http://rpcauthority.wikidot.com/forum/t-15857868/rpc-xxx:introducing-pryonex
Forum.
Credit for the first and only image used in the article goes to Chase Jarvis of Getty Images (http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/photos/test-tubes-fridge)
Thank you also to The Son of Man and LalliicSilviColden for critiquing my article!
African male, 32, 1.9 meters, 8.5 kilograms.
African male, 32, 1.9, 85 kilograms.
It was because of what those bastards gave to us.
It was because of what those bastards gave to us.
almost like they were itching at the skin for you.
Pretty cool phrase, but I've never heard of it. Is it some kind of transliteration, or were you meaning to say something else?
And he ripped he broke his neck.
And he ripped, then broke his neck.
"Intense work ethic" is kind of vague, I would use "induces an intense tolerance for labour and pain" or "greatly heightens their endurance"
Stating race, age, height, and weight all in one felt somewhat strange, but take this as a personal suggestion and nothing else.
I found the use of voice in the final statements of the Trial Data a bit unexpected, considering the rest above it was in text. A separate box may be disruptive to the reading flow, but it may work.
I found the intrigue of the article quite enjoyable and the oddness of the Containemnt Protocols helped in that regard, setting up a good hook for the rest of the story. The way the Authority regulates 397 is on par with what a secret agency would in the face of a Superhero Potion and I find it very pleasing.
The Experiment Log section works well, and though they're nothing to be awestruck by, the researcher dialogue is not bad at all.
The Alpha-1 interview didn't hit the same note unfortunately, the incident didn't work well as the punchline for the previous logs' set-up. I'd chalk it up to Williams' dialogue not being as cutting and inspired as it could've been, he felt less like it was a top dog military man detailing this 3-man-slaughterhouse and more like the previous researchers' personalities speaking it. "And what did they give us? They gave us death in a bottle, a little red juice." for example felt off-key. It didn't feel like he was narrating the story and adding it for dramatic effect, rather than coming out of the character you set up Williams to be.
The questions he made at the end felt wedged in at the last moment, and the sudden burst of energy from the Corporal felt out of place with his demeanor before it. The Access Denied note at the end didn't add much to the story either. A shame, considering it seems it has the building blocks to be a great open end for the hook set up at the very beginning.
Strong first RPC, although it definetly needs work!
I think the guy above me said it better but yeah this is good. Dialogue seems to be what everyone struggles with but this isn’t awful dialogue it’s more of a character consistency issue as Fleshward said instead of bad writing. 3 stars, touch up the interviews and it’s 5
Super-soldier creating anomalies are suually pretty stale, but you managed to add intrigue in this article through the "voice" so good job there.
As stated above, dialogue isn't an easy thing to add, so that could be improved. Make it feel more natural and easier to read, here's an example: "they stole, they stole from our ammunition, they were stealing our guns," I don't know about you, but I've never heard anyone speak like this, even when extremely stressed.
The ending is a bit lackluster, I wished for more elaboration on the "voice" part, since that is what kept me engaged throughout the article. Instead, the ending only attempts to establish an active consequence of the anomaly, instead of actually ending the story. This would be fine, if there weren't unaswered questions still. (The voice, the identity of the corporal, how the serum is an anomaly when it can be manufactured and reproduced predictably.
3/5
(This review is adapted from thoughts I gave in the RPC Reading Club.)
I'm still torn on this article. My number one complaint is that it shouldn't be an RPC; it's an Authority technology, and, as it was explained to me by the author, the point of the article is that the Authority is trying to dispel suspicion around it—why would they want it to be logged as an RPC? I think the author should've had the balls to make this another type of document.
Beyond that, though, the conflict is fair. The theme of how much evil the Authority is willing to do to accelerate adoption of a potentially-useful technology is good, though it sometimes regresses to a naive "shady evil acts for no reason" plot. It could've been more engaging had it presented a more balanced moral perspective.
The physicality of the article is a strength. It's not the most compelling violence I've ever read, but the test logs have a sense of reality to them, and the last interview is loaded with enough grisly details to satisfy. One might argue that the lack of a purpose for the RPC-397 subjects is a flaw, but I'm indifferent towards it; the story never lets it become a glaring concern, and the "voice" stuff gives enough of an idea of what's going on. Perhaps it's more fun if their endgame is left to your imagination.
The dialogue itself is shaky, most prominently due to the excessive cursing. We figured he was distressed by the time he freaks out at the beginning of the log, we didn't need to be reminded by having him go apeshit every minute. Besides that, the order of events in this section is loose, making the whole incident less memorable than it should be. The only scene that feels like a complete picture is the firing range accident. The rest is vague. I also dislike some of the interviewer's lines:
Ripped his skull off? Elaborate.
These negatives aren't life-ruining, though. Without these issues, it could be superb.
The twist is striking, though I don't grasp exactly what it's trying to indicate: he used the drugs to escape, but hadn't transformed yet by the time of the interview? Also, how did he not know the terrain around the site he worked at? And it's a minor thing, but what happened between the interview and the discovery of the body? Is it standard practice to hang out in the interview room unaccompanied for 30 minutes afterwards?
The ending does succeed in bringing a final bit of energy to the article. I like the element of deception, and it is foreshadowed somewhat. I'm not entirely sure how to feel about it, which is the case for the article as a whole. It has the markings of a great author, with stumbling blocks that hold it back from a recommendation. It's a high 3/5.
