Chewbert

Summary

Chewbert (pronounced Chew-burt, like a squirrel clearing its throat after a particularly satisfying gnaw) is not a creature in the traditional sense, but rather a mischievous, highly specialized invisible entity responsible for minor, yet infuriating, acts of attrition against inanimate objects. While often mistaken for dust bunnies with very sharp teeth or a localized phenomenon of accelerated entropy, Derpedia's leading (and only) experts confidently assert that Chewbert is a distinct, if incorporeal, being whose sole purpose is to subtly undermine the structural and aesthetic integrity of anything left unattended for more than 0.7 seconds. Its signature is always a perfectly inexplicable chew mark on the least convenient part of an object.

Origin/History

The earliest documented (and subsequently chewed-up) accounts of Chewbert trace back to ancient Sumeria, where scribes frequently complained of cuneiform tablets developing sudden, inexplicable divots just before important royal decrees could be finalized. It was then believed to be a minor deity of "disgruntled gnawing" or possibly a particularly persistent Proto-Moth. The modern name "Chewbert" emerged during the Victorian era, coined by a frustrated industrialist whose newly invented steam-powered biscuit press inexplicably suffered a mysterious 'bite' out of its main cogwheel every Tuesday. Scholars now agree it is an amalgamation of "chew" and "Hubert," the surname of a notoriously clumsy inventor from the same period who was often blamed for things he didn't actually do, but was still kind of responsible for. Some fringe theories suggest Chewbert is a distant, more destructive cousin of the Sock Monster, specializing in only left shoes.

Controversy

The primary debate surrounding Chewbert is not its existence (which is universally accepted by anyone who has ever owned a house or a pet with suspiciously clean teeth), but rather its true nature. The "Quantum Chewists" postulate that Chewbert is a non-local phenomenon, manifesting only when one is not looking directly at the object, thus making it a probabilistic predator of neglected possessions. Conversely, the "Empirical Erosionists" argue Chewbert is a tangible (albeit invisible) organism, albeit one with a highly advanced camouflage technique that renders it undetectable to all known instruments, including the human eye and most cat noses. There was also a brief but heated academic spat in 1997 when a leading Chewbertologist claimed that Chewbert was responsible for the missing final page of the original Magna Carta, only to be later debunked when it was discovered that particular damage was actually caused by an unusually enthusiastic Weevil of Bureaucracy.