I had downvoted this article when I first read it, but hadn't commented. Here are my comments as part of the Young and Under 30 Project.
What works well: The idea of a "spy tree", especially one that isn't obviously being used as a tool, but appears to be working for its own purposes, is an interesting avenue to pursue.
What could be improved: I don't think that this sells the "spy tree" story very much at all. It took me several re-reads after seeing Roget's comment above to really appreciate that angle, and while I'm usually pretty slow on the uptake, I think that this could do much better in getting the idea across.
For example, the description of the effects comes across as too much of a hodgepodge to develop a theme or throughline. Sticky sap, clouds of particulate matter and explosive detachment are not things that I associate with spies, and they turn up early in the Description, meaning that the remaining anomalies didn't form a pattern for me.
This is not helped by the brief length of the skip. The descriptive passages skim over *how* the tree does all these things, stretching my suspension of belief too thin. The second paragraph of the Description has several confusing sentences that slowed down the reading process and distracted from the purpose.
The other point that broke my immersion was the Foundation's acceptance, without evidence, that the trees were sapient. The phrase "this gives the SCP-3535 instance some intuition on the subject's location…" turned up so blithely, without any previous mention of sapience, that it knocked me out of the story.
The History section didn't seem to add much to the theme, or have any real literary purpose. Similarly, the Addendum felt rushed and lacking detail, and didn't attempt to explain a large number of narrative leaps.
How to improve it: I would suggest cutting back the number of different anomalous effects, and concentrating on what spies actually do, so that the purpose of the trees becomes much more obvious. I would lose anything that suggests the trees are sapient (other than the fact that they appear to be spying). Then I'd delete the History section entirely, and add a lot more detail in the Addendum - turn that into a full-on spy story (in clinical tone), with plots and gambits, and I think you could be on to something.
Verdict: A clear downvote in this form - the whole is much less than the sum of its anomalous effects.
The Young and under 30 project aims to bring attention to articles that are less than a year old, and have a score of less than +30. These are often the articles getting the least attention on site, and we want to change that!
Here's how you can help: read this article, vote, and comment on why you voted the way you did. Your comments don't have to be in this format - write it however you like. And if you use IRC, give this post a plug on the chat to get more commenters over here - you can find the direct link by clicking "Options" —> "Permanent link".
You don't have to wait for posts like this one - you can initiate discussion yourself on other Yau30 articles. A list of eligible articles can be found here. Remember to update the list to track any articles that you've reviewed.
