Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/UnBooks:Tropic of Cancer/Second Opinion

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Second Opinion

Baseball16 had a look at this, but I'd like a scond more in depth review possible, thanks--— Sir Sycamore (talk) 10:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

A big mug o' reviewin' strength tea? Why, that must mean this article is being reviewed by: UU - natter (While you're welcome to review it as well, you might like to consider helping someone else instead). (Also, if the review hasn't been finished within 24 hours of this tag appearing, feel free to remove it or clout UU athwart the ear'ole).

I got this. Maybe not right now, but certainly pretty soon. --SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 10:36, Jun 16

OK, by way of a less than promising opening, I should probably mention I have only a passing acquaintanceship with the book itself, so I may miss some of the better references, but I'll do my best.

Humour:	7	This was a difficult one to mark for me, because while I enjoyed reading it, and I had a smile on my face, it's not really a laugh out loud article, it's more of a good read kind of thing. And that's fine by me - I like that sort of thing - but it's tricky to analyse how well it would do on VFH, for instance. However, it's certainly above average, and people acquainted with the book will probably get quite a few laughs from it, while those who don't know it are catered for with the intro to give them some sort of perspective, and there are, I think, enough bits for them to enjoy as well. I like the last paragraph of chapter one, the elevator pizza guy, and the first paragraph of the "amusing incident" section in particular. I'm less taken with the bit about Boris - unless this is a direct reference to the book that fans will find hilarious, it feels like a line or two of filler. Weird. I guess my gut feeling with this is that you could go a bit further - have more fun with the sex - this is a book that was almost banned and labelled as "pornography", so I think you can delve a little deeper there. The almost sociopathic disregard for others is also fun - I think something a little more interesting in the section about Boris might be called for - more casual dismissals of the guy's problems, relevance and intelligence or something. That's not the most focussed advice I've ever given, but I hope it gives you a few ideas to play with.
Concept:	7	Interesting concept, I think. It's certainly a good idea to work on a novel that was somewhat controversial (what did that judge call it? Ah yes, thanks WP - "a cesspool, an open sewer". Great! Plenty of scope for fun with this one. Given that, I was surprised you didn't go further - references to visits with whores and permanent horniness, there's not much actual time spent on sex itself, and as that was a major part of the controversy of the novel, I wonder if there needs to be more reference to it here?
Prose and formatting:	7	Well written, in the main. I had to fight the urge to mark this down for shifts in tense, because to the best of my knowledge that is actually accurate. That may be missed by anyone who doesn't know the book at all, but it's difficult to think of a way to flag up that it's intentional - except to just dismiss the importance of tenses in the same way you're being dismissive of chapter titles, I suppose. Anyway, that aside, there are some typos that I'm not so sure are deliberate (although I guess it could be irony with the mention of being a proof reader!): "he told me that he was so glad to have friend like me" - missing an "a", I think. "I have to gimp past the editorial staff (my Bosses) what my lead rod sticking out, I then proceeded to spend and hour " - would that be "with" and "an"? "Later on I was introduced to my bosses' " - that's a plural, I think you're looking for "boss's" in this instance - unless the guy is the son-in-law of two bosses? "unable to see a nice piece of ass when he saw it" - I think "recognise" works better there, as being unable to see something when you saw it is a bit of an oxymoron. "attempted to "go the wrong way" with slightly precious" - missing an "a" again, I think. "I pocketed the bosses cash though" - same again, that's the plural, "boss's" is the possessive. "even Bill Clinton wants my stuff and that a name you can trust" missing "'s". Oh, and I think "crumby" is usually spelled "crummy". However, it must be pointed out that I'm a picky bastard! Mostly, I felt the prose struck a decent tone, dismissive enough of others and seeming self-absorbed to a decent degree. (And if any of that's intentional, my apologies!)
Images:	7	There's a theme with these scores, isn't there? It's not intentional, I'm rating each section on its own merits, I promise! Anyway, possibly one fewer picture than I'd like to see in an article of this length. The ones you have are consistent with each other, and captioned quite well, but I'm not sure they feel right in the article. Not sure what would go better, mind you. Er, they're not bad, and they don't detract from the article, but neither do they give it much fizz. Seven it is then.
Miscellaneous:	7	Well, I did put it through the pee template, but I think even my maths could have worked that out.
Final Score:	35	OK, I really did enjoy reading this, but as I say, I've no idea how this would play to a wide audience. If you're after VFH, then making things a little more accessible, and explaining a little more about the book would seem to be the way to go - if you feel like you're missing out, you don't vote. However, if you're after writing a good article that the right people will enjoy reading, but may pass others by, I'd say you're not too far off at all. I hope the suggestions I've made above give you a few ideas, and I hope overall this is of some use to you. Also, please bear in mind my average review score is a bit lower than most - and with the amount of reviews I've done, that suggests I tend to be fairly harsh in my marking. So remember: this is only my opinion. and good luck. And thanks for a good read!
Reviewer:	--SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 20:27, Jun 16