SCP-2104 / Discussion

This is the discussion related to the wiki page SCP-2104.

page 1 of 212next »

(account deleted) 31 May 2014 19:48

Okay, so here it is. I want to say thanks to a lot of people who have helped me with this: weizhong, Accelerando, Crayne, Kalinin, CryogenChaos, Fantem and DjKaktus, for reviewing the draft in chat and through PMs, and for helping me with my grammar, tone, and ideas. And a special thanks to Dr Reach, who translated more tan half of this, and encouraged me to post it; if he hadn’t, I’ll probably wouldn’t have tried.

The image used in the article can be found here. It’s from the Wikipedia archives, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

+1

Dr Reach 31 May 2014 21:22

Hello, little king. :_)

Malodorous Stank 31 May 2014 22:39

The video feed SCP-2104-A, hanging from the rope that is usually found in the tree.

I think you need a verb in there.

It's well-written but I'm not sure how I feel about the skip itself. Also where is the Foundation getting these kids as test subjects, and what does the Ethics Committee have to say about it?

Neutral for now.

(account deleted) 01 Jun 2014 00:04

Thanks for catching that! I added the missing verb.

The children here only have to be under the Foundation custody for a limited amount of time. I guess that it would to tell a cover story for that time to the parents or institutions that are responsible for them (for example, going to a camp, maybe). And then give the kid some amnestics and return them.

katiekawaii 16 Jun 2014 02:54

I'm pretty sure the Ethics Committee says, "why are you using kids as test subjects?", makes a note of their answer, and leaves. :)

TL333s 31 May 2014 23:48

I feel like I'm missing something here. There's a lot of awkward phrasings that might be obscuring what's going on. Downvoted for the second exploration log, it's too involved and feels like an actual fable — i.e., with prosaic elements not in line with scientific reports — shoved into a log format.

(account deleted) 01 Jun 2014 00:41

Hmmm. On one hand, I see your point, but on the other hand, that's what I where I was wanting to go with the article.

djkaktus 01 Jun 2014 06:58

Yep. Got a good feel here. Solid work, mate.

JaneRand 01 Jun 2014 13:54

A mentally handicapped "Green" I presume ?

Good work

FarmerGiles 01 Jun 2014 13:56

Enjoyed this SCP. Some good subtle elements. One wonders, what if an adult with developmental delays and / or mental retardation could enter? Also, what happens if a child eats the "food" and then leaves the area?

(account deleted) 01 Jun 2014 17:34

1. No, adults cannot enter -B; only children who had not undergo the physical changes of adolescence.

2. Nothing, really. I'm assuming that you're are talking about the food that was originally mud and pebbles: maybe -A did a good job and they became actual food, or it's still mud with an slightly more appealing appearance. Either way, it won't affect the child in an anomalous way.

Glad you enjoyed it! : )

Doctor GE Smith 10 Oct 2014 05:23

I liked it as well, and it is interesting to see the Foundation cautiously using child subjects, as opposed to callously using D-class. One nitpick, since you say adults CANNOT enter, it would be good to note it in the description. I kept waiting for a child to accompany agents, so as to "activate" an entrance by their proximity, and for the agents to go in with force. I'm glad it didn't go there, but you might want to rule it out.

DaemonCaedo 24 Jan 2015 00:58

"SCP-2104-A is located inside SCP-2104-B, and seems to be unable to leave this area or act outside it.

1. No, adults cannot enter -B; only children who had not undergo the physical changes of adolescence.

SCP-2104-A displays a positive emotional response to interaction with children, but shows fear when approached by adults."

I'm a bit confused since the first two sentences seem to make knowledge of how he reacts to adults impossible.

Waterfire 02 Jun 2014 03:32

I don't know why, but when I first saw the picture, I thought of that internet meme were people find the random triangles and then say "Illuminati".

But in all seriousness, this is pretty good. I like the sense of mystery that pervades throughout the article. It's definitely interesting enough for an upvote.

(account deleted) 02 Jun 2014 15:24

… now I'm seeing it too, Waterfire : (

Just kidding, thank you for your kind words!

FaustoV 02 Jun 2014 14:31

It's pretty good Vlank :D. Although for some reason I find the last part slightly off (probably the names not matching the language).

(account deleted) 02 Jun 2014 21:47

I'm glad that you liked it, FaustoV!

All interactions in the article were meant to be translated from the original Spanish (the anomaly is located in Spain). I'll maybe add a note stating this.

FaustoV 02 Jun 2014 23:34

Well, if I'm honest, I'd love to see it mentioned in the article (the spanish part), and it'd be very good because there are few articles who make an effort to show the original language.

(account deleted) 02 Jun 2014 23:33

Firstly, this piece has definitely benefited from the amount of revision and work you put into it, and I commend you for the success this article is enjoying at the moment. The effort involved in improving this seems to have paid off.

Overall, I felt that the last addendum really brought home the concept for me. As I read along, I didn't see anything that struck me as flawed writing, per se, but in terms of personal taste, I'm not a fan of things based on fairy tales or things that prominently feature people controlling reality. However, the last addendum leaves me with interesting things to ponder that I find satisfying after I walk away from the piece. Is the kid dead? Does he exist in some sort of different time-stream where things are less linear? Is the whole thing just the after-effects of a traumatic event? It brings some weightiness to the article that I find pleasing.

I do wish that the dialogue between the parent figures wasn't quite so heavy on the exposition, but that part didn't cause me enough issues to override the rest of the piece or jeopardize my upvote. Well done, overall.

(account deleted) 03 Jun 2014 22:06

Thank you for your words, Kalinin. I have to thank a lot of members for their help reviewing this, as I stated at the beginning of the discussion page.

I do wish that the dialogue between the parent figures wasn't quite so heavy on the exposition, […].

Fair enough. I put a lot of thought into how to rewrite the last addendum to make the article more self-explanatory without making it any longer, but also tried to not reveal everything to leave the reader wondering about the piece, as you said. The over-exposition in the dialogue that you mention was one of my fears during this rewrite, but at the end I felt that the better understanding of the story and that the feeling of conclusion that it gives to the piece weighted more… though I'm sure it could be done better and subtler, of course.

I'm really glad that you liked this, Kalinin!

page 1 of 212next »