GAH! Too many black boxes!
Date: 10 Jul 2012 22:06
Number of posts: 11
RSS: New posts
This. You should use "[DATA EXPUNGED]" when getting ride of a good bit of information. Letting use know the quantity of material blocked out is not really important.
"unbeknownst" works better than "unknown" in this case in the Foreword. Also, yeah. That. Foreword, not forward.
Though I'm somewhat iffy about researchers outright ignoring a possibility. Something that has happened before with other SCPs.
Pretty good overall. Punchline is weak.
I have to disagree with your first point, as Talderoy did. You're right in that common site etiquette calls for shortening of black-boxing by use of [DATA EXPUNGED], but this is clearly a stylistic choice, given to convey the breadth and importance of information the subject has access to. Seeing as it's a supplemental page, I think it adds to the piece, rather than detracts.
I have to admit, I liked the flood of black boxes at the end. The entire interview itself felt really full and well-written - especially the teletype asides - so that by the time I got to the mass of expunged data it felt like a payoff, like the coy hints and suggestions really just build up to a deluge of mega-classified data to really hit the higher-ups over the head with the truth about the artifact. I mean, we the readers already got all that, so we got the reveal as to how the "in-universe" Foundation got it, to.
My two coppers.