SCP Foundation

…they see only their own shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave…

- Plato's Republic

Special thanks to EldritchCyanide, Decibelles, and all others who reviewed in chat and assisted during the final hours.

Also thanks to Baby_Boo, who gave me a good idea for a line, and I told them I'd credit them.

Art by SunnyParallax

Art by SunnyParallax

EDIT: 159 days after posting, I realized I have a redaction in there that shouldn't be redacted. It's gone now.

EDIT 2: A continuation of sorts can be found here. As well, there's now a 2660 entry in the 2305-A collaborative log.

EDIT 3: As the old image wasn't properly licensed, it has been replaced. Source

I read the draft on the forums, and was a little ambivalent (mostly around the exact nature of the effect, the new technobabble devices which seemed a little unnecessary, and not understanding the "Maxwellist" references). But on reading it again, I'm not as worried by any of that - the concept is strong and well realised, and the writing is clear enough that you don't need to over-sell the danger.

I like it. +1

Liked the original idea, like it now. I do think it's a shame that you cut out the "Drs X, Y, and Z are exposed." "I see two people and Dr. X."

What would happen if you put this thing in the same room with 055?

Upvoting with reservations despite the continued proliferation of SRA derived technology, on this article's own considerable merits.

I think that the description should mention what happens to destruction of descriptions of the SCP, like burning a paper which has a written description.

This actually dovetails nicely with the sometimes-seen headcanon of SCP-426 being the Broken God's self-awareness.

Started reading, expecting an 'I love lamp' gag. Was pleasantly surprised it was far more complex and terrifying. Happily +1'd.

I was wishing it was something more interesting than a lamp, given how cool the effects are, but you made the lamp fit into the lore enough to justify it being there. I think the only thing I'd criticize is the doctor's dialogue in the interview, but that's just a feeling more than anything I can pin down. Well done!

By the way, did you create the SERS, and if so, do you mind me using one?

I like this article, but I feel that it is problematic in that the article itself would constitute an infohazard. I understand it would be difficult to write an article without giving a clear description but why would someone write all this information down in the main database if information about the object is essentially how it spreads? Why is there a photograph when it's clear that photographs of 2660 are dangerous?