SCP Database
SCP Library
Site
SCP Community
HOLY MOLY I PROCRASTINATED AND JUST GOT THIS IN ON TIME. I HAD TO COLDPOST.
There will be more content to come.
I want to give big thanks to Roget and /u/modulum83 (Probably a user here too, someone please tell me who he is on wikidot), whose History of the Universe and Modern Introduction to the SCP Foundation: Part 2 respectively were invaluable resources and influences for this skip.
Also big thanks to FloppyPhoenix for the slick AF Pataphysics CSS.
I'm not sure how much I like this. It's deliberatly very meta, and I feel that the fourth iteration takes that too far.
On the other hand, it's a fun read, and feels like an excellent homage to the history of the site.
+1
It's So Meta Even This Acronym.
You talked to me about this at the start of the contest, and I whole-heartedly approved of the idea. I wish I'd gotten to read this before now, but even as a coldpost, this is great. It broke my brain trying to read this, but in a good way.
One thing I'd fix up after voting period ends: you don't need a lot of redundant portions. There's an article which excises redundant portions in the revisions.
Also: mind changing the alternate text color from Green to something else? Doesn't stand out too well against the Pataphysics theme.
Huh.
See, my knee-jerk reaction is to chastise this for being unduly self-congratulatory, but I realize all too well how hypocritical that is because, y'know, I write SCPs too. :B
The only real criticism — other than the length, I suppose — is that it's too much like Swann's Proposal, writ large, to the point of referencing it in-text. And… that's not really enough to prevent me from upvoting after the contest, at least. This is pataphysics done not excessively aggravating, which I know is faint praise.
Meanwhile, fix your "it's"es. Just about every single one should be "its". (The rule of thumb: if you can replace it with "it is", then use "it's".)
I'm a very lenient canon-enforcer. I feel weird when I downvote for concept. I feel extra weird when I act like a pedant about a particular canonical element someone introduces and actually bother to comment about it, but I am fundamentally opposed to this.
I am so tired of pataphysics. This is the article that's making me admit that. I don't even have the words for it. It's a wave of exhausting over-meta that is going to tire the site of meta content in general very quickly because it takes it so damn hard and makes it so overt. We could have stuck with the existence of the Multi-U Department, the implications of Swann's Proposal, and Timeline R-zayin-H-517/6. That was enough. I respect any author's approach to meta, as its very subjective, but this pataphysics business is almost objectively going to burn up all the site's meta juice. Give it a few months; pataphysics is too much of a gimmick to produce unique content after a certain period, I guarantee it.
There ain't shit I can do about it other than be annoyed, and the upvotes prove that I'm in the minority, but it's not something I can let myself be quiet about.
I can see where you're coming from with the meta fatigue; I ended up no-voting this myself because, while it's well executed, clearly worked hard on, and a basic idea that I like, I feel like I've seen this before. "The act of writing SCPs in real life affects the in-universe characters" is a premise that I can agree has been done enough times that, even when done excellently as it is here, I'm not very interested in seeing again.
I disagree that pataphysics as a device is a dead end, though - I think it just hasn't reached its full potential yet because the tendency is still to focus it outward, on the interaction between the in-universe Foundation and its real life writers, rather than on the in-universe characters exploring what it means to be fictional. I think there's a ton of potential in the concept of a super-science organization that can break apart the building blocks of their fictional existence and examine the feelings and tropes their world is made up of in the same way we examine atoms and molecules. My own contest entry was an (admittedly clumsy and poorly thought out) attempt to use pataphysics that way; I think as time goes on, we as a site will figure out how to use this concept better, since SCP is a uniquely qualified setting to explore it, and that it could eventually open up a lot of design space for new stories.
I really appreciate you calling my work well executed, cause dang I was worried about that.
I think there's a ton of potential in the concept of a super-science organization that can break apart the building blocks of their fictional existence and examine the feelings and tropes their world is made up of in the same way we examine atoms and molecules.
I do want to comment on this, because this actually was something I wanted to touch on in my work, and is a big part of how I think about the department of Pataphysics. Here are some examples:
So, the O5s did the Foundation-ly thing: they thought "What are the practical implications of our fictionality?" "How can this be used to our ends?" And so, the Department of Pataphysics was born.
and
Our understanding of their tastes, standards, culture, demographics, and organization has dramatically improved, giving us a much better idea of narrative patterns to search for to locate new anomalies.
I appreciate your forthrightness. And I certainly can't criticize you for disliking my work on a conceptual level, that's totally fair.
If you're tired of pataphysics, there's certainly nothing wrong with that. But I will say that describing pataphysics as a "wave" feels a bit hyperbolic to me. Like, I'm thinking about it, and it seems like there are maybe 10 SCPs that deal with the Foundation engaging with it's own fictionality? And a few tales and author pages? That's not that many.
Give it a few months; pataphysics is too much of a gimmick to produce unique content after a certain period, I guarantee it.
You may well be right. However, I will say this: When I first discovered the site during the Series II era, I didn't just read SCPs, I often read the discussion pages as well. And there were a lot of people who didn't like Hume fields and Scranton Reality Anchors for, in my view at least, similar reasons to people who don't like pataphysics. They thought it was silly, a gimmick, invalidated conflict, overused, etc. I think pataphysics might surprise you.
But I will say that describing pataphysics as a "wave" feels a bit hyperbolic to me.
All I know is that I've been on this site five 4.5?1 years, I'm active as hell, and it came out of nowhere a few weeks ago. Maybe I was missing something, or 'active' on the forums and not paying attention to all the recent articles outside of 4000.
But here's an elaboration of why I have issues with these canonical implications. This is dealing with some stuff that's damn hard to put into English but it comes with the topics. I'll try. I am open to people disagreeing with this of course, but I'm hoping that I might be able to summarize some of the conceptual issues that I and maybe other anti-pataphysics people have.
IMO Humes and SRAs make as much scientific sense as radiation detection does. The sci-fi part is the fact that the technology is currently impossible IRL, but the mechanism makes sense. Create specialized equipment to detect something —> determine what the equipment's response to various stimuli is —> develop a unit based upon the response and quantify your observations accordingly.
Pataphysics doesn't hold up in the same way.
Concept: "I, a Foundation employee, mirror the actions of a writer in a reality construct where I am a work of fiction."
A Multi-U look at this would have them say "I, a Foundation employee, exist here in this reality construct. There exists a reality construct where I am fictional. However, we cannot prove that the author created me, as I have always experienced my life as real, it is real according to my Kant counter, and it is real according to the normality standards my job requires me to enforce."
A pataphysics approach would be "I, a Foundation employee, exist here in this reality construct, which is actually not real and was written by someone in a different reality construct. They control my actions but somehow I'm still able to have autonomy2 and the best option is to base my actions around the implication that I'm not real."
The Multi-U approach acknowledges that reality depends upon frame of reference. There could be a reality construct in which a bunch of Eldritch gods are sitting around in their underwear playing chess, and the Foundation finds out that each of their pieces represents a famous Foundation action in history (or some shit; I'm spitballing for the sake of example). They would not all of a sudden define themselves as "welp, I guess we're actually just a game of chess!" Why? Because there could be another all-explaining situation that reveals itself. There are infinite possibilities and infinite universes and there's no reason for the Foundation to treat one as truth just because it sounds believable. How is it any more believable than other trickery brought upon by the existence of infinite realities?
Pataphysics is acknowledging our (IRL) reality construct as more real than the other ones and defining our actions on the wiki as the only real nature of existence for these characters. This is the opposite of the narrative value of having multiple reality constructs, to me.
If we take pataphysics to heart and believe what it says: Now we know what's objectively real. That's it. It's over. Pataphysics says "this is the only option for existence." Edit: Metafiction insinuates this too, but I tolerate the conclusion because characters talking reached it, and characters talking are susceptible to panicking and concluding that. The team composing this scientific document and researching this phenomenon, however, should know better than to show the same behavior.
Obligatory extra "in my opinion" because I know I just dumped a lot of shit here.
Pataphysics has been around for at least a year and a half.
SCP-3500 revision 0, made on 3 May 2017, mentions Pataphysics.
I'm glad Cyantreuse wrote this criticism and worded it so well. I'm of the opinion that as the pataphysics movement develops, we become closer and closer to a circle-jerk about our own authorship. I appreciate the difficulty in doing meta well, and that when it is done well it is amazing, but it gets purely self-masturbatory real quick.
But damn do I love that CSS theme.
Edit: Will provide something useful when I am finished reading.
Let me start with this: I stalked people’s sandboxes prior to the opening of the contest in excitement, and yours was one of them. I remember reading what was there of the draft (a paragraph or two into the description) and thinking “wow this is genuinely clever meta”. I’ve only so far thought that of Ihp’s Proposal and SCP-3309. Several times during the course of the posting period, I asked “where is that one entry and why isn’t it posted?” So I am real glad you posted this and was really happy when I identified this as that draft I had previewed.
My above comments on the Pataphysics Department do not completely apply to this article because, despite being self-centered, this one is also highly educational. You have put a lot of work into cataloging the actual history of this site and I for one really appreciate that. There may be no better place to grasp a quick synopsis of an insider’s take on the site, and for that (and because it really fits in well with the 4K contest theme) I want this to have an upvote and claim a healthy spot in Series V. The meta here even includes the pataphysics department itself, which aside from being very impressive, is done tactfully (Selected Iteration 3).
However, I teetered between an upvote and a novote throughout the read. I’m going to list these pivot points below. This is not something I usually do for published articles, but I'm doing it here because I want to see this article at its best.
The color choices in text clash with the beauty of the Pataphysics CSS imo. There have to be some more aesthetic choices there. If I had to make a recommendation, it'd be #BDB76B instead of orange. For that matter, I'm not sure another color (green) is necessary; Enkidu could simply use her own text color to highlight changes in the iterations for the reader.
A marked increase in campiness accompanies this shift.
I wasn't around for this in the site's history, so I may be missing something, but "campiness" is an incredibly poor word choice imo, especially considering the pejorative connotation. Something like "impropriety", "immodesty", or "inelegance" would do fine.
I'm glad to see that the Foundation is eventually attempting to censor the PAC site and remove it from the internet. I just disapprove of it taking them 13 years and the identification Escapist events to realize this is a good move. While I initially thought "the widespread shock of learning of the existence of the Foundation will be reduced due to familiarity" approach was really novel and enjoyable, it doesn't hold water given the concerns that result from allowing, and even popularizing, something that so closely resembles the inter workings of the Foundation, highly classified data included. They would be really doing nothing but encouraging the dreaded LV-Class Lifted Veil Scenario they wish to avoid.
Foundation agents in major search engines
IN the search engines? The grammar of this is horror-inspiring…that's enough for a new SCP premise right there. In seriousness though, this needs to be reworded a bit. "employed by" would be my suggestion.
Penknife.aic, an artificial intelligence construct calibrated to have no interest in fiction and no ability to suspend disbelief for the sake of consuming fiction,
This description may do better as a footnote.
47 Mobile Task Forces currently
While I appreciate the priority the Foundation is placing on this SCP, this is a gratuitous use of resources that stretches and tears my suspension of disbelief.
While the introduction of Escapist events adds another layer of delightful meta-play, it is a bit too convoluted and lengthy imo. Simplifying both the concept and its presentation would do the article good I believe.
The winner parallels [NARRATIVIC HAZARD REDACTED].
Very clever. (Are you going to change this now that the contest is decided?)
The moment in Iteration 3 where the PAC equivalent of this very article is referenced and in Iteration 4 when the PAC becomes the SCP Foundation, it becomes too convoluted and masturbatory imo. The dialogue leading up to the "naming" of the SCP Foundation is very unnatural and forced; probably inescapably so due to the convoluted nature of the layers.
In conclusion, while I think this is a quality work of pataphysics and really enjoyed your creativity, I believe the nature of the approach and the unavoidably tangled narrativic layers of self-reference inherent in this subject limit how well-received this article can be. And I hope I am wrong about that.
I really appreciate your detailed feedback. I just wrote a major content update that used several of your suggestions!.
I'm glad to see that the Foundation is eventually attempting to censor the PAC site and remove it from the internet. I just disapprove of it taking them 13 years and the identification Escapist events to realize this is a good move. While I initially thought "the widespread shock of learning of the existence of the Foundation will be reduced due to familiarity" approach was really novel and enjoyable, it doesn't hold water given the concerns that result from allowing, and even popularizing, something that so closely resembles the inter workings of the Foundation, highly classified data included. They would be really doing nothing but encouraging the dreaded LV-Class Lifted Veil Scenario they wish to avoid.
You make a strong point. I added a line suggesting the Foundation's tolerance of the PAC site was part to the plot armor granted by the Narrative entity.
In conclusion, while I think this is a quality work of pataphysics and really enjoyed your creativity, I believe the nature of the approach and the unavoidably tangled narrativic layers of self-reference inherent in this subject limit how well-received this article can be. And I hope I am wrong about that.
I really appreciate your praise. I agree with your conclusion as well, I knew from the beginning that a lot of people would really not like this, and I honestly don't feel like I'm quite good enough a writer to do the concept justice. But hey, it was successful. It's my highest rated article on the site. So I'm content.
Seconded. Every pataphysics article or tale I read seems like an interesting concept at first, but then I get sick of it constantly nudging me with its elbow and going "Eh? Ehh? See what I'm doing here?"
I’m also tired of Pataphysics and to me meta articles have to be amazing to get an upvote. For instance, Ihp's proposal is meta and while it falls into the same rabbit hole all pataphysics articles do ("we can live normally despite being actually controlled by our authors and knowing we are controlled") it's charming and a beautiful read. This wasn't. This was a long exposure on meta and not much else. I liked the framework of the article, with Enkidu and the more informal tone of the researcher, but this still feels too much like a circlejerk of this wiki.
-1.
I'll straight up admit I'm not super into the pataphysics trend that has swept through some corners on the wiki, however, I'd like to think that an article that was executed well enough could still wring a +1 out of me. This is not that article I'm afraid.
Not only do you basically serve us the entire wiki as a kind of bizarro version of itself in this SCP, the handling of the authorship in the O5 discussion at the end just kills the piece for me, as it's not only rather hamhanded but also dull exposition on how this brand of pataphysics works.
Even if the above were not the case, in the end, the whole affair just rings far to close to Swann's Proposal for my liking.
Perhaps if this was more subtle about how it does business things would be different, but then again would that not just be Swann's proposal again?
-1.
The history/timeline table says SCP-3000 where it should say 4000. I assume that's a typo, but with meta I'm never entirely sure.
(account deleted)
