From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Uncyclohexane article.
edit From Pee Review
|Humour:||7||Many jokes which Uncyc addicts will understand, but which may be puzzling to casual readers.|
|Concept:||8||Good idea, a chemical metaphor for an online community.|
|Prose and formatting:||8||Well-written.|
|Images:||5||Average images. But be fair: unless you want to create or steal 3-d molecular models the diagrammatic ones are adequate.|
|Miscellaneous:||7||I like this; it's neither an Uncyc cliché nor an article by Captain Obvious.|
|Reviewer:||----OEJ 01:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)|
As far as content, Flameviper, I might only suggest letting the piece cool and then seeing if you can push the concept into self-mockery a little bit. (Obviously this is a matter of taste...) Think about it: you are writing an article on Uncyclopedia about writers on Uncyclopedia. The readers know that you are a writer writing about writers, all in the special world of Uncyc.
There may be scope for a certain amount of self-conscious irony there.
Or not. This is a good piece even if you choose not to try to up the ante. This is all just evil advice from an evil evil man. ----OEJ 01:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your critique. I could probably churn out a few more sections if that would help, too. It's not as much the wit that I'm running on as much as the general concept. I could give you some rapier wit if you wanted it, but it would sort of ruin the encyclopedic tone. ~ Unflameviper Who's a Peach? 02:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- "Ruin the encyclopedic tone" -- yes, quite possibly. Even probably. It all depends on your goals, taste, and personal judgment.
- For better or (mostly) worse I tend to push articles in self-conscious or self-satirical directions. My goal might be an article which says, "Look, I am supposed to be an encyclopedia piece but I am sick of being an encyclopedia piece. And that's not really what you want to read anyway, is it?"
- Here's the second paragraph from an article on crawfish:
- Damn, It's Another Stupid Nature Article
- Now then, what can we write that is interesting about crawfish?
- Good Lord, we are tired of writing these nature articles. Granite. Giant ground sloth. Basalt. Monk seal. Fer-de-lance. Horrible stuff.
- What do we want to write about?
- NOT SEX. It has been done to death on Uncyc.
- And not politics. No one likes political articles, really -- liberals think that conservative satirists have the sophistication and wit of mud, while conservatives despise liberal satirists as lace-panty ranters. And each think satirists on their own side are despicably timid.
- And (God help us) not another meta-article that wanders around pretending to be all deconstructionist and archly self-conscious. We are sick of those.
- We are even bored with writing in the editorial "we" -- as if we were the Queen of England, or a two-headed Oscar Wilde arguing with himself in a teak-paneled bathroom in Knightsbridge. But we can't escape that. The editorial "we" comes with the territory.
- (My personal giggle is that of course the article actually IS "all deconstructionist and archly self-conscious".)
- But the point is, whether or not this is to your taste, it is an example of at least pretending to let the reader "look behind the curtain" and see the rather pathetic writer struggling with his Uncyclopedia article. And when one writes an article which takes Uncyclopedia and Uncyclopedia writers as its subject the opportunity for this kind of self-satire arises.
- Whether or not it is appropriate, and what form it may take if it is, are entirely matters for the author's personal judgment.
- Interesting to discuss these matters. I'm sorry if I got rather didactic and lecture-y. It is a personal character flaw. That and llama molestation. But, er, never mind. ----OEJ 03:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)