SCP Foundation

Hurm. I kinda like the effect yer going for, but I don't feel like the main article does enough with it to be interesting. I would've left it at a neutral vote, but the logs at the end were narmy and didn't really read like something a real person would write. So, downvote for now, but I hope you continue to work on it, as the idea definitely has promise. I also really like the name, heh.

As I was reading through the description, I expected to see it followed by a list of fused books and summaries of their resulting contents. I'm a little disappointed with what I got instead. If you're going to write a skip that fuses books to make crossover stories, at least have a little fun with idea before launching straight into "it eats people and cats".

Also, maybe I just didn't read it properly, but it wasn't clear to me how the fusions were produced. Do they physically merge together? If so, where the replication come into play?

Really unique idea, decently written and with a bit of good extra-articular addition at the bottom.

Of course you realize, this needs a collaborative experiment log.

Upvote cause I like the idea, but you should do a bit more. I think a collaborative experiment log would be awesome, to show different examples of the books fusing together.

It could do with more of the guy just casually writing about breeding books like they were dogs, but this is good enough for an upvote.

It doesn't really need an experiment log.

An example log would be a nice touch

A really good idea… but you don't do enough with it to get an upvote.

Upvoted heartily: I really like the concept, and I especially like that it's interesting without needing a collaborative list of weird titles or anything. We've got too many lists supporting otherwise flimsy articles, in my opinion.

This article could really do with some expansion on what you've given us. I was hoping for at least one example excerpt, and was disappointed.

+1, but only barely. You have potential here, I'd very much like to see it expressed.

Ugh. The idea is solid, as others have already said, but I reached the end of the article feeling frustrated and not much else. The explanation of the effect could use a lot of slimming down, as it doesn't really add anything but dead weight. You make an allusion to the possibility of hazardous books, but then never address that point again. The end not is not a bad idea, but it contains virtually nothing of substance. Sorry, but this gets my downvote.