This was wonderfully descriptive and squicky, I loved it so much.
is RPC-077's old Amish lady disguise generated consciously? or, can it do anything that disrupts the illusion, distorting features or something as it contorts its body in inhuman ways?
RPC-077 generates the disguise of the old Amish lady consciously. If, for example, RPC-077 took in a lot of minerals in order to expand, the disguise would remain. However, the expanded gore would be invisible. I'm currently planning to re-write some parts of the article to make these details known and cut down on the fat.
Ah, I see. I am curious, then, as to how the diguise is affected when it, for example, squeezes itself through a small crack. And if it's constantly generating it, could it change its disguise? If so, can it change into anyone, only people it has previously eaten, or can they only steal the form of someone they're currently eating?
I am also curious as to how an anomaly like this was even able to insert itself into an amish community. The Amish tend to have very tightly knit communities, so a "grandmother" who isn't related to anyone would immediately stand out.
An earnest attempt at writing something special, and I could probably bring this up in a conversation about memorable RPC monsters. The author does well with in-universe details, but the article as a whole spends a bit too much time explaining obvious or unnecessary things.
After the capture was completed, there was no longer been a problem with disappearing people in the town.
Thanks, Sherlock.
It literally repeats itself at points, presumably out of fear that you've forgotten:
RPC-077-2 is the official title for the flesh or 'hard candy' that RPC-077 offers people near it.
(from log BLUE-ALPHA)
It just generally has that old article stink to it, which is, I suppose, to be expected. Perhaps I'm expected to elaborate further, but it's a feel that I'm all too acquainted with. Take a punchy concept and slap on execution which, while possibly imaginative, feels meandering and unfocused. Sprinkle on some spelling/grammar errors or general awkwardness, and you're done. I still have a soft spot for the concept, though. 3/5