Need critique and tips.
Hey, this is one my first ever articles so go easy on me, but do provide critique! http://rpcsandbox.wikidot.com/rpc-xxx-v-i-c-s-chainsaw
BrightistheLight
Need critique and tips.
Forum
» Writing & Drafts / Drafts
» Need critique and tips.
Summary:
It's an article I wrote about this chainsaw that turns you into Broly from DB
I won't mince words: it's a terribly rudimentary draft. Both in concept and execution it's lacking. You need to give yourself time to deliberate how you can further develop it - does it need to give its victims enhanced abilities or is this the adrenaline speaking; what insight can be gained from conducting experiments with and without human subjects; are there ways to redirect its effects towards less damaging targets for containment; etc. You can keep this as a malevolent and rage-inducing chainsaw, at which point your choice on what to explore with it becomes the point of interest. An experiment log or, in this case, an interview log. Speaking of which the interview at its current state boils down to the authority conducting an experiment in poor design (entirely verbal with no prior consideration to the anomaly's nature), form and with little justification as to why:
Dr. Hartwell: Jesus Christ… C-calm down!
You'd think hardened researchers, who have requested multiple times to test this after reading the discovery log, would have the foresight of this occurring and devise preventative measures beforehand, instead the best they come up with isDr. █████: Listen… If you don't calm down and tell us your story, we can't help you! But if you cooperate we-
In fact, what good opportunity there was to expand on our insight is snuffed out by the authority sheepishly giving up in defeat to a frenzied man who's likely on death row. Moreover:
RPC-XXX is an especially malevolent and uncooperative object, I don't think any further tests are necessary.
amounts to "It's dangerous and it hurt our feelings, this is plausible enough cause to have exhausted our options to research it." which for the self-proclaimed bulwarks of humanity from the unknown derails their ability and authority (it's in the name!)
The anomaly is one dimensional in what it can do and what's explored with it is a dull incident log and a laughably incompetent interview log, which personally speaking is more of a freak experiment log. At its current state, it's better suited as an LO (Lesser Anomalous Object), with everything surrounding the interview log as excess. With enough deliberation and effort, however, this can be developed into something whole. In which case, as said above, I recommend you return to brainstorming it further. Afterall, you did write this in a day, so don't stop now!
Clinical tone is lacking. There is a lot of redundant adjectives describing extremity which are best removed; show don't tell. You also need to designate subjects affected by the anomaly as RPC-XXX-1 or RPC-XXX-A for example, for brevity's sake.
There is a lot of mistakes across the entire article, yet I chose to focus on inconsistencies as I believe that should be your priority now as well as to further develop the article as a whole; than to focus on polish and clinical tone at this stage.
Affected subjects retain consciousness but exhibit complete loss of volitional control
This is never touched upon again, and what's explained below does not answer how this is invalidated.
Upon frequent request from multiple researches, the permit to conduct one last test with RPC-XXX was given to Dr. Hartwell on June 5th 20██
What pushes researchers to learn more about this murder-inducing anomaly? Is it to understand the emotional impulse; utilize it for protection purposes; or is it insinuation the researchers are anomalously compulsed to get closer to it? Also redaction doesn't follow any line of reason, it comes off random instead.
SCD-2639
CSD-2639
SCD-2639: And what if I do-
Dr. Hartwell: APPROACH IT!
Hahaha. As funny as a point of authority shouting and flailing to follow their orders is, they have protocols for these circumstances. There are more effective means to push CSD to do your bidding. Also the authority wouldn't stylize text in capslock in report; It can be used to good effect without suspending disbelief, but that's when it's used sparingly. Putting "(shouting)" before and ending the sentence in an exclamation mark is sufficient.
SCD-2639: OH COME ON! YOU FUCKING PUSSIES HAD YOU TRAP ME DOWN HERE!? FIGHT ME LIKE A REAL MAN YOU BUNCH OF FUCKING- FUCK FUCKITY FUCK FUCKERS!
Contrary to popular belief, excessive swearing and shouting isn't an interesting take on presenting rage. Also this makes a good opportunity to put endearing redactions, it lets it up to the reader's imagination.
(SCD-2639 shrugs loudly, turning back towards the camera again the chainsaw's buzzing reaching impossible decibel levels)
No amount of roid-induced rage give this shrugging loudly credence. Impossible decibel levels is silly and inarticulate too. Name a number, 120 decibels for instance is as loud as an airplane taking off. Better yet show it by writing the researchers lower the transmission's audio and covering their ears.
Yikes… Yeah I see it now and I hate it, sorry for making you waste your time on this childish attempt at well anything. It's unlikely that I'll go through with this because I just eugh, I hate it.
Once again sorry and a big thank you for not laughing in my face. Also sorry that this is your first ever impression of me. Sooo, I hope you can forget that I ever even wrote this? Thanks.
BrightistheLight
/forum/t-17504385/need-critique-and-tips#post-