I just flat don't like this one. I think the concept is weak, and the language and style do not fit. I hate to give such a strong response, but there it is.
SCP-241 / Discussion
Forum
» Per Page Discussions / Per page discussions
» SCP-241
This is the discussion related to the wiki page SCP-241.
I think it has potential. A cookbook that psychicly alters its contents to kill you, without making its intent obvious. It does, however, require a complete reformatting in order to fit in with the standard SCP style.
But like I said, it has potential.
I think that if this was reformatted a bit the entry could work because of the oddity at the end about SCP being able to use the book. Instead they should be having other SCPs look in the book, though, to learn how to destroy them.
Why the hell is such a thing classified as "safe"?
as long as you know what it does it can not harm you although the last added part about being able to cause allergies may upgrade it to Euclid
Possible um… plot hole, for lack of a better term: the book specifically provides recipe that will prove fatal to the person who opened it, right? So how come the old woman who owned it had it in her possession for so long? Did she genuinely NEVER eat ANYTHING made from a recipe in that book after she opened it personally? Considering that she had it through three marriages, that seems unlikely to me. And yes, I know it says she kept the book open and on a stand, but the only way I can see this working is if it was given to her by someone else, probably in her own kitchen, while it was already open, after which point it went immdiately onto the stand.
Not to mention it implies that she never opened it and all three of her husbands did. Somehow.
"Oh, honey, why don't you go find something for you to eat in this cookbook so I can cook it for you!"
I like this idea, and since the SCP hasn't been touched in months, I think I'll take a go at updating it. Heck, it's already got built-in constructive criticism….
Is the book entirely missing in things like author name, year published, publishing house, and so on? Or they're present, but change every time it's opened? Whatever the case, it should probably be mentioned in the description.
It's… um. Hmm. Y'know, I don't think I ever considered that when I originally updated the article. My first instinct is that, whatever is there, doesn't change— I'm just not sure exactly what that would be (or if I'd even add it in).
/forum/t-88107/scp-241#post-
page revision: 2, last edited: 15 Jan 2023 15:06
