Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Adam and Eve
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
I put this up for Pee Review because I wonder if it can be featured. Proxima Centauri 04:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- This page has been up for a while, but the table and category weren't on it, so it didn't appear in the queue. --UU - natter 13:10, Oct 14
|Humour:||7||There are some funny parts. I think it could be better, though.|
|Concept:||9||Well, DUH! Of course we should have an article on Adam and Janice. Uh, Eve.|
|Prose and formatting:||8||Well-written.|
|Miscellaneous:||7||I would like to see this sharpened up.|
|Reviewer:||----OEJ 20:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)|
OK, I feel the shadowy presence of a major problem: The story of Adam and Eve is one of the central myths of Western society. The concept of a fall from grace and innocence and the expulsion from paradise is one of the Big Huge Metaphors of our society. It's everywhere, from Hubert Hemingway to Garrison Keillor.
So, the problem is, the article to hand does not measure up -- it does not take on the job of satirizing such an elephant of a topic. It's like an article on Satan that doesn't refer to evil, Hell, or sin.
Now then...the article does not really have to provide a comprehensive critique of the Problem of Evil, the concept of innocence in a societal context, or the fact that "Eve" spelled backwards is still "Eve". But I think it really should have some meat to it.
The bulk the article is taken up by sections concerned with the hetero- or homosexuality of Adam and Eve. But it really doesn't come to any conclusion -- the article does not compare the two ideas and decide which is right and which is wrong. It never decides that God is gay or not. Furthermore, the bits with Phil Collins and the village of Ventongimps seem just random distractions.
So what I would do is take the article seriously. (I don't mean solemnly -- comedy can be serious, but it can only be solemn if it is an ironic, mocking solemnity. Anyway...)
There is something primal about the loss of innocence: perhaps it is because we all lose our childhood, and mourn for it somewhere inside ourselves. Did Adam and Eve mourn the loss of humanity's childhood? There is something unnaturally vindictive about God's course of action here: of course He already knew that Adam and Eve would sin. And He Himself put the Snake and the apple tree into the garden, and put the capacity for rebellion into Adam and Eve already knowing -- as mentioned -- that they would indeed rebel and sin. So how could He, with a straight face, punish them for what He knew would happen and could easily have prevented? What about the Snake? Was he really trying to help Adam and Eve escape some kind of divine trap set by a vengeful, insane God? Or was he indeed the spirit of evil incarnate, nearly as powerful in his temptation as God Himself?
Which of these ideas can be turned to a satirical advantage?
It's nearly always a good idea to put scenes and dialog into articles like this -- that is, in articles where it's appropriate.
The next morning God got up, yawned, made Himself some coffee, and strolled out into the Garden of Eden to see how things were going. The leaves had wilted. Black toadstools had sprouted in the flowerbeds. A fawn lay on the grass, bloody and dead, its throat torn out. And then God stepped forward and His mighty foot landed right in a pile of steaming dog doo. "DAMN IT!" God bellowed, scuffing His immense sandal on the grass, "Those IDIOTS have eaten from the Tree of Knowledge and now EVERYTHING IS SPOILT!" (I pasted this into the article. Is that OK?) Proxima Centauri 21:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Or whatever. My advice is often the same: give the reader some solid scenes to visualize and your article will be more interesting, more engaging. And I also think that great opportunities for comedy arise from the details themselves: as you work your way into imagining a specific scene little flashes will suggest a funny twist, a quick joke, a juxtaposition of tragical dead fawn with comical dog poop.
If you don't go to the trouble of imagining scenes in detail, you miss a lot of chances. And in such a case the reader is likely to feel that the piece is bland and uninteresting.
So, summing up: Rework the article to explore at least part of the significance of the Garden of Eden myth. Write a few short, specific scenes and snatches of dialog and description to bring the piece to life.
(Incidentally, as a practical matter you may find that just tossing out a few scenes will actually lead you to the significance you are really interested in exploring; it seems that some writers find their subconscious guides them with more accuracy than does logic. For instance, the little scene I wrote above suggests several things: in the scene, God is not omniscient because He can be surprised; and mankind's innocence is lost automatically without God taking any action -- the Garden is already spoiled before God even finds out about Adam's sin. Where did that come from? My subconscious. I don't know why. Anyway...)
So rewrite. Find what the article IS REALLY ABOUT. And then make it coherent, complete, and funny. Good luck with this -- it's a major subject with great possibilities. ----OEJ 22:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)