WAKE ME UP INSIDE
RPC-373 / Discussion
Forum
» Hidden / Per page discussions
» RPC-373
This is the discussion related to the wiki page RPC-373.
(account deleted)
It was joever for the giant before it even began….
Very nice set-up for the reveal at the second half and a cool little "sad" twist at the end. Great job!
I feel like this article uses a lot of needlessly obtuse language. The concept is a bit complex, but not to a high degree. because of the wording, it ends up being harder to understand than some of the higher concept articles however.
RPC-373 is a mammalian macropathogen
Despite this initial description of the object, the rest of the article does not really give the imagery of a mammal at all, although it does fit the macropathogen.
Personnel accidentally rupturing such canals and submerging themselves are reminded that no immediate contact effects are known:
I'd either add a "to be" before reminded, or change it to something like, "No immediate contact effects of touching this tissue or being submerged in the canals have been observed, as multiple personnel have accidentally ruptured said canals and been submerged".
Though RPC-373-1 has a pulse, it remains motionless, and shows signs of malnutrition and fatal combat wounding.
I'd move the line about fatal wounds to the initial description of 373, or at the very least just change it to the creature displaying fatal wounds. Wounding in this context doesn't make sense.
This inscription was carved before its use against RPC-373-1.
Why would the authority care about this and how would they know this? I also think that most readers would assume that the inscription on a sword was not made while it was burying itself inside of a giant.
There's a lot of other examples where you choose to seperate the details of an object for some reason. it's weird because it almost reads like somebody trying to pad out their article even though I know you were trying to minimize word count.
For Example:
The area in question is 1,200m2, and is visually distinct from its surroundings due to the bright-red coloration of its leaves and gray matter covering its trunks.
The size of the area could easily be moved into the first sentence of the description, and everything else in this sentence is repeated somewhere else in the article, but in a way that makes it less readable
The gray matter in question is RPC-373's body, which is contiguous throughout the infected area.
It would flow much better if you just condensed these two lines to, "RPC-373's body consists of gray matter which wraps around the flora of the infected area," or something to that extent.
Blood traffic throughout leaves gives hosts a characteristic bright-red coloration, with orange patches indicating nutrient deficiency. Other symptoms are also apparent, such as leaf wilting.
This works a lot better by itself instead of repeating another line. I'd just remove the bit about leaves and stuff from the introduction of the description.
The description feels very out of order, like you're jumping from one topic to another back to the first. In my opinion, you should switch the third and fourth paragraphs, and move paragraphs 5 and 6 so that they're directly after paragraph 2. Also, combine and rearrange those paragraphs like such
When covering a host, RPC-373's body develops large arteries close to points of intersection with its vascular system. These arteries are surrounded by muscular tissue, which is voluntarily tensed to create tears in the dermal layer, thus leaking large amounts of blood. RPC-373's body covers the host in an irregular, vertically-stretched lattice. Blood traffic throughout leaves gives hosts a characteristic bright-red coloration, with orange patches indicating nutrient deficiency. Other symptoms are also apparent, such as leaf wilting.
Overall I think the story this article tells is interesting, but I feel like delving into the backstory of the anomaly would be a bit more interesting than the intricacies of its biology. Even then the biggest issue, like I said earlier, is the delivery of information. There's just a lot of awkward sentences and structuring hurting the article.
… RPC-373 possesses a direct mechanism of influencing behavior by nasal or oral introduction (possibly pheromone-based), as there is no known nutritional incentive to consuming its blood.
RPC-373's blood has an undetermined nutritional value and its risk of disease is unknown.
Think there might be a bit of a contradiction there, the first sentence implies they don’t know it’s nutritional, the second implies they do know, they’re just not sure in what way or how much.
Situation normal, Cap'n! Spiraling out of control!
As far as I understand "undetermined nutritional value" just means "we don't know what nutritional value it has". I might be wrong here.
That might be right when you put it like that actually.
Situation normal, Cap'n! Spiraling out of control!
/forum/t-15475052/rpc-373#post-