Trash gremlin, got sentience as a cosmic joke :U
- Feb 17, 2021
So Roget has once again posted to RPC and, once again, his work is riddled with technical mistakes. As a fun writing exercise, I have taken the liberty of drafting a marked-up version of his article, just to identify the sheer number of errors from someone who supposedly takes his writing seriously.
(Bold in parentheses): Explanations of mistakes and other comments
Strikethrough: Text that should be removed
Underlined: Text that should be added
Registered Phenomena Code: 636
Object Class: Beta-Orange
Hazard Types: Animated, Regenerative, Sapient, Transmutation
Containment Protocols: The area
in which(unnecessary) RPC-636 is known to manifest should be monitored by plainclothesAuthority agents under the cover story of beingcovering as building inspectors. Structures affected by RPC-636 are to be evacuated upon detection then demolished. Any specimens or artifacts recovered for research are(tense mismatch) must be suspended in blocks of ice which encompasses their mass(What else is it supposed to encompass?). This has been shown(passive voice) deters theRPC-636’s effect on surrounding masonry.
Description: RPC-636 is an anomalous phenomenon found primarily within the city of London (Where else?). Structures affected by RPC-636 must be inhabited by subjects in a state of poverty before any anomalous effect will initiate (Chicken or the egg? Your timeline of events is muddy).
More desperatePoorer living conditions will cause a more intense effect to manifestintensify its effects. In the affected regions, subjects have been(They "have been", but are not anymore?) are known to live with multiple families in asmall bedroombedrooms (You're talking about multiple subjects, incorrect singular usage) and with extremely primitive(How can something be "extremely primitive"? Can a rock be "extremely rock"?) low to nonexistent sanitation and ventilation. Rodent and insect infestations, along with(You're making a list, these words are unnecessary) unsanitary conditions, high infant mortality and alcoholism rates, propensity for alcoholism, prostitution, and social unrest are ubiquitous to areas affected by RPC-636.
Once affliction by RPC-636 has fully set in, the interior spaces (Interior spaces of what?) will no longer have dimensions consistent with their exterior. Windows and ventilation shafts visible from the outside will grow in endless fractal spiderweb patterns on the inside to accommodate this growth (I have read this sentence over and over, tens of times, and I sill have no clue what you are saying) .
Theinternal plumbing in the area will cease pumping water and insteadbring in contaminated construction chemicals instead of water. (Contaminated with what? This is supposed to be a description.).
Following the RPC-636 effect manifesting, rubble and debris will animate
in basic(redundant) into humanoid forms. These entities, areclassified as instances of RPC-636-1, whichwill slowly fill whatever space within the RPC-636 spaces(You just used the word "space". Use something else.) areas that has(tense mismatch, proofread your work) have collapsed or crumbled. Once finding a hole, RPC-636-1 will break down again to take the form of the human development cycle, initially re-appearing as an infant before growing into an adult humanoid body. (This entire sentence is riddled with grammatical errors, poor structure, and can barely convey information. Rewrite it from scratch.)
When fully grown, instances of RPC-636-1 will seek out the nearest damaged
artificialstructure. Once they do soThen, they will perform various rituals on or around RPC-636 damaged structure(Redundant word usage, again.). Examples of these ritualsinclude:
Discovery: RPC-636 was initially noted in 1968 (Deleted an unnecessary comma) after the London police force
Attempting to gently rub(Are they attempting and failing?) Gently rubbing mortar or other sealants into cracks or small damaged portions of the structure
- Laying new bricks
if the structure is composed as such(Why did you even write this sentence this way?)
- Spending significant amounts of time lying motionles
slynear bythe structure (I deleted a comma here. Learn what conjunctions are.) or within if the damage is prominentsevere
- Stomping around the structure while scraping at various portions of its body (Whose body? Unclear subject), in a rhythmic manner
- Scratching various messages into
theundamaged portions (Assuming a structure has undamaged portions) of the structure (See attached documentation.)
- Pounding on the walls (Whose walls?).
- Breaking windows, doorframes, and other fragile structures (Again, to whom do these objects belong?) Are they breaking other people's property or there own?).
- Scraping against the walls, ceilings and floors, in a manner reminiscent of rodents or insects.
- Dirtying clothing and objects by rapidly shedding flakes of paint, dirt and dust onto them.
- Manifesting mouths under the floors, which will moan softly. Voice has been described as "rough" and has a high-pitched inflection (So are they manifesting voices or physical mouths? Your sentence is once again unclear).
in Londondocumented the spatial anomalies in their case files. An RPC-636-1 instance was found carving a message in mortar outside a coffee shop, which was the initial recovery location. Local authorities observed the perimeter while allowing RPC-636-1 proceed over a period of four(4) hours, after which agents (Which agents? Local police agents? Specify.) moved in to contain it.
The takeaway from this wall of text should be confirmation that not only does writing for SCP not make you a better writer, but also the criticism mechanisms in place on the site are woefully inadequate for a writing standard above a high-school level. Considering Roget's 10 year+ participation in the site, the above work is indicative of SCP's writing quality as a whole, if I may make such a bold claim. Roget, to you, I give you these critiques free of charge.
EDIT: Just adding that there are many, many more problems with this article than what I have pointed out. This is just a technical critique. Regarding the actual narrative, as in the content of the article, it is vague to the point of frustration. However, that is an entirely different criticism avenue that I don't feel like pursuing.
Your critique is petty at best, outright wrong at worst, so I will continue disregarding your advice.