Very interesting, but logs are difficult to understand. Who are the log notes written by? If the book's content is invisible to others, is the CSD the one describing the book entry? If so, how could the RPC trust her retelling? Why is a CSD even being used? These questions and the unprofessional way the "notes" section is written bugs me. 2 stars
RPC-137 / Discussion
Forum
» Hidden / Per page discussions
» RPC-137
This is the discussion related to the wiki page RPC-137.
Sorry to see you soured on it more since your original comment but would you mind expanding some of this some more on how the logs are difficult to understand? I can answer all those questions and I thought they were self-evident in the text but obviously something must be too vague if you’re asking them
The log notes are written by researcher Jones, which is why he talks about worrying it’s getting in his head when he uses it, and why he talks directly about his own involvement in the narratives. The CSD is the one describing the entry, and they begin to doubt her retelling as time goes on, specifically stating that in the chatlog one where she claims that the responses sound like things she’d say in response to being asked questions/getting an answer to questions, but wouldn't say she understood what the other party was saying because of that, and then again very overtly in the test where she gives a basic narrative that doesn’t fit the pattern and seems too short for the amount of time she spent reading it.
The CSD starts to be used after the researcher begins becoming worried over the possibility that the book might be taking information out of the user’s mind to write the stories, and mentions as much in the logs before the CSD starts being used.
I can understand the criticism of the non-clinical tone of the notes section, though. Originally I had them written in the normal clinical tone but they just made it feel messy and non-personal. I think it works way better to have that human element contrasting with the clinical tone of the actual document (because these are, after all, just the research notes of the guy assigned to this object) since the overal piece is supposed to be a very “human” story told through this medium. I can understand why that might not be palpable for some people and I totally respect if that makes you feel like it needs to be docked for it.
It's nice to see that you've thought about all this, but… everything you elaborated on needs to be in the report. As an example, It's a hard ask for readers to just interpret Jones's slight paranoia as him requesting an CSD. Rule of thumb, you should state things explicitly if you want a reader to know it, and give multiple clues if you want a reader to infer something. You shouldn't be leaving it up to the readers to infer quality of life things. For a second example, the fact that the notes section has no name tells the reader that this isn't necessarily Jones, which is not what you were going for. This is by no means a bad article, but it does not read like a finished one to me. Please consider re-writing. (Also, the end seems to suggest that the description of the object is no longer accurate, possibly even a neutralized object. Something you might want to think about.)
I get your criticism but i'm not too sure how to act on it, given what you're saying here? Putting a field for the name of the person writing up the report would add some unnecessary clutter because the narrator of that section doesn't change at all, it'd just be a field that says "report writer: Dr. Jones" in every report log that'd unnecessarily drudge up those sections with details the reader doesn't need to look at. Reading through it I do think the first three logs need to be reworked a little, particularly because they're of a more clinical tone and I don't like that it has a little jump. But beyond that, the fourth and fifth logs make it very clear Jones is both the writer of the reports and the subject at that point, given his use of I statements about the entire test.
I think I will toss in a small line at the end of the fifth, though, to directly outline the thought processes and make it flow better, i'd agree that it's a bit of a jump otherwise.
I don't think there's much of an issue with the addendum of an article noting a shift in behaviour afterwards, because these articles are narratives as much as they're in the format of an official document, but you did remind me that I forgot to slip in that document revision was pending
This is a good article. It's got a simple, engaging concept, a good buildup, some character work, and a solid payoff at the end.
You should be proud of this one Togetic.
This is a real gem of an article. Simple concept at its core, but with a lengthy enough log that does the concept justice, imo… Von said it better, but all the parts work well. THIS is the fabled 'Series 1' type article that people say RPC is all about, but with an effective narrative. A new favorite.
It's Site-038, not Site-38, btw.
I like the story, but the formatting leaves much to be desired. Use boxes, come on.
4 now. 5 if that gets fixed.
CSD-44351’s security escort suddenly begin to be described as present halfway to the cell, despite not being mentioned prior. CSD-44351 begins frowning at the time this occurs.
I’m confused by what this is supposed to mean.
/forum/t-10378175/rpc-137#post-