The fact that these files are in an archive does not imply automatically that I, as a reader, have gone to a physical archive to retrieve documents. Documents are transcribed when they are put into Foundation databases, they wouldn't have just scanned sheets of paper and pamphlets and things like that - they would transcribe their contents and make it as readable as possible, even if that meant sacrificing the original formatting, unless the formatting was mandatory for the understanding of the information, and I don't see that here. If the information stated at the very beginning is outdated, you have to tell us that. If it is current, it affects the entire context of the information presented. As the Foundation would not have had access to computers when this was originally collected, having paper copies makes sense. But if I am reading this as a modern day Foundation employee, all of this information would have been transcribed to a digital format and thus the original formatting is moot.
Another issue is that the Foundation, even back in the 30s or 50s, would not think that burning down a church building would stop or limit the dissemination of the doctrine of that church. The doctrine is not tied to the physical structure of the church in any way; it exists because of the parish and the congregation. Burning down a church does not affect the beliefs of the people who attended that church, and in many cases it can actually strengthen the sense of community, as they would do their best to attempt to rebuild it. I grew up attending church, and that was always a big part of it - that it was the people and the community that were truly what made the church, and the church as a building was simply the place that they met. If you destroy a house, that does not destroy the family that lived in the house, and I don't think the Foundation would have thought that, then or now.
What does the “unidentified family photo” add? I read the entire article thoroughly and saw no narrative reason for its inclusion - in fact, it was never once mentioned at all. None of the people are implied or stated to be any of the people in the narrative. It adds nothing.
When are the letter to Dr. Fleming and the D-class personnel file actually from? The context of time is missing from much of the article. I am not going to automatically assume that these are all listed in chronological order when they are all from different sources. Also they call the note to Fleming a “PM” which is short for “private message”, which is not terminology the Foundation would use, now or 70-90 years ago. Why would they want someone with a more extensive criminal record? The Foundation takes criminals as D-Class because they’re unlikely to be missed, not because they’re here to punish them. D-Class assignment is not ‘Super Jail’.
Human trafficking (or “people smuggling” as you put it) was not criminalized anywhere in the US until the early 2000s (this is also addressed in a later section as I forgot at this point this was all in Sweden, but that fact doesn’t change this point at all). You have to check your facts on details like this. They would not say “big body type” or “big lips”. They would state his birth date rather than saying his age, as that information would be inaccurate within a year. The application of clinical tone and language is very haphazard throughout the entire article, but these are some of the places it really stands out. This is the 1940s, not the 1840s.
Why does the D-class mention in his journal that it’s going to be confidential? It seems out of place. If you're going to be writing as though this is the personal journal of someone in the mid-to-late 1940s, I would really recommend looking up some journal entries that have been documented from people in that age, because although I don't know for sure, I don't think people used the word “gonna” in writing lot back then. This is not a transcribed audio recording of him speaking, these are notes he wrote by hand. If he had education and experience in electrical engineering and was in his 40s, his diction would likely be very professional.
Why on God's green earth would this man think that a church would “grab at my arms and swing me about till my limbs couldn't take it no more”? Why does he know what stearin is? He worked in electrical engineering, he wasn’t a candlemaker or a chemist.
You should absolutely include a translation for the pamphlet. None of the contents of it mean anything to me as a reader because I don't understand the language, and I'm sure a lot of people working for the Foundation don't either. As it stands, it's an image that adds nothing to the article, because I don't know what it means. This is a perfect example of why the Foundation wouldn't just scan things in, and would instead include a transcription with a translation.
I was at the dance tonight, knowing not how I had come to this situation, wandering around aimlessly when, a girl sees me! Yes, in fact!
“Yes, in fact!” is not a complete thought, and I have no idea what it means even with the surrounding context. It sounds like an attempt at an older style of saying “yeah, really!”, but it just doesn't seem to fit here. Once again, you really have to research how people back in this era talked and wrote.
She had me stuck, her laughter and witty tone did not feel condemnatory.
Once again, why is he operating off of such a strange assumption? Why would laughter and a witty tone by default be condemnatory? Normally those are great signs of companionship.
June 2nd: Basecamp for our newest members.
A church referring to anything as a “basecamp” seems really out of place.
As I continue to read the journals, I noticed that this guy writes awfully flowery for somebody with a background in electrical engineering who's been in prison for a while. Nothing that I've read so far leads me to believe that this is part of the effect of the anomaly. Being dedicated to worship and having your vocabulary and/or vernacular altered are not the same thing.
Why does he think that weakness is the reason he can't say no to a request from a woman he clearly loves when he is part of a church that preaches about love? Why would he be hesitant to accept her offer in the first place?
Up to the point of the journal from 3/6/1948, he seems to have a great reverence for the church's teachings, but then he refers to Lars's words as “jibber-jabber”? That seems incredibly disrespectful to someone who's a part of the same community who is trying to spread the word that he is becoming so infatuated with. It seems very inconsistent.
What about this anomaly would be circulating these rumors within the Foundation that necessitates these notices? They never really go into detail about it, or what the rumors are, so I, as a reader, am left completely in the dark as to what the context of these memos is in any way. I didn't mention it earlier, but in the first memo they mentioned that “Persons of interest are NOT punished in any way incompatible with the rules of conduct. This means, they are not socially separated, tortured or otherwise deprived of essential living conditions”, and that's something that should simply never need to be said. That's what the rules of conduct are for. When you have rules, you shouldn't have to restate that the rules are there to be followed.
As a side note, I had to spend 9 and 1/2 seconds - yes, I timed it - to scroll from the second memo back up to the first one to get that quote. The spaces are an enormous problem and it only becomes worse the further I read. I have a mouse with an unlockable scroll wheel, and the strongest spin I could give it barely reached the bottom of the page. Some people may downvote your article on the basis of this alone, and I honestly don't think I can blame them. See also my previous note about the effect on mobile users.
How old is Alma? Depending on her age, her language usage may also be really inconsistent. You really need to look up the history of women's education in Sweden.
Actually, now that I think of it, was this all originally written in Swedish? Because if so, that makes that pamphlet not having been translated make even less sense, because all of this would have been translated at some point. I am not reading this from the perspective of someone who understands Swedish and is reading Swedish. I am reading English and I understand English. You discuss Jonas's crimes In his D-class personnel file in the context of United States judicial criminal punishments, but this is all happening in Sweden. Is treason something punishable by a life sentence in Sweden in the 40s? Is he an American citizen that was brought all the way to Sweden to test this anomaly? If so, did he know how to speak Swedish? If he was Swedish, you need to make sure you read up on the history of Swedish litigation when it comes to things like treason, human trafficking, etc. as far as what was illegal at the time (Human trafficking was also not illegal in Sweden until 2002). These are really important things to know, because without this context, I am only left with further questions.
I don't think back in the 1950s we had the ability to predict how many weeks were left in a pregnancy. You cannot try to excuse certain language usage and formatting choices by saying it's because of how it was done at the time, and not make sure that facts like this are also accurate to the time period.
I really don't think the Foundation would be paying this D-class to do this. If he needed money simply to be able to afford a place to live and feed himself, that I can believe. But he is not there to start a family. If he wanted to have a family, they would probably allow him to get a job so that he could make a living to support them, but they wouldn't be giving him a monthly government-style stipend to do something that ostensibly has nothing to do with what he's there to find out. I can buy the idea that maybe Dr. Fleming would have asked for that to happen, but there's no way in hell I buy that the Foundation higher-ups would approve that for someone who's not even an employee.
What made them think that this effect was memetic at all in the first place? Most of it just seems like normal behavior of people who are dedicated to a church or other religious organization. The memo that they write stating that it hasn't been confirmed that any of the effects are anomalous in any way only highlights this fact. How do you test how much someone loves something? What level of devotion becomes anomalous? There are people in this world that are under the effect of no anomaly that are literally willing to die and kill others in the name of their religion. This guy just showed up, fell in love with a woman, and got married. Nothing in here looks like an anomaly.
The fact that you mentioned him going fishing once does not necessitate posting his fishing license, nor does it make it make any sense. They wouldn't have collected this information in the first place just because he talked about going fishing. It has nothing to do with the anomaly or his presence as it relates to Foundation research.
I don't think I can buy the Foundation continuing a project like this for five years - especially if they're paying this person - that still can't really give any solid evidence that anything happening here is anomalous. The idea of everlasting love is something that has existed within many churches for thousands of years, and again, this isn't something you can quantify. Somebody willing to devote their life to God is a thing that happens in real life all the time, it's not an anomaly, and if I were a religious person myself I might honestly find the idea kind of insulting. If you're trying to insinuate the idea that this level of infatuation with a God or even another human being in general is an anomaly, then the Foundation has a hell of a lot more to worry about than a single church in Sweden.
The note where Jonas talks about the anomaly really makes no sense. If it's been affecting him this much, I feel like the idea that this thing was anomalous at all would have been well put out of his head. If he has been under the subtle effects of a meme for 5 years, and it's actually taken that long to reach a point where it gets to an extreme, this just doesn't work. That, and the actual content of the note is really hard to make any sense of at all.
How did Alma die? This detail is completely left out, and I feel like Jonas would probably write several journals about this if he loved her that much. It just goes from a strange dream he had to the parish announcement for her funeral. Several of the journals included have nothing to do with the anomaly's effects and simply details his experiences, and I feel like that's an experience worth documenting if his fishing license is worth documenting.
You mentioned a report that Jonas gave to Dr. Fleming about the anomaly over the phone. This absolutely would have been transcribed and included in the article. If not a full transcript, Fleming would have at least taken notes about what was said in the call. Mentioning context and content and then not giving it to the reader feels really strange.
Jonas starting to write erratically in the note also doesn't really follow along with any of the effects of the anomaly as it has been documented. The way this is presented, you should be describing all of the documented effects of the anomaly early on in the article, and then the archived material tells us how the Foundation learned of those effects. We should not be trying to collate the information of the anomaly’s effects ourselves as readers.
The Bible verses continue to not add a whole lot of context and really just serve to distract me as a reader. The ones that are included with the parish news pamphlets make a certain amount of sense, because you actually did a decent job making sure the Bible verses felt relevant to the events in the bulletin. But the ones that are just presented on their own lack any context or connective tissue to the rest of the article. Why did the Foundation collect this information? If this is in a Foundation archive, there has to be a reason that it was put there, and kept there. They don't just stick stuff in a filing cabinet and forget about it, records are updated regularly to make sure the things stay accurate.
The final notice is really damning when it comes to the lack of any real information about the anomaly’s effects in the beginning of the article. Nowhere in there is it mentioned that this may lead people to die. Even still, there are people in the modern day that believe that prayer can heal illnesses. This is not an anomaly. This is human psychology. Unless they actually have proof that the meme caused the illness, or is directly responsible for the people not seeking treatment, and not that his belief simply led him not to seek treatment because he believed that prayer could heal him, I have not seen a single thing within this entire article that points to any anomalous effects whatsoever.
As I finish reading this and try to collect my thoughts, I can only revisit the concept that it seems like you are positing within this article that the idea of people in this community dedicating their lives and even sacrificing their health in the name of their faith is somehow anomalous. I must again point you to the news stories that are still popping up now about people who have refused medical treatment for even things as severe as cancer because they legitimately believe that the power of faith can heal this disease.
In your earlier response, you seem to try to defend a lot of these choices by saying that it is because these are archived documents. I again must remind you that that does not tell me as a reader that I am myself in the 1950s reading these documents. If you want this to work as an actual SCP, the only thing that would make sense to me with the content is that all of this is archived information about something that the Foundation thought was anomalous back in the 40s and 50s, but they have since reclassified as explained because as I have said, none of this behavior is unlike what people have already done all over the world for thousands of years in the name of their religion. Jonas's growing devotion didn't seem to happen at any sort of extreme rate - it seemed like he just joined a parish, agreed with their philosophy, fell in love, and then way down the line started going crazy. The only time anything that could even be close to considered anomalous - that being their refusal to try to keep people from dying - started happening was over five years into this project. Once again, I am forced to ask - why did the Foundation start investigating this church in the first place?. What event or series of events led them to believe that anything happening here posed a threat to normalcy?
Not to mention, the actual actions taken by the Foundation when it comes to trying to contain this anomaly make little to no sense. Various people have various headcanons about the history of amnestics, so I can’t really say they would just amnesticize the whole parish and call it a day. But as I mentioned earlier, the Foundation would not burn down a church in an attempt to stop people from trying to spread the good word. Because that wouldn't work, now or ever. Literally the only thing they could do if they didn't have access to amnestics would be to contain every single member of the church and simply never let them speak to anyone else. And honestly, if they were really that worried, that is what they would do. You say in a notice that " they are not socially separated". The Foundation is not against the idea of separating people from their homes and families and communities if they truly believe that those people pose a danger to normalcy. These people die in the dark so others can live in the light. They understand that the ends justify the means. If that means some members of a small community disappear, if that's what must be done, that is what they do.
