Writing Guide
- Brainstorming & Pre-Thought
- Building Upon Your Idea
- Setting
- Current State
- Redaction
- FASAs Tone
- The Uploading Process
- External Resources
Introduction
Welcome to the FASA Database. Chances are that you are here because you have been inspired by the articles that you have seen on our website or websites similar and would like to create your own works. You likely have a lot of above-average ideas just waiting to blossom into amazing ideas with the right care.
It is strongly suggested that you read some articles to get a strong idea of the types of things we write about before you start writing yourself, the tone of your work is quite important on a site like this.
Brainstorming
Often considered the first step of any writing process, brainstorming is equally as important in anomalous writing. When you are beginning to come up with a concept for an article, it's important to consider a few things.
- Is the concept interesting and original?
- Is the concept logically consistent? Does it make sense?
- Is it something that fits well within the scale and scope of the FASA universe?
- Is it the type of story that works well when put into writing
We recommend you to keep these four fundamentals of FASA writing in mind when you're drafting an article or coming up with a concept. It's important to remember that the reader does not exist within the confines of your mind. It's important that you can write a concept that is both understandable and interesting to an outside viewer. Feel free to be as creative as you would please, but make sure that other people can understand what you are trying to write.
Gathering Thoughts To Feed The Idea Itself
So, you have an idea that you want to write, and the peanut gallery thinks it has potential. Now comes the task of actually writing the darned thing. There are a few categories of anomaly that come up frequently, being as they are common horror/weird fiction tropes, and they're worth a little bit of extra analysis.
- Writing Plague/Contagion Anomalies: Mutation, disease and the loss of the self is a pretty fundamental human fear, and thus pretty common fodder for a huge variety of horror media. Just remember, a disease that kills you… not all that scary. Death is a huge mystery, but it has a certain… predictability to it. If you really want to spook people with a contagion, remember that losing control of your body and mind is a hell of a lot more drawn-out and viscerally unpleasant than just outright dying. Death should be a last resort.
- Writing Cryptid Anomalies: Scary monsters coming out of the woods to kill you is another pretty fundamental fear, and by no means a bad subject to write on. The thing to remember is that people have been writing about spooky cryptids since… well, pretty much since the invention of writing. Monster articles are great, but an original twist is pretty much mandatory- rehashing moth-men or skinwalkers or werewolves just isn't all that fresh anymore.
- Writing Extra-dimensional Anomalies: These articles are an expression of our fear of the unknown, or the dark, or things that are a lot bigger than us- the incomprehensible, basically. They also give you a license to get weird- they don't operate off the same rules as we do. However, they still have to be logically consistent, and you'll have to explain them well for them to have the most impact.
- Writing Extraterrestrial Anomalies:A sort of combo of the fear of monsters and the fear of the unknown, ETs represent the fear of strangers- the fear of something like us, but not quite. Something, dare I say it… alien. Alien invasion or abduction stories are another old staples, and they demand the same kind of lateral thinking or 'twist' as cryptids do- remember that realistically, aliens do not think as we do. They're not good, they're not evil, they just are, but in ways, we can't easily wrap our heads around. And that's spooky.
Expanding an Idea
Sometimes a concept needs a bit of a shove to get it into a full article format- you might have a beginning and an end to the "story" that is your anomaly, but you need a middle. Not to worry! Middles are tough to write. All you need is a solid plan, and there are a few techniques that can help you along the way.
- What is it about the concept that scares you the most? Why? How would it affect other people?
- Write something innocent or awful related to your concept, and then write how it got there. Invert it. Is one more interesting?
- Write about what you don't know about your concept- and bam, you're thinking from the same POV as a poor Agency researcher trying to figure this thing out. What do these mysteries make you wonder about the concept?
- Find an image or historical or event or person that just gives you the heebie-jeebies. A good image or bit of contextual detail is the bedrock upon which a concept can grow and prosper- the Discord has an excellent Inspiration channel where you can find all manner of genuinely spooky photography and art.
Common Mistakes
- Strike-Through - Context = Confused Readers: Sometimes it can be tempting to strike through big chunks of your text to make it feel like the article has been edited or changed, or to add stuff that had some past importance to the anomaly. The thing to remember is that you always need to explain why this happened in-universe. Just approach it from the point of view of an Agency researcher writing an article- if you had to change big chunks of it on the fly, you'd want to explain your reasoning for doing that, right?
- WORDS WORDS WORDS: A lot of people tend to put more information in an article to either make it seem more professional or have it be more interesting, but at the same time, it is liable to get confusing. Remember, always ensure that the article you're writing isn't sloppy or messy and the information that you're giving to readers is going to be understood. If very complicated information is necessary to the total understanding of your article, don't be afraid to add a footnote to explain the information therein. It's better to err on the side of caution and be corrected than write something that no one can understand.
- Dangerous + Complex Protocols = Overreaction: A lot of authors write very elaborate and overly complex protocols due to the extreme dangers that the entity exhibits. It can be fun to design crazy containment protocols, but 99% of the time it's not necessary. Instead of coming up with a highly complicated system of containment, try to come up with a creative solution that requires as few resources as possible. Remember, the FASA has a budget; though it's a large budget, it's not enough to sustain impossibly expensive or super high-maintenance anomalies.
- Keep Gore Spooky: For the sake of writing dangerous anomalies, try to avoid writing or describing in full intricate detail what happens to the person being affected or attacked by an anomaly. You know-how, in the dark, a pile of clothes on the back of a chair can look like a scary monster? It's kind of the same thing here- if you give the reader the barest hint of an idea of what your anomaly is doing, then guaranteed what they imagine is happening is spookier/more awful than you had intended, and thus more emotionally absorbing. [DATA EXPUNGED] or overly clinical language works well to hide this kind of detail. Remember also that the article is about the anomaly being documented by hardened scientists. They see this stuff every day, so try to avoid sensationalized wording and descriptions unless you're quoting a character's personal response.
Perspective of a Researcher
Many authors, both new and old have trouble writing containment protocols or making containment protocols that make sense for any given anomaly. A good tip for this is to put yourself into the shoes of a researcher or scientist working for the Agency. By doing this, you may find an interesting or realistic solution that you wouldn't have originated from the standpoint of the writer.
Additionally, the Handling Procedures for any given anomaly is meant to be what members of personnel look at to understand how to keep themselves and others safe while doing their jobs, which should also be specified in the Handling Procedures. If the Agency is using that item, great; write about it in Handling Procedures. If the Agency is trying to destroy it, also great; write about it in Handling Procedures. Whether it can be kept in a box or has to be elaborately contained, the details of the containment should be specified explicitly and concisely alongside how it should be used or destroyed.
Scale & Containment
Though it can be hard to resist the temptation to make a very elaborate system of containment, it is important to remember the FASA is on a budget and can't afford anything too expensive. Try to make your enclosure protocols as inexpensive as possible, while still ensuring that they would realistically work for your anomaly. A creative solution to a complicated problem can mean all the difference, especially when it comes to containing an anomaly. However, if an anomaly does require an elaborate system of containment, make sure to write it in a way where such a containment system is justified and explained.
The same goes for the treatment of human or humanoid entities- remember that the Agency is humane, but they're not running a luxury hotel. Lists of items requested by an entity can be an excellent window into the entity's mindset and personality, but once again keep things reasonable, and justify what you've done.
The Agency has to pay for all this, after all. And titanium cages with diamond windows and laser turrets and on site tank battalions aren't cheap.
A closely related factor to consider is the human element. The Agency is a government organization, and scientists are hard to train and motivate, especially if they're dealing with a "contained" entity that kills people on the regular. Consider how people would work in, on and around the containment system you've created. Does it make sense?
Lastly, consider the containment classification of an anomaly- quite often people tend to overestimate the difficulty of containing items which are only harmful when "activated", or when a certain set of conditions are met. Consider what sets an object off. Would it be set off by leaving it in a box? If the answer is no, then congratulations, you're on the right track to making your containment protocols.
Writing Usability
One of the things that make the FASA unique is the concept of using anomalies as opposed to keeping them contained indefinitely. This opens a lot of doors for writers to make a lot of different types of anomalies, but it is very important to remember that there is no "perfect" anomaly. In the grand scheme of anomalies, there are bound to be 5-Star anomalies that are usable with no drawbacks, but making an anomaly too usable or too versatile will make it feel less like an anomaly and more like a super-powered object from a comic book. Make sure that, if you're writing an anomaly that's ideal for use, that it has some limitations.
As for anomalies that are harder to find uses for, there is an almost infinite potential to use any anomaly, depending on its nature and the specific details of its anomalous properties. Be creative when thinking of proposals of usage, even if it gets denied by the STAC by the end of the article. Good proposals, even if they don't come to fruition by the end of the article, open the door to world-building, interesting viewpoints and make the anomaly more immersive. It can also serve to provide details through the mention of the scientist making the proposal.
Avoiding Destruction
Most anomalies that are not found useful by the Agency are either destroyed or kept for varying categories of research. The reasoning behind keeping an anomaly that is not useful, although very open-ended, has to make sense. Realistically, something that can safely, cheaply, and easily be destroyed should be destroyed if it provides nothing to the Agency. However, an anomaly that does not meet all of these conditions could prove to be consequential in whether or not the anomaly is destroyed or contained. Indestructible objects, objects that have highly dangerous anomalous properties within their physicality, or objects that would require an expensive procedure to neutralize would most likely be left in containment to save resources and decrease potential danger to personnel or the planet as a whole.
The STAC Verdict
The STAC Verdict is what the Science & Technology Administrative Council decides should be done with an anomaly based on all available proposals for action. Keep in mind that, while the STAC decision is entirely up to you as the writer, their decision still has to make sense. The STAC is not composed of idiots, it is composed of the smartest scientists working for the Agency. Keep that in mind when writing a verdict.
Reading the Unreadable
You are likely to have stumbled upon words like [REDACTED], [CLASSIFIED], [DATA EXPUNGED], or even ██████████. So, what do they mean? Quite simply, these are known as redactions which represent attempts to obfuscated or otherwise censor information. Like real-world governments, specifically foreign intelligence agencies, the Agency uses this system to keep unauthorized readers from reading details that aren't cleared to know.
Now, obviously this is all fiction, so redaction serves a slightly different purpose. We redact to keep information vague and mysterious to the reader or to skip over information that is extraneous. While redaction and censorship can absolutely be overdone, it is nonetheless a valuable writing tool in the context of the medium.
Here are a few things to keep in mind:
Do
- Redact Nonessential info when Reasonable: Curtain details in an article may be less important than others, sometimes to save on space or remove clutter you need to remove details that harm the article more than help it. For example, a cow that shoots lasers at ducks, we don't need to know what his Favre type of grass is or the last name of the farmer that owned him.
- Dramatic Effect A lot can be added to an article by taking info away from the reader if done well, whet we come up within our minds is often going to be scarier then what you could have put on screen.
Don't
- Redact Information in Handling Procedures: As mentioned, the Handling Procedures are a quick-reference guide for people working on the anomaly in question. A quick-reference guide isn't very useful if big parts of it are hidden away, no? It's generally considered pretty nonsensical and frowned upon to redact Containment Protocols.
- Mangle Sentences: It can be easy to overly redact a phrase, and lose a lot of emotional punch in the process. Whenever possible, try to react in a way that the reader can easily fill in the blanks and form their own guesses about what has just been cut out.
- Redact whole paragraphs: This is really just an extension of the above point. A big block of censored text is messy. It breaks the flow of reading. Keep your redactions as small and as neat as possible.
Keep it professional
Articles need to look professional, and read that way too. In-universe, articles are written as part of someone's job, and it's usually an academic job. This means that anomaly articles should not only look like research documents but maintain the same clinical tone as research documents. But what does clinical tone actually mean?
Many new writers tend to assume that clinical tone means big, fancy words that would score well in a game of Scrabble, but this couldn't be more wrong. Clinical tone means precision.
Precision is using the word, or phrase, that suits the current situation and unlikely to be misinterpreted by the reader. It means choosing words that are unambiguous in meaning is at least likely to be misinterpreted. To put it another way, the words you use should be associated only with the exact and appropriate thing that you wish to describe.
Bad Clinical Tone Example #1:
"(Codename) Looks a bit like a cow but with 4 eyes and some cool wing"
There are quite a few problems with this but most obvious is the use of like, this term comes off as far too casual.
Bad Clinical Tone Example #2:
"(Codename) appears to be similar to a average sized cow, but with four eyes and a wing-like appendage"
This is just as bad as the example one, except that it uses longer words which only exacerbates the problem.
Good Clinical Tone Example:
"(Codename) is a disfigured member of the Bos taurus species of cow, having four eyes and a 75cm wing appendage resembling a bat."
This tells you a lot. You know it's something like a cow, and especially what type of cow. It also tells you additional physical details in ways that are easy to visualize.
Here's other examples:
Non-clinical | Clinical |
Spaceship in space | Partially-completed spacecraft currently in orbit about the L4 Lagrangian point |
It's really big, measuring 16 miles in length and 4 miles wide | in its current state, the object is 25.3km long and 6km across at its widest point |
Coated in a material that makes it invisible | Coated with a series of retractable graphene plates with an albedo of 0.03, apparently serving as an anti-detection measure |
- Sample 1: The non-clinical version gives a vague location of the anomaly. This might be enough for the average person, but it's not useful for someone actually trying to get to it. The clinical version gives a more tangible location of the anomaly.
- Sample 2: The non-clinical version says "it's really big". How so? Furthermore, it uses imperial units, which are not scientifically accepted and thus not used by the Agency. Meanwhile, the clinical version states the size of the ship cleanly. It also implies that the ship is not a perfect rectangle and that its shape can change.
- Sample 3: The non-clinical version says that it's invisible. But what does invisible actually mean? Why is it invisible? The clinical version makes clear both how and why the anomaly cannot be easily seen.
Additional Information
- Refer from the third person, not first: Remember, when you're referring an anomaly, you refer them by their assigned codename or obvious linguistic derivatives of it. A humanoid anomaly by the name of "Connor McExample" could be referred to as Connor or Mr. McExample, for example. They are anomalies to be researched, contained and (if possible) utilized, the use of the assigned codename is crucial in maintaining tone.
- Keep it legible: Simple things like avoiding unnecessary bolding or italics and keeping your paragraphs short can go a long way towards making an article read well. Try to avoid giant blocks of text or large sections of text in FULL CAPS.
- You don't need numbers: Many articles go way overboard on quantifying or assigning numbers to everything, especially when it comes to containment. This isn't always necessary- the Agency is the kind of organization that's all about mass-produced parts and sizes for things. Remember to keep it justified- would a researcher need to know exactly how big something is? Or how heavy?
- Act on it; don't ignore it: Always, always proofread your article. The more the better. This can be as simple as reading it out loud to yourself- if you have trouble reading it, others probably will too. Once you've got a completed draft, take a break from it. Give your brain a chance to focus on something else, and when you come back to the draft you'll probably find something new to change. You can absolutely rely on other writers for critique, but self-editing is a vital skill that should be practiced.
- The Agency is Competent: It's quite understandable that characters can and will make mistakes. Characters in the Agency, however, should generally be reasonably competent, well-trained and professional in their work. If you want characters to behave recklessly or incompetently, make sure you have a good justification for why- Researchers causing mass deaths or injuries because of stupidity is not compelling storytelling.
- The Agency is Metric: Sorry to our writers in the United States, Liberia, and Myanmar, but the rest of the world uses metric. If you don't feel comfortable writing in the metric system, try minimizing the number of numbers you use in your article or making use of a unit converter. The only exception to this is when the use of the Imperial system, or any other non-metric system of measurement, is relevant to the story of the article. In these cases, don't forget to include brackets or a footnote listing the metric conversion of the unit in question, so readers understand what you're talking about.
- Video Game Jargon = Game Over: For better or for worse, a lot of our modern terminology around spooky stuff is derived from video games. We talk about monsters spawning, or clipping through walls, or telefragging into people, or aggroing- the problem is that while these are technical terms within a very specific field, they are not clinical terms. If the word you're using to describe something comes from a video game mechanic, pick a different word!
The Process
If you are interested in writing an article for the Federal Agency for the Strange and Anomalous there are is a specific process that you must familiarize yourself with. This writing process should be followed in order to improve your writing and to avoid "coldposting". If an article is coldposted1 it will be removed.
- Starting out: Join the FASA Sandbox. Click "Join" and then type in the name you wish your sandbox to be called. Click "create sandbox" and start working on your new page. You do not have to join the sandbox, but it allows you to test out your formatting and present your articles to others easily. Before beginning your article, review the rest of the Writers Guide and the Formatting Guide. Once you have reviewed these you should be ready to start writing.
- Rough Draft: Once you have written the basics of your article and are happy with your progress, post your draft to the Draft Forums. Users are required to submit a draft once they have finished writing the basic parts of their articles. Every article uploaded to the official site is expected to have received at least two thorough pieces of criticism in the draft stage, consisting of at least five points each. If this step is not completed the article will be deleted for coldposting. At this point, users viewing the draft are recommended to point out any sort of errors they find. Once you have received criticism on the forums you are expected to calmly take and apply a majority of it to your article. If you disagree with the criticism given to you then you do not have to apply it, but you are expected to receive and apply criticism from more users. While we do not punish people for responding poorly to criticism, it reflects badly on the writer's character.
- Final Draft: After completing a rough draft and acting upon criticism an article is expected to have most or all of its plot holes, grammar, and other remaining issues fixed. It is encouraged to update your rough draft posted on the forums to reflect these changes. When this is done you may seek out more criticism to further improve your writing.
- Publish: Before publishing your article give it one last read over. If you feel confident in your article and have followed the previous steps then you are ready to post it. If you are uploading an anomaly, determine what that anomaly's name would be (based on the documentation guide found [[[classification-guide|here]]. Based on that name, find the list entry that correlates with your article (for example, if your anomaly was discovered in 2004, you would click the link in FA/AST.3.1.2004.[XX] where "INSUFFICIENT CLEARANCE" has been marked). place it with the other anomalies from 2004). find a number that you desire on the main list that has not been taken (marked with "ACCESS DENIED"). Click the document link and press "Click here" to open up the editor. Paste your article into the space provided and edit the title (Change the title to reflect the full document number and the codename of the anomaly). Once you have saved your article go to the bottom of the relevant catalogue and edit the slot next to your article's document number. Change "[INSUFFICIENT CLEARANCE]" to the code-name of your anomaly. Once you have done this check out the Tagging Guide and edit the Tags section at the bottom of your article. Congratulations! your article is now an official part of the site.
- Post-Publishing: If you ever feel that the article could be improved on, you are free to make edits. Note if the article ever remains under 2.7 stars with 6 user ratings, the article will be removed. If your article is removed, you are absolutely free to re-upload it again, once you've got another two runs of critique.
The Elements of Style by William Strunk, Jr.
This style guide was published in 1920 but remains one of the most notable in the English language. It's been a standard for scholarly writing for almost a century. It teaches core grammar rules, how to write paragraphs and sentences that flow effectively, various formatting rules, and how to correctly use words and expressions which are commonly misused.
While writing, it is helpful to refer back to its various passages. The information is presented in a clear, organized way. You'll never have to wade through the bullshit in order to find the parts you're looking for.