SCP-6009 / Discussion

This is the discussion related to the wiki page SCP-6009.

page 1 of 3123next »

Joreth 30 May 2021 09:39

People have to think about good and evil.
But genes are what control the basis for how we live.
Naturally, a contradiction arises.

Haruki Murakami, 1Q84

A cursed love letter to academia, biological reductionism, and the horror of being trapped in the belly of an institution. This is me trying my hand at something new, hopefully it works.

Many, many of the concepts are drawn from real areas of biology that I've studied. However, this is still a creative writing site, so some artistic liberties still had to be taken. I think I consulted at least 15 papers during the writing of this. If you feel like I committed sacrilege, my deepest apologies.

The minor character of Michael Aguinaldo is a reference to qntm's story "Lena", which was one key inspiration of this; since it does not take place in the Foundation universe, the character was named differently at the request of qntm.

Many thanks to critters Ralliston, Re_spectators, and Ihp.

A special shout out must go to DrBleep, who was integral pushing me in a direction that would avoid letting the scientific jargon choke out the story, and also checked the scientific coherency. The current state of the article wouldn't have been possible without her; part of the story was set in Site-234 as a token of gratitude.

Preferred numbers: 6003, 6006, 6009, 6998, 6666

Last edited on 21 Jun 2021 13:29 by Joreth Show more

Joreth 02 Jun 2021 03:43

By request, I've added proper names in Chinese and Japanese in the source

Ralliston 30 May 2021 10:20

This is… weirdly engaging. Like, by no means should I like this — I hate biology in every way, but for some reason, I like this a lot. Despite its length, it somehow kept me engaged nicely throughout. Also, I adore the formatting.

+1

mitochondria is powerhouse of cell. also theres depression here. +1

basirskipreader 30 May 2021 15:00

I admit, the proposal of this being a science heavy skip really drew me in, but the story between the two researchers was what made me stay. It's just heartbreaking to see the final line and re-reading the piece after you realize the twist just sends chills down your spine. In addition, the science part doesnt falter too. I think it's a good thing when I can't even distinguish the real science from the fake science at a glance and it really adds to the immersion. Overall, a great skip and one I will happily upvote. +1.

This is super impressive

Irina Bougainvillea 30 May 2021 15:11

You just blown my mind. It will be a ton of work and cost a lot of time to translate this, but maybe I'll have a try.

ETA: Done with the translation!

Last edited on 15 Sep 2021 16:41 by Irina Bougainvillea Show more

Re: This is super impressive

T Rutherford 30 May 2021 16:36

Strong scientific discourse, but threaded through a blossoming relationship between the two main parties that carries the narrative along well. Good twist, simple innocuous anomaly that shows its fangs at just the right time. +1.

Edit: didnt mean this as a reply to Irina, misclicked.

Last edited on 30 May 2021 16:36 by T Rutherford Show more

This was a rough but Commendable Entry!

JayKillbam 31 May 2021 09:48

You lost me at times with the hard science…. so I LOVED IT, I love SCPs that are hard science. The interplay of the researchers back and forth really kept the flow going and overall the impression that was left was superb. I credit my own lack of understanding for any slight I felt against the content. Sometimes the amount and length seemed daunting but you managed to keep me engaged all the way through. +1 my friend!

---

"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn"

GremlinGroup 31 May 2021 12:45

Wow, Joreth. This was really something.

I have to admit that this took a lot of effort to read - you never fully lost me with the neurobiology, and you managed to pull it just shy of being too dry, but it certainly took more work than I'd expected for me to follow along. The further I got, though, the easier it became. The relationship between the two researchers is really engaging, and it really felt like I was watching a scientific collaboration pull itself together.

You did a great job of sprinkling in the moral quandries throughout, then bringing them all to a climax. And that last letter / notice was a real twist of the knife - that hurt. Thank you so much for posting this!

weizhong 01 Jun 2021 07:09

I have conflicting thoughts about this entry. From the initial parts of the description, I expected to read a very detailed, hard science look into neurobiology, and was ready to do so, but I was pleasantly surprised to find that the majority of the piece was actually about the relationship between the two researchers. That, in combination with the boldly mundane anomaly were tremendously enjoyable points in this article's favor-it was a very nice breath of fresh air, and the interplay between the two researchers was great in the early emails.

My issues largely stem from the middle to latter portion of the emails. At times I felt as though the voices of the two researchers blended together a bit too much, making it difficult for me to distinguish the two-though the different colored backgrounds certainly helped. Nonetheless, when interspersed with some fairly dense biology portions that I largely skimmed through, I felt as though we were losing sight of the real story here (and this is coming from someone with a bio background).

Secondly, I was left a bit disappointed at the finish of the piece because it felt relatively abrupt and sudden to me. There were certainly sprinklings of moral quandaries here or there (just thinking about the D-class procedures was horrifying), but I felt as though there was little forewarning of the most sinister components of the piece, namely the personality guessing and the abrupt betrayal that marked the end of the piece. If there was more foreshadowing of both of those things, I think I would have enjoyed the twist more. As is, it felt like a bit too sudden of a derailing for me to appreciate their power in the context of the story.

Joreth 01 Jun 2021 08:11

Appreciate the honest comment! I'm pretty proud of the article, since I wanted to aim for a realistic feel that fits in with how science is done in the real world. I know the dense terminology will lose some people, writing it gave me grad school flashbacks.

I think the ending wasn't so much of a betrayal, but more of a lack of agency. The entire time, they've worked hard against the lack of resources, and produced something unique. The quick ascension from the Foundation really was a reward because of the worth of their work, and they're correct in being proud of what they did. But even though they're granted this power, they aren't truly powerful players, they're still stuck in an institution that will exploit them to achieve what they want.

I've changed it to make it more clear that ultimately, neither of them really have a say in what the Foundation wants. Your existential crisis is meaningless.

+1

Grigori Karpin 02 Jun 2021 04:58

Overall I enjoyed this. But I think the story got lost in the weeds with the technical information, although I was impressed with how understandable it was, I think there's probably just too much detail gone into with the various stages of the study when the story really has less to do with that than the horrors of medial experimentation and the moral quandary at the end. Additionally, I too felt like the two researchers weren't separately characterized enough to get a feel for who was talking… at multiple points I had to double check who the email was from. Additionally, I think the conversations (though absolutely believable) went on a little too long for what they were.

BUT (and it's a big "but") I think the story of developing friendship amidst the horror of what these people are doing in order to understand a fairly unimpressive anomaly was very well written. Despite my above criticism, I did not find it too taxing to skim through some of the technical information to understand their building rapport with each other. I do think it would have been interesting to see them discuss with each other in a few logs instead of merely emails, but that could just be a style thing (and as such very subjective).

Ultimately, the moral quandary at the heart of this research is very interesting and calls into question quite a bit concerning determinism. I do think it could have been foreshadowed better, as it felt like a sudden left turn, but I found it compelling. Certainly worthy of a +1.

Lonely_trickstr 02 Jun 2021 18:21

Normally I’m not a fan of “X normal thing is actually an Scp” articles but this is a great story and I enjoyed it

+1

Jacob Conwell 03 Jun 2021 03:42

I really wanted to like this, Joreth, I really did, but it's just kind of, well, boring.

I can dig the hard science here, and can appreciate all the research you put into making this technically slick, but that in the end doesn't necessarily make for an interesting or fun read. You even go on to say so yourself in the piece "SCP-6000 is really, really mundane of an anomaly." By the end, you begin to pique my interest and scratch the surface of a conspiracy and the implications for this research, but it's at that point you cut things off. Dragging me along for all of that, and stopping just when things start to get interesting.

It doesn't escape me that a huge draw of this article is the relationship between your two researchers developing over time, but for me I found their characters to be frankly bland, and often their notes read with the same voice. This is a major problem since that relationship is something I imagine you intended to carry the reader through the piece but instead was left grasping for a reason to be engaged with these people.

-1. I can appreciate a slow burn, my dude, but this article was absolutely glacial.

Joreth 06 Jun 2021 12:18

Hey Conwell,

Your comment had me thinking a lot, and you were very accurate about the faults it had. I think it's mainly that the fundamental goals that I wanted to achieve, and the artistic choices I made directly go against what you were looking for in a good article.

I wanted the article to have a slow, very grinding start (which, as I re-read it, is not the most enticing thing to hook a reader) and have the feeling of the world going faster and faster - until it all crashes at the peak. I intentionally cut things off at when everything seems to be opening up, because I wanted it to feel abrupt. Everything is coming up roses for Waley and Ryo, and when Waley tries to pull away, well, the Foundation giveth and the Foundation taketh.

The final letter was meant to give an emotional closure, then only for it to be rudely disrupted. There's a reason why the dense scientific articles are frontloaded and barely show up in the second half, because it reflects how the characters are no longer menial researchers but now becoming (unwitting) players in the Foundation's game. The conspiracy angle hinted at in the end always had a sort of hidden throughline in the background. I wanted to explore the bureaucratic hierarchy of the Foundation, and the horrors of climbing a corporate ladder.

The glacial pace to start is kind of intentional… but I do get why that would be annoying to read.

page 1 of 3123next »