SCP-123-EX / Discussion

This is the discussion related to the wiki page SCP-123-EX.

page 1 of 212next »

Author Post

(account deleted) 12 May 2018 14:06

I got the interest in doing a Chicago Spirit article ever since reading the first 40 pages of Public Enemies: America’s Greatest Crime Wave and the Birth of the FBI, 1933-34 by Bryan Burrough, and the idea from a comment left by PeppersGhost on SCP-3036 about the idea of someone not wanting to leave the Foundation. This came from a combination of those two interests.

Thank you to Ninevolt, Peppersghost, DrChandra, Ember16, BlueBloodStains, Kakroom, and Avocadonut. Couldn't have done it without you!

Last edited on 13 May 2018 03:25 by (account deleted) Show more

sirpudding 12 May 2018 15:36

The "Is that it?" collapsible title doesn't really make sense in context. Is the collapsible part of the document or not?

Anita L. Hill

The famous Anita Hill's middle name is "Faye", so I guess this is a different person? I guess it isn't really that much of a coincidence, people have the same names all the time. I find it a little jarring in fiction, though, because it makes me wonder if the author is trying to say something.

(account deleted) 12 May 2018 15:53

The "Is that it?" collapsible title doesn't really make sense in context. Is the collapsible part of the document or not?

It is apart of the document.

The intended meaning of it was to be a sort of "case study" — intended to show a very big problem in the old system of the Foundation. I can rename it "commentary", if need be.

Also, Anita Hill was completely made up. I didn't even know if there was a famous person with that name. I can also rename that, if it's weird.

sirpudding 12 May 2018 16:23

The intended meaning of it was to be a sort of "case study" — intended to show a very big problem in the old system of the Foundation. I can rename it "commentary", if need be.

That would be an improvement yes. As it is, it is way off-tone.

Also, Anita Hill was completely made up. I didn't even know if there was a famous person with that name. I can also rename that, if it's weird.

I think especially in context of the me-too movement and the apparent push against slut-shaming as an effective legal defense, as well as the procedural shenanigans involving the last few nomination hearings, mentions of Anita Hill seem topical right now.

(account deleted) 12 May 2018 16:40

That would be an improvement yes. As it is, it is way off-tone.

I changed it to commentary.

As for Anita Hill, I'm going to change it. This is to avoid any possible confusion or anything.

Decibelles 12 May 2018 18:39

Despite everything that's going on in this, it feels really down-to-earth and intriguing to read throughout. A really nice article, especially to reintroduce yourself to the site.

PeppersGhost 12 May 2018 21:52

This is really cool. The body horror is on point, and I love that the note at the end explains why we were shown all this in the first place. It touches on an area of Foundation lore that makes perfect sense, but I don't think has ever been explored before. Well done. +1

Jarbatalapus 12 May 2018 22:55

penis smashed with hammer until it was unrecognizable

Unrecognizable as *his* penis, or as a penis in general? On a serious note, this is pretty messed up, but I like it. And torture with regeneration, time dilation, and sensory amplification? I mean, shit…

ModernMajorGeneral 13 May 2018 06:45

An interesting and fairly original idea, but I really disliked the reader being hammered over the head with the moral of the story at the end like a public service announcement.

Also not really comfortable with the idea that the Foundation has consistent ways to 'objectively' detect anomalies in the 21st century, unless the implication is that these continue to be unreliable (I don't object to the existence of Humes and such, but only when they're used in individual articles as a way to add to the story, not so much as something standard).

(account deleted) 13 May 2018 12:59

Totally understandable. I’ve never been the best at subtlety, but in this I was case attempting to have it as a “case study” of previous foundation fuck ups, with the commentary at the end being used to bludgen anyone who didn’t get it yet. still, it’s understandable that something like this would be to overt and Ben bothersome. I apologize for that.

As for objectivity in determining anomalies, well, that’s up to the reader if they think Humes are any more objective than previous instruments.

TL333s 13 May 2018 13:48

This was a good read, but I have to agree it's too heavy-handed on the moral. Interesting way to portray an -EX, and I suppose at least some moralizing was necessary to explain why every was acting the way they were at the time. (What's the purpose of footnote 3?) But in total, no vote.

(account deleted) 13 May 2018 14:03

Yeahh, I was, at least attempting to, anyway, show that Herbert is, in all intents and purposes, a piece of shit who is not exactly above jabbing people he doesn't like for his own personal amusement. Footnote 3 was to show that he wanted to keep it for "memories". Didn't come across as I intended, I apologize for that.

The Great Hippo 13 May 2018 14:04

There's a lot of stuff in here I dislike; the written account given by the guy from the brewery doesn't at all feel grounded in the time period to which it belongs (it reads too forced; like someone trying to 'mimic' the style of the time-period), the interview is way too heavy-handed, the commentary at the end feels too stiff…

…but this is legitimately a great idea, and the first time I've seen an -EX that amounts to using the Foundation as a witness protection program. As much as I might complain about some of the presentation, the prose is strong, the idea excellent, and the execution — while not precisely to my liking — is still clear and sharp enough to pull an upvote out of my bitter, withered, blackened heart.

Genshed 15 May 2018 03:15

This was bleak in the extreme. This was extremely cold Foundation. The shift between his bored frustration during the pointless confinement to the hopeless terror at his callous discharge was well depicted.

And oh jumping catfish, the suggestion of how he died. That was like being in OGPU custody and then being handed over to the Gestapo.

Yeah, I am going to no vote.

sirpudding 15 May 2018 14:18

If Kant counters are flawless anomaly detectors, then the Foundation's job is rendered basically trivial (especially since it follows that SRAs are universal neutralizers, since Kant counters are SRAs).

Realistically most anomolies investigated by the Foundation should turn out to be explicable, just due to probability. The only reason that -EX articles don't outnumber the mainlist in real life is that nobody actually wants to read thousands of fictional examples of expiremental error, unrepeatable results and hoaxes but we probably should still imagine that these articles exist in-universe. The Foundation, not being idiots, knows this, and they would have known it in 1920 too.

Last edited on 15 May 2018 14:42 by sirpudding Show more

page 1 of 212next »