Humorism
Humorism
Forum
» Writing & Drafts / Archived Drafts
» Humorism
Summary:
More scientific than Witchcraft.
Entry for the Myths & Magic Contest.
The said usage is to follow Site-008's patient priority guidelines.
Said usage
Colloquially called Humorism, …different schools of Humorism
It is not clear whether you are referring to the entire field Humorism or a specific branch as being RPC-XXX
RPC-XXX is capable of curing genetic, pathological, and physical aliments currently termed terminal and incurable by mainstream medicine.
ailments
deemed/considered terminal and incurable…
This is done by the deployment of RPC-XXX-1 into the affected organs through textile interaction between the caster and the target.
injection/introduction
Not enough went into physically describing what RPC-XXX-1 is, whether it is a substance or an object or whatever. The later paragraphs seem to describe them as something produced by our organs but this right here just sounds like medicine/chemical of sorts. -1s should be explained briefly before you talk about their usage to avoid confusion.
even if the said usage would remedy the aforementioned limitation.
the said usage
First instructions regarding the usage of RPC-XXX with empirical effect on the baseline reality
Do you mean “the wider world” / “the veiled world”
An unbalance of any kind of RPC-XXX-1 will result in significant mood swings manifesting as the temperament related to the bile the presence of which is insufficient.
Optional: imbalance
An unbalance… of in RPC-XXX-1
While similar to those manifested through non-anomalous means, the symptoms are incapable of being targeted and cured by another form of RPC-XXX. The application of mainstream medicine is appropriate.
This is not clear if you are referring to Humorism-resulted illnesses or non-anomalous illnesses.
the symptoms of which
The application of mainstream medicine in these instances is therefore appropriate.
yet no empirical proof that either had an effect on the baseline reality through anomalous means is present.
(I don’t understand why you are referring to baseline reality when it shouldn’t be relevant to this discussion.)
“that either are of anomalous origins” or “either affects the related field through anomalous means”
While initial suppression by the Auctoritas in France was attempted, their exclusion from territory made it ineffective.
their exclusion from the territory
(I must note though that expulsion of Auctoritas only happened in 1793)
This led to overexposure to red bile,
This reminds me that you did not previously specify the 4 colors of the bile and which -letter instances the corresponds to.
Authors of the said texts, alongside any disciples, were detained.
of “said”/“the”
Email still looks too “modern” (?) considering the listed year, even in consideration of Authority’s technological advances.
The request was ultimately denied.
Optional: “proposal” or any alternative to “request”
We can cure AIDS. Leukemia. We can even cure cancer, and yet we do nothing.
Change it all to commas instead
I understand the concerns regarding the breaking of the veil,
Introduction of “explained” anomalies shouldn’t be considered veil breaking, really. (Things like SCP-8900-EX)
We had to deal with larger coverups and normalizations in the past.
“We’ve had” or “We have had”
And a global pharmaceutical operation is not just something we can sweep under the rug without disbanding all of our font companies,
Sorry but I fail to see what he meant, that the release of RPC-XXX will cost their fronts’ profit?
I don’t think I can give much value to this piece. This is well written but very little is explained about humorism, or rather, I am possibly dissatisfied due to the straightforwardness of the piece. Yet at the same time I also noticed the amount of “soft lore” — wizards that seemingly work for the Authority, Auctoritas history — that I find myself conflicted on whether you should’ve elaborated more (specifically the wizards) or not.
Thank you for the critique.
Sorry if I made it unclear, but what I meant the email to convey was that RPC-XXX can be released to the public, which is what Dr. Nikoloz believes is the right thing to do for the sake of helping the population. It is still anomalous, it's just that the Authority will attempt to normalize this specific branch of magic as part of science.
Dr. Bernhard, on the other hand, believes that RPC-XXX can never be truly normalized (in the scenario where Authority-owned pharmaceutical companies began treating people with RPC-XXX) and even if it could, non-Authority-owned businesses (as well as the general population) would pressure the Authority to release the "patent", even though such a thing does not exist.
This would require them to attempt to sweep the entire thing under the rug and likely disband their front pharmaceutical companies used in the normalization attempt.
Is there any way that I can make this more clear?
While chemically identical urea, only the form of the aforementioned chemical produced by organisms is usable in the casting of RPC-XXX; urea created through inorganic means is not an applicable substitute for RPC-XXX-1.
This is a confusing paragraphs. What makes it different to urea? Or is it just biologically produced urea that is used?
Each style of RPC-XXX includes a source (an area where RPC-XXX-1 is produced) and sink (the area of the body where RPC-XXX-1 is stored).
What is a "style" of RPC-XXX?
The "source" and "sink" of RPC-XXX-1 are poorly explained. Where is this urea produced, by what parts of the body, how is it circulated to the "sink" and where is it stored? Why is there a distinction between A, B, C and D when they are functionally the exact same chemical?
I struggle to understand why this is anomalous. I know that human bodies don't work like this, but nothing exactly anomalous or magical is being described. This is exacerbated in the tests: the exact mechanisms and rituals being performed are not described, which just leads the reader to believe XXX to be some sort of injectable panacea with no limits.
Some more description on the capabilities, mechanisms and limits of humorism is required. I also strongly suggest treating it with a different approach than merely reproducing the historical school of humorism: give in an RPC spin, if you will.
I don't think the ending really adds anything to the article. The "use anomalies or not use anomalies" dilemma is one of the most hackneyed tropes of the genre, and this iteration doesn't really add anything new to it. I would've preferred to see a more original use of the mechanic — maybe a log of variants and people who use them.
/forum/t-14126205/humorism#post-