Talk:Dicktion

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Revision as of 01:02, April 9, 2008 by Ljlego (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Hope you like it. I haven't had time to do any Potatochopping ... and I'm not sure where the borderline goes with that, as you'd probably need some dicks.

edit From Pee Review

edit Dicktion

Go on, stop your own dicktion and review my article :)

Humour: 5 I don't know why I didn't laugh much. See endnotes for speculations.
Concept: 6 OK concept.
Prose and formatting: 6 Writing and structure is OK, but see endnotes.
Images: 0 Needs images. They don't have to be dirty. Men with funny expressions would work. Also the Pink Floyd guy that is on fire. Stuff like that.
Miscellaneous: 4 I am ambivalent about this article. I didn't enjoy reading it much.
Final Score: 21
Reviewer: ----OEJ 15:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


Endnotes: On Humor: I don't know for sure why I didn't laugh more at this article -- it may just be a matter of taste. Have a look at this passage:

[High-Negative Friction] will generally produce a high level of sexual arousal in the owner of the penis, although this is generally temporary as negative effects will increase in proportion with the use of HND.
Intermittent and judicious use of borderline HND during penile manipulation has been shown to produce various physical effects in the subject. Among these are: panting, drooling, raised body temperature and increased erectile rigidity.

This could be written as:

[High-Negative Friction] produces a high level of sexual arousal -- aka The Big Horn -- in the owner of the penis. This may be temporary, however, as negative effects like spontaneous human combustion will increase in proportion with the use of HND.
Nobody likes bursting into flames while making love.
Intermittent and judicious use of borderline HND produces various physical effects in the subject: panting, drooling, hot flashes, bulging eyeballs, heart attacks, and exploding brains, to name but a few.

Or it could be written as:

[High-Negative Friction] usually produces a high level of sexual arousal in the owner of the penis. Take the case of Gabe Dinky, of Little Bonkers, Arkansas. On April 15, 2003, Gabe was in the front seat of a Chevy Nova receiving manual dicktion from his girlfriend, Hulga Mightythews.
After five minutes of normal dicktion Hulga became impatient with Gabe's lack of response. With her right hand she popped a stick of Beeman's gum in her mouth and with her leftt hand increased the dicktion applied to Gabe's joystick. Gabe began to breathe faster and his pulse rate shot up to 500. Hulga squeezed harder. Gabe's eyeballs bulged out and he made strangling noises; his liver began to secrete trinitrotoulene and his pancreas turned inside out. Hulga squeezed harder. The car's headlights began to flash on and off as Gabe's legs thrashed about spasmodically. His brain began to pulsate, causing his ears to flap back and forth. Hulga squeezed harder. Gabe snorted three cups of snot from each nostril, crossed his toes, and frantically chewed on his tongue. Hulga squeezed harder...and popped her gum.
The car's gas tank exploded.

The last version describes a scene with specific characters and specific actions -- comically overblown ones. It lets the reader see something in his or her mind's eye, and not just read about it in an abstract sense. Now, scene-painting may not be what you want to do. It's just an example of the kind of thing that can be done in the context of an article.

OK, after writing out some alternatives I think I understand one reason I didn't laugh much at this article: its style is too abstract. It's too dry. Yes, it is a parody of a scholarly analysis but just as the style of a real scholarly analysis is not funny, the style of this one is not funny. In my opinion it needs to poke more fun at the scholarly style -- it needs to tweak the tail of the lion more often and more obviously; it needs to take more risks; it needs more comedy and less abstraction.

Good luck.

----OEJ 15:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback...

I deliberately kept the pseudo-scientific angle all the way through. Personally, I find the comically overblown stuff to be a bit cheap as everyone does it here. I prefer understatement, and I do think it's important to maintain the angle. I think I'll exaggerate the scholarly aspect a bit more. I do like the spontaneous combustion idea, though, and will probably explore it.

Oh and by the way, I write lots of other stuff too - you don't need to explain the 'show it, don't say it' bit...and I really hope that my text doesn't look like the work of a novice! Thanks anyway.

Personal tools
projects