A Book of Frogs With My Name In It \ Need critique.

Summary:

A book that turns you into a frog. Need critique.

A Book of Frogs With My Name In It \ Need critique.

JP Modok 05 Jan 2026 17:21

This is not my first draft ever written, but it is my second one posted here. So I would once again ask for critique and, if necessary, tips to improve it.

http://rpcsandbox.wikidot.com/kasprian-sandboxfrog

(And no, expanding on the author of the book is not something I will take as valid critique, even if it is, because I will do so with more articles in the future, or at least I hope to.)

I could use some help with the name, though. I can't really decide or come up with anything good, so any ideas would be much appreciated.

Last edited on 05 Jan 2026 17:24 by JP Modok Show more

Re: A Book of Frogs With My Name In It \ Need critique.

Funhouse 06 Jan 2026 22:18

+ Review

It's novel with what it does. It's not exactly new, a basic transmutative anomaly where we look into experiment logs for curious findings… except it never does beyond what's already covered in the description. What I found most interesting is utilizing the descriptive property of the anomaly for logistical relief, but that's after little development of the premise; Subject becomes instance and suffers through a painful metamorphosis, with a few experiments showing notable but boring distinctions instead of interesting revelations.

My main gripe at its current state is verbosity; Some points here are expanded into whole paragraphs when they can be written into a single sentence or two. More pressing, a lot of needless detail into the nature of routine authority procedure. Examples of which are:

Following RPC-XXX-02's confinement by the Authority and subsequent multiple interrogations, no leads on RPC-XXX's origin were uncovered.

A vital source of information has been lost due to the severe lack of specialized knowledge.

Upon viewing the last page of RPC-XXX, the subject became confused and initially accused the research staff of “pranking him.” The research team denied this accusation and directed CSD-45324 to describe the contents of the last page.

and are written less in clinical prose you'd find in an authority document and more so a journalistic prose. These are not out of place in a researcher's journal working on this anomaly, for example, but these points as they are do not warrant looking into, let alone mentioning, and don't add flair nor anything critical to understanding the anomaly. Ask yourself, what routine and predictable things a researcher would do and see from one day to the next? What feels as if it's written by an outsider rather than a doctor?

Another matter is that the article's has two simple angles: subject turning into a frog and its info collating property. The former never deviates or tries new things with the possibility, which would be fine if it wasn't brought up to redundancy. How much new is actually shown in the experiments logs? And how much of it is endearing, eerie, strange, etc? For a draft so complex it doesn't actually say much.

What I'd do is pick this draft, rewrite it as if you were competing in mincon while keeping as much critical info already present, then look back and see what you can explore. Ask yourself: "what if we ask RPC-XXX-02 to document precisely what it's experiencing?"; "could there be undocumented or outwardly species of Aruna worth writing an entries into the article"; "could there be an aberrant to metamorphosis if we did X?"; "wouldn't it be funny if the university professor croaked in the middle of a lecture?"; etc etc. There are a lot of angles worth looking into for a mysterious tome with whimsical properties.

+ Writing

Crit is not extensive as it would labor brought up points of contention.

• Struck through lines suggest removal.
• Underlined lines suggest addition
• Italicized lines call into question
• "Try:" suggests rewording entirely

(image caption) RCP-XXX RPC-XXX

Suit integrity must be verified by two other personnel prior to authorization for retrieval of RPC-XXX from its Alpha-class containment unit.

Try:

Suit must be inspected by at least two 2C clearance maintenance personnel prior to authorized retrieval of RPC-XXX from its containment unit.

In the event that a human being is exposed to RPC-XXX outside of sanctioned experiments, the individual is to be removed from Site-██ until the situation is resolved.

Redactions in containment protocols rarely make operational sense. Given these files are accessed by personnel with clearance beforehand, redaction defeats the point of said authorized access as it's the most critical and basic information to operate on. You can go to the site index and see what works.

Direct physical contact with RPC-XXX is prohibited to all personnel. Failure to adhere to established safety and handling protocols will result in severe disciplinary action. The severity will be left at the behest of direct supervisors.

The majority of RPC-XXX contents are unanomalous non-anomalous and present no inherent threat to human safety.

The anomalous properties of RPC-XXX manifest only under three specific under the following conditions:

RPC-XXX-01 is a designation for designated to any subject that has fulfilled the first condition under which the anomalous properties of RPC-XXX are allowed to manifest.

Either the line called into question alludes to something that passed me or this is redundant. This needs to be reworded or removed.

At that point the last page of RPC-XXX changes and shows a hand-drawn picture of the most recent RPC-XXX-01 instance along with a detailed physical and mental description of the subject as well as their typical behavioral patterns.

Try:

RPC-XXX subsequently illustrates a sketch of RPC-XXX-01, detailed description of its physical attributes, psychological and behavioral patterns on its last page.

Through testing of RPC-XXX, it was discovered that only one instance of RPC-XXX-01 can exist at the same time. Any subject exposed to RPC-XXX while an instance of RPC-XXX-01 is already identified becomes the new instance of RPC-XXX-01. At the same time, the previous instance of RPC-XXX-01 ceases to be classified as such.

This is painfully wordy to clarify the last page is reserved for the last user; It serves to establish no more yet its length deceptively alludes to something more complex; I had to read this 3 times for that. Try:

Only one RPC-XXX-01 can exist at a time, as previous instances' effects are overwritten by whom last afflicted.

RPC-XXX-02 is a designation for instances of RPC-XXX-01 that have been able to fulfill all conditions necessary to manifest the anomalous properties of RPC-XXX. During the following 7 days the newly designated RPC-XXX-02 will begin metamorphosis into one of the many frog species depicted in RPC-XXX. The process itself is described as mildly painful and constant, occurring for the entirety of the metamorphosis.

Suggested line for removal is best elaborated in the experiment logs (as you already have, thereby making this redundant.) Try:

RPC-XXX-02 is designated to RPC-XXX-01 instances who match all manifest conditions of RPC-XXX. Over the course of 7 days, a metamorphosis will afflict the subject into becoming a select species of Anura.

While the process of metamorphosis is ongoing, the last page of RPC-XXX will also change to correspond with the species that the subject is changing into. The transformation is irreversible and results in total cognitive regression, memory loss, and sapience regression in 100% of known cases. Additionally, it was discovered through testing that no two instances of RPC-XXX-02 can exist at the same time; moreover, no new instances of RPC-XXX-01 can be created while an instance of RPC-XXX-02 has not finished its metamorphic process.

This line is better off removed and expanded upon in the experiment log. It's also damning to assert certain outcomes as it leaves little for the reader's curiousity. Try:

Of note, the RPC-XXX-02 entry actively changes during the Metamorphic process, rewriting and reillustrating the subject each stage. Attempts to create an RPC-XXX-01 or RPC-XXX-02 instance during this process have failed.

Both RPC-XXX and the RPC-XXX-02 instance were subsequently transported to Site-██ for continued containment and further study.

The following entries are just a few of many experiments performed with the use of RPC-XXX; most have been deemed redundant or were redacted due to information security concerns. For this reason, the Experiment Logs have been reorganized into a non-chronological and more digestible format for further researchers.

This foreward adds nothing out of expected routine experiment logs. Again, redaction here is excessive with no purpose as to why. Ask yourself this: these people are turning into frogs, what's there that's an operational risk if known in date and subject? And narratively speaking, what's redacted here that actually grabs the reader's curiousity to fill the picture? You should be able to answer both these questions to justify a redaction, otherwise it's oddly random.

Moreover, you should reformat the experiment logs by seperating procedures and results from one another. An example I personally find neat and clear:

Experiment-390-01:

Materials:

• One (1) Instance of RPC-390-1
• One (1) CSD (Subject unable to read English.)

Procedure: CSD was instructed to observe instance of RPC-390-1.

Results: CSD personnel was converted into an instance of RPC-390-2. Instance spoke English without accent.

RPC-XXX was acquired from an old friend many years ago and, when pressed, disclosed their identity as [insert name here] from [location here].

Their identity would be disclosed in the document as well.

Attempts by personnel to resuscitate the RPC-XXX-02 instance have failed, resulting in its termination.

Note: "A vital source of information has been lost due to the severe lack of specialized knowledge. The subject's metamorphosis, unsuitable environmental conditions, and old age have resulted in death. Further testing has to take these parameters into account to allow for better understanding of RPC-XXX." -Dr. Hammond

This line is uncharacteristically affective, and cause of death poorly specified as well as obvious enough to be less of note. I also suggest you change all "Note"s to "Afterword".