Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/UnBooks:Jacques Attali's guide to predicting your future (Quick)
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Been taking my time to perfect the article... is this ready for a feature?12:49, June 9, 2011 (UTC)
|Humour:||7||Hello Sycamore. Parts of what you have here are a really good article, but in my opinion there are one or two things you might want to take another look at before you nominate it for VFH. The humour seems to be little more than just the occasional break in tone to call Attali a twat or insult some modern pop group. This isn't bad or anything, but I feel there could be more. I don’t really have much else to say here, and identical issues will be discussed in the other sections of this review, so let’s move on.|
|Concept:||6||My major problem with the article is probably that, on the first read through at least, I really struggled to understand it. I was continually having to go back and re-read things to make sense of them. A recurring thought I had throughout was "what the hell is he talking about?" In the Thirty Two Stages section, for instance, you say the pattern is becoming more complex - what pattern? Then you say he only listens to "the simple beats of dribbling a basketball Never Tear us Apart by Tears for Fears." This really confused me. Is he listening to both the ball being dribbled and the song? I strive to find meaning but I can't. Vagueness is a big problem - you say by looking at contemporary music we may assume we'll all be living in a hippy commune. But why exactly? What makes the author think this? It's far from obvious. Another example is the joke about the other book being amended by a cynical ghost writer. I'll be honest, I'm not too sure why this is supposed to be funny. I can't infer from this what the cynical ghost writer did with Attali's text.
Having said that, on the second read through I enjoyed it a hell of a lot more, because I had a better idea of what was going on. The problem is, you're not going to guarantee two whole read-throughs from the majority of readers. In my opinion, you should perhaps try to simplify the language of the introduction and the footnotes; make them more encyclopaedic and neutral to contrast with the near-nonsense of Attali's style in the sample chapters, and highlight how funny the confounding text actually is. That reminds me, are these sample chapters? There's nothing in there to actually suggest they are. Perhaps titling them "chapter 1: The Thirty Two Stages..." etc would help matters, and demonstrate that you're now moving from the "blurb" to the text itself. I would recommend you use the traditional == headings as well, as it will make it look a bit prettier; right now it just looks like a loads of blocks of text and it's quite overwhelming (especially considering the content). I definitely wouldn’t want you do “dumb down” but if you do a better job of establishing the concept clearly at the beginning (ie. the book, its author, its purpose) then the stupider readers like myself will feel a lot more welcome in its presence. The book itself can be as confusing, intellectual and even as nonsensical as you want, so long as the commentary is reader-friendly. In my view, this would be funnier too, because it will highlight precisely what’s funny about the book.
|Prose and formatting:||6||The first couple of lines seem to stagger slightly before the article properly begins. I had to go back and study the opening sentences to make any sense out of them. Things are worded in an overly confusing way, such as where you say the previous book "paled on comparison to this work". Perhaps I'm missing something, but should that not be "pales in comparison"? Then you say "its contents allows", which is a plural noun and singular verb, and therefore confusing. Also, the whole opening sentence reads like it's beginning mid-flow, as if there should be something else before it. Starting with a comparison isn't necessarily a bad thing to do, but it's certainly a strange way of doing things, and it managed to confuse me. Perhaps the whole thing would flow better if you started by introducing the book in the typical encyclopaedic way, ie. "Jacques Attali's guide to predicting your future is a book that uses the science of economics and of experimental writing to tell the future". Then you can go on to talk about Noise.
Another line that is horrendously difficult to follow is this one: "While other, better, philosophers sold out for money while keeping their principles safe so scheming Jew Attali follow the same course". I would say at the very least it could use a comma after "safe", but ultimately the whole thing could do with revising. The way you say "while" suggests Attali isn't going to follow suit, but the end of the sentence reveals he does. The phrase "so scheming Jew Attali follow the same course" doesn't make much sense either.
Another confusing part is in the Thirty Two Stages section, where it suddenly becomes third person: “Atalli was torn...” Is this not an extract from the book? My understanding was that it was.
Throughout the text there are quite a few spelling and grammar errors. I will take a look at some now, but I would definitely recommend you give it a very thorough proofread before you declare yourself finished.
|Images:||9||The images are all good, but could probably stand to be a bit bigger. They’re all nice to look at, so I would like to be able to do so without squinting or enlarging them.|
|Miscellaneous:||7||I find the music of Kate Bush is good... Not for predicting your future, just in general.|
|Final Score:||35||So overall, a very intelligent and original piece that might just need a better frame around it and a bit of a grammatical clean-up to make it great. If there's anything I've said here that you want me to explain better, or if you want my opinion on anything I might have missed, or even if you're just lonely, please let me know on my talky page and I'll try to help. Keep up the good work and I hope the review is ok.|
|Reviewer:||--Black Flamingo 15:49, July 16, 2011 (UTC)|