Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Atlas Shrugged

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit Atlas Shrugged

Clemens177 01:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Dibs   Le Cejak <5:29 May 27, 2009>
Atlas Shrugged
is being reviewed by
Your Source for Fine Scented Pee
And Whatever Else Comes Out Of Him
Humour: 7.4 avg of all sections
  • Introduction (5/10): Well, I'm not a fan of quotes and there were a lot of them. Bear in mind that I got my degree in philosophy and I didn't want to read this trash, so you have to really spell out what the book is about right off the bat. Make us aware that it's a right-wing libertarian manifesto written by a manish woman who is very similar to a robot. Not a bad intro, though.
  • 1 Name of Book (9/10): Funny and clever as hell. Maybe a little too clever? Plus I think you should put a hyphen between "Atlas" and "like". Meh, funny.
  • 2 Author (8/10): That was awesome. It's hard to be funny about Ayn, but you did it. What's more, it was informative and encyclopedic- sort of... It wasn't bust-my-gut funny, so 8 I guess.
  • 3 Time Out from standard Rand bashing and 4 Jumping back into standard Rand bashing (8/10): I really like articles that actually give me information! We see so little of that, and in fact, I have a really hard time writing about stuff that's real. Take a look at my article on otters, for god's sakes: I can't even have a single real fact in my articles or they fall apart comically. This is great stuff.
  • 5 Type of Book (8/10): I love your snarky attitude.
  • 6 Cast (7/10): The voice was good, but some of the sections weren't that interesting. I'm beginning to see a John Galt fetish? You should've explained whateveritis you're doing in the intro, because I haven't read the, uh, book thingy.
  • 7 Reviews (7/10): Very good and informative without being boring.
Concept: 8 I'm quite jealous of this article, and if it were up to me it would go on VFH pretty quick. There are some conceptual drawbacks, though. Explain John Galt, please. I don't know why you're referencing the other article so god damned much, but it's annoying and I feel stupid for not knowing what's going on. Explain a lot more, and keep the snarkiness and sarcasm. For example, what's an objectivist really? You see, I didn't study any philosophy after the early 19th century and whenever people start talking about political philosophy, I just start yawning and saying "you guys haven't read any real shit have you?"

The voice is the most important part of this, but try your damndest to not insult the reader. This is really tricky, which is why I'm not giving you a 9 here.

Prose and formatting: 8 Well, -1 for the quotes at the top, and -1 for all the weird hanging sentences. You have a sentence

and then you have another

and then, hey, that's not good formatting!

Images: 7 two pictures, reasonably amusing (if you would please explain John Galt).
Miscellaneous: 7.6 avg'd via {{Pee}}
Final Score: 38 I learned a lot reading this article, and I giggled too. I would flesh this out, and give examples of what Ayn wanted us to do with our lives. Is it true she wanted us to just be sociopaths? What would her economics look like?

Final note: that stephen hawking thing was a great counterpoint. I loved this article, deep in my intellectual thinking muscle.

Reviewer:   Le Cejak <6:01 May 27, 2009>
Personal tools