SCP Database
SCP Library
Site
SCP Community
Hi folks!
I have an almost complete draft for a cliché-con entry (the missing section is indicated, with an explanation of why I'm not yet ready to write it).
The category is "anomaly cliché #5: Item TOO good at its purpose".
http://scp-sandbox-3.wikidot.com/440hertz-2
I hope all of this is interesting and enjoyable to you (and that you forgive me for my sins while still pinpointing and explaining them)!
Okay, took a quick look at this. General note, please make sure that you have a line space between each paragraph, and that the containment and description text follow immediately after the bolded heading, not on the line below. Take a look at other articles that use the standard formatting to see what I mean.
did you spot anything that would improve the article if flat out removed?
Honestly, for something as meta-y as this, I feel like you can do away with a fair bit of the clinical tone. Sentences like "Its insidious action on the human mind is terrifying to me." seems kind of… disingenuous? I'm guessing this is the writing of a relatively modern-era scientist, so the "confession" sentences feel overly stuffy at times, especially when there's still some casual language in there.
Can you think of some straightforward shortening techniques I'm clearly clueless about?
Think of each sentence separately to start with. Break down to the core information needed, and re-organize phrases if necessary. For example, "Any information about SCP-xxxx is to be withheld from anyone except members of the SCP-xxxx research group: 0/xxxx clearance and any other Foundation-issued clearance are mutually exclusive." can be rephrased as "Information on SCP-XXXX is restricted to the SCP-XXXX research group, regardless of clearance."
Or do you simply not share my belief that it needs to be shortened?
I'm a fan of short and snappy works, so I can pretty much always trim stuff down.
Is there a glaring in-universe flaw with the containment strategies?
Not sure if this is containment, but why is only one person writing the article? (Is there only one person writing the article?)
"c.f. experiment log #1 for an overview of statements that appear to qualify as significant information" do you also think it's necessary?
Ehh… I would provide maybe a short bullet-point list with some short examples, not a full log. The amount of information attained/explained to the audience doesn't necessitate an entire experiment log for understanding.
Out of curiosity, is there a reason you have the "induce increasingly hostile behaviour in all subjects" effect as well? It's kind of an overused formula addition ("makes you crazy/angry/violent") and doesn't quite seem necessary. Also, did you happen to have the core concept reviewed first? I feel like I'm not quite getting what's happening here. It's an object that when described, causes people to become excessively and often unrelatedly honest? And there's no way to prevent that? And that's it?
Thanks a lot! This is really helpful.
I'm guessing this is the writing of a relatively modern-era scientist, so the "confession" sentences feel overly stuffy at times, especially when there's still some casual language in there.
It's a subtlety of the effect (maybe I'm too attached to it): it doesn't make you blurt out thoughts exactly as they are phrased in your internal monologue; it gives you an urge to share what weighs on your mind, within the medium you're currently using. So the writer of the document would still apply their idea of technical writing. Clinical tone is not suitable to express intimate feelings, so casual language seeps through: I want the reader to get a feeling of the internal battle to follow the guidelines. I see I didn't really succeed, thanks for sharing that impression, I'll try to rephrase all "confessions" with that in mind.
For example, "Any information about SCP-xxxx is to be withheld from anyone except members of the SCP-xxxx research group: 0/xxxx clearance and any other Foundation-issued clearance are mutually exclusive." can be rephrased as "Information on SCP-XXXX is restricted to the SCP-XXXX research group, regardless of clearance."
The "mutually" is extremely important: no-one must learn about SCP-xxxx; AND xxxx-researchers cannot know anything else (because there's an increased risk they'd leak it). "Restricted to" does sound much, much nicer than my contrived "is to be withheld" though.
why is only one person writing the article?
That's addressed in the last paragraph: basically they picked a researcher with the safest possible set of knowledge and the most boring life (you can't leak anything important if you don't know about anything important, and less personal issues= less frequent confessions). Any new writer will confess whatever weighs the most on their mind, and thus double the risk of major leak. Did that annoy you while reading because a single writer felt wrong, or did you wonder about it afterwards? Would a short explicit instruction about it in the Special Containment Procedures feel appropriate?
Out of curiosity, is there a reason you have the "induce increasingly hostile behaviour in all subjects" effect as well? It's kind of an overused formula addition ("makes you crazy/angry/violent") and doesn't quite seem necessary.
I see the pitfall: "I want my murder beast to be even more scary, I'll add an epic 'rage state'". Here it's not an afterthought, it's just that the urge to confess doesn't go away, and if people are restrained to prevent confessions, the frustrated urge becomes unbearable. I'm sticking to the core cliché "this item is too good at what it does": if you can just cover their mouth and thwart the compulsion, it's a very inefficient compulsion… You've helped me see how sentences like that are trite though, I need to phrase it very carefully.
Also, did you happen to have the core concept reviewed first? I feel like I'm not quite getting what's happening here.
I was considering posting to "Ideas & Brainstorming", but the rule "don't post a draft unless requested" stopped me. I feel like I can't convey the intended appeal of my idea without offering a look at what the document would be like: a major intended hook is the way the confessions are integrated seamlessly, stay tangentially related to the content, and try to maintain a clinical tone.
I listed the core ideas I find interesting below. If some stand out as really not worth trying to salvage with the execution, feel free to let me know (if it's not too inappropriate outside the "Ideas & Brainstorming" forum):
Yeah, this is… kind of way, way more complex than I was thinking it would end up being. I'm admittedly not too sure about how to advise you further since my usual reaction is to shorten and simplify things, but what you have here seems reliant on the complexity.
Did that annoy you while reading because a single writer felt wrong, or did you wonder about it afterwards?
I typically don't get annoyed unless something is very poorly written, so in this case it was more of a constant "why didn't the Foundation…?" niggling as I was reading. Suffice to say, I didn't really pay much attention to the end, it seems like.
Would a short explicit instruction about it in the Special Containment Procedures feel appropriate?
I would say yes, since that would prime the reader nicely to understand from the start what's going on.
This strategy backfiring, because even someone as vanilla as him is full of alarming insecurities and resentment
I mean… this to me isn't surprising. People are people. Everyone has some sort of insecurity. I wonder as to why the Foundation didn't attempt some resilience testing or even just personality mapping to figure out a more ideal candidate. People who are relatively boring tend to not be super confident, and will be more susceptible to negative emotions.
But then I was a psyc major so I might be biased and the average reader might not be as nitpicky as I am.
but if it were I would portray its intentions as the best interpretation of the Christian concept of confession)
Ironically, I've heard a fair number of stories of kids in line for confession doing things like having their first kiss and telling secrets to each other they never told in the booth. Though to be honest I didn't really pick up on the "confessional booth" premise until now.
I mean… this might just not be the kind of piece for me, since I don't really like roundabout documentation, but that's effectively required because of the anomaly here. Maybe reach out to some authors of high-rated meta works to see what suggestions they can offer? The most I can mention here is many ways to make this more streamlined so the audience doesn't just start losing interest in finishing the read mid-way.
I mean… this might just not be the kind of piece for me, since I don't really like roundabout documentation, but that's effectively required because of the anomaly here. The most I can mention here is many ways to make this more streamlined so the audience doesn't just start losing interest in finishing the read mid-way.
What you've done was exactly the kind of help I was after, you answered all my specific questions and even pinpointed a bunch of ways in which I was needlessly confusing as well as some in-universe inconsistencies (like your new "there should have been resilience testing" point, I'll work on making the possibility of the final outburst more believable). Thanks again!
