Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Episcopal Church
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
TPLN 05:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Got this one. --Mnbvcxz 06:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
|Concept:||3.5||Subject is appropriate. However, the article looks like it co-written by Fred Phelps and George Carlin. It depends too much on attacks and especially gay jokes. As a rule, gay jokes really aren't that funny and there is alot more to the Episcopal Church than the fact that it allows open homosexuals to be priests. I would suggest doing some research to find other humorous things about the Episcopal Church. For example, the high variability of theology in that denomination (not only does it have a liberal and conservative wing, it also has a semi-Catholic and a protestant (often even Calvinistic) wing).
Also, the article has a lot of made up dates and factual errors, which only confuse, or at times annoy the reader. For example, Franklin was a Presbyterian. (However, doctrinally, all three were Unitarians.) And, the presidents were not overwhelmingly Episcopalian in the early years.
The article has a lot of over the top humor that comes of as stupid and not funny. For example,
First off, the "Somethingth" is a good example of a failed joke. It only serves to confuse the reader, and doesn't illicit a chuckle. Also, having Henry VIII be gay is not funny, gay jokes are overused.
Finally, try to keep header quotes and trivia lists (and all lists for that matter) to a minimum. Header quotes tend to accumulate, and I don't like them because I normally advocate a deadpan entry. The header quotes can cause the article to "start off too strong". Generally its best to start off restrained then go more outlandish as the article progresses. Lists tend to accumulate stupid items and get long.
|Prose and Formatting:||6||This does have decent grammar, spelling, read link avoidance, sub-headers et cetera. But there are some formatting errors.
You have several one sentence paragraphs. Try to combine these. If you can't, that if often a sign that you're covering the material too fast in a skeletal form. On a related note, you have alot of short sub-sections too. Likewise, that is also a sign of covering the material too fast.
Add a see also section. This will make your article look longer.
Don't call the trivia section "Fun facts" If you can, move the trivia data into the main article. As a rule, content is funner in paragraph form than in list form.
|Images:||6||You have some good and some bad images. I would keep the first one. The second would be funny in Franklin wasn't a Presbyterian. The third one is just stupid. It might be funny under some circumstances, but only if you can pull off an "ZOMG teh church has ghey priests!" section without coming across as cliche, or worse. The fourth one is also probably not worth keeping. Maybe you could list other, relatively absurd members of the ECUSA list of saints, such as Ignatius of Loyola (rapid Papist, founder of the Jesuits) or Dominic (founder of Dominican order also rapid Papist, involved the genocide that was the Albigensian crusade).|
|Humour:||3.5||Basically, what I said in the concept section. You're article relies too much on the "God hates Fags" phrase. No Christian, outside of the Fred Phelps mini-cult would ever say that phrase. I think you're article unnecessarily "offends" both Christians and gays. (I wouldn't say I'm offended by it, its more along the lines of annoyed.) Also, the article seems to lack any satire, wit, or even more than surface level knowledge of the subject (generally, there are a few times were I can see evidence of some research). Well, to be fair, the Golden Hind thing was funny, but its surrounded by some such outlandishness that the reader doesn't know if it really is true or not.|
|Improvability Score:||5||This might be hard to improve. For one, you'll have to find stuff beyond the fact that the denomination tolerates open homosexuals. Additionally, alot of the content will need to re-worked, changed, or removed. If you can't think of anything else for this article, you might want to work on another one. You could probably make this a better article on the same theme by a tone down, but it still will won't rise beyond mediocrity.|
|Final Score:||24||get rid of teh gheyness (or at least have something beyond teh gheyness)|
|Reviewer:||--Mnbvcxz 07:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)|
Thanks for the input. May I reply? Don't answer that - here is my reply:
Number one, as I think any Uncyclopedian should know, good humor is subjective, but bad humor anyone can spot. That is a logical fallacy, of course, but I digress.
"No Christian, outside of the Fred Phelps mini-cult would ever say that phrase"
-Must I link you to actual real-life photos anti-gay rights rallies? I don't mean just Mr. Phelps, I mean the California Prop 8 people. I know the Phelps people are fringe morons, but they are the most fun to make fun of. And making fun of the fringe morons is a fun thing I call ad absurdum. The point, in case it's lost and I'm being too subtle here, is that people who, for instance, vote to ban gay marriage on religious principles, are, in a satirical ad absurdum way, on the same continuum as Mr. Phelps. You may disagree, but you would be wrong.
"I think you're article unnecessarily "offends" both Christians and gays."
-I will give you $600 for every marginally intelligent homosexual that the article offends. The jokes are not gay jokes. They are jokes directed at homophobes. A subtlety lost in my taking it over the top perhaps? You decide. I think not. If it offends Christians, then my good deed for the day is chalked up
"the article seems to lack any satire"
-I must take excpetion to this. It may not be satire that turns you on or even is any good, but it is certainly satire. I hate to play the "you just don't get it" card, because I hate it when other people do. But, I can't help thinking that's the case, though I'm willing to blame myself if it turns out that my intent was either lost in a difficult juxtaposition of subtly and over-the-top-ness or a miserable failure. Certainly, by any definition of satire, the article is steeped in it. Dictionary.com has 1. the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc. 2. a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule. I shudder to think we need a lesson in what satire is on this site, but if you don't find those things in this article, one of us has problems. It might be me I suppose.
"It depends too much on attacks and especially gay jokes. As a rule, gay jokes really aren't that funny and there is alot more to the Episcopal Church than the fact that it allows open homosexuals to be priests."
-My (possibly) sorry attempt at going over the top with this is a response to those for whom this divisive issue is the only reason they have even heard of the episcopal church, which aren't readers of this web site, I'm sure, but which are people readers of this site should know and despise and love to make fun of. The jokes are not gay jokes. They are jokes directed at homophobes. A subtlety lost in my taking it over the top perhaps? You decide. I think not.
"I would suggest doing some research to find other humorous things about the Episcopal Church."
-This sounds like very good advice, and it sounds like fun. I actually do know more than surface facts about my own former church, but the article is supposed to be taken as written from the bigoted anti-gay moron's perspective. Perhaps this concept is a failed one.
-I read HTBFANJS thoroughly. Can we be specific about instances of shortcomings in this area? Thanks.
"For example, Franklin was a Presbyterian. (However, doctrinally, all three were Unitarians.) And, the presidents were not overwhelmingly Episcopalian in the early years."
-I'll take this one to heart. My intent was exaggeration. One fourth of all presidents have been Episcopalians, so it is "comical" to say they all are. Comical is in quotes on purpose. But it's funnier than Dane Cook's miserable shite.
"First off, the "Somethingth" is a good example of a failed joke."
-Apologies for this. It's not a failed joke, because it wasn't a joke, it was an oversight. I put "Somethingth" in as a place-holder so I could go back and look it up to verify my uncertain belief that it was VIII. I forgot to go back and put the VIII in later. You are right, it isn't funny at all.
"Finally, try to keep header quotes and trivia lists (and all lists for that matter) to a minimum."
-I'm like Sarah Palin. I am a maverick. My motto as an Uncyclopedian will forever be "Lists are funny." A corrolary to this motto is "Lists are funny, you cretans." But you're right about header quotes - I hate it when there are way too many of them. But three isn't too many. Is it?
"You have several one sentence paragraphs. Try to combine these. If you can't, that if often a sign that you're covering the material too fast in a skeletal form. On a related note, you have alot of short sub-sections too. Likewise, that is also a sign of covering the material too fast."
-You're right about that. I'll either "flesh it out" (i.e. eat shit) or combine them.
"Don't call the trivia section "Fun facts""
-You obviously don't like Letterman. Which, man, I'm sorry. Maybe I'm a dweeb, I mean, I do know O'Brien is way better, but you can't think Leno is better. Can you? Fun facts is funnier than Trivia in this context, and context is everything.
"Maybe you could list other, relatively absurd members of the ECUSA list of saints, such as Ignatius of Loyola (rapid Papist, founder of the Jesuits) or Dominic (founder of Dominican order also rapid Papist, involved the genocide that was the Albigensian crusade)."
-Nice. That's good. I like it. Although I think they are "rabid" papists. Rapid papists just get to church earlier.
Thanks for the time and the feedback, I appreciate your input, even if on some details I don't agree. Like I said, good humor is subjective, but bad humor is obvious.
edit Quick Reply
"This sounds like very good advice, and it sounds like fun. I actually do know more than surface facts about my own former church, but the article is supposed to be taken as written from the bigoted anti-gay moron's perspective. Perhaps this concept is a failed one."
- If you write from a perspective, DON'T BREAK THE PERSPECTIVE. If its supposed to from the perspective of a Jerry Falwell type conservative Christian, don't say stuff that is 180 degrees opposite of what they would say. You could still have jabs at religious conservatives, but they have to "underhanded." For example:
"During that time of enlightenment, however, the Episcopal church suffered a steady, slow decline, because it is very difficult to reconcile a pragmatic, truth-based approach to ontology with a belief in dorky fairy tales."
"Other than tolerating hot gay sex, the church maintains a literal interpretation of the Holy Scripture. "
"For the homily, the priest preaches about how wrong every other church in the world is, but how we must accept them and tolerate them, except for Catholics, whom we can deride and scorn at will."
These phrases would never have been said by a Fundamentalist Christian, and ruin the "tone". That is why I said it sounds like it was cowritten by Fred Phelps and George Carlin. If you're going to keep the current format, it would probably either need to be from a consistent fundie Baptist or conservative Roman Catholic church. (You'd need to pick or other perspective).
If it is from a Fundie Baptist perspective, you'll need to add some jabs at the Episcopal church for being too liturgical and too close to the Roman Catholic in doctrine. If its from a Catholic perspective, you'll need the opposite, jabs at the church for being too protestant. I think tone issues are the main cause of the "annoyingness". (I think offensiveness is too strong of a word). If you inject more consistent bias in, I think alot of the issues will go away. --Mnbvcxz 15:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- ↑ By the way, I take especial issue with the notion that the article "unnecessarily" offends Christians. You stated you were not offended, only annoyed. If you are an easily-offended-or-annoyed Christian, then I fear you are in the wrong place. After all, taking offense or getting annoyed is an over-the-top reaction to satire, and deserves itself to be satirized. For instance, put yourself in a Mormon's shoes and check that article. Talk about "unnecessarily" offending. But when is offending necessary? In satire, is it not when people are batshit wacko?
This response is well taken - I fully understand your perspective given this explanation, and it is not an invalid one. However, I still disagree, although not fundamentally, merely as a matter of taste.
In my view, the breaking of the perspective is the core of the humor of the piece - each element you identify above, along with the first photo and the quote section, serve my ironic purpose, and allow the actual author's actual perspective through, largely as a set-up. In fact, I misidentified the perspective. It's ironic. It's actually from the perspective of a liberal Episcopalian half-heartedly posing as several different bigots, from fundie to jesuit, snidely hurling sarcasm and ridicule, at (1) anti-gay bigotry in general, and (2) morons who see nothing but "teh gheyness" of the Episcopal church, taking those moron's bigotry ad absurdum. And if that doesn't work for you, I respect that. But it works for me, and I would certainly contend that it is not an ill fit here.
I do agree that the "I AM GAY" photo needs more work - the caption I have is unfunny and boring. But I also don't like the cliche you propose (I'm not really into any of that ridiculous internet vernacular stuff, and me writing that would merely be more ridicule - ridicule that is not the focus of the piece and that I don't have the space for here). I do like the picture - it has a Norm MacDonald kind of blatant quality. I'll think of a real caption for it. Comedy is hard work.
Do you know that Harriet Tubman is actually on the ECUSA list of saints? Does she simply bore you compared to speedy jesuits? Well, I suppose Harriet Tubman has never been funny, has she, and who am I to try to change that?
Thanks again for your time and input.
Ohhh, and one more thing. "And, the presidents were not overwhelmingly Episcopalian in the early years."
1 George Washington Episcopalian
2 John Adams Congregationalist (raised); Unitarian
3 Thomas Jefferson raised Episcopalian; later no specific denomination held Christian, Deist, Unitarian beliefs
4 James Madison Episcopalian
5 James Monroe Episcopalian
6 John Quincy Adams Unitarian
7 Andrew Jackson Presbyterian
8 Martin Van Buren Dutch Reformed
9 William Henry Harrison Episcopalian
10 John Tyler Episcopalian
11 James Knox Polk Presbyterian; Methodist
12 Zachary Taylor Episcopalian
13 Millard Fillmore Unitarian
14 Franklin Pierce Episcopalian
Overwhelmingly? Well, over half. Which I think is enough to make the exaggeration amusing. To say it isn't funny because not enough of them fit the joke would be like saying Lewis Black's Starbucks routine isn't funny because only a little over half of the street corners actually have Starbucks on them. Black's Starbucks routine may not be funny to you, but it isn't because there aren't enough real world examples to make the extreme exaggeration appropriate.
--TPLN 18:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC), belaboring argument points for almost four decades and counting
edit Brief reply
- For perspective to work, it needs to be fairly blunt and stay in character. Otherwise, the reader will assume its in a generic encyclopedic style. Also, I fail to see how Harriet Tubman is funny. (Is there a reason she shouldn't be on the list of saints?) How, when the Episcopal Church honors a fanatical counter-reformation Roman Catholic, that is funnier. --Mnbvcxz 06:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, maybe I'm a poor communicator. I agreed with your Harriet Tubman assessment already. I allowed as to how she is not funny. I'm going to go take a bath now.
--TPLN 22:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)