I did it!
A little tribute I made to the ten years anniversary of this site. I don't think it will win but I am content with just participating. Cheers to everyone, who helped.
To another ten years!
SCP-4010 / Discussion
Forum
» Per Page Discussions / Per page discussions
» SCP-4010
This is the discussion related to the wiki page SCP-4010.
I really enjoyed reading this, and had in mind that Star Trek: TNG episode where the universe keeps getting smaller around Dr. Crusher. The moment your character did the thing with 173, that got things going in the other direction, I smiled like crazy, that was a fantastic idea!
+1!
I really enjoyed this until Part Four. The high point of the article is when it comes full circle, and it's one of the stronger meta articles I've read because of how cleverly it plays with the bootstrap paradox. However, most of the article past that feels extraneous and drags out the punchline. Removing log Day 366 and the note attached to the actual SCP documentation would go a long way to strengthening the article.
Thank you for sharing your opinion but I have to ask, do you mean that the SCP would be better with an open ending? Because removing Part four would make it that way, there would be no saying whether the paradox worked or not. Just asking.
I don't mean that you have to remove Part Four entirely - the actual SCP format is critical to keeping this article an actual SCP. But I do believe that it's stronger as an open ending, a la Inception. Day 366 strips away that uncertainty, while Sailer's note at the end about the universe running on chaos feels extraneous. Removing these two elements from Part Four makes the ending stick longer with the readers and ensures that the punchline has more punch.
I mean, you are definitely more experinced with writing than I am but I do not know about this. I think that you might be onto something but out of all the people who gave me feedback, no one mentioned this so… Gosh, I am really conflicted about this.
I can see Day 366 as something that should go, unsure about the note. And what about the very last Log, Day 367?
I don't have any strong feelings towards 367. And in any case, feel free to ignore my suggestions/complaints, since I'm clearly in the minority here ;).
Sorry if my responses annoy you or anything, I am kinda new to this site (not really but my account is nowhere close to 'years' old) and sometimes I am not really sure what to do. Especially when it comes to writting articles.
Thank you for reading it. I am glad you enjoyed it, even if the not the ending.
Sorry! I didn't mean to imply annoyance. I only meant that since I'm the only person who actually took issue with those elements, you don't need to feel compelled to change them to suit my taste.
This is a fascinating premise explored through a relatively novel format screw, but there are far too many issues with grammar, tone, and narrative voice for me to be behind it. With substantial edits and cleanup, I would probably change my vote.
Thank you for reading this.
Could you maybe point out what you do not like about the tone and narrative voice?
I mean, I'm just gonna do one sentence from the end here.
Our universe is a very complex place, our history is very chaotic which often blocks us from understanding the unknown of the present. Yet we still stride to understand, to explain.
The first sentence is grammatically incorrect. You have linked two complete sentences with a comma and no conjunction. You have neglected to place a comma between "chaotic" and "which". Additionally, you said "stride" when you meant "strive".
These issues are present throughout your piece. They make it difficult for me to enjoy its excellent premise and compelling character. The errors block any clear attempt at narrative voice and they interfere with your tone. If you went back and revamped your writing, this piece would improve drastically.
+1 from me. There are some grammatical errors and typos (You call Scranton "Scrantron" at least once, for example), but the narrative is done impeccably. Meta-scips are difficult to do well (imo), but you definitely succeeded here.
PS the prequel meme was a surprise to be sure, but a welcome one
Thanks.
"Scrantron" instead of Scranton is intentional. The 001 Proposal is named "CODE NAME: Scantron". But hey, I can change it if more people find it to be an issue.
It would also be incredible if you could help me with some of the grammatical errors since I am completely blind to them.
"Scantron" was Communism will win's username at the time. I don't think that the 001 "codenames" are in-universe.
I really like the idea of this article, I think the notes could use a bit more variation and fleshing out.
I don't like this for the 4000 slot with a prequel meme in it, it might work with some more character background for Sailer to establish that she's a memey kind of gal, but as is it feels forced to me, it made me feel like I was on Reddit or something instead of reading a Foundation document.
As such I'm no voting.
It's like the new 3999. I don't know whether it's a bad thing or a good thing but it surely is. I enjoyed reading it, good job, but no vote.
Just feels like fanservice for the sake of it. Narrator isn't exactly engaging, with no real characterization coming through what is basically a self-insert stream of consciousness. Does it capture the wonder and confusion of someone's first dive through the wiki? Sure, sort of! It's a neat idea, at its core. Just not very well executed here. I think if you're going to make so many references and use so much of the site's history, you have to do something a bit more special with it. As it is now, it's just a rough collage of some of the best ideas the site has, without a firm understanding of what made them great.
On a more technical level, there's a lot of iffy writing. Primarily your frequent then -> than confusion.
I did really enjoy this. But it kinda reads like the 05 just said "make a timeline, don't tell anyone" then offered no further instruction, which really hurts my suspension of disbelief. And its an issue seeing as how that sets up the bulk of the article.
/forum/t-6355838/scp-4010#post-
page revision: 2, last edited: 15 Jan 2023 15:06
