Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Biology (3rd review)
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
PEE REVIEW IN PROGRESS
of giving you his opinion and pretending you care.
Well, I'm not a moron. My head is full of all kinds of interesting and useful facts, like "camel spiders can jump six feet in the air" and "if you douche with Pepsi you won't get pregnant." I'll take this one.03:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
|Humour:||7||Well, perhaps the main joke in this article is that it's basically a Rickroll. You say "come here to see this," and then when they get there, it's something else entirely. So, is that a good idea? Well, it's a mixed bag. Some people might think "Oh, I get it, it's a pun, bi < tri, so biology < trilogy, that's funny." Other people might think "Fuck, I wanted to read an article on biology. Fuck this shit."
Siddhartha-wolf suggested moving it to Biology (literature), but of course that screws it up for the first group of people, because, assuming they're reasonably clever, they'll know the joke before they click the link. I don't know. It's a tough call.
Okay, so, section-by-section:
Lede: There are really no jokes to speak of in the lede, except the very mild joke that Tolkien invented the trilogy, which sets up your second overarching joke - that the narrator is kind of a pompous ignoramus. But it establishes the article, it's short enough, it flows... it's fine.
Entomology and background: Confusing the study of insects and the study of the origins of words is... I don't know, kinda throwaway, but further establishes that the narrator is a pompous ignoramus. So, okay. I got a kick out of "Howtraitsarepassedoniology". That was probably the first chuckle I got out of the article. Footnote 3 is also pretty clever.
Theories/sequel: Sort of "funny because it's true," but also sort of "not that funny because it's common knowledge."
Theories/The Two-Parter: Similar.
Notable Biologies: Similar. There's a few good jokes in the Iliad section: calling the Odyssey "Odysseus-intensive" got a chuckle out of me, Homer's commercial success is sort of a cute throwaway joke, and the reference to Heraclitus is pretty funny, although most people aren't going to get it. The Kong and Transformers sections were kind of tedious to me, though. They're sort of "airline food" observational comedy: "What's the deal with Hollywood sequels? They suck!"
The bottom line: this article is kind of a novelty. The joke density is kind of low, and it relies on the pun established in the lede well after its novelty has worn off. Still, it's peppered with witty stuff, and the footnotes in general are all pretty amusing. The Pee Review guidelines say that 7 is "adequate" humor - that sounds about right.
|Concept:||5||Like I said, the concept is going to irritate as many people as it delights, and it runs out of steam pretty fast. I think the idea of "biology" as "a series of two works" would be better as the concept of a paragraph in an article on sequels than as the concept of an entire article.|
|Prose and formatting:||10||Prose and formatting are pretty much perfect; but then, it's a Guildensternenstein article. In other news, pizza is tasty.|
|Images:||6||Three movie posters? Well, they're relevant and they're in the right places. The only caption that even really has a joke in it is The Dark Knight. Honestly, these pictures seem to be here more to decorate the article and make it look "finished" than to add to its humor value.|
|Final Score:||35||And that takes us to 35. 35, meaning: solid article, not rewrite, not VFH, certainly not VFD.
Okay, so, there hasn't been a lot of constructive advice in this review so far other than telling you what I like and what I don't. So, my suggestion is to do one of two things: either 1) silly it up a bit; tell less truth and say a few more absurdities; emphasize the stupidity of the narrator more; or 2) Morph it into an article on sequels, condense the funniest stuff into a section on "biologies," and think of more. Another idea that might just work: play with your own concept some more. Other than a paragraph on Mendel, you've got nothing in here about actual biology - and that, along with the Odyssey stuff, was my favorite part of the article. I mean, maybe you've got biologists in labs writing sequels. I don't know if that could be made particularly funny, but at least that way the concept is working for you throughout the article instead of burning itself out at the onset.
Also, now that I've read quite a bit of your work, I have one other comment: your writing is best when you have obvious affection for your subject matter. I mean, you skewer Tarkovsy and the MGS trilogy pretty mercilessly, but even so, somehow the fact that deep down, you like those things shines through, and those are fantastic fucking articles. They're roasts, really - pull your best friend up on stage and make fun of him all night. But when you're writing on a topic that annoys you - like conspiracy theories about Bush or Hollywood sequels - your writing's still perfectly solid, but just not as hilarious. Maybe something to keep in mind when you're sitting down for your next one.
|Reviewer:||03:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)|