Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Death of the author
Death of the author[edit source]
OK folks, I've been doing the whole "rewriting" thing again. This is a little something I've always wanted to take a little look at, but just couldnt get going on. Now I have got going, I want an opinion on if it's going in the right direction or not. I'm aware it needs more pics, but right now, I just want to know if the approach I've taken, with two versions of the theory both explored, actually works or just feels too artificial. Plus, does the tone feel consistent enough throughout? and, of course, did I remember to include any funny?
In-depth review preferred, PEEING members preferred. Ta! --UU - natter 
12:14, Feb 11
- It's been a while since I've done one. Give me a day. --Hugs and kisses, Black_Flamingo 14:00, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
| Humour: | 8 | Ok I'm here, let's begin shall we. What you've got here is excellent so far and there are really no major changes to be made at all. However, I have identified a few things that might strengthen your overall concept and tone, as well as a couple of other early-draft blues. In this section I will just go through a few jokes that seem to fall a bit flat.
In the opening paragraph you introduce Barthes as "Literary Critic, professional mime, Philosopher and frenchman". The professional mime line is quite random and doesn't really fit with the rest of the humour. It also seems a bit of an old joke on here - just shoving in a random job title at the top. It doesn't hurt the article in any great way, but if you do want to cut it I'm sure you can think of a more relevant silly job like "scourge of writers everywhere" or something. The criticism section, though good, requires a bit of a clean up, specifically where you talk about Barthes doing the "post-post-" thing. Firstly, you might want to start by establishing that Barthes' original idea was just "post-", so the concept of "post-post-" is introduced more smoothly. This will help it come through easier, I feel. You then go on to say that this is "a regular practice in these days". Introducing this in brackets here interrupts the flow too much, and it seems it would be better to bring this comment in as part of a later sentence. You could also go further with it. For instance, what are some examples of this modern-day overcomplication? In the next section, consequences of this theory you make a joke about textspeak saving the world. I think I know what you're getting at (that textspeak isn't real writing?) but this part needs to be clearer. I understand you have written it in a subtle way, but if you could just do it with a little more clarity I think it would really help. For example, instead of "stop people from writing", you could say "stop people from communicating with any sequence of comprehensible words". Finally for Humour, your part on The Silmarillian in the Application section seems a little redundant. The extra stuff on spiders is funny, however this could be easily moved to LOTR, with the narrator perhaps mentioning that there's also a female spider in The Silmarillian. If you do choose to cut this, you might also want to add something in its place. Maybe something between LOTR and Twilight in terms of era. Generally speaking though, humour is not your problem here. This I will now discuss in the following sections. |
| Concept: | 9 | your concept is solid, I love the original take you've got on this. The two theories are imaginitive and well thought out, and are both explored satisfactorily. However, one thing I did find was that the first half of the article (which is about the first theory) and the second (which is about the other) don't segue together too well. Your attempt at this: "however as this theory has been aired, let's take the time at least to examine it in some more detail" sounds a bit forced, especially since your narrator has just announced he is irrfutably right. It's not a huge problem, but so it doesn't sound as if you're contradicting yourself too much, perhaps you could say something like "however, when this clearly-incorrect theory is applied to literary works, some astonishing results can be found" or words to that effect. And then the reader can watch as your narrator becomes progressively more keen on the second theory. |
| Prose and formatting: | 8 | The article has quite a noticeable change in tone halfway through when you introduce the second theory, where it becomes a lot more conversational. This tone works very well in the second half, so if I were to recommed a change it would be to try injecting the first half with the same kind of style. Not a major change, of course, just something to reconcile the two pieces, the first of which is quite encyclopaedic in comparison. Besides that, spelling and grammar and everything all seem perfect. |
| Images: | 5 | Not a lot I can say really. The pics you have so far are great, I just wonder what else you intend to do. It might work well if you continued to have pictures of "text" that became increasingly absurd. You could then perhaps finish on an image of something that the caption claims isn't text (a Twilight novel for instance). Of course, I expect you probably have your own ideas here, and I trust they are good. |
| Miscellaneous: | 7.5 | Averaged here. |
| Final Score: | 37.5 | So as I've said this is another great piece, and one that I personally really enjoyed. The biggest problem is probably the whole separation thing. Even this is not a massive detractor, and it's bound to happen when dealing with two such differing theories, however I trust you can fix this based upon my suggestions or otherwise. Well Captain, I hope the review was helpful and to the standard you expect, but if there are any other questions or something I've missed, feel free to get back to me. |
| Reviewer: | --Hugs and kisses, Black_Flamingo 09:00, February 12, 2010 (UTC) | |