Duplicate LookingGlass

Summary:

Looking for some feedback on my second SCP. Currently WIP at 2300 words

Duplicate LookingGlass

evilscary 01 May 2020 09:10

A SCP about the wreck of a ship from a parallel dimension, used by a handful of Foundation members to escape an unknown XK-class event. Currently it's at 3500 words, but most of that hidden in collapsibles.

My greenlights are here, thanks to Dr Moned and DianaBerry for them.

Sandbox link here, thanks to anyone who has time to read and/or comment.

I'm mid-WIP with it and I'd like some feedback to make sure I'm going in the right direction. I've written an SCP before, but that was over 10 years ago and standards are higher now!

+ Specific concerns I have

1. Is the current layout ok? Specifically the strike-through text and all the collapsibles used
2. I had intended that Addendum B would only include a single example log, with the rest being 'off screen'. Is this acceptable? The wording of that particular log is WIP
3. Does the flow of the story make sense so far?
4. Should I redact some of the specifics of how the ship works, such as the wormhole drive, etc?

Thanks again for reading!

Edit

I have made some heavy revisions to the article with Dr Moned's help and I now consider this finished. I have contacted some members of the Butterfly squad and am waiting for their feedback, but I would appreciated further feedback from anyone willing to give it.

Last edited on 04 May 2020 10:04 by evilscary Show more

Re: Duplicate LookingGlass

Lolsworth 01 May 2020 10:03

I really liked this article. It was well written with great clinical tone. I found the story compelling and to move pretty well.

To address your concerns:
1. The layout seems fine to me. I don't see any problems with it.
2. I think it's fine for stuff to happen off screen. As it is the addendum gets the point of what SCP-xxxx-1 is about across. Also, I like the wording as is and don't see much of anything that really need improvement.
3. The flow makes sense. I was able to understand what was being conveyed at every point in the article.
4. I'll let someone with a bit more knowledge on the finer points of redacts handle this one.

I only found one writing error.

+ show block

They forbidden to enter SCP-xxxx.

In drop SCP-xxxx-4. Seems like you're missing an 'are' between 'they' and 'forbidden'

I don't know if you're aware of it, but you seem to still have some place holders in your article. I'll put here just in case you aren't aware.

Recorded incidents of SCP-xxxx-3 began XXX days after the SCP-xxxx was moved to Site-98.

In drop down SCP-xxxx-3.

Incident lasted for 2 minutes, and was detected by Dr. XXXX and technician XXXX who were performing an examination of the bridge electrical systems.

[26 seconds of silence. Voices move to the rear of section 1 near to where Dr. XXXX and technician XXXX had been working]

[22 seconds of increasingly distressed audio followed from SCP-xxxx-1a, SCP-xxxx-1b, and SCP-xxxx-1c. Incident ended with audio abruptly ending at 09:07:23 xxxx/xx/xx]

In Addendum B

I hope this gets posted to the main site. It will be a +1 from me when it does.

As a courtesy to our readers on mobile devices, please collapse long posts. ~Zyn

Last edited on 02 May 2020 05:28 by Zyn Show more

Re: Duplicate LookingGlass

evilscary 01 May 2020 13:25

Thanks, those points are helpful!
I'm glad you like it so far.

Re: Duplicate LookingGlass

RockTeethMothEyes 07 May 2020 04:40

Reponding to PM request. Thank you for your patience.

---

While I try to be thorough, I become less likely to point out recurring issues if I find myself repeating. Keep this in mind as we go further.

Now, let's begin.

+[Line-by-line] Click to Access

No staff outside of Project Looking Glass, or level 4 staff members are permitted access to SCP-xxxx. Staff entering the hangar, or SCP-xxxx itself must wear class 4 protective suits and carry a type 3 sensory package with them at all times.

Commas after "members" and "itself".

I'm just a bit on the fence about the archived containment procedures. They aren't super different from the initial procedures listed here save for the increase in staff necessary for containment. It's probably fine, honestly, but just something that stuck out to me.

---

SCP-xxxx has sustained significant structural damage, apparently from a non-optimal shutdown of its Lorentzian wormhole drive. […]

The paragraph here reads like an itemized list, so it might be to your benefit to make a bulleted list here. Just something to consider.

In places the interior bulkheads are composed of a hybrid material containing both aluminium–scandium alloy (used in 80% of the construction of the vessel) and human DNA.

Comma after "places".

The source of the information leak within Project Looking Glass that allowed an outside agency to construct a duplicate of IDV-████ is unknown. […]

This is quite a big chunk of strikethrough. At this moment, some of this information does seem to hold up regarding the object's history. If anything should be strikethrough, it should be the last sentence, as the sentence in the very next paragraph contradicts it.

---

During SCP-xxxx-1 voices can be detected within SCP-xxxx.

Comma after "SCP-XXXX-1". General rule of thumb is, if it can fit on the end of the sentence as well, put a comma after it.

Chief Engineer ████████ is currently stationed at Dimensional Research Area-16 and is forbidden to enter SCP-xxxx.

This statement can be messed with a bit. The first half you can link into the previous sentence, the second half you don't need, since we can assume that the engineer doesn't have the clearance anyway. Furthermore, it really bugs me when we there is certain staff forbidden from doing a thing and we don't have a name for them. This could be any chief engineer for all I know. Which one is okay to bring into the hangar if maintenance needs done?

Vocalisations are mostly unintelligible, and indicate a significant loss of higher brain functions.

Probably would be nice to have closer to the top of this particular section, since it's description of the anomaly.

Recorded incidents of SCP-xxxx-3 began 3 days after the SCP-xxxx was moved to Site-98. Occurrences of SCP-xxxx-3 initially increased in frequency and duration, until until completely ceasing on 07/20/2019.

Inversely, this would probably be more in place to have at the bottom of this particular section.

The radiation levels then begin to fluctuate in a regular, repeated patterns over the following 10 minutes. After close analysis this patterns have been confirmed as messages in Morse Code.

"patterns" to "pattern"

All occurrences of SCP-xxxx-5 should be recorded and reported immediately.

This is a containment procedure, and thusly belongs there.

So, five collapsibles is a lot to set up for addenda. I feel as if there might be a better way to get into this information without dividing it up in this way, because up to this point, the pacing has been just a bit dull. It jumps a little bit with some intrigue here and there, but it isn't really building up a whole lot. Rather, it's a bit of an info dump. It's basically a list of "This is what this is and this is what it does".

---

SCP-xxxx-1b: "Please don't fight."

SCP-xxxx-1b:" Great, now you've made her cry."

Seems you've confused your designations here.

"This has moved again. I swear the panel was closed last time were were here."

one of those "were" needs to be "we". Also, you don't really need quotations in logs like this, since the prefaced Bolded titled gets across that someone is speaking.

SCP-xxxx-1c: "Oh god, it's happening again!"

SCP-xxxx-1a: "Sarah, it'll be alright! Calm down!"

SCP-xxxx-1c: "No, not again! Not again!"

I thought 1b was Sarah? Honestly, if the entities have names, would it not be easier to just refer to them by their names? It'd probably be less confusing.

---

+[Overall] Click to Access

So, I get what you are trying to go for here, in that the personnel have been dimensionally displaced within this duplicate ship. It's an alright premise, but the execution here leaves a lot to be desired. It simply feels too out of focus. It's bumping between all of these perspectives of crew members without really capitalizing on one thing, and I feel as if that might be a detriment. I found myself going back to previous collapsibles because I honestly lost track of which corresponded to which addenda.

The lack of focus is affecting the pacing of this article. It ramps up a little before dying right back down to reset for the next set of logs. In my opinion, I think pinning down one perspective and then following it out would be ideal. It's difficult to connect to each of these characters' suffering when they are left behind in favor of the next thing. Personally, Addendum B and D do little to serve the plot here. A question to be asked is "If this wasn't here, would it affect the story I'm telling significantly?"

Hopefully, this helps.

Last edited on 08 May 2020 06:50 by RockTeethMothEyes Show more

Re: Duplicate LookingGlass

evilscary 08 May 2020 09:00

Thanks for the feedback, it's very useful.

Do you think if I removed addenda A, B or D entirely it would help? Does it not become confusing to reference an anomalous incident but not provide an example of it?

Last edited on 08 May 2020 09:04 by evilscary Show more

Re: Duplicate LookingGlass

(account deleted) 11 May 2020 14:31

Activated by PM, will be back with feedback within the next few days or so. (Sorry for the late reply ^^;;)

---

+ summary

ConProcs: I think most of it's fine, though I felt a tad overwhelmed with the usage of rather unfamiliar terms (but this is like, a personal thing for me, I guess.)

Description: Most of it is alright, though I'm a little iffy on the wording of how you've kinda merged a bit of its discovery together with the description. The strikethrough text, I feel, is a bit too on-the-nose? Like, I think it's fine if you had like, one sentence that said that the Foundation's copy was never moved from its docking area to make readers think about what possibly happened and that there could be someone/something that was able to duplicate this machine?

Anomalous Events: You've kinda described SCP-XXXX-3 as not like, an anomalous event like SCP-XXXX-1, -2, and -4? Perhaps you could rename the humanoid entity as like -3a or something like that to make the format more consistently adhered to.

Addenda: Hm. The dialogue sounds relatively fine, except for the bit where Kowalski and Kingstone like, use the whiteboard to communicate with the -3 instance. It feels… rather odd for them to form complete sentences on a whiteboard? I usually anticipate something like them writing down only the crucial terms and omit the rest; they don't have all the time in the world to talk to them before they dematerialize, after all, I think. The ending… felt like it didn't hit hard enough? Hmm.

Overall, this felt a bit off-focus. Like, it seemed as if you were gonna expand more on the mystery behind what exactly happened to this duplicate vessel that trapped all the researchers in it, but instead when we move to the last interview, that angle seems to have been dropped almost entirely and instead focuses on SCP-XXXX-3's sadness? So it felt like you were trying to turn many gears here, but… instead it felt like the story relatively… lost focus along the way? Idk. It felt like, you didn't really explore more into the -1a, -1b, -1c, SCP-XXXX-2, -4a, and -4b? So in the end, I wasn't sure how to feel by the time I finished reading?

+ show LBL

SCP-xxxx is to be kept in a secure hanger at Site-98.

Think you've misspelled "hangar" as "hanger" here.

The hangar is to be kept under armed guard by 4 level 3 security staff at all times.

I think you could combine this with the first sentence to give us this:

SCP-XXXX is to be kept in a secure hangar at Site-98, guarded by four security staff¹.

No staff outside of Project Looking Glass, or level 4 staff members, are permitted access to SCP-xxxx.

Consider:

Access to the hangar is restricted to staff relegated to Project Looking Glass².

SCP-xxxx is a duplicate of prototype Foundation vessel IDV-████ developed by Project Looking Glass.

Consider:

SCP-XXXX is a duplicate of the IDV-████ prototype vessel³, possibly originating from an extradimensional location after the detection of a Lorentzian wormhole collapse above the Persian Gulf on 05/11/2019. It subsequently landed in Rub' al Khali, Saudi Arabia, in a state of disrepair.

The primary reactor has breached is compromised, irradiating the engineering section as well as Decks 4 and 5, and melting a hole in the ventral armour.

Maybe separate the bit about the irradiation and the hole in the armor? Cuz it kinda sounds a little repetitive to have two "and" in the same sentence?

I'm gonna hold off on a LBL for the rest, since I think there's some tweaking required to adjust the focus of the story on like, one thing? Maybe it's either like, a full-on mystery about what happened within the crew to give off some cosmic horror, or something specifically set on the SCP-XXXX-3's deteriorating will to return home and all?

You might want to get another pair of eyes on this, cuz it could just be me.

Footnotes

1. I personally feel that you don't necessarily need to state the level of this security staff, though, but that's just me.

2. Again, I feel that the Level 4 staff thing may be a bit extraneous, but it's a personal nitpick.

3. Initially created as a result of Project Looking Glass. The original is currently secured at a dry dock at Dimensional Research Area-16.

Last edited on 12 May 2020 14:46 by (account deleted) Show more

Re: Duplicate LookingGlass

evilscary 12 May 2020 17:01

Thanks, that's very helpful. You've given me some stuff to think about.