From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
edit From Pee Review
Ok. I wrote this. I admit it, and I'm sorry. I get a kick out of it, but that's just me. Howzabout you?00:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I read the title and first few sentences. And I liked them. I see that there is a lot more text to read. I don't want to though. Aaadddaaammm 10:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
So I can either assume you would have liked the whole thing, or it was funny, but not enough to hold your interest. . . Alllrighas fas fas fas fas fas fas fas fig}} 06:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- I too found it longer than I wanted to read. It's very difficult to make a long article "grabby" enough to keep an Intarweb reader going...your average Web-reader has the attention span of a butterfly with ADHD. (I include myself in that description.) My private advice: the author must revise, revise, revise --
- Cut out every private joke, every strained reference, every cutesy-pie cliché.
- Compress. Look for useless phrases like "It is said by many" and cut them; replace latinate phraseology with plain English wherever possible. Concise and crystal clear is the goal.
- Make the prose flow so smoothly that the
butterflyreader never stops and says "Huh?", because that "Huh?" is where they decide to click the "Random Link" selection, go away, and never return to your ardickle.
- But that's just my personal line of horsecrap.----OEJ 17:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
A rather commendable line of horsecrap, though. Thanks for your input regarding my output. I've seen many comments in various places criticizing short articles, so I outlined enough sections to allow the length it attained (more or less.) Where then, is the happy medium? (And I don't mean an ecstatic psychic.) Anybody?08:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thenks for the combliment...I mostly cough up the same advice you'd get in any writhing class or group, though. T'ain't anything original. In re length you ask, "Where then, is the happy medium?" Well, it's a matter of taste and art, I think. "Too short" means, to me, any single-sentence or single-paragraph job. "Too long" means any article that over-writes its concept -- plays boring variations on a simple joke, overextends a pleasant but limited conceit, etc. As far as well-developed long articles go, my personal preference is to build them out of short, relatively simple sections. One to three sentences per ¶, one to three ¶ per section. Sometimes.
- It just depends.
- One thing to add -- Despite my disclaimer at top of this post I really don't think all the traditional rules about prose structure apply to Intarweb writhing. Use the scene- and character-building techniques of a classic story-writer like Tolstoy, for instance, and you'll get nothing but the finger. I think. ----OEJ 01:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Bump. . . C'mon, people! Gimme some more feedback. It's still long, but I've stripped what I thought it could lose.07:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)