Drowning (2.3k, SCP)

Summary:

SCP, 2.3k words, character-based

Drowning (2.3k, SCP)

Simartar 25 Mar 2021 04:45

Hello — here with my first draft in about a year and third SCP. 2,342 words, centred around an anomalous pool that generates messages from beyond the grave and featuring two researcher characters. Open to any crit, but mainly want to check that the main message is getting across (it's meant to be ambiguous), whether it feels realistic, and if the pacing is off. I'm concerned that it's a bit fast in escalation, but I felt the article was getting too bloated. Be warned that it is pretty dark. Thanks!

http://kaktuskontainer.wikidot.com/drowning

Last edited on 25 Mar 2021 04:47 by Simartar Show more

Re: Drowning (2.3k, SCP)

Tracque_ 29 Mar 2021 00:02

Hiya!

SpaG and Phrasing

Your SpaG was generally good. Bar the good 'ole comma splice, I only picked up on a couple things on my first read and they were both typos. However, you do seem to love a comma splice.

Your phrasing was a little more shaky, with a few awkward sentences here or there, but it was also generally very good.

The following are a few examples¹ of pieces of SPaG and/or phrasing I thought could be improved and my suggestions as to how this could be achieved:

Quick note here that I will point out anything and everything that feels out of place. Even if they might not be wrong, I always go on the side of caution and point out things that bother me anyway.

• "SCP-XXXX-1 are paper slips" > "SCP-XXXX-1 instances are paper slips"
• "All recovered SCP-XXXX-1 incidents have" > "All recovered SCP-XXXX-1 instances have"
• "Should be fine, hasn't been too long." > "Should be fine. Hasn't been too long."
• "(static)…" > "(static)…" Typically, only the text inside the parentheses are italicised, not the whole thing.
• "Should be pretty straightforward then, just get a couple samples" > "Should be pretty straightforward then. Just get a couple samples" or "Should be pretty straightforward then: just get a couple samples"
• "low-level anomalies, but be careful, alright?" > "low-level anomalies, but be careful. Alright?"
• "Hey, can't I get any" > "Hey. Can't I get any"
• "Means I need the advice more, doesn't it?" > "Means I need the advice more. Doesn't it?"
• "retrieval team from Site-392 shortly after" > " retrieval team from Site-392 arrived shortly after"
• "Three weeks after Incident-XXXX-A the first SCP-XXXX-1" > "Three weeks after Incident-XXXX-A, the first SCP-XXXX-1"
• "This is Researcher Sharpe, Research Lead Alvarez" > "This is Researcher Sharpe. Research Lead Alvarez"

Noting that I'm no longer going to point out comma splices. Just be aware that you're comma splicing a lot in your dialogue when you have a proofread of this piece yourself. Remember also, that you can always play it safe with comma splices. Periods and colons can replace commas more often than commas can replace periods and colons.

• "you can't understand it without being it." > "you can't understand it without experiencing it."
• "physical altercation with D-9238 while doing routine testing. " > "physical altercation with D-9238 during routine testing. "
• "I think we're mostly done active testing" > "I think we're mostly done with active testing"

And just as a couple of quick sidenotes:

• "a pool employee retrieved the first instance of SCP-XXXX-1 and embedded Foundation agents were alerted." > Would there really be embedded Foundation agents in a pool? Maybe in the local police department, but I find the pool to be a bit of a stretch.
• The theme you're using does some weird stuff and makes the spacing between words look wrong at times.

Overall

Overall, this was solid, but just not quite hitting the mark for me. I can appreciate the narrative you went for here and the ambiguity in the ending,² however I can't help but feel that the payoff of the article is a little hollow. I understood it and how it adds more doubt to the ambiguous aspect of the piece, but I would have liked something more impactful at the end here.

Especially since you already dedicated a good amount of time to establishing the question of if Kato is using the anomaly, or if it's the other way around, I felt that using the ending to hammer that point home after already doing do for a few hundred words was a bit of a waste. Perhaps this could work if you were less heavy-handed with this earlier on? Or, it could equally work if you altered this ending to be a kind of twist at the very end: the "oh shit" moment, if you will.

Regardless, I would probably novote this piece if you published this piece with some SPaG corrections. Good luck with this piece author!

Footnotes

1. As in, this is what I'm picking up on in a brief reread and is not very rigorous.

2. That ambiguity being the question: Was the anomaly using Kato as a bait to lure in Sharpe, or was Kato just being an utter prick?

---

Reality is merely what we perceive it to be.

Re: Drowning (2.3k, SCP)

Simartar 29 Mar 2021 00:33

+ show block

Thanks for the crit! I did proofread the whole thing but I think the dialogue style I feel is most natural leaves a lot of comma splices (since spoken language doesn't always punctuate the same), the rest aren't intentional though. I'll get them all fixed or reword them.

"you can't understand it without being it." > "you can't understand it without experiencing it."

The word choice here was Kato deliberately implying that he is part of whatever internal space the anomaly — beyond just experiencing something but being an integral aspect of it, if that makes sense. Might reword it though to make that clearer.

Would there really be embedded Foundation agents in a pool? Maybe in the local police department, but I find the pool to be a bit of a stretch.

That's what I meant, guess I forgot to include that bit. Will fix!

The ending was sort of meant to also introduce the third option, or highlight it — that it actually was the anomaly speaking the entire time, but I think the way it's structured buries it under Kato's personality revelation. I might try to bring it out more, as well as make Kato a bit less dickish at the beginning. He wasn't really written to be sympathetic, but I'm thinking that it might be more impactful if he was.

Edit: also the theme is a custom CSS module, I'm not sure what exactly is causing the weird spacing — if it's around the Level 4 required block that's intentional.

Last edited on 29 Mar 2021 05:00 by Simartar Show more

Re: Drowning (2.3k, SCP)

cybersqyd 29 Mar 2021 08:19

[+] Overall

Hm; I think I like what you're trying to do here more than I like the execution of it; though the execution isn't bad generally.

I think the biggest weakness is the 'Disciplinary Record for Victor Kato', which feels… both like it's overly expositional in telling us that Kato isn't necessarily the victim here but also not expositional enough in that there's not quite enough here to fully invert his position into coming across as being antagonistic. Like, the following log of Sharpe going in doesn't feel significantly reframed by the Disc Record, and so the Disc Record kinda comes across as being just sort of, there; particularly since Kato is notably isolated previously and his record doesn't really do enough to overcome the implication that he's kinda shy, particularly since it creates the implication he may have been burnt once and is hesitant to interact much as a result.

Hm. Looking at Tracque_'s response, it seems like you're really trying to get us to question whether Kato is using the anomaly or the anomaly is using Kato; and it feels… too subtle with this? I think the problem is that we never get a feeling of what Kato is like before he goes into the anomaly, so we never get a feeling of him changing; but there's also nothing at the end that makes me question this, though that might just be me missing stuff.

I think a lot of the stuff around Sharpe really works though, and I think even her death lands well, even if it does lack a little punch; and I'm not quite sure how to improve that beyond maybe trying to play with getting the uncertainty of who did this to actually land for a reader? But I don't know how best to do that without like, being very unobvious about it?

[+] Line By Line

Gonna note that I can miss stuff; flag things which are right as being wrong and indeed flag things which are deliberately wrong.
I'll likely use strikethrough to indicate stuff to remove and green text to indicate stuff to add.

Greencliff Community Recreation Centre is to be closed permanently, under the pretense of public safety concerns. Security equipment has been installed to prevent unauthorised access.

Perhaps a personal thing, but I'd tie this into the SCP more: we see in the description that SCP-XXXX is the pool here but until then, this is nebulously related to it.

[EXTRENOUS DIALOGUE EXPUNGED]

This kinda implies a long passage of time, which in turn makes no-one noticing that Kato is in the pool feel odd considering we've heard the splashing already; maybe replacing it with an indication of there only being a few minutes or something would make this feel less weird?

In a test conducted by Junior Researcher Sabrina Sharpe, it was determined that leaving paper slips similar to SCP-XXXX-1 in the water of SCP-XXXX influenced the responses on instances of SCP-XXXX-1.

Hm; this feels like a kinda major thing to exposit as quickly as this; but it's probably the best way to handle it without just having kato ramble a bunch or something?

Date Recovered: 07/07/2017

Hm; it feels weird to include when the response was recorded but not when the test message was sent; maybe including the date as part of the test title would work better, or explicitly drawing attention to how long it takes to respond via the discrepancy in dates?

and requested another researcher complete the testing for the day.

Considering the next message is recovered like, a week later, this reads a little odd since the testing seems done for the day

This is Research Lead for SCP-XXXX Alvarez. Can you hear me?

This feels… weirdly uncertain for a third test where we know already that the SCP can hear him?

Miask Alvarez to move to weekly checks.

I think you're aiming for 'Ask Alvarez to…' here?

//Suddenly, Sharpe looks down at the various SCP-XXXX-1 instances she had picked up.

You're missing the closing // at the end of this paragraph

Later analysis showed the text on the instance did not match any of the recorded SCP-XXXX-1 instances.

I guess it's a little odd that we're told this instance is so different in a way that implies the Foundation know what it says; but we aren't either shown the text or told that the text is presumed cognitohazardous or w/e.

Last edited on 29 Mar 2021 11:04 by cybersqyd Show more