ROBOT REVIEWS
This is actually fire.
Object 48 - "Liquid Pain" / Discussion
Forum
» Meta / Per page discussions
» Object 48 - "Liquid Pain"
This is the discussion related to the wiki page Object 48 - "Liquid Pain".
ReyDay,
This, this is why we are friends, as well as colleagues!
Knowing you has blessed me.
Your friend and colleague,
Goerman
http://backrooms-wiki.wikidot.com/goerman
And the page is much better than I thought it was gonna be. +1 from me.
Also that s-o-o-s-h-i on Discord in the info section is me btw.
love the rewrite :3
+1
CharaDotArchivist
The demon that comes when you call her name.
Forwarding my critique from the discord server for the sake of formality
A short critique I wrote quickly in our official discord server for the author of the piece, adjusted for the lack of context. I hope it can serve to aid any potential reader in their writing endeavours.
[…] While I do find the ending problematic, that is by no means my main issue at the moment, which is instead the various executional qualities used for the different ideas in the page. Allow me to demonstrate very quickly without delving too deeply into it.
For a start, the hook of the page — the initial narration, as well as its characters — is effectively thrown out around 1/3rd of the way in, falling towards cliché at the end of the interview. Now, while this is not inherently an issue by itself, the method which is used for it is one of disappointment; you've essentially ignored the very excitement you've built up by treating the catalyst of the object's (as well as event's) discovery as a secondary clause that is of no real importance from a narrative perspective. The question then is why even include it? This question/issue becomes especially prevalent when one takes into account the start block of the page, which effectively is telling readers to just ignore all of it. You see what I mean? The reason for me as a reader to even be reading this in the first place has no weight, both in-universe as well as out of it.
I will note, however, that the little narrative loop you've created with the interview adds quite a bit of charm to the page. Very well done with that idea; got a cheeky smile out of me, that. The same can be said for the in-universe sandbox draft, poking a bit of fun at the cliché sh*tty M.E.G. page (I can only assume the SPaG mistakes there were intentional), though the issue of narrative importance exists here as well.
Then you have the whole investigation. Truly needed some more time in the oven, that one. I understand why you focused on it, but it, as well as the whole page because of it, comes off as quite disjointed. Smith as the investigative lead, in tandem to the various other characters introduced, are practically nothing but a clumsy plot devices, for a lack of an eloquent way of describing it. Once again, I'm struggling to find the point of these characters being chosen specifically. Harper is quite easy justify, of course, her being the chemical expert on the case (though by no means is she perfect here, specifically in her actions and methods in the context of science), but the same cannot be said for everyone else. Really, any POI could've been chosen, and not much would've changed, pragmatically speaking.
I'm sensing a bit of backwards thinking in this, […]. That is to say that the page needed an investigative lead, and thus Smith was born; the page needed an initial emotional hook, and thus Kiara came to be; the page needed someone to die to demonstrate the effects of Liquid Pain, so Alan died. It is in a sense cyclical, what you have here. But what is "needed" is more often than not subjective, a strong indicator of unrecognised bias. What I implore you to do in such cases, or rather future pages of yours, is to remove yourself from the context of the project and examine what you're writing from a distance. Question it all, is what I mean. "I'm writing an investigation; is that truly the most optimal path to take here?", "What is added to the page by executing it in such a way?", "What is, instead, lost if I don't?", "How are all these different ideas directly correlated/causally connected to each other?", "Does what I'm writing have any innate flaws in the first place?", and most importantly, "What is my goal here? What do I want the page as a unit, away from its contents, to tell the reader?"
What you have here is effectively an issue of discourse rather than one of story. An imbalance in the narrative, where there's way more emphasis placed upon the ideas and emotions of the piece, with way less care placed on the execution of them, intentional or not, if you understand my point here. The medium is lacking behind, unable to facilitate the weight of what it's meant to carry. So while a lot of the charm is able to come through to us due to sheer intensity (take for example Smith's care for Harper; despite it only being shown in what are just two semi-formal emails to us, it is showcased brilliantly in tone and register, tying it all off in a nice little bow with the missing poster. Truly lets us as readers gain insight into their relationship, as well as the overall team's, despite observing mere fragments of it.), a lot of it is effectively handicapped due to the limitations in pragmatics.
To put it simply, the page needed more time to be cooked is all. More time to ferment in its own glory and cement itself as an amazing TS page. You've got the foundations of a genuinely historical page here; I'd even argue this could've matched the likes of TSOTV or even Icarus if you really dedicated yourself to it.
[…]
The qualities described here are, of course, what lead to my downvote, despite being in the minority. Nonetheless, I expect great things from the author.
Just one step / till the next step.
Unfold
Forwarding my critique from the discord server for the sake of formality by 
C-Graph, 29 Sep 2024 19:09
I word to describe it.
Perfection B)
I would love to have it in my tale/level called "A Long Abandoned Fortress". It's a story about 2 M.E.G members encountering an abandoned fortress from an unnumbered level, that they call "The Fortress", while trying to get to Level 881.
I hate this article. The Object just feels unfinished. It's just evil Almond Water, which is not unique, so much so that the article had to justify why it's different to Cashew Water several times. Then the attributes are: red liquid, bitter smell, and violent death. Sure the death is spectacular, but we never get any explanation on what it actually is. We only got guesses and the ramblings of an insane person.
Overall I didn't really enjoy this article, as it never satisfyingly answered "What is Liquid Pain". People have talked about this Object so much that I just assumed the article was going to be good, but I really disagree now that I read it.
/forum/t-16926464/object-48-liquid-pain#post-