SCP-3997 / Discussion

This is the discussion related to the wiki page SCP-3997.

page 1 of 212next »

(account deleted) 05 Jun 2017 09:33

This thing has been a nightmare to write. I no longer know if it is good or bad anymore, so if you think it's terrible, I may well agree with you.

Special thanks to everyone who helped in the chat:

Pneumatic
DeathRay
No0n3Left
Noxfero
SpookyPizza
madjest
sjasogun
Gion
dankertron
AndarielHalo

Without their input, this probably wouldn't make any sense. Although I'm still not convinced that it does, but all flaws are the result of my own failings, rather than their excellent feedback.

There are some references to Eliot's poetry here, especially to Burnt Norton. Please don't interpret these as anything more than the superficial and pretentious references of a second-rate writer such as myself.

Last edited on 05 Jun 2017 09:36 by (account deleted) Show more

Tufto 14 Apr 2018 17:38

Since the authorship is no longer clear from this: this skip was written by me, Tufto, on my first account prior to my deleting it. You can find more of my stuff here.

Mortos 05 Jun 2017 12:00

I had a few issues with this, specifically I would have liked to know specifically what the Incident was - was it just the O5 remembering the old agent? The language could use some tightening up in a lot of places and I saw a bunch of typos (I went through and fixed the ones I saw, hope that's OK). I probably would have blocked out the specific O5 member from the final note too as explicitly linking their history to an SCP is a bit too much of a papertrail I think. All in all I feel like this could have used another editing pass or two (I remember talking this about concept with you a couple of days ago in chat so you couldn't have been working on it that long).

With all that said, I really enjoyed this. I thought the concept was good, I enjoyed the interviews and the letter from the O5 at the end was nice - the last paragraph especially, so this has my +1.

I've got some specific notes on language and wording in the collapsible, feel free to use or ignore them as you please.

+ show block

having lived in or visited the United Kingdom at some point in their early childhood, specifically between the ages of 2 and 5.

If you have the specific, you don't need the vague. I'd just say "having lived there between the ages of 2 and 5."

An abnormally large number of these instances

I'd say "significantly" rather than "abnormally".

SCP-3997 was first brought to the Foundation's attention as a result of the regular psyche evaluations of several researchers from the West of England

This reads like they specifically evaluate researchers from the West of England and no one else. Better wording might be "brought to the Foundation's attention when regular staff evaluation revealed recurring elements in the dreams of several researchers from the West of England." Same in the second version of the doc, where this line is repeated.

, and as a result its existence is only a theory.

I'd consider dropping this chunk entirely. You have the word "existence" twice in the same sentence which reads a little off, and this bit feels clunky as a result.

(account deleted) 05 Jun 2017 16:05

Thanks a lot- I've done a little editing, incorporating most of your niggles, and will do some more in a few days time when I have fresher eyes.

It did indeed only take me a couple of days to write this- I just got so intensely wrapped-up in it that it drove me half-mad, so I eventually just published it when I couldn't look at it any more :p in retrospect, probably not the best idea.

A Random Day 05 Jun 2017 17:26

I want to like this a great deal, but the O5 note at the end burns me for two reasons. One, it's an immensely clumsy way of delivering the punchline - using a gut punch of exposition rather than a slow burn of allusion. Secondly, the O5's tone in the note is bizarrely, overly casual, which lends itself to the idea that you've jammed a tale into the back end of an SCP because you were unable to fully deliver the story in the traditional format. In light of these issues, I've elected to not vote.

rasco279 05 Jun 2017 17:34

One of the best of series IV I have read so far. Amazing.
Just… the O5 document at the end is kind of a long, drawn out punchline. Something a little more digestible and powerful may be more effective.

(account deleted) 05 Jun 2017 17:56

Alright- following some of the feedback, I have made some major changes to this article. The vast majority of the O5's note has gone, and some of the information it contained within has been made far more allusive. I may change this again later on (as I never like using "redacted" when I can avoid it), but I'm happier with it for now.

DrColress 05 Jun 2017 18:07

I must say that overall it's a very interesting concept and I personally like the statement made by the O5 member in the end. It gave the Foundation a feel like behind their cold exterior they have a heart down their somewhere. I gave a +1 for your good work

th4nkyoub3n 11 Jun 2017 01:48

I'm glad the O5 note is shorter and no longer their life story but I don't really get what "You'll be destroying the innocent" means.

(account deleted) 11 Jun 2017 11:37

The butterfly effect, essentially. Every time someone enters the rose garden, reality is entirely altered; thus rewriting lives and ensuring that many children are probably never born who would otherwise be born.

th4nkyoub3n 11 Jun 2017 17:59

But wouldn't different children be born in their place? It's not like the rose garden has any effect on libido that I know of.

(account deleted) 12 Jun 2017 20:29

Exactly. You're rewriting the world so that certain children are never born, and new ones take their place. Peoples' lives are tampered with without their knowledge or consent; lives are wiped out entirely. One reality existed; everyone who lived in it is erased from time when a new one is created.

Petrograd 13 Jun 2017 22:35

No vote. I've almost never found "this is so powerful that people in the Foundation might be tempted, so we have to hide it" to be a particularly convincing narrative gambit. The godfather of all SCPs telling that story offered immortality, and that's a hard line to meet.

Maybe I'm not particularly romantic or am just lucky enough to lack major regrets, but I don't see the temptation of starting all the way over being that big of a deal for so many people. Given that, that gambit feels tacked on and not particularly justified for constituting such a large portion of the story.

A lot of the description of the mechanism and what it does to people's lives is quite good.

Decibelles 13 Jun 2017 23:05

I think the anomaly itself is pretty good but not good enough on its own. It's the pacing of the article and the float-y, dreamlike way in which it's being told (even clinically) that makes it so effective. Unlike A Random Day above, I didn't understand what the implications were until the O5 note; I think that exposition is needed here.

Awesome job.

Azcheron 17 Jun 2017 08:28

A pretty good SCP on the whole.

Just wondering (I'm a bit new and might have gotten it wrong) but why is the low clearance level version Safe-Class, but the four (4) up clearance level version Keter-class?

Is this because the temptation itself makes containment very hard? Or is it due to the time-line altering effects? Now that I think about it, it probably is, but I'm still just not sure.

Also, surely a safe-guard could be using SCP-3997-1 subjects as immediate containment personnel, with an outer perimeter under direct Foundation non-anomolus control?

Once again, I'm new so I dont know if anything I've said has merit or should even be said.

(account deleted) 26 Jun 2017 17:13

Just wondering (I'm a bit new and might have gotten it wrong) but why is the low clearance level version Safe-Class, but the four (4) up clearance level version Keter-class?

Is this because the temptation itself makes containment very hard? Or is it due to the time-line altering effects? Now that I think about it, it probably is, but I'm still just not sure.

The former. They want to make the anomaly seem like something dull and harmless to those without clearance. They're not totally sure they trust themselves.

Also, surely a safe-guard could be using SCP-3997-1 subjects as immediate containment personnel, with an outer perimeter under direct Foundation non-anomolus control?

Well, the problem is that they don't know exactly how the rose garden is activated. All they know is that every time they've found it, it's been activated. The only solution is not to go looking for it. It could have a cognitohazardous effect compelling people to enter it; or maybe nobody who's actually physically there can resist the temptation. Or maybe they don't need to enter it at all, and just knowing where it is activates it.

Either way, they've eventually decided that the only thing to do is leave it be, short of flooding the entirety of Gloucestershire and probably destroying their secrecy. Though I have a headcanon that the Foundation will eventually do that.

As for the -1 subjects; they aren't immune from activating it multiple times. They could just as easily rewrite reality as the others.

Once again, I'm new so I dont know if anything I've said has merit or should even be said.

They were perfectly sound questions, don't worry :).

Last edited on 26 Jun 2017 17:15 by (account deleted) Show more

page 1 of 212next »