Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Gravity's Rainbow (second opinion)
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Guildensternenstein 02:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
|Humour:||8||I love the Norm MacDonald-style repetition of the Fuck aspect.
At the risk of over-complaining about a very minor thing (which is my forte), knowing the work as well as I do, I despise the use of the term "pretentious" - it is a throw-away criticism. Even in a satirical analysis.
Suggestion along these lines, if you agree (if you don't, then ignore me): rather than "pretentious people everywhere", something like "emperors with new outfits". It's more subtle and kind of funny. To pretentious elitists like myself.
I find that the smatterings of coloquialism actually detract from the humor. Sort of like my problems with Episcopal Church ("some dude", "something called") - makes me believe and better understand what you said over there. It will be stronger if you strengthen those terms without losing the "unimportant" message: something like "some bits that involve a thinly developed cardboard cutout of a character named Slothrop looking for a poorly described thing called a Schwartzgerat..."
And I'm a fan of the over-emphasized fucking message here, so I'd write "little importance compared to the fucking" instead of "other things...".
Did you try out the humorous practice of repetition in the themes list, by smattering four or five instances of the word "fucking" among them? I think it might work and be very funny, even given the following line.
The Structure section is weird and brilliant - makes me want to go back and re-read the book to see if I'm missing any subtleties there.
I love the character list - funny.
I thought of what might be a funny edit: "Ilse Pökler (or…is it?): Daughter of Franz and Leni. She fucks her dad (or…does she?). Once again, fucked up shit. Or…is it? <spoiler alert>(It is) </spoiler alert>" You see - it's not a spoiler at all, but looks like it is. See.
You seem to be a big fan of the "No one is sure why" joke. As a matter of taste, probly, I find it tedious. Don't kill me because I sort of used it in Episcopal Church. I found it tedious there, too.
nice, funny, clever
|Concept:||6||I'd love to 10 this one, I really would. But I gotta be honest. As an Uncyclopedia Article, its audience is necessarily limited, and as such, its humor is only grasped by cool, smart, elitist snobs like me (and presumably you). So I give it a secret 10, but don't tell Jesus. It's really iffy as a subject here. I would love, for instance, to do an article on Hobo and Avant Garde Composer Harry Partch, but who has heard of him besides me?|
|Prose and formatting:||8||Nice work on the proper English. And I'm a grammar snob. That can't spell very well. It is adequate as an Encyclopedia article, though it could benefit from a little more snazziness. I hate that noise actually - I think humor can stand on its own, but there's this thing they got here called a culture, and sa-da-tay. Outlining in a more pleasing, consistant way and what-have-you. La-di-da.|
|Images:||7||Needs more cowbell. I don't know how you would add more images to this article, maybe that iconic sailor-hat only-existing-photo of Pynchon with a funny caption, (or a rabbit with huge buck teeth?) or something. Could use more color - it is about a rainbow, after all.|
|Miscellaneous:||7.3||Overall very funny, the only issue is its article-ness, an ineffable quality that is like porn or art - I don't know what it is, but I know it when I see it.|
|Final Score:||36.3||I like it. I would love to be a Pynchon new guy reading the book for the first time after seeing this article, and having to snicker every time someone starts fucking. You have done a great disservice to the Pynchon nation, and I commend you for it.|
|Reviewer:||TPLN 01:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)|
That review was magic (and very funny, I must say). Exactly the sort of feedback/criticism I was looking for. I will re-write and submit it fairly soon, if you wouldn't mind giving it a second gander. And don't skimp out on giving me a ten for concept, because the only people who will read this are pretentious elitist like ourselves anyway. *does creepy wink*