EDIT: The concern I had with the piece has since been addressed to what I've deemed sufficient. Switched to an upvote, critique is under the collapsible for posterity.
I spent a good amount of time contemplating this, so I may as well tell you why I downvoted.
What is presented here is, for all intents and purposes, a complete story. Everything is set up to make you ask questions that get answered as soon as that transcript is over. I don't think there is much wiggle room for misinterpretation. However, I downvoted because I'm having trouble truly disliking Johnny and I realize that is a weird thing to say all things considered.
The way I picture this, Johnny just kind of did this for no real reason other than he's a bad person. Because what else does he have to gain from plopping some kittens and a boy down a well other than time in jail? I think if there was a better implied motive from Johnny, this would have stuck it in me much more effectively. "Just because" isn't quite as petty of a reason as "this squirt did something he shouldn't have done to me" or "this dumb kid is gonna pay for stealing from me". That pettiness is better coupled with a misunderstanding of the situation, leading to the guy that doesn't handle being fucked with well doing something over-the-top shitty.
I will agree with you. Johnny doesn’t have a clear motivation for why he did this. But I’d argue that that’s just how some people are. Some people, when they see a boy playing with something he loves, will misinterpret their own unhappiness and feel such a hatred for this thing bringing joy for another person that they will feel compelled to destroy it. It’s common among children who are raised in broken homes and is a troupe in 80s movie bullies.
I don’t think at any point Johnny intended to kill Billy. Wells, despite what some people may think, are actually fairly easy to climb out of. However, you can’t do it with a bag in one hand. In Billy’s mind, as childish as it might seem, staying in that well with the kittens was better than trying to escape without them. He probably thought Johnny was gonna let him out, or somebody would be along to help him. But Johnny was gone, overcome by fear at his own actions, and nobody found him in that well for many years.
I mean, when I was a kid the little fuckhead next door to me stole my turtle for no reason. It happens.
I'm really torn on this. I really appreciate what you've tried to do here but something about it feels lacking and I can't really put my finger on why.
You reference demolition/wreckage twice:
thirty seconds prior to its demolition
A switchblade … was discovered 5 meters from the wreckage
Okay so I wanna lay out some extended thoughts on this here: my initial assumption was that Johnny had just shoved Billy into the well with the kittens or something. I'm kinda thinking that perhaps Billy climbed in to rescue the kittens instead?
Either way, I'm not exactly clear on where the wreckage comes in? The switchblade discovery makes it feel like the well was demolished at the time of the events (e.g, if Johnny drove a car into the well to seal it or mess with Billy more).
But the demolition has to have come in after Billy died cos of the voice transcript? Except then questions are raised: the existence of the voice transcript implies that the Foundation recorded it and hence that the Foundation destroyed part of the skip.
at some point I considered whether I was overthinking this and concluded that yes i am but here we are anyway; sorry
Demolition is perhaps poor word choice. It’s referring to the Foundation sealing the well after ascertaining it had no further anomalous properties. The switchblade was discovered at the site of the treehouse, and I tried to imply that was from the missing person report filed by the police.
I understand anyone being torn about this. I know from concept that it was going to be divisive and that’s why it’s so split in the votes.
For the question of what happened: There’s no real true answer. All anyone knows is that an altercation occurred at the treehouse, and Billy ended up dying in the well with his kittens. What happened between those two points is more or less left up to the reader.
For the demolition part, "prior to it being sealed" would likely work better then?
I'd specify "from the wreckage around the treehouse" too I think but it might not be necessary if the demolition part is cleaned up.
…I'm sorry that I never managed to figure out how exactly this is lacking :/
There are a few things which I think could be improved upon:
You should specify the species of these kittens by using the scientific name *felis catus*. While it's obvious from the contex that these are domestic cats, there are other species that can have kittens.
"All seven instances are perpetually wet, and staff interacting with them are encouraged to bring towels to dry themselves."
There's something off about this sentence. I can't really point out exactly what, but it doesn't read to me like a scientific article should. Maybe you should modify the first part slightly, leave out the second part and just mention in the containment procedures that dry towels should be present adjacent to SCP-4928's encolure?
There are similar problems with many other sentences as well. I like that you're making a short and simple article, but this shouldn't come at the cost of clarity.
The article mentions that SCP-4928-1 *was* an auditory anomaly. At what point did it cease?
Nothing mechanically wrong with this article, it just feels like too quick and violent a gut punch. Plenty of SCPs have used dead kids and dead pets to evoke sympathy and unease. It's not especially difficult, and I don't feel this article does anything new with the concept.
Novote.
Agreed, for its length it doesn't do anything unique or distinctive enough to warrant an upvote from me.
I would tweak this by removing the “I don’t know how long I can keep swimming” line and adding, say, just [splashing sounds].
