it is the pineal gland
it stops you going sane
so if we remove it
stability ensues, and as
such, we get
the
surrealistics department.
SCP-4923 / Discussion
Forum
» Per Page Discussions / Per page discussions
» SCP-4923
This is the discussion related to the wiki page SCP-4923.
That was a very interesting read. Not quite surreal (in my layman opinion) but still enjoyable.
Sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what this is, it’s not explained well (imo). No vote unless I can get a vague description of what this is.
The SCP is all the little growths in humanity's pineal glands that tie them to certain methods of thinking, and they can't be described by anyone operating in one mode of thought. So we get the Surrealistics department — people who've had theirs removed, or take Agnostic drugs so they can avoid the effects. They think about the things we're incapable of; incorrect and alternative "logical paradigms", including SCP-4923 itself. At least, that's my interpretation. Or rather, my interpretation as far as I can explain it in a single post of reasonable length :P
This felt weird to read. A lot more so than 4910.
I like it. +1
This is the type of batshit insane weirdness I love to read on the wiki. Seeing anything of this sort makes my day, and this definitely does.
+1
I enjoyed this (Although I have some quibbles that I'll develop below)! It's quite engaging and fun. +1
It's like a riddle:
"SCP-4923 is to be maintained in a self-referential conceptual maintenance loop of its own design."
This is the only contradiction I can spot (since it's the lack of SCP-4923 that "designs" the appropriate state of mind, and thus the will to extract SCP-4923). Other than that, there's a strong trend in the whole article of actually explaining what's going on in a very straightforward way, but with a playful tone. The calcified thingies must be (respectfully) extracted, to dampen your ability to believe in Truth, to allow for research methods that regular science can't grasp.
Therefore "most of this documentation is contradictory" is false, but since it thus contradicts the whole article, it's correct!
Nothing other than that is really nonsense though, just poetic turns of phrase. When it comes to explaining the thing itself, the researcher does not describe it "in a proper fashion", but his prose "matches sensicality" perfectly. So I would have liked
- Either a tiny bit more focus on the issues of plain language
- Or no attempts at justifying the language (i.e. that researcher is mad because it's important to his area of study, and using a weird style is just a side effect): it feels like a cheap way to pre-emptively counteract the calcium-induced pedantic criticisms that such a weird tone would surely provoke, and thus pulls the reader out of the story since they see the author pulling the strings.
- Or a hint of genuine doubt-induced nonsense in the actual description of SCP-4637, to match the promise. Because right now it feels like a very sane researcher who likes to make his methods of neuronal self-alteration sound fun and lyrical (and complain that it really annoys regular scientists). He doesn't really "speak madness, but with method to it", he speaks sanity but with stylistic liberties. The idea of a Surrealistics department is cool, but you added to it a claim that there is something incomprehensible about the corpora arenacea extraction process itself, and didn't deliver anything beyond that claim. Maybe a more explicit "Fountain of doubt" situation could have satisfied my need for less funny writing style, more funny conceptual constructs.
Of course this article is a criticism-magnet due to how it challenges the reader, so I can see how a few sentences meant to deflect that criticism could have seemed necessary. But I feel like there's room to make it more challenging, or to just ignore the pedants like me and let it soar higher rather than timidly guarding itself!
My best criticism is that while I understood that the article was surreal on purpose, it was still too much effort to stay invested in reading all the way to the end. I don't know why, but it just didn't hook me at all. I understand it is a very subjective thing but I just couldn't stay interested in a wall of text composed of nonsense long enough to hit whatever payoff is at the end.
I like this and I'm giving it a +1, but is the title being "[ACCESS DENIED]" intentional?
blabbo
Sure, but it's pretty annoying to not title your work. What else are we going to refer to it aside from the designation?
/forum/t-9815975/scp-4923#post-
page revision: 2, last edited: 15 Jan 2023 15:06
