{"body":"11:58 AM <~barredowl> so, once we get more people finished, shall we start with our first impressions?\r\n11:59 AM Finished!\r\n12:00 PM This feels very, very long for the ideas that it's trying to convey. There's only so many ways that a person could say \"Hey, it's pretty bad to know that you're a character and your entire world can be changed with just a thought\". There are sections here where I feel like it should've expanded upon the idea, but it just doesn't. It repeats the same few points over and over again without really delving into the nuances \r\n12:00 PM of this issue.\r\n12:01 PM finished\r\n12:01 PM First impressions: I... don't actually know how to feel about this one? I dunno. I'm leaning towards tentative upvote, but portions of it irk me. It feels a bit bloated, and reiterates the same idea in a bunch of ways.\r\n12:01 PM <~barredowl> okay, give me a couple to gather my thoughts a little.\r\n12:01 PM Honestly, I hadn't feel the same way than you two. Thought it was a pretty nice story, even if not everything was understandable.\r\n12:01 PM <~barredowl> some parts just felt like, too blatant and in-your-face for me personally, and it kinda riffs on the same general thing for a little too long\r\n12:02 PM One thing I have learned since joining this group is that I //really// don't enjoy meta skips\r\n12:02 PM <+cybersqyd> i've tried to read this a few times and i've never managed to get past the first log\r\n12:02 PM <~barredowl> yeah lol\r\n12:02 PM <@Calibri_Bold> MalyceGraves: Honestly, same.\r\n12:02 PM I enjoy meta and pata done right\r\n12:02 PM They're really hard to pull off and when they don't come off well they tend to come off very poorly\r\n12:02 PM <@Calibri_Bold> Yeah.\r\n12:02 PM <@Calibri_Bold> I love it when meta is pulled off well.\r\n12:02 PM <@Calibri_Bold> But it's extremely easy to do poorly.\r\n12:03 PM <~barredowl> yeah, this felt like, way too blatant for me.\r\n12:03 PM <@Calibri_Bold> This is a compelling story, but it doesn't have any tact or subtlety.\r\n12:03 PM <@Calibri_Bold> barredowl: Yeah.\r\n12:03 PM Agreed. It's rather... in your face about it\r\n12:03 PM <~barredowl> the interview with the author is a little unsubtle.\r\n12:03 PM To me, this read like someone trying very hard to be very clever. To do a bunch of commentary on existentialism as a way to justify breaking of the fourth wall\r\n12:03 PM by the first log's end you kinda know what the general gist is gonna be\r\n12:03 PM It was just... boring.\r\n12:03 PM <~barredowl> i understand that.\r\n12:04 PM <~barredowl> i think i agree with you there\r\n12:04 PM The dread never really materializes and it felt like a slog to get through it\r\n12:04 PM <@Calibri_Bold> I think meta is done well when it's not like \"Deadpool\" meta, if that makes sense.\r\n12:04 PM I had to go back several times and re-read sections because it droned\r\n12:04 PM Times And Re-read Sections\r\n12:04 PM thank you TARS\r\n12:04 PM — ~barredowl pats TARS' head\r\n12:04 PM The idea for this -- the Foundation not even regarding the fact that they're characters as a mystery and seeing how they would realistically react -- is a lot better than some other meta articles that still try act like that reveal means anything. But to echo was Malyce said, this is the narrative equivalent of preaching to the choir when you can't even hit a solid note.\r\n12:04 PM <~barredowl> is okay\r\n12:04 PM <@Calibri_Bold> I like the idea of these folks researching it without fully understanding what it is.\r\n12:05 PM <~barredowl> indeed.\r\n12:05 PM The whole conflict feels largely artificial, and from that, I think it suffers. The piece then tries to make up for that via more \"existentialism,\" but that also really showed the piece's weakness. By doing so, it sort of... led to it becoming a slog.\r\n12:05 PM That Also Really Showed\r\n12:05 PM <~barredowl> oh TARS\r\n12:05 PM <@Calibri_Bold> But this just frequently reiterates \"yeah, we're all fictional, we don't exist, etc.\"\r\n12:05 PM The whole article relies upon \"guess what we're fictional,\" then beats it over your head like a ball-peen hammer\r\n12:05 PM <@Calibri_Bold> ^\r\n12:05 PM <~barredowl> i think like, if you took a lot of the in-your-face stuff out of here and made it more subtle, intricate, or nuanced, there could be something really special.\r\n12:05 PM no subtlety, which nullifies the entirety of any dread felt\r\n12:06 PM <@Calibri_Bold> barredowl: I agree.\r\n12:06 PM Agreed as well.\r\n12:06 PM <@Calibri_Bold> Meta on the SCP wiki is best applied through subtlety.\r\n12:06 PM That discussion reminds me that I would love to write a Tale when people are like \"We're fictional? No problem, let's continue to live our lives\". Unrelated, but I wanted to say that.\r\n12:06 PM I think there's meant to be a kind of repeating timeline with Operation WALLBREAK with the dialogue a little bit, but I just can't see how it connects to the ending since it's never expanded upon.\r\n12:06 PM <@Calibri_Bold> The problem is that a lot of authors tend to heavily play into \"people who know they're fictional\".\r\n12:07 PM Pighead: I think that would be a nice draw away from tropes.\r\n12:07 PM <@Calibri_Bold> Pighead: That has some promise.\r\n12:07 PM <~barredowl> (also sidenote, the name \"operation WALLBREAK\" is a little goofy)\r\n12:07 PM <~barredowl> so, anyway\r\n12:07 PM Calibri_Bold: Well, I think that that idea has already been done to death. The reveal of \"Oh, the reason this anomalous thing is happening is because we don't actually exist\" isn't really enough for an article to stand on.\r\n12:07 PM Thanks. ^^\r\n12:07 PM <@Calibri_Bold> red3: Exactly!\r\n12:07 PM <~barredowl> let me see if i have any problems other than with the subtlety.\r\n12:07 PM <~barredowl> or rather, the lack of subtlety\r\n12:07 PM <@Calibri_Bold> SCP-3309 was a terrific meta article, in my opinion.\r\n12:07 PM <@Secretary_Helen> Calibri_Bold: SCP-3309: Where We Go When We Fade, Fade Away (Rating: +532. Written 2 years ago By: lt flops and phamtomguy) - http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-3309\r\n12:08 PM <~barredowl> i thought it was pretty good\r\n12:08 PM <~barredowl> but idk\r\n12:08 PM <@Calibri_Bold> It wasn't like these folks were just completely aware of \"we're fictional characters on a writing site\".\r\n12:08 PM Calibri_Bold: also agreed; meta approached from a different aspect would be much more compelling for me. That being said, from a \"we're fictional\" aspect, there's a lot better ways to take it, i.e. like, \"why are you doing all this shit for the sake of 'shock factor',\" which would be really fucking interesting imo.\r\n12:08 PM <@Calibri_Bold> It was them having some vague pointers and then trying to figure out what it all meant.\r\n12:08 PM Well even that one is very blunt about it and tries to keep up the mystery despite having a very obvious hint in the Description.\r\n12:08 PM And for the rest, yeah, I think that makes me less iffy, I wasn't really disturbed by that. But I don't know if I'm really the best reviewer about that, considering I'm not objective at all about meta articles.\r\n12:09 PM <@Calibri_Bold> red3: I don't mean that it has to be a twist. But it does a very good job of showing how the researchers themselves deal with it.\r\n12:09 PM <~barredowl> honestly, i'm really not sure that i got a lot of the emotions meant from this piece. it just seemed a little too over-the-top.\r\n12:10 PM It's a lot of words\r\n12:10 PM to convey what a few words do\r\n12:10 PM and it gets boring fast\r\n12:10 PM why use lot word when few do trick - malyce, 2020\r\n12:11 PM <~barredowl> i didn't really so much get bored as i got like, peeved that it wouldn't change the subject.\r\n12:11 PM I got more tired, really\r\n12:11 PM Like, it somehow trope-ified itself over the course of this article\r\n12:12 PM I downvoted, I feel confident in my downvote, and I don't think that there is much aside from a major reduction in content would change that for me\r\n12:12 PM <~barredowl> i think that's mostly my word with this skip. nothing else really stands to me as egregious as that.\r\n12:12 PM <@Calibri_Bold> MalyceGraves: Same.\r\n12:12 PM <~barredowl> yeah, i'm giving a downvote too.\r\n12:12 PM thirded\r\n12:13 PM <@Calibri_Bold> (It's a shame too, it features Dir. Bold :P)\r\n12:13 PM <~barredowl> (completely unrelated sidenote, somebody put a non-cheddar goldfish into my goldfish container and now my palate is ruined)\r\n12:13 PM <@Calibri_Bold> (PURE EVIL)\r\n12:13 PM I had upvoted, I like the story and I hadn't been too bored by the story.\r\n12:14 PM 👀\r\n12:14 PM <~barredowl> so, anybody have any final impressions they want to say before we go ahead and end this?\r\n12:14 PM Cal: Question, why is it that whenever I read a meta article, Dir. C. Bold is at the forefront of the tests? :P\r\n12:14 PM Also I upvote this simply cause it was a joy to read and a bit different from what I read\r\n12:14 PM I'm going to downvote for now. I like the atmosphere it has and the core idea, but the narrative beats just don't make sense to me. The theme is hammered into my skull in so many ways that I felt confused as to what the point of this even was. And the entire story was better told in SWANN's proposal and SCP-3812, among a few others.\r\n12:14 PM <~barredowl> seconding.\r\n12:15 PM <@Calibri_Bold> BlueJones: Because I have a great influence.\r\n12:15 PM <~barredowl> that's pretty much my word exhasuted.\r\n12:16 PM <~barredowl> *exhausted.\r\n12:16 PM <@Calibri_Bold> I do like the premise of the concept, but it just wasn't executed nearly as well as it could have been.\r\n12:16 PM I still love that SWANN article where it was the SPC that broke reality because hyper reality sharks could exist :P but other than that I love this article cause i understood what was happening in this, the stakes, and that the AIC was actually the mc of this skip\r\n","name":"SCP-5309","extension":"txt","url":"https://www.irccloud.com/pastebin/dx8Bmzeq/SCP-5309","modified":1591816775,"id":"dx8Bmzeq","size":10236,"lines":99,"own_paste":false,"theme":"","date":1591816775}