Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Autoharp

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit Autoharp

It's obviously not finished, but I'm stuck on where to go on this. Suggestions please. --Narf, the Wonder Puppy/I support Global Warming and I'm 100% proud of it! 01:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

  • You're right, it's not finished. I can think of several things you can do.
  • Describe the invention of the autoharp in detail. This might involve a prototype that could be the size of a Swiss chalet, or 3 centimeters long with only one string, or made entirely of pudding-pops. Whatever nonsense you choose, add enough rationale and detail to make it just barely plausible. Don't duck the identity of the inventor -- if you want a controversy, describe both inventors in thumbnail biographies. (If you invent them from scratch it's a good opportunity to practice making up funny names, odd occupations or academic degrees, and peculiar biographical incidents. If you want foreign-sounding names but you don't know any, look up a list of, say, German baby names, or go to Babelfish and get an English phrase like "sausage lips" translated to German.)
  • Describe a few famous autoharps. Iggy Pop had one made into a coffee table. Or Lawrence Welk had one with an automatic strummer that only played polka rhythms. Zorro had an autoharp which, when a C# minor chord was played, snapped out a spring-loaded sword blade hidden in the box. Winston Churchill sent Hitler an autoharp labeled "Zu meinem guten großen Freund, mit Küssen" which had bomb concealed inside it, but the assassination plot was foiled when a German mail inspector named Heinrich Dummegans tried to play Schon ist die Welt and blew himself up.

Etc, etc. You see how it is done in theory: you create a plausible heading (Famous Autoharps, Styles of Play, Construction Details) and then make up stuff that would fit under the heading. BUT! Once you have an incident or a description or a person that you are going to use, make sure you develop the details. Often authors stick a lot of made-up stuff into a piece, rapid-fire, and it ends up just reading like a random list of stuff somebody made up.

Which, of course, is just what it is.

The way to avoid getting your writing tagged "randumb" is to develop the details having to do with the stuff you put in. Make the characters seem like they belong in the piece. Make the construction details seem plausible, if only just barely. Try to arrive at a kind of sense of logic that will hold the piece together -- I mean an interior logic, where the invention of the autoharp seems logically consistent with the section on construction details, and the section on players is consistent with, say, a section on Famous Autoharp Hits. (If you were to include people like June Carter and John Sebastian in the players section and then list songs like "Angel of Death" by Slayer in the Famous Autoharp Hits section then the piece would be inconsistent. It would start to seem random to some readers. Mind you, you don't have to be factual to be consistent! You could say that June Carter used the autoharp to great effect in her famous rendition of "I Gave My Sweetheart A Bluebell And A Black Eye" or something.)

Anyway.

  • Step 1: Decide what sections you would like to add.
  • Step 2: Develop material that logically belongs in the sections.
  • Step 3: Rewrite, rewrite, rewrite for prose flow, logical consistency, and joke density.

Good luck!

----OEJ 03:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That seems pretty comprehensive from OEJ, but I'll add a review. This may not be pretty, you have been warned!

Humour: 2 I see you're trying some repetition there with June Carter Cash in the opening, and it's good that you didn't just make that a list. However, there aren't really any jokes in here, that I could find. Sorry.
Concept: 5 Average concept. It's a musical instrument. There is always comedy mileage to be wrung from musical instruments, if you go about it the right way.
Prose and formatting: 2 Honestly, there's little to it. It needs more content. And if you do work on it and expand it, you may want to pop a proofread tag on it so one of the Comma Patrol can nip through and tidy up the spelling etc.
Images: 0 No images
Miscellaneous: 0 Nothing else that improves this
Final Score: 9 OK, it's a low score, but don't be disheartened! If you really want to contribute properly to Uncyc, there is hope! Essentially, there are 3 ways this can go:
  1. You work hard on it, read HTBFANJS, make improvements (OEJ's suggestions above would be an excellent start, and you can ask writers you consider funny for help - hell, they may even respond!) and it becomes a funny page that's good to read. This is obviously what we hope for with all pages
  2. You remain stuck, and slap a re-write tag on it, someone else comes in, picks it up, nurtures it, helps it grow, and you return to it one day in open mouthed wonder and laugh at the comedy flower your stubby seedling has become
  3. You do nothing to the article

Final thought: don't take this as a personal attack, it's not meant as one, make this a good article and I'll be more than happy to come back and give it a glowing review. Good luck!

Reviewer: --Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 13:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects