Rough draft, first tab, I'd like some feedback thanks! http://rpcsandbox.wikidot.com/scribbl
Apologies for the delay.
RPC-XXXX is a species of aquatic parasitic amoeba with a distinct shade of crimson and are, on average, 86 micrometers across.
Mid-sentence tense change.
When not in contact with human skin, RPC-XXXX is inert and in a state similar to cryptobiosis, however when in direct contact with human skin, RPC-XXXX will begin anomalously creating bromine and performs a series of actions to take full control of the subject in question.
"When not in direct contact with human skin, RPC-XXXX is inert and in a state similar to cryptobiosis. Upon contact, RPC-XXXX produces bromine and commences infection."
Does XXX activate if you expose it to human skin that isn't attached to anything? How is its inert state different from cryptobiosis, given that it's described as "similar to"? How much bromine does it produce?
RPC-XXXX will burrow into the victim, hereafter referred to as RPC-XXXX-B, using what appear to be long tendrils on the surface of the amoeba. RPC-XXXX will borrow further, often into internal organs, until they meet bone cells. RPC-XXXX will then consume bone tissue and all available Osteoblasts and Osteocytes. RPC-XXXX will fall in place of bone tissue and utilize the space left as cell division points. At this point, bromine will begin forming. Usually at this point the skull has been consumed and RPC-XXXX begins eating the brain, causing brain death of RPC-XXXX-B in under a minute. RPC-XXXX will begin moving the “bones” created in the two above processes and use the host as a form of locomotion. Once the body has decomposed, RPC-XXXX will exit the body and begin a new cycle after another human has discovered RPC-XXXX.
"RPC-XXX burrows into the victim, hereafter referred to as RPC-XXX-B, using lengthy tendril-like pseudopodia, until it encounters bone. Movement then ceases, and RPC-XXX begins phagocytizing osseous cells, as well as osteoblasts and osteocysts. RPC-XXX settles inside the resultant voids and continuously reproduces by mitosis, creating additional bromine as a byproduct.
While RPC-XXX ignores most non-osseous systems, it will target the brain upon complete consumption of the skull. This is followed by death in under a minute. After cessation of nervous activity, the total mass of RPC-XXX begins locomotion in a manner that imitates the movement of bones during normal human transit.
The body continues decaying normally. Upon sufficient destruction of tissue as to expose RPC-XXX, the body will be rapidly vacated and individual instances enter cryptobiosis."
There's a lot of gaps of information here. What exactly is the effect of so much bromine? What do XXXs do while manipulating a dead body? How does the infection feel to the victim? How well can XXX imitate human motion?
RPC-XXXX instances have not been seen to die, but this may be because of the cryptobiosis state observed when not active. RPC-XXXX has been shown to not need sustenance and only hunt human tissue to cause mass extinction.
"RPC-XXX instances have not been observed to die or decay in ambient circumstances, likely as a result of extremely efficient cryptobiosis. Nutrition has not been shown to be necessary."
This has led to the formation of theories that RPC-XXXX was created by extraterrestrials.
Assuming extraterrestrial creation is an insane reach. I'd change it to something like "this suggests artificial creation of RPC-XXX."
These claims have been dismissed, however, as WHO are the creators of RPC-XXXX.
This is an insane point to make and not elaborate on. Why? When? How? What does the WHO creating it add to the article? Either remove this part or make some heavy expansion on this point.
Proposals to keep RPC-XXXX in cold storage are being considered.
This is standard for nearly all harmful pathogens. I don't see why this wouldn't be immediately done.
Incident 643-1: On ██/██/████ the following event transpired: Doctor ████ was pushed into the glass enclosure containing RPC-XXXX by a defecting researcher. The researcher was promptly terminated by on-site guards. The Doctor shattered the glass enclosure and caused a containment breach. Due to the high number of RPC-XXXX instances they had touched, the transformation only took about 30 seconds. The newly created RPC-XXXX-B exited the room and killed all staff on-site. RPC-XXXX-B then began moving toward the exit of the site. How RPC-XXXX knew where the exit was is unknown. RPC-XXXX-B managed to exit the site and entered the nearby village of ███████,████ and infected ███ people before MST Foxtrot - 7 arrived on-site and terminated all instances of RPC-XXXX-B but two, and the instances of RPC-XXXX extracted from them were contained in the glass enclosure and it was repaired. Due to the remote location of the outbreak, A cover story was formed of a severe wildfire killing multiple people. Protocol Terminus was established after this incident.
I don't get what this adds to the article. We don't learn anything new from XXX, or get told an interesting narrative — it just breaks out and kills people. Ditto goes for the Discovery segment, it just introduces the barrels as an origin point where fossils would make a lot more sense. Typically incidents are used to give you some perspective on how anomalies work, or help you understand things that are not made immediately apparent by the Description. This does neither, and it relies on two critical points that don't make a lot of sense:
- That RPC-XXX's containment chamber can be broken by pushing into the ground, implying that this had not been considered as a possibility
- That there was no active contingency protocol for this exact scenario
The first is easily fixable, can just make it some kind of testing situation where the instances are more exposed. The second isn't. Contingencies for containment failure scenarios are the first things people think of when presented with a deadly contagious disease that is currently contained — both in literature and real life. It makes no sense that there'd be nothing of the sort already in place unless either this happened very soon after discovery, or there was a contingency and it failed.
Results of genetic inspection: The results gotten from the DNA are interesting. This amoeba seems to utilize natural petrification in its bone absorption process. Also, testing on the oldest subject has revealed that they evolved in the late cretaceous, near the extinction event. This is also very strange as RPC-XXXX uses the same form of petrification used to make fossils. It is to be noted that the containment enclosure has shown signs of petrification. RPC-XXXX upgraded to Beta. After they petrify, they consume the minerals and the events we do know about transpire. The implications of this are unknown.
This doesn't make a lot of sense but there's some interesting ideas here:
- Petrifying bone before eating it makes no biological sense. It's just making it tougher to eat.
- Petrification does not create minerals. It either removes them, or captures minerals from soil and water.
- What exact form of petrification are we talking about here? There's quite a few.
- The implication of evolving in the cretaceous is kind of eh. Doesn't work very well because XXXs would be immediately noticeable in any kind of fossilized remains from the era.
That said, the idea of a fossil parasite is really interesting. I'd change this up in the following ways to make it more internally coherent:
- That XXXs specifically target the marrow first, then eat the rest of the bone. This would make it possible for silicification to occur and "fossils" to be formed.
- Motion would then be possible by making masses of XXX compress and expand.
- That XXX-Bs burrow and bury themselves rather than just leaving.
- That exposure is somehow harmful or suboptimal for XXX, thus making the former necessary.
This way you could rewrite the article so that XXXs are discovered inside fossil shells in stasis rather than mysteriously appearing or being made by the WHO. The imagery here is rich — imagine recovering an ancient fossil, then seeing it burst and a mass of amoeba start eating through your skin. This would also create "fake" fossils of modern living beings, which could lead to all sorts of hoaxes and investigations predicated on petrified remains that aren't actually natural, but made by XXX.
Some other thoughts:
The origin of the anomaly is contradictory. It's said that the WHO created them, then that they were discovered in barrels with unknown glyphs, and then that they evolved in the Cretaceous. Please clarify.
A lot of other smaller details are also inconsistent or contradictory. Think through what you want the anomaly to be exactly, iron out the details, then give the draft a few reads to remove inconsistencies.
The article doesn't really "go" anywhere. It's just a description of a pathogen, and the concept isn't compelling enough to carry it. I suggest thinking about what exactly you want your reader to feel and take away from your article.
There is however some really good clinical tone for a first draft (in spite of some lapses) and the seeds of a very good idea. Give it some more time, you really have something here. I'll be happy to help if you need anything. Good luck!
Wording and Terminology Crit:
“The enclosure is to be checked for cracks”
How often? You could elaborate on this a bit.
“with All personnel working with RPC-XXXX are to have a hazmat suit and respirator on at all times while within the same room as RPC-XXXX”
Improper capitalization, weird wording. You could reword this sentence to be more clear.
“Site director █████”
Job titles should be capitalized, unnecessary redaction detracts from the article. On top of the fact that you should always try to avoid redactions in containment protocols.
“Site-███”
Why is the site where the anomaly is held censored? Biological anomalies that are just as dangerous have been cataloged and the site wasn’t censored there.
“ an x-ray machine is to be passed on all personnel to check for missing bones”
The wording here is a little messy and can be cleaned up a bit. As it is, it’s kinda messy. While I can see what you mean, it’s kinda unclear. Something like “administered full-body x-rays in order to determine if the subject are missing any bones.”
“bones will be burned to death and there”
“Burned to death” could be replaced with a euphemism, such as “terminated via flamethrower” but honestly I find the whole flamethrower thing a bit much. There are better ways to terminate something with heat than with a flamethrower.
Also you used the wrong their/there/they’re.
“anything found is to be contained”
This is worded strangely, and can be made more clear.
“Anybody attempting to go against this protocol will undergo the same procedure”
When I first read this I thought it meant “anyone not willing to get an x-ray will be forced to get an x-ray” and my first thought was “no shit.” The wording here is unclear, and on top of that, anyone not following the protocol to the letter being immediately burned to death seems wasteful. It costs a lot to hire and train personnel, the Authority can only afford burning a certain number of people to death.
“Site-███”
Same complaint about redactions.
“with a distinct shade of crimson”
Could be reworded to something like “Crimson in color” or “with a crimson coloring”. Adding the adjective “distinct” in a clinical document would probably lead to people asking why it is distinct.
“When not in contact with a human, RPC-XXXX is inert and in a state similar to cryptobiosis, however when in direct contact with a human subject”
Human is repeated twice here. You could reword the beginning to avoid the repetition. Something like “When not in an active state” would work.
“RPC-XXXX will borrow further”
Minor spelling mistake.
“Incident 643-1: On ██/██/████”
“incident 643-1” is repeated from the header and is unnecessary. Why even include a date if you’re going to redact the whole thing? Why would the day be such sensitive information that no one can even know the century it took place in? It just seems like a redaction for the sake of having a redaction.
“the following event transpired:”
You could cut this and lose nothing. It is already established that the following events happened on the day described, otherwise the date wouldn’t be brought up.
“Doctor ████”
Why is the doctor’s name censored? It just seems to be there for the sake of being redacted. Or you couldn’t think of a name, either way, give my mans a name.
“pushed into the glass enclosure containing RPC-XXXX by a defecting researcher”
“Pushed into the glass enclosure” implies that the doctor was dunked in the tank, when it’s later explained that he had collided with the outside of it. Then you don’t elaborate at all on the “defecting researcher” bit. There was a defecting researcher? Who? Why? Who is he defecting to? What? You bring up this out of nowhere portion only to immediately not elaborate on it.
“The researcher was promptly terminated by on-site guards”
This brings up even more questions. If there were guards right there what was the plan? Just push a guy into the red jacuzzi then die? Why does his plan begin and end there? It just seems like he did what he did just to incite the whole incident with his life beginning and ending in this little snapshot.
“and killed all staff on-site”
Jesus Christ, what the fuck. An entire site was eliminated by a single anomaly and this somehow isn’t a red/purple anomaly? And also you should use euphemistic language here, “terminated” rather than killed.
“ of ███████,████”
I can almost understand why this would be censored, but I still feel like it would tie it more into the real world if you actually listed a place.
“infected ███ people”
Why is the amount of people censored? Why is that such important information to require censorship?
“ outbreak, A cover story was formed”
Improper capitalization. Replace “was formed” with “was created” as form implies that it developed naturally.
“MST Foxtrot - 7”
Improper utilization of the term, it should be “MST Foxtrot-7 “Highland Cattle”” Though you do get props for using an already existing MST.
“outbreak could've made an ocean”
Is this literal or an exaggeration? Cause if it is literal, where did that liquid go? Where was it moved? How was it moved?
“entire Authorities cover”
Authority’s
“[UNKNOWN]”
How is this unknown? Why is it unknown? If someone were making a formal suggestion to upgrade the classification it would be logged with a name attached.
“The Authority caught wind of this”
Could be more clinical, something like “The Authority investigated the claims” would work.
“Additional information classified, Level 4 credentials needed”
Could be reworded to something like “Level 4 credentials required to access Document RPC-XXX-1” and change the hide collapsible button to something other than “close”.
Overall Crit:
This concept is alright. It isn’t anything special. It doesn’t really tell a story which can be fine if the concept is fine enough but this concept just isn’t interesting enough to carry it. I would try to find ways to expand upon the concepts introduced in this article. It’s kind of lackluster as of right now.
In terms of wording it’s kinda rough in some spots. Some sentences aren’t concise or as clear as they should be, especially of a document of this nature. On top of the redactions for the sake of redactions it makes it kind of a mess to read. These issues aren’t deal breaking and a few tweaks could easily render this issue moot.
Overall, this isn't a concept I'm a fan of, and it doesn't tell a compelling story to make up for it. The redactions drag down the article rather than helping it and the wording needs work. I'm not gonna tell you to stop trying on the article as it does have potential, but as is I would not rate it favorably.