SCP-5633 / Discussion

This is the discussion related to the wiki page SCP-5633.

page 1 of 212next »

SCP-5633

Woedenaz 23 Jul 2020 16:17

This Will Require A Great Amount of Blood

So, this was written as an Exquisite Corpse that we started on Jan. 23rd and ended about a week ago.

It started with the initial photo and the title and went from there! Each member was given a single line from the person who wrote prior to them and allowed to go nuts from there.

These are all the authors that contributed:

• Captain Kirby
• JackalRelated
• aismallard
• Modulum
• Uncle Nicolini
• Sterbai
• Yossipossi
• Alces_alces
• magna2s
• Tufto
• Rounderhouse

Image Sources:

First image is taken by myself, Woedenaz and released under CC BY-SA 3.0.
Second image is taken from here and released under CC0 1.0.
Third image is a still taken from here and released under CC0 1.0 according to Florida Law.

Last edited on 23 Jul 2020 18:00 by Woedenaz Show more

pastarasta1 23 Jul 2020 16:35

On XXXX/XX/XX it was noted

Missed something here

Also, this looks interesting! I really like the images.

---

pastarasta1 is quick-talking and often scheming

notgull 23 Jul 2020 16:49

The part of this that I don’t like is the ending. Unless I missed something, it feels more incoherent than the rest of the article does, and it’s a damper on what is otherwise a very good execution of a hard-to-execute idea.

I still enjoyed it, though. +1

ch00bakka 23 Jul 2020 17:12

this is the second article this month that's done the changing-header gimmick. the other one used it better. the wording in your description is incredibly awkward in a number of places, to the extent that i stopped reading because i got annoyed. downvote.

Woedenaz 23 Jul 2020 17:44

Oh hey, I hadn't seen that article. That's neat!

A Random Day 23 Jul 2020 17:14

The experiment log where the corpse demands blood is excellent; unfortunately, most of the surrounding sections feel too disjointed, both in relation to each other and even within themselves, to engage me.

Riemann 23 Jul 2020 17:19

I really like the Object Class bit, I think that's amazing. And there are other good ideas buried in here, but… Unfortunately the article is too all over the place for me. Sections are disjointed from each other, which is a choice, but even more frustrating is that the internal consistency of each section is also screwy and it doesn't seem like an intentional choice in the same way. The second addendum strikes me as particularly egregious in this regard, and I'm not the biggest fan of simply… lampshading nonstandard entries.

I can tell there's a lot of talent that went into this! But my takeaway here is that it was difficult and frustrating to read, and not in a way that felt rewarding or meaningful.

-1

gee0765 23 Jul 2020 17:19

The ending is far too incoherent to have any impact. If there's actually some internal logic, it's too obtuse.

Phiiota 23 Jul 2020 17:51

I'm gonna novote this SCP for now, mainly due to me not really understanding what's happening for the most part (or at least the Experiment Log 5633-█-█ part of the SCP).

+ My critique and issues

• The formatting of the dates seem to switch around between Year/Month/Day, Month/Day/Year, and Day/Month/Year. I'd suggest to be consistent and only use 1 date format.
• I think I understand that something changed history, but it started to get confusing as it went on. I can understand that there's time travel-wackery going on though.
• The Experiment Log 5633-█-█ part specifically confuses me the most. To me, it seem to slowly not make sense.
• You begin to introduce new instances of SCP-5633, but never really explain what they are. Like who or what are SCP-5633-β, SCP-5633-δ, SCP-5633-γ, and SCP-5633-Γ? When I was writing this, I thought that they could be Foundation members, but I don't think I got that until after.
• I do like the ACS header, but it changes fairly quickly. I had to wait for it to go through a few times before I knew what each version said. I'd suggest slowing the switch speed of the header (assuming you can)

BOO! This was actually written as an Exquisite Corpse.

Woedenaz 23 Jul 2020 18:03

So, all of y'all who are saying it is incoherent or difficult to understand…. there's largely a reason for that. This was actually NOT written by only me. In fact, I only wrote the Containment Procedures. From there, it was written as an Exquisite Corpse by all the authors mentioned in the original credits.

We wanted to initially post it to see how the reaction would be without this knowledge and it was… not too far from what we expected :p

It was fun to see, though!

If you guys have any theories as to an internal story or coherent logic to the whole thing, stick with it! Maybe there is! I hope the knowledge of this doesn't ruin the article for anyone.

Thanks guys!

PS. We started writing this back in mid January so the Exquisite Corpse contest totally stole our secret idea from us! /s

-1

VoidLady 23 Jul 2020 18:23

When it isn't fully diving into fantastical incoherency (which was really good!), there are just a lot of strange and jerky clinical tone errors and mistakes that took me out of the piece.

---

I'll be crossing you in style, someday!

Re: -1

Woedenaz 23 Jul 2020 18:32

clinical tone errors

Feel free to point these out and I will see about fixing them.

Re: -1

VoidLady 23 Jul 2020 19:09

resulting in the anomalous property that both SCP-5633 and Site Mu-18 are temporally shifting to another reality.

Though when examined all blood in the vial was incinerated and the DNA could not be identified.

A D-Class personnel

These are the ones that stuck out to me on my first reading. The first one I listed isn't exactly erroneous, but it's definitely awkward to read. Same with the second, and the third is that "personnel" is plural.

I know I saw some more, so if choobakka doesn't mention them in their comment I'll come back and list what else I find.

---

I'll be crossing you in style, someday!

Re: -1

JackalRelated 23 Jul 2020 19:16

Noting that "personnel" is actually both a singular and a plural noun.

Re: -1

Zyn 24 Jul 2020 06:01

"personnel" is actually both a singular and a plural noun

I've always only ever seen it used as plural (since it refers to people, which is plural). Is there a reference for the singular definition where "personnel" would refer to one person?

Or maybe I'm misreading this statement and "singular" is meant in the sense that we don't say "personnels" for multiple groups of personnel, since personnel refers to a collective.

_{English y u be lik dis}

Re: -1

Woedenaz 24 Jul 2020 15:15

I think he meant the latter? I'm not entirely sure. He is technically correct in that Personnel itself is said in the singular but is referring to a collective.

Either way, it didn't work in the context of the sentence so I changed it to "individual."

Re: -1

Woedenaz 23 Jul 2020 19:38

Gotcha, I fixed the ones you pointed out plus a few others. If you find any more, I would be happy to nab them as well!

I am notoriously bad at recognizing poor clinical tone, so I appreciate the assist!

Re: -1

VoidLady 23 Jul 2020 19:46

No problem! I think I'm gonna stick with my downvote for now, but if you ever make any major changes or want another look at it feel free to contact me.

---

I'll be crossing you in style, someday!

page 1 of 212next »