about ways you could continue this narrative; maybe explore how people around it use the anomalies here, or interact with them, or think about how the anomalies affect those around it. In short, think about your anomaly as a tool to build a larger narrative, not as something which is interesting in and of itself.
- Think about some kind of conflict you could insert to pull the story forward. There isn't a lot of conflict, and likewise tension, present in this narrative. Consider ways which you could incite conflict between sides in this piece, perhaps between the Foundation and the entities, and think about how that conflict can pull the story forward and get the reader invested and wanting to know more.
I think that's all from me. If you have any remaining concerns, feel free to denote them in a reply and PM me over Wikidot or IRC to get me to take a look at your response. Best of luck!
[[/collapsible]]
Idea Critique (for Cabohhh)
Placeholder. Will critique soon enough.
[[collapsible show="[+] Show feedback" hide="[-] Hide"]]
I'm not too keen on how the anomaly frames the story here. Just having your given character fall unconscious and enter a dream state where they have this story told to them feels like a generic, literal way of expressing the main story here, and I feel like what's brought here leaves a lot to desire. In this department, I would probably suggest considering more interesting, complex ways that the story you're presenting here could be expressed. Perhaps by smell, or by dance, or anything other than just falling asleep and having a dream about it. That being said, I would caution against straying too close to compulsion effects here (wherein an anomaly forces a character to act or feel a certain way), as those are generally uninteresting ways to kickstart plots and have been done to death. Straying away from these effects while also considering more intriguing ways to express your story is what I'd point to idea-wise.
As for the narrative? With what you're laying down here, it isn't really anything special, and in turn feels a bit generic. I feel like it's worth clarifying, like, what happens from these records, as here I don't have the best idea of what direction you're going here. One thing I should point out here, with what's put down here is, there isn't a lot here which would indicate that there's something to pull me forward and get me to want to know more about this person's life. If you want the reader to be invested in learning more about what happened to this man, for instance, think about what you could put in there to make him seem more relatable and fleshed-out. Are there any interesting tidbits you can sprinkle throughout to intrigue the reader? Maybe some indication that it's related to the records in some way? There are a lot of things you could do here, I'm just not seeing it explored or elaborated on in this post. (Also, as a sidenote, unless you're prepared to handle it very, very tactfully like it deserves, I'm not sure if suicide is the best way to end the storyline of this man. It's a generally tough topic to nail and the presentation here doesn't really give any indication that it's gonna be handled particularly well.)
I think you're getting somewhere here, it's just the individual pieces of this concept (the anomaly and the narrative) both individually feel very bland and generic. Here would be my pointers for this idea going forward:
- Think about more interesting ways to express the narrative. Having your subject fall asleep and have a dream about the narrative seems unnecessarily bland. Without leaning too far into compulsion effects, consider how you can express the story you're going for in a more inherently intriguing way. Expand on this way to express the story and in turn consider how it could potentially tell the story in a unique way.
- Develop the character's personality traits and emotional arc. This seems like a story which is reliant on the reader being interested in the character and wanting to know more. Even if you're not planning to show all of it, it's a good idea to think about the direction you want your character to go, and only later obscure elements for mystery. Consider what traits could make this character more relatable or fleshed-out, and how you can get your reader interested to follow through.
- Consider how you'll "hook" the reader into being emotionally invested. Right now, there isn't really anything signaling you have any details you're planning to sprinkle through to keep the reader invested, and with this kind of story, that feels like a necessity. This goes hand-in-hand with my previous point; think about fleshing out certain details and adding in potential clues for a big question which keeps the reader looking for more. Think about how this could all be elaborated and expressed in a larger story with a beginning, middle, & end.
I think that's all from me. If you have any remaining concerns, feel free to denote them in a reply and PM me over Wikidot or IRC to take a look at your response. Best of luck!
[[/collapsible]]
Idea Critique (for Liche_Narrows)
Placeholder. Will critique soon enough.
[[collapsible show="[+] Show feedback" hide="[-] Hide"]]
This, I feel, needs a lot more work before I could see any draft carrying this idea being successful. My main problem is that the concept doesn't appeal to me, and probably won't appeal to a lot of people on the site. Something which anomalously forces you to perform or feel a certain way have been done in different forms on the site already, and this particular version doesn't feel like it's bringing anything new to the table. There are a lot of better ways you can kickstart your plot than saying that your characters are forced to do something or feel something. In addition, I'm also iffy on including suicide as one of the main effects of this anomaly; it's a very touchy subject, and I don't think the story you're planning here indicates to me that you're going to handle the subject as tactfully as it deserves. For this, I would probably suggest branching away from these effects, and think of a better, more natural way to start your narrative. It's a lot more interesting to see characters naturally interact and react to anomalies; think about reshaping your anomaly so that you can let these interactions happen by their own instead of being guided by the hand of an anomaly.
I also feel the narrative needs some more attention/detail given to it. You don't seem to really have a detailed, structured storyline laid out here which your anomaly kickstarts. Considering how people interact with and react to your anomaly is a good place to start; think about an interesting interaction which you could perhaps expand into a storyline which the rest of the article itself explores. Remember: your anomaly usually shouldn't be a point of intrigue in itself, but should rather serve as a conduit through which your story is told. Moreover, I'd also like you to consider structuring this main narrative into a cohesive beginning, middle, & end, and think about ways you can involve the reader into the story. Maybe having a character we can follow around, relate to, and attach ourselves to could give us a good emotional anchor. Either way, I think the narrative as is here is sorely undeveloped, and I'm not entirely sure which direction you want to take the story.
Right now, a lot of things here are either very faulty or are too undeveloped. Going forward with this idea, I would recommend to keep in mind the following:
- Stray away from the effects presented here. Anomalously forcing somebody to feel or do certain things (in this case, forcing them to be depressive or suicidal) is a little lazy and contrived, and definitely needs something to replace it. Consider more natural ways you can get this anomaly to kickstart the plot at hand, keeping in mind how characters will react in the main narrative here.
- Further develop the narrative. Right now, it isn't very clear what direction you want to take the narrative. To start off, I would begin considering how you can use the anomaly at hand as a jumping-off point for a larger story. Maybe focus on character interactions with the anomaly, or maybe how the Foundation itself reacts to it. There are a lot of possibilities here which I think could be explored, so focus on one of them and try to develop it into a complex, intriguing narrative with a beginning, middle, & end.
I think that's all from me. If you have any remaining concerns, feel free to denote them in a reply and private message me via Wikidot or IRC to take a look at your response. Best of luck!
[[/collapsible]]
Idea Critique (for huntaunt does not match any existing user name)
Placeholder. Will critique soon enough.
[[collapsible show="[+] Show feedback" hide="[-] Hide"]]
On its own, I don't think this would particularly work well without a story backing it. You're shooting for a general theme into the central narrative, but not really expanding it into a larger story. I think that this initial premise, if extrapolated, could lead to an interesting look into the human condition, but I just want to see, for instance, how you have individual people or personality traits react to this kind of anomaly, and how that could lend itself to making an intriguing skip. How do people interact with it, use it, or feel about it? I think that line of thought is worth expanding on here. When making a narrative, I would also suggest thinking of your anomaly here as a conduit through which you tell your story; how can this anomaly set forward a narrative, something with a satisfying beginning, middle, and end? Maybe single in on how one person is affected by this anomaly, or how it generally affects a lot of people for this narrative? There's a lot you could come up with here; I just don't think you've properly elaborated on such.
Regards to the anomaly, it's a little… blunt, and feels like a way too literal extrapolation of the central narrative theme you're putting down here, especially given the allusions to Dante's Divine Comedy. I have qualms with every other person literally perceiving something different; I think there could be a potential better way to appeal to the theme of "exploring what fear can do to those who witness something they don't necessarily like" without being as direct as here. In addition, it also feels a bit shallow, and doesn't really have a lot of depth to it. Pretty much all that's going on here is that you see something in the sphere, it may do something to you, and that's… kinda it. I think that adding a bit more dimension to this (maybe you try expanding what each individual person experiences other than the fairly basic framework you have here?) would not only make the base anomaly here more in-depth and intriguing, but also open yourself to more possible interpretations and interactions with other characters.
To summarize, there's a lot to expand upon here, but I do think that you're going in an interesting direction. Here would be my pointers going forward:
- Focus on incorporating a more structured narrative. You have a basic theme set down in the central narrative, I just want to see that expanded upon. Think about potential character interactions with this anomaly, how people use and react to it, and think about how this could all congeal into a larger narrative with a beginning, middle, & end. Your anomaly is a tool to make a larger story; think about how you can use this anomaly in service to a narrative.
- Consider making the presentation of your anomaly less blunt. The anomaly here feels like an all too straightforward interpretation of exploring individual perception. I would suggest distancing yourself from directly making every individual person literally perceive something different, and think of an interesting anomaly which could cleanly fit into the themes you're presenting here.
- Think about making your anomaly more in-depth. The anomaly feels a bit underdeveloped, and feels like it couldn't support a narrative as well as it could. Think about getting more in-depth with the idea; instead of having people just perceive something/have something happen to them occasionally, think about an idea which could potentially get some more narrative mileage or be more complex than what you have here.
I think that's all from me. If you have any remaining concerns, feel free to denote them in a reply to this post and message me on Wikidot or IRC to take a look at your response. Best of luck!
[[/collapsible]]
Idea Critique (for BlueBaron7)
Placeholder; will critique soon enough.
[[collapsible show="[+] Show feedback" hide="[-] Hide"]]
Conceptually, how the anomaly unfolds feels very one-dimensional and contrived. The fact that things such as none of the racers notice you on the track or that you're pretty much obligated to follow through with this race feels like an uninteresting way to ensure that anyone who interacts like this with the anomaly is basically forced to play through this storyline. Typically, it's a lot more interesting to let characters have some room to breathe as people and not be pigeonholed into a series of arbitrary rules which try to clear up any minute holes in your idea (the fact that the person interacting with this also forgets everything is a huge detail which I also have a problem with in this regard). I would personally start thinking about how you could tell this part of your story in a way which lets your characters interact, be autonomous people, and let their character shine out without pretty much forcing them to engage with the story in this way. Think about interesting ways an anomaly could tell this story, and how individual characters could interact with this and make the anomaly even more potentially intriguing.
Narrative-wise, you seem to have a somewhat developed backstory going on here, and I could potentially see it being a part of a larger, sad story, but I'm concerned that this alone cannot sustain this article. In particular, the backstory here really feels like it's mostly giving information as to what the anomaly is or why it exists, but with what you're putting down here it doesn't feel like it could finish off the article satisfyingly. The whole origin story seems like an extraneous, detached little detail about the anomaly's origin, and in its current state doesn't really feel like it could be a strong-enough emotional centerpiece for this story. What I would point to and improve this is think of an emotional arc that your main character (the recipient of this sack) goes through — using various techniques from the anomaly at hand, get your reader to empathize with them, then really make the last piece hit hard, maybe have a more emotionally satisfying ending other than saying they're guilty and that's it. I think if you focus on this emotional arc, you could get something out of this storyline; just, I'm not seeing it here currently.
Point being, this is by no means an unsalvageable, it's just I feel that, especially on the base anomaly side of things, this needs some touching up. Here would be my main points:
- Consider making the base anomaly here less one-dimensional. How the anomaly unfolds in this idea is currently uninteresting and flat. Think about potential revisions to this anomaly which give characters more autonomy and let them do their own thing. This could also tie into letting the story unfold more naturally; having your characters naturally discover the main emotional arc would be a lot more satisfying than saying that if they touch this particular photo they learn one specific piece of information.
- Put some more weight and thought into the emotional arc. There's a solid sad piece which could be derived from this emotional arc you have set up; you just need to expand upon it. Focus on making this character relatable and approachable, and set them up on a character arc to get the reader emotionally invested. Then, I think that the backstory here would work a lot as a substantial narrative to hold up the rest of the piece.
That's all from me. If you have any remaining concerns, feel free to denote them in a reply to this post and perhaps notify me via Wikidot PM or IRC to take a look at your response. Best of luck!
[[/collapsible]]
Idea Critique (for Dust_2098)
Placeholder. Will critique soon enough.
[[collapsible show="[+] Show feedback" hide="[-] Hide"]]
The fact that the narrative here is almost entirely reliant on the anomaly being a compulsion effect is probably my biggest concern with this concept. As is the case here, compulsion effects are generally a boring and contrived way to kickstart your story, as it's not that interesting to see an anomaly forcing somebody to act a certain way, and the concept has been done here a thousand times over. There really isn't anything new you're bringing to the table here, and it just seems like a very artificial way to make sure the plot here happens exactly like it should. It's generally a better idea to let characters in the story make their own decisions and present different opinions and ways of approaching certain situations, independent of any anomaly forcing them to do so. That's a lot more interesting, I'd say, than positing that everyone interacting with this skip is uncontrollably compelled to move this plot forward.
Aside from that, the ending here is just kind of… out of nowhere and unsatisfying. It seems like a way too convenient way to end this kind of story, and doesn't really provide us with any real point, moreso just stating that the researcher team figured out the cognitohazardous effects of the object and nothing else. One researcher just… inexplicably breaks from the spell of the SCP, so then they suddenly figure out everything and lock it in the shoebox? With what you're putting down there, there's not a lot which would suggest any buildup to this point, and really, it's all too sudden to really work for me as a conclusion. For me, I'd probably think about what before would naturally lead to this point; maybe the awakening or something is foreshadowed earlier on in the article, so that the final reveal isn't as jarring?
Simply put, I think this idea needs a lot of work before I could see it being a successful draft. If I had to give some pointers, here would be my advice:
- Stray away from the compulsion effect. Compulsion effects, as stated before, have been done a hundred times over, and this particular iteration doesn't do or say anything particularly interesting for me to excuse it being such. Think about particular character interactions and situations you could pull off without the assistance of an anomaly, as it's generally more interesting to let characters come to their own conclusions instead of being anomalously guided to one.
- Make the conclusion, and in turn the rest of the story, mean something. Right now, there doesn't seem to be much indication of a point you're making with this article, or an emotion you want to evoke. Think about how your narrative and conclusion can hammer in a specific theme or emotion which you want to express, and consider how that can tie into your narrative and make it more intriguing, in-depth, or unique.
- Properly build up to the conclusion. You haven't really put down anything which suggests you're going to properly build up to the ending here. Think about techniques you could follow through with in order to make this ending feel abrupt, be it foreshadowing the particular researcher breaking free from the anomaly earlier on. Alternatively, if you feel you can't have an interesting lead up to this point, think about other endings which could be easier and more entertaining to build up to and develop.
That's all from me. If you have any remaining concerns with this or want some things cleared up, feel free to denote in a reply to this post a response to what I've said here. Best of luck!
[[/collapsible]]
Idea Critique (for LBloxo)
Placeholder. Will critique soon enough.
[[collapsible show="[+] Show feedback" hide="[-] Hide feedback"]]
I think my main problem with this is that to me, there really doesn't seem like there's a strong narrative here. You've got a backstory explaining how this anomaly came to be and what it possibly does, but beyond that there really isn't much of substance. With what you're laying down here, it doesn't seem like a backstory alone could sustain this piece, and I think in this regard a narrative is desperately needed. Think about your anomaly here as a tool through which a story is kickstarted, rather than a point of intrigue in itself. Think about a story with a satisfying beginning, middle, and end, and how you can play around with this story in an interesting way using the SCP format. The backstory here doesn't really move the story forward by itself, only really sets the stage. You've got the beginning of a story, yes, but you also need to think about what comes after.
Aside from that, getting down to the anomaly here, I'm not very impressed. This really just feels like a generic monster with not a lot special going for it. This is sort of a problem for me in particular because, with the backstory you're planning here, there's a lot of reliance on the reader being suspenseful or scared by the anomaly here, and much of the tension in this piece seems to rely on how scary the anomaly seems. I think in this case, you'll either need to make the monster here more interesting and unique so that the reliance on it in this article feels a lot more earned, or you'll need to distance your story away from how scared the reader is from the monster. As the monster on its own doesn't really scare me, I think that one of these changes would have to be followed through with before I'd be comfortable greenlighting it.
Going forward with this idea, I would recommend considering the following points:
- Construct a forward-moving narrative for your base anomaly. Right now, you've got the foundation for a larger narrative: however, I think you haven't really fully considered a story which this piece can have, using the base anomaly here as an impetus for said story. Consider how you can use this narrative to accentuate a particular emotion which you want to evoke, be it fear, suspense, sadness, or comedy, and think about which situations in this story could possibly evoke those emotions.
- Consider either making a more unique monster, or a story less reliant on the monster. Right now, with what you're planning here, a lot of the tension is built around how scary the monster here. Think about distancing the story you're telling here from this admittedly generic monster, or think about how you could make the monster itself less generic. For this, I would highly suggest looking into some more modern articles involving monsters to see how you can either differentiate your monster from others, or how to construct a story which uses monsters but doesn't necessarily rely on the monster as heavily as it does here.
That's all from me. If you have any remaining concerns with my critique which you want to settle, feel free to reply here and PM me over Wikidot or IRC to take a look at your response. Best of luck!
[[/collapsible]]
July 2020
Draft Critique (for Aurvitmar)
Draft Critique (for LittleFieryOne)
Draft Critique (for Ellie3)
Idea Critique (for Calibri Bold does not match any existing user name)
Draft Critique (for OCuin)
A repository of responses which are best left boiler-plated. Add as deemed necessary.
Improper Formatting
Author, per the [[[http://www.scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-13095662/required-reading:how-to-use-this-forum-ideas| required reading forum guidelines,]]] in order to properly receive feedback on your idea, please revise your original post to fit the current concept template:
[[collapsible show="[+] Show template" hide="[-] Hide template"]]
[[code]]
**Seeking Greenlights:** Put yes or no.
**Page Type:** SCP Article, Tale, GoI Format, Joke SCP, Site Dossier, Other (specify)
**Genre (Optional):** Horror, Drama/Emotional, Comedy, Action, History, Other (specify)
**Page Layout (Optional):** [How will you will structure the page in terms of information presentation, or plot development? If you plan on using a unique format/format screw, describe that here.]
**Elevator Pitch:** [What is the basic core idea? Use a bullet point list if necessary.]
**Central Narrative:** [Describe the story beats or overarching context/"big picture" for your piece. If there is no story content, put "none".]
**Hook/Attention-Grabber:** [What is novel/unique about your premise? What is special about your idea here that will make it stand out among the other works already on the mainsite?]
**Additional Notes:** [Note any concerns or particular areas of assistance you would like reviewers to focus on.]
[[/code]]
[[/collapsible]]
Instead of posting a new comment, **edit your previous post using the "edit" function under the "options" tab to the bottom-right of your first comment.**
In addition, please keep in mind that the combined text for your answers to the last four sections (Elevator Pitch, Central Narrative, Hook/Attention-Grabber, and Additional Notes) MAY NOT exceed 400 words. For convenience, you can use this page to check wordcount: https://wordcounter.net/
Once you have revised your post accordingly, please reach out to reviewers to request that they take a look at your thread. You can find example lists of contacts in the Required Reading thread linked above.
Site Crit
Hello, I'm [[*user barredowl]]! I will be performing a review on behalf of the Site Crit Team today.
[[collapsible show="[+] Show review" hide="[-] Hide"]]
++++ General
[text]
++++ Line-By-Line
[text]
[[/collapsible]]
That's all from me. Thank you for your time!
[[size smaller]]**Disclaimer:** //Opinions expressed in this review do not reflect the opinions of SCP Wiki staff as a whole. Please respond to [[*user barredowl]] or contact the captain of the Site Criticism Team, [[*user SoullessSingularity]], for any questions or concerns relating to this review.//[[/size]]
Forum Crit (Draft)
--//Placeholder. Will critique soon enough.//--
[[collapsible show="[+] Show feedback" hide="[-] Hide"]]
++++ General
[text]
++++ Line-By-Line
[text]
[[/collapsible]]
Person Being a Dick
[[*user <USER>]], as per the [[[http://www.scp-wiki.net/site-rules|Site Rules]]],
> Rule Zero: Don't be a dick. Every other rule follows from this.
In addition, per the [[[http://scp-wiki.net/criticism-policy|Criticism Policy]]]:
> Critique the work, not the author. Do not make personal attacks on the author. Stick to criticizing their writing.
This is undoubtedly attacking the author, a behavior which is considered unacceptable on the site. Please do not do this again in the future.
Draft w/o Greenlights
Author, per the [[[http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-12255912/how-to-use-this-forum-drafts-critique|How to use this forum]]] thread at the top of this forum:
> If you're a first-time author, remember to provide a direct link to/information for your two ##green|greenlights##!
If you have not yet received greenlights, please proceed to the [[[http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/c-89000/help:ideas-critique|Ideas forum]]] and follow the guidelines set in the [[[http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-13095662/required-reading:how-to-use-this-forum-ideas|required reading]]].
Thank you.
Entire Draft in Post
[[*user USER]], as outlined in the [[[http://www.scp-wiki.net/site-rules|site rules], **please do not post entire drafts to the forum.** Instead, go to the [[[http://scp-sandbox-3.wikidot.com|SCP Sandbox Wiki]]], create a single page with your username as the page name, and link that in your thread.
Poor Criticism
[[*user POOR CRIT USER]], as per the site's [[[http://www.scp-wiki.net/criticism-policy|Criticism Policy]]], **forum critique should be relatively in-depth.** Critters prioritize threads with no response, and by offering poor critique, you may be preventing an author from receiving the critique they are seeking.
Please refrain from offering low-quality critique on threads where quality critique hasn't been made available.
[[*user OP USER]], as this thread has now been disrupted, I suggest reaching out to someone on the [[[http://www.scp-wiki.net/butterfly-squad-roster|Butterfly Squad Roster]]] to seek additional critique on your idea.
Double-Posting
[[*user POSTER]], instead of double-posting like this, please edit your previous post using the "edit" function under the "options" tab to the bottom-right of your original comment. That prevents spam buildup, and it's in the rules.
Above the Word Limit
Author, per the [[[http://www.scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-13095662/required-reading:how-to-use-this-forum-ideas|required reading forum guidelines,]]] the combined text for your answers to the last four sections (Elevator Pitch, Central Narrative, Hook/Attention-Grabber, and Additional Notes) MAY NOT exceed 400 words. Your post is more than xxxx words above this limit.
Revise your post so that the last four sections do not go above the 400 word limit. Keep in mind that, instead of posting a new comment, **edit your previous post using the "edit" function under the "options" tab to the bottom-right of your first comment.** For convenience, you can use this page to check wordcount: https://wordcounter.net/
Once you have revised your post accordingly, please reach out to reviewers to request that they take a look at your thread. You can find example lists of contacts in the Required Reading thread linked above.
Thank you.