Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Lucyfer's Friend

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Replaced page with '{{Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Menu}} ===Lucyfer's friend=== Who wants to read it? It's better improved! Category:Pee Review')
(Undid revision 5003881 by 69.244.148.9 (talk))
 
Line 2: Line 2:
   
 
===[[Lucyfer's friend]]===
 
===[[Lucyfer's friend]]===
Who wants to read it? It's better improved!
+
<!-- ^ No need to change the above line unless it looks terribly wrong when you save.
  +
Put comments, requests, etc below this line - or even delete this whole part. -->
  +
  +
I'll get to this sometime today. {{User:TheHumbucker/sig}} 17:20, March 6, 2011 (UTC)
  +
  +
[[Special:Contributions/69.244.148.9|69.244.148.9]] 22:03, March 5, 2011 (UTC)
  +
  +
{{Pee Review Table
  +
|Hscore=2
  +
|Hcomment=Alright, let's get to it. First off, I'm going to pretend that this is about the band [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifers_Friend Lucifer's Friend] and is not a vanity article about [[User:Lucyfer_%26_his_friend,_Wlado!|Lucyfer & his Friend, Wlado!]]. Vanity articles are articles written by someone, about that same someone and are shunned everywhere except Peru.
  +
  +
Humor. I'm giving it a 2 because there's very little ''concept'' in the article. Concept is what the article is really about; it's the thought that goes into the article; it's what you're ''really'' saying about it. ''It's the article's satirical force.'' Something with a good concept is Jonathan Swift's famous essay [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal ''A Modest Proposal''] (read it, it's only like 3 pages). There, Swift is being satirical of 17th century England's treatment of Ireland by saying the English should buy and eat Irish children to keep poverty levels down and prevent further starvation caused by overpopulation. This article that you've written doesn't have a concept, it doesn't have that basic idea that ''drives'' it, and as a result, there isn't much humor. While it is possible to have humor without a concept (an article currently up for Highlight, [[Xenopubes]], is coming to mind) it's incredibly rare for there to be humor where there is no concept.
  +
|Cscore=1
  +
|Ccomment=So about that concept. You're writing an article about the band Lucyfer's Friend, which is this pair of guys who basically have a musical career that parallels the 70s band from Germany Lucifer's Friend. They meet, they name themselves, they suck at playing, they change names, they get a label, they still suck, they disappear, the world rejoices. All well and good, but so what? What am I supposed to get out of this, as a reader? What are you saying about Lucyfer's Friend that's funny? ''What's the concept?''
  +
  +
These are questions that, to write good comedy, you have to ask yourself constantly, and answer effectively. You need that ''big idea'' that you're going to base whatever you're writing on, and it needs to be a good one, or it'll come out, at best, absurd, at worst, like shit. I've been writing comedy for about 5 years now, and one of my main rules is to ask ''What am I saying?'' at least 10 times while I'm writing. And 10 times before I write. And 10 times after I write. Yes, I take comedy writing seriously. That's why people tell me that I'm good at it and why they tend to read what I write and like it. For this article, you need to ask "Why am I saying <nowiki>[insert whatever here]</nowiki>?" And the answer "Because it's funny" doesn't cut it. Identify ''why'' it's funny. Example: Why are mashed potatoes and oatmeal funny? Because you can plaster walls with them. By simply asking "Why?" you not only have a concept but also places to take an article on mashed potatoes and oatmeal. Asking "Why?" and then answering it sounds like work because you have to think about it for a bit. But trust me, it develops your writing and makes it better; by thinking about why something is funny, you identify ideas that you can write about, that you can make fucking hilarious, that you can make a point about, through comedy. You can also identify the ideas that you can't make good, and then you throw those away.
  +
  +
That's the concept of ''concept.'' Now let's use the concept on something practical for practice, like this article that you wrote and now I'm reviewing.
  +
  +
Why is this article funny?
  +
  +
Here's where you answer. Do it. Seriously.
  +
  +
Why is the character Wlado funny?
  +
  +
Again.
  +
  +
Why am I paying so much attention on the name of the band?
  +
  +
You get the idea.
  +
  +
That's 3. Now, I rarely make it to my quota of 30, but I find that, in general, the more times I ask and answer those questions - the closer to 30 I get - the better my article/sketch/story/stand-up routine comes out and the more people like it. These are the questions you want to be asking yourself ''before'' you put the writing out to the world. If you get stuck with the questions, you ask someone to review it, and if they're good they'll give you more, like Why didn't you write about the actual band Lucifer's Friend? Why didn't you delve into the influence that this band had on others? Why did you make that jump in the last section to gay pornography? Etc.
  +
  +
And then you answer those.
  +
  +
  +
|Pscore=3
  +
|Pcomment=Quotes: Small font made it hard to read, and there didn't seem to be much of a purpose to them. And why another Oscar Wilde quote? (Yes, you will hate the word "why." It's natural.) Also, there were lots of typos/misspellings. And the prose tends to be stilted.
  +
  +
These things all tell me that the article was thrown together and that either the writer didn't have the time or didn't care enough to make it worth reading. Why (sorry) should I read an article that makes me think that?
  +
  +
Make sure the paragraphs flow from one to the next, or add section tags if you're going to jump to another topic. Look at other articles for ways to make quotes not jump out or fall flat - if you don't notice formatting, it's a good format. Look at Wikipedia - being neutral is their freaking job - for how to make things not stick out. Also, the last section breaks the 4th wall by directly addressing the reader ("So you want to know...") This is a very tricky element of comedy to pull off, especially in written comedy, and is more of a distraction than anything.
  +
|Iscore=2
  +
|Icomment=Just a quick MS Paint job done over Lucifer's Friend's first album. It's just like the prose section: Why should I read something that's been so quickly put together? Comedy takes effort, and this doesn't show it.
  +
|Mscore=2
  +
|Mcomment=Average score.
  +
|Fcomment=It's great to see that you want to write. That's half the deal right there. But like anything else that's worth doing, writing comedy takes effort to do well. The fact that you took this article to Pee Review after getting an ICU put on it tells me that you're not willing to give up, which is a good thing, too, and I give you credit for that. I hope that this review doesn't demoralize you from contributing in the future, gives you some pointers for future articles, and makes you want to get better, because, being a fan myself, I'd love to see some more articles about prog. metal on the site. If you ever make an account, look me up and I'd be happy to collaborate.
  +
|Signature={{User:TheHumbucker/sig}} 22:09, March 6, 2011 (UTC)
  +
}}
   
 
[[Category:Pee Review]]
 
[[Category:Pee Review]]

Latest revision as of 21:45, March 7, 2011

FAQ

edit Lucyfer's friend

I'll get to this sometime today. ~ Humbuck Talk 17:20, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

69.244.148.9 22:03, March 5, 2011 (UTC)

Humour: 2 Alright, let's get to it. First off, I'm going to pretend that this is about the band Lucifer's Friend and is not a vanity article about Lucyfer & his Friend, Wlado!. Vanity articles are articles written by someone, about that same someone and are shunned everywhere except Peru.

Humor. I'm giving it a 2 because there's very little concept in the article. Concept is what the article is really about; it's the thought that goes into the article; it's what you're really saying about it. It's the article's satirical force. Something with a good concept is Jonathan Swift's famous essay A Modest Proposal (read it, it's only like 3 pages). There, Swift is being satirical of 17th century England's treatment of Ireland by saying the English should buy and eat Irish children to keep poverty levels down and prevent further starvation caused by overpopulation. This article that you've written doesn't have a concept, it doesn't have that basic idea that drives it, and as a result, there isn't much humor. While it is possible to have humor without a concept (an article currently up for Highlight, Xenopubes, is coming to mind) it's incredibly rare for there to be humor where there is no concept.

Concept: 1 So about that concept. You're writing an article about the band Lucyfer's Friend, which is this pair of guys who basically have a musical career that parallels the 70s band from Germany Lucifer's Friend. They meet, they name themselves, they suck at playing, they change names, they get a label, they still suck, they disappear, the world rejoices. All well and good, but so what? What am I supposed to get out of this, as a reader? What are you saying about Lucyfer's Friend that's funny? What's the concept?

These are questions that, to write good comedy, you have to ask yourself constantly, and answer effectively. You need that big idea that you're going to base whatever you're writing on, and it needs to be a good one, or it'll come out, at best, absurd, at worst, like shit. I've been writing comedy for about 5 years now, and one of my main rules is to ask What am I saying? at least 10 times while I'm writing. And 10 times before I write. And 10 times after I write. Yes, I take comedy writing seriously. That's why people tell me that I'm good at it and why they tend to read what I write and like it. For this article, you need to ask "Why am I saying [insert whatever here]?" And the answer "Because it's funny" doesn't cut it. Identify why it's funny. Example: Why are mashed potatoes and oatmeal funny? Because you can plaster walls with them. By simply asking "Why?" you not only have a concept but also places to take an article on mashed potatoes and oatmeal. Asking "Why?" and then answering it sounds like work because you have to think about it for a bit. But trust me, it develops your writing and makes it better; by thinking about why something is funny, you identify ideas that you can write about, that you can make fucking hilarious, that you can make a point about, through comedy. You can also identify the ideas that you can't make good, and then you throw those away.

That's the concept of concept. Now let's use the concept on something practical for practice, like this article that you wrote and now I'm reviewing.

Why is this article funny?

Here's where you answer. Do it. Seriously.

Why is the character Wlado funny?

Again.

Why am I paying so much attention on the name of the band?

You get the idea.

That's 3. Now, I rarely make it to my quota of 30, but I find that, in general, the more times I ask and answer those questions - the closer to 30 I get - the better my article/sketch/story/stand-up routine comes out and the more people like it. These are the questions you want to be asking yourself before you put the writing out to the world. If you get stuck with the questions, you ask someone to review it, and if they're good they'll give you more, like Why didn't you write about the actual band Lucifer's Friend? Why didn't you delve into the influence that this band had on others? Why did you make that jump in the last section to gay pornography? Etc.

And then you answer those.

Prose and formatting: 3 Quotes: Small font made it hard to read, and there didn't seem to be much of a purpose to them. And why another Oscar Wilde quote? (Yes, you will hate the word "why." It's natural.) Also, there were lots of typos/misspellings. And the prose tends to be stilted.

These things all tell me that the article was thrown together and that either the writer didn't have the time or didn't care enough to make it worth reading. Why (sorry) should I read an article that makes me think that?

Make sure the paragraphs flow from one to the next, or add section tags if you're going to jump to another topic. Look at other articles for ways to make quotes not jump out or fall flat - if you don't notice formatting, it's a good format. Look at Wikipedia - being neutral is their freaking job - for how to make things not stick out. Also, the last section breaks the 4th wall by directly addressing the reader ("So you want to know...") This is a very tricky element of comedy to pull off, especially in written comedy, and is more of a distraction than anything.

Images: 2 Just a quick MS Paint job done over Lucifer's Friend's first album. It's just like the prose section: Why should I read something that's been so quickly put together? Comedy takes effort, and this doesn't show it.
Miscellaneous: 2 Average score.
Final Score: 10 It's great to see that you want to write. That's half the deal right there. But like anything else that's worth doing, writing comedy takes effort to do well. The fact that you took this article to Pee Review after getting an ICU put on it tells me that you're not willing to give up, which is a good thing, too, and I give you credit for that. I hope that this review doesn't demoralize you from contributing in the future, gives you some pointers for future articles, and makes you want to get better, because, being a fan myself, I'd love to see some more articles about prog. metal on the site. If you ever make an account, look me up and I'd be happy to collaborate.
Reviewer: Humbuck Talk 22:09, March 6, 2011 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects