Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Why?:Did I just read Twilight?

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit Why?:Did I just read Twilight?

I just came up with it off the top of my head. No planning, nothing just straight out simple. --Icons-flag-pi Pirate Lord__Sonic80 (Yell  •  Latest literary excretion) __ 21:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't done a review for a while...give me a little time, I'll have yours done. BlueYonder GalaxyIcon - CONTACT
Humour: 3 Nnngh…no point in false compliments, mate-I don’t like it, I’m afraid. I mean, really, man, gay jokes? Come on you must know better than that. You read “How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid”? If you have, you’ll know that, at one point, there were more hits for the word ‘gay’ on Uncyclopedia than for the word ‘the’. Simply going on about how flamingly homosexual someone is for an entire paragraph and calling it funny can often come across as-well, to put it bluntly, pretty stupid. I mean, how many times have you used the phrase ‘gay vampire’ in a single paragraph? Count ‘em. It’s not funny, mate.

That was what jumped out at me most strongly, but as to the rest of it…well, there’s not much else to say there, because there doesn’t seem to be very much else of much substance. There’s virtually no allusion to any of the series’ actual content, which frankly is the article’s greatest weakness. All there seems to be is some talk of how you feel you wasted a week of your life by reading the thing and then talking about…killing Meyer for a week? There’s very little true humour in what you’ve written about that, and all in all it seems very random and disconnected from the subject matter (I’ll go more into that in the concept section). Overall, I’m afraid I can’t say I’m very impressed with the humour value of the article; I think a lot of this problem lies in the concept (I’ll go into that in the appropriate section, as I don’t want to overlap).

Concept: 3.5 As I think I said, the article’s main weakness lies in its concept-primarily in the fact that the article seems to relate very little, if at all, to the actual content of the book. The only mention made of any of the characters is that one of them is ‘gay’, an old joke which, as I said, you stretch out over a paragraph. The main reason that this is so very disappointing is that there is so much that could be said about the book in relation to its content-the shallowness of the main character, the unrealistic nature of the main romantic relationship-it seems like you’ve chucked all that potential out the window and replaced in with some worn-out gay jokes and some seemingly very random talk about how you regret reading the thing for a week.

Speaking of which, here's my comment as to the rest of the concept: I actually think it might have worked if it had been done properly and been coupled with relation to the book's content. That talk of killing Stephenie Meyer for a week, for instance: on its own, it's very random and rather bland, but it could have easily been related to the vampire theme of the books and made appropriate. Given that the article acknowledge's the book's vampire theme, I'm frankly quite surprised you didn't think of it yourself. More or less the same goes for all that talk about reading the book for a week: as it is, it's blandly put forward, out of place, and really doesn't elicit many laughs; however, it could have worked great if done right. You could have, for instance, talked about how this week-long in activity affected your relationship with other people, and related that to the unrealistic nature of realtionships in the book. Or you could have talked about the effect it had on your physical being and related that to the part in the book were Bella gets turned into a vampire. Or you could have talked about the effect it had on your personality and related it to the cardboard personality of the books' main character. See, there's so much potential here that you've just skivved over, apparently without noticing it at all. It's very dissapointing.

Prose and formatting: 6 Hmm...not too bad here, I suppose, though far from flawless. There's a few grammatical errors that, while small, are easily avoidable and, when present, do affect the reading quality of the article. Some examples are 'New moon' (it should be 'New Moon'), 'who is only with' (missing a word), etc. As to prose, the article actually has a nicely casual, informal, personal tone that actually might have worked well with better content. And I can't find any formatting complaints. Shows that this article had some dissapointingly squandered potential.
Images: 3 Rather mediocre here, too, I’m afraid; I really think you could have done something a bit more interesting than simply pasting in unedited, Twilight-related images; even a bit of basic Photoshopping could have resulted in some really funny images if you’d had the right ideas-I’m thinking a parody of one or more of the book’s front covers could have worked wonders. Or even without the Photoshopping, some properly thought-out subtitles for the current images (rather than ones simply taken directly from the article’s content) could have done just as well. Sorry, but I’ve gotta say I’m also disappointed here.
Miscellaneous: 3.9 Averaged, as always.
Final Score: 19.4 All in all, I’m afraid I can’t say I’m very impressed-this article seems to be wasted potential and rather poor quality. Don’t see me as harsh-just doing my job. You'll have to boost up your effort-'off the top of my head' articles rarely come out good, to be honest.
Reviewer: BlueYonder GalaxyIcon - CONTACT
Personal tools