| Property | Value |
|---|
| rdfs:label | - Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/UnBooks:Should dogs be discouraged from raping each other infront of company?
|
| rdfs:comment | - Hoooooyeah! 20:45, July 19, 2011 (UTC)
|
| dcterms:subject | |
| Mcomment | - Just taking the score up a bit, because I like it.
|
| Pcomment | |
| Icomment | - Image of cute puppies are a pretty good way to illustrate this, yes.
|
| Pscore | |
| Ccomment | - It's not really a bad concept. I like articles that start off kind of scholarly or benign and then escalate into something absurd or horrifying. I've written a couple myself.
You've just got to follow the concept a little more closely. First, if you're going to escalate, don't show your whole hand right up front. Give the book a euphemistic title, like "Not in front of the company, Rover!" Don't introduce the word "rape" until the "Reasons for" section - before that, use words like "humping" and "dominance displays." And then slowly work from "Would company be put off by watching a dominance display take place in the living room?" to "Boy, you really shouldn't have bypassed your dog and raped the shit out of your company right on your own carpet."
|
| Cscore | |
| Mscore | |
| Hcomment | - Let's take this section by section.
*Title: It's a little bit long. An UnBook is supposed to be a parody of a book. I can't really imagine going to the bookstore and seeing a book with a title that's a twelve-word question. Can it be shortened?
*Intro: So, you set up this whole thing about couples losing interest in each other and only buying a bunch of dogs and inviting company over because they're so bored with their lives it's all they can do to keep from killing themselves. But then you never come back to it. I'm not sure what the point of having this in the article is, then. I question whether it's really funny to assert that people only have dogs and company because they've been married so long they don't love each other. I did enjoy your use of the verb "dogged."
*First...the answer: I guess the tone change is kind of amusing, from the more formal to the "Yay! Watching dogs rape each other in the ass is good, clean fun!" I just feel like there's a timing problem, here. In theory, it should work well to build to the question, build to the question, and then answer it with a single word. Maybe "No!" would be a better answer than "The answer is clearly negative."
*Reasons for: I got a laugh out of the phrase "raped to smithereens." And I laughed at your highlights, since they were all so unnecessarily graphics. Otherwise, though, this section was exactly what the article had led me to suspect it would be.
*Reasons against: Okay, this is good, but the biggest problem is that you already said this two sections up, when you said "There is no reason to stop them, and since, none of you get hurt...why does it even matter if they are raping each other?" So, the surprise of seeing "none" in the against column is kind of diminished when we've already been told that's the answer.
*Legal problems: This kind of seems tacked on, honestly. The overly explicit "anuses and vaginas" is slightly amusing, but there's only so much mileage you can get out of being unnecessarily explicit.
*Raping the dogs yourself in front of company: Okay, I guess that's good, in that you just definitely kicked up the shock factor another notch. This has gone from borderline innocent to pretty sick, in a hurry.
*Having your dog rape your company: The biggest problem I have with this section is that it's in the wrong order. This should go after "raping the company yourselves," not before it. Having a dog rape your company is an escalation from raping your company, both in terms of absurdity and inappropriateness. You want your article to escalate, not de-escalate.
*Bypassing the dogs and directly raping your company yourselves: I laughed at this. The "grey zone," the use of the word "bypassing," the implication that the dogs were only a rape-intermediary between you and your company - this part is funny.
*Dealing with the aftermath, the next morning: This is okay. I like the joke that the answer to "I have stains on my carpets" is "You shouldn't have done the rape on the carpets." But this does sort of feel like a de-escalation, which I think you should try to avoid.
*Criticism: Quite honestly, this is utterly unnecessary and it just feels tacked on to pad the article. Does the audience *really* need to be told that some publications don't approve of canine rape? I think it's funny enough that this one does - we don't need a reminder that it's not exactly toeing any particular party line.
|
| Iscore | |
| Hscore | |
| Fcomment | - It's not bad, but this is a case of an article that needs a lot of fine tuning before it's ready for feature. But get on that; I think it can be done.
|
| dbkwik:uncyclopedia/property/wikiPageUsesTemplate | |
| Signature | |
| abstract | - Hoooooyeah! 20:45, July 19, 2011 (UTC)
|
