Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/User:Mr-ex777/Mary-sue

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit User:Mr-ex777/Mary-sue

Just finished this article, and see how it is. FcukmanLOOS3R!!! 10:50, August 7, 2011 (UTC)

Can somebody review this!? I want it in mainspace!--FcukmanLOOS3R!!! 07:16, August 12, 2011 (UTC) /

Masaru

PEE REVIEW IN PROGRESS

Hyperbole is engaged in the dual processes
of giving you his opinion and pretending you care.
Humour: 2 I'll take this section by section.
  • Quote: I guess the joke here is that Captain Kirk doesn't really talk like an overexcited fanboy who takes Star Trek too seriously. But I'm not sure that joke is funny. Because - why Captain Kirk? There's nothing Kirk-like about that quote. The only (very tenuous) connection that Kirk even has to the article is that Star Trek is one of the most common universes for fanfic to be written in - although I suspect it's been surpassed by Harry Potter. It might be funnier to attribute the quote to Oscar Wilde for the inside joke. But, frankly, it's not that funny a quote. It's just an impression of a very plausible thing some overexcited fanboy might say.
  • Lede: Well, you're basically describing what Mary-Sue is. I guess the joke is that you're exaggerating - but you're barely exaggerating. Yes, Mary-Sues do violate canon by having sex with Edward Cullen. But what's the joke? Observational comedy has to go beyond just observing something. A statement like "Dogs pee on fire hydrants" is not funny - it's just true. Also, I have a major problem with the last sentence in that I don't understand it. "Without preparation, she can guarantee the writer of the suefic 0.0000000% chance of being famous." Preparation for what? If a Mary-Sue character is prepared for something, can she guarantee her author a chance of being famous? How can a fictional character be prepared? Can any character guarantee its author fame? Why the absurd number of significant digits on the number 0?
  • Origins: As far as I can tell, this is basically all true, which means it isn't a joke. Except the sentence "The suethor was exterminated from the menagerie." I have no idea what that means. What menagerie? The "menagerie" of fanfic writers? As far as I know, no such thing happened, which means this is just an untrue fact. But I fail to see how it's funny.
  • characteristics: Really, Mr-ex, this is just a fairly accurate listing of characteristics of Mary-Sues, with references to pedophilia and bukkake and Sonic the Hedgehog and Star Wars and Pokemon thrown in for no reason. I can't imagine why you're writing the article that way. It's sort of like saying "Alexander Hamilton was a Founding Father of the United States of Bukkake. He was the first secretary of the United States Treasury, and the only one who was not a pedophile. He fought a duel with Aaron Burr using Pokemon. He was killed by Charizzard. The FSM butt-raped him in heaven." See how that isn't funny? It isn't funny because randomly dropping obscene sexual acts and pop culture references into an otherwise accurate text is not joke-telling.
  • Ways to do if you see one: First of all, the phrase "Ways to do if you see one" has no meaning. So, basically, you point out that Mary Sues are essentially invincible - which is true - and that fanfic sites that respect canon will not publish stories featuring them - which is true. And then you drop Chuckie from "Child's Play" into the mix for no reason. I'd say this section suffers from the same problem as the previous one.
  • What to do if you made a suefic: Here, you point out - accurately - that people won't like it and that they'll be mean to you. Again, that's observation, not observational comedy.
Concept: 2 Here's the thing about this article. It's comedic "concept" seems to be: "Truth about something pathetic + Overexcited writing + random references to sex and pop culture = comedy gold."

Sorry, but that doesn't pan out. It's kind of the same concept as saying "Scientologists are WACKY IDIOTS who believe in XENU while they FUCK THEIR MOMS." And that doesn't make me laugh. That makes me think "Well, I kind of agree with the sentiment, but it's very poorly phrased, it's unsubtle, and I don't think any Scientologist is going to find himself skewered by its rapier wit."

The article needs a better concept. Here's a few that might work:

  1. You could literally write the article about a character called "Mary Sue" - essentially making the article itself a Mary Sue fanfic.
  2. You could cast Mary Sue in another role, like write the article about a secretary or a nurse called Mary Sue, and then escalate the number of nearly-supernaturally-perfect attributes she professes.
  3. You could use deadpan humor to write a subtle but sarcastic defense of Mary Sue fanfic, explaining why characters shouldn't have flaws and then explaining that many of America's favorite literary characters (for example, "such as Willy Loman and Jesus") were Mary Sues.
Prose and formatting: 2 The number of usage errors in this piece is just unacceptable. Let's just look at the second sentence of this thing:

"It is basically your everyday fanfic character, but [missing pronoun] is extremely powerful that they can destroy the FSM in seconds, and all the characters love her to death, and those who did not love her are treated as evil-doers."

See the bold text? Mary Sue is, in one sentence, a genderless singular, a genderless plural, and a female singular - and there's also a pronoun missing.

On top of that, you're using the word "extremely" instead of "so" for some reason, you're switching tenses in the middle ("can destroy" versus "did"), and you have a sort of ridiculous run-on sentence that should be two sentences if not three.

These kinds of problems continue throughout the article. There are mistakes a simple spell check would fix. "adolcent"? Surely you should be able to just glance at that and see that's not how you spell "adolescent."

Basically, there are comma splices, misspellings, usage errors, tense disagreements, pronoun disagreements, run-on sentences, capitalization misuse, and every other species of error I can think of, scattered liberally through this. I suspect 75% of these could be avoided if you'd simply be more careful when you write and make sure to read your sentences back to yourself in your head.

Images: 2 I have no idea why the main picture is a Sonic the Hedgehog character. None at all.

But that's not why I'm giving you a 2. The 2 is for the giant "how to tell if your character is a Mary Sue" picture, which is funny - funnier than the article, actually - but unoriginal.

And being plopped down at such a massive size, so prominently right in the article, just feels like rank plagiarism. The author isn't being credited! You're not making a joke by including that picture, but basically just stealing someone else's joke and passing it off as part of your joke. That's not cool, man.

Miscellaneous: 2 Two seems to be the general theme here.
Final Score: 10 Hate to tell you, but this isn't nearly ready for mainspace. It doesn't have a comedic concept - all it tells me is that you know what a Mary Sue is and that you watch a lot of cartoons. You're going to have to take this one back to the drawing board, come up with a satirical concept, replace virtually every word in the article, and make sure all the content you use is your own, this time.

Good luck!

Reviewer: Tinymasaru.gifpillow talk 06:22, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects