User:Shabidoo/happymonkeycompetition/2012/Matt lobster

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Happy Monkey Competition 2012

Pee reviews for: Matt lobster

Article: Meditative drooling

Pee Review from Shabidoo

Creativity: 8/10

Lots and lots of creativity. It was fun reading this article, especially with all those little extra touches that made in funny. Examples of what I liked: the over all ironic tone, the first image, the process section (well done), the sense of elitism and condenscention from meditators to non meditators (or infact anyone at all for that matter).

Places where creativity (a new idea, or a synonym) would help: the power point sentence (consider replacing that with someone less common or less obvious such as a long list of increasingly absurd things like: tired of a day of twelve non-english speaking clients, forgetting to save your document, a broken stapler that tears up your reports, the new intern that seems to like everyone but you, your bosses dog that terrorises the office, that ring tone your neighbour has that makes you want to scream), erection served (it doesn't really fit in with the article as funny as it may be), the ending (what is that whole space ship thing).

Originality: 4/10

While the article is not close to what one would expect when seeing the title, its also not super original. The various ideas (like mentioning badminton etc...) is as original as things can come, the over all concept of the article is not (i.e. that the subject you are treating is stupid and lets find a bunch of different ways to make fun of it).

You could easily infuse a different theme or concept into your article, for instance:

These meditators really believe that drooling is the key to becoming one with the universe and list all of the absurd reasons why they think so and as the narrator become more and more convinced by their flat evidence,

Or the opposite, write it in a way in which salivitating meditators know the whole thing is bunk, but the keep going along with it because its better than nothing, and you as the narrator become more and more disilusioned with the topic.

Or, bash over the readers head again and again that drooling meditation sounds good in principle but the more you try it or explore it the more meaningless and absurd it becomes, and mirror that with your own narrative, which also becomes more and more meaningless and absurd towards the end (which might fit in better with your article, and which I go into more detail in the next section).

Cleverness: 8/10

Your article is short but it has some brilliant moments. In particular: "middle-classness" it was a smart way to add humour to the opening sentence. Its not easy to make people laugh because of an adjective rather than the content of the sentence. The caption of the first image is also very clever and I chuckled. I like how you've used evocative language to make something pretentious seem even more so.

I personally loved the process section. Its most likely the most clever thing in the entire competition. It's unfortunate that it appears merely as bold questions and non bold answers. I really encourage you do add something, anything to the section, even a little image next to each question, even just a big stylized Q and a big stylized A, or a great image to go along with it. I also suggest that you replace bourgois, as you avoid cheesy or cliched words, minus burgois! In any case, well dont on that section, I chuckled or laughed on every line especially with "see through the words".

In the "differences" section, you seem to have two rather different paragraphs that don't seem to really fit well. It's at this point that I had the feeling that you probably didn't have a particular over all plan except to make fun of meditation, make light of how condescending and elitist some new age people can be, and to a lesser extent laugh at drooling. This becomes all the more clear with the badminton section. I find it funny and all, but its also so totally out of place with the rest of the article.

If your intent is to write an article that collapses in on itself, that gets more and more rediculous until nothing makes sense any more, I would suggest that you connect that idea, to the actual topic of the article. Demonstrate in the beginning that mediation is something that in principle makes sense but that in the end becomes meaningless, repeat that through out the rest of the article as much as possible and then in each new section, make less sense and end the article in a total blab of gibberish. If you do so, then mentioning Dawkins opinion on god and cunts would make sense. However, in its current form, while I find it helarious, I ask myself "what is that doing here in this artile"? This is also the case with the following sentences. I like the random ideas and non sensical thoughts. If your intent was to have an article that withers away into absurdity, then I would recommend focusing a lot less on how pretentious and stupid the meditators are (playing a guitar only a couple times, feaux realisation, lava lamps) and make it far more clear that the author of the article thinks meditation is good in principle but meaningless in the long run.

For example: In differences to standard meditation: There may be a difference, such as one involves drooling and others involve not drooling, but since meditation itself is meaningless, one is simply meaningless action and the other is meaningless action with drooling, (and then let the sentence peter off into unrelated absurdity).

In the badminton section: you've actually already done a nice job, but make it clear that there isn't really any evidence that corrolates to anything about meditating badminton players, let alone those who drool.

Content and Images: 7/10

You writing style is good in my opinion and the first image is great. I would recommend finding another image, such as a close up of a badminton birdie, or perhaps just feathers and then put a deep sounding but otherwise meaningless caption behind it.

Points for whatever reason: 10/10

Top points here as you obviousely tried to follow the spirit of the competition and put a fair bit of work into it and you made me laugh.

Final Score: 37/50

Ultimately I thank you writing a cool article and the LOLs that came along with it. I enjoyed the article. It obviously needs a little expansion and I don't think very much needs to be changed, but you would doubtless triple the quality of this article by making your purpose behind writing it and what is it you want to say about meditative drooling more clear, not only in each section, but also the over all message of the article. I look forward to seeing the final version and let me know if you need any clarification or more ideas or more of anything or anything Mattlobster-i-doo!



Score and Comments from Wilytank[edit]


It's a tad too short for my liking. Expand on it, and it will be something great. --Wilytank can be a pain in the ass. 19:41, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

Score and Comments from PopGoesTheWeasel[edit]


Score and Comments from Mattsnow[edit]


Great humor, but it is confusing at times. I'm sure it will be high quality when over (and expanded), since I laughed most of the time. Talk Mattsnow 22:43, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

Score and Comments from Joe9320[edit]


Score and Comments from Chief[edit]


I feel Mattsnow hits the nail on the head here and I would refer you to his comments. I'm also quite lazy. --ChiefjusticePSX 15:52, February 17, 2012 (UTC)

Final Score[edit]