Talk:Classical Satire

The dicussion page is now open.

Discuss. -- Style  Guide 12:13, December 13, 2009 (UTC)

Modusoperandi's pointing to the pee review of the article certainly caught my eye, and kept it for later. The astonishingly satirical pee almost moved me to tears when it appeared, and it did it again now when I re-read it. I can only hope I won't make the mistake of having another look at the said review - I would probably collapse into a weeping, snivelling wreck (is there a double- or triple-l in the word "sniveling"?), embarrassing myself in front of my co-workers here at the Satire Factory of Slightly Older Zealand, Norstrilia. Oh Lard, give me strength. -- Style  Guide 12:18, December 13, 2009 (UTC)

RomArtus is indeed correct about the article trying to cover too much - for instance, the first "historical perspective" tries to cover everything from the Stone Age to the Steam Age, and neither is even mentioned in it. Then the second "historical perspective" mentions Stone Age, but fails to mention the Classical era. Not to mention the Steam Age. This indeed hinders the flow to a disturbing degree. I personally hate any mention of Allen Jones, by the way. If that doesn't stop the flow altogether, I'm the pharaoh's cat - the one that caught the mouse in pharaoh's pants and ate all the butter in the pyramid. Otherwise - depending on what RomArtus means by "covering too much" - there really isn't much to cover. And even that is up to interpretation. -- Style  Guide 19:06, December 13, 2009 (UTC)

This discussion page appears to be part two of your article (see above). I personally think you have unnecessarily clogged up the article with random flights of fancy which don't add to the overall comic intent of the story. I think you are make it a harder read by doing this. It is a shame because I can see you are a good writer and that I am a reluctant against for this one. Throwing too much into an article is what I am always trying to avoid (and often enough failing) - and I know it is easy to start writing for yourself and forgetting about someone who may want to read what you have done. Keep the egg quota down is my advice , too many chicken abortions are bad for all writers ! --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 19:19, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on - I wasn't even starting yet! How can you even suggest I could have left out the bits about Chaucer, Spooner and saucer? If you try to catch me on my deliberate innocence on ornitology you're badly mistaken. I rest my case. Also, the discussion page is very much a part of the article - but it is even more part of the discussion about the article, don't you agree? I rest my case again. And while I'm at it - I would really like your view on what the article is about - and how you arrived at the conclusion that it is trying to cover too much, after the subject has been clarified. I rest my case a third time, and now really leave it where it is - unless someone else picks it up and tries to run away with it. -- Style  Guide 06:00, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

Absurdist style is all well and good but you are over doing it here for this article. ...And the White Knight is talking backwards. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 15:41, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

This demands a new header

I'm not half overdoing it yet, not the way Mr. Jones defines overdoing. Speaking of Mr. Jones - he never answered my question on the subject of this article, and neither did you. Am I to take this as a sign you don't know, or just that you will not tell me? Besides - there is clearly an article among the statutes on Humorous articles acceptable on Internet-based humour-providing instances and so forth, until the end gasoline that states: ...less than 10.000 nonsensical continuations per article are totally acceptable, lock stock and a barrel of rancid fish. So there. -- Style  Guide 18:57, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see now. This is also a submitted article for illogicpedia as well ? My main argument isn't what you say but how you have constructed the article as it stands. It is to me reader unfriendly . It jumps around and is too impressed with its own stylistic flourishes rather than being cleverly incoherent - which I would guess was the aim. As I said , I was a reluctant against for this one. Still am. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 07:57, December 16, 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not submitted for Illogicopedia. As to what you say now - I claim it is now cleverly incoherent instead of being impressed by its own stylistic flourishes. What makes it so is the use of the article "the" when I could just as well have left it out at times. Also the word "long" is deliberately used although it is clearly an inferior word compared to "lengthy" or "tall" or some such. The same goes for the word "short", as mentioned in the footnotes. Also, if I had wanted the article to appear "impressed by its own stylistic flourishes", I would have written it in Homeric rhyme or the equivalent. And now that we are at the core of it - who said an Uncyclopedia article would have to be reader friendly? And also - what does "reader friendly" mean? Friendly to those who want to eat mashed potatoes instead of uncooked carrots or raw meat? I write for rabbits and wolves, not pigs. -- Style  Guide 11:31, December 16, 2009 (UTC)

If you were really happy with this article , I don't think you would have been that keen to make a link straight from the voting page to here. So perhaps you harbour doubts all the same. As for reader friendly , I don't mean dumbing down or using simple English either . However I do think a writer should consider their article from the view of a casual reader and to step back and say 'Does this really work ?' . In my view it doesn't but that is just my opinion . --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 22:00, December 16, 2009 (UTC)

Well, first of all, you would have to explain to me what "working" and "not working" means in this case. You concede I'm a good writer - so obviously you think you are at least as good a writer. I deduce this since you seem to feel you are able to judge what works in a good writer's article, and what doesn't. "In my view" doesn't really cut it, I think. To be able to judge you should be able to explain as well: how else do you think I will take you seriously? Also I think these things can be explained: don't be afraid of explaining away the joke. It really will not happen. So let me know some reasons why you think the style does not fit the subject matter - which, by the way, hasn't been clarified yet. We both know the title of the article is Classical Satire - but is it clearly the subject of the article? If it isn't, what is? Please help me out and give me some answers to these points. After that, we can really start talking. Also - no, I wasn't insecure with the article. What is there to be insecure about? I added the link since the way the article has been written just seemed to me an interesting point to speculate on, and I was sure someone else would answer the call. As it happened. -- Style  Guide 06:21, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

So anyway - I'm still waiting for you to reply to these rather easy questions. Do you mind either answering or telling me to quit waiting? I'm on my way out and wouldn't like to leave this fascinating discussion unsolved. Please. -- Style  Guide 14:22, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

I have just noticed your goodbye letter on the village dump. It is a shame that you have decided to leave but I hope you stay in contact and rejoin at a later date. I will post a reply as promised but I cannot do it right now - RL intervenes right now. Best of luck anyway. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 14:51, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

The next header

Please continue speculation under this header to make subsequent editing easier. -- Style  Guide 06:23, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

Well? -- Style  Guide 12:43, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

Since you are now asking for a more detailed analysis , I will post up a longer response later today (my time). --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 13:19, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

I said I would intend to...

...reply to all comments and againsts on the talk page. Black Flamingo's comment, however, leaves me totally outside. I will reply to it if he/she wants me to, though. -- Style  Guide 13:48, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

Sure, reply away. Human interaction is always nice. --Hugs and kisses, Black_Flamingo 19:21, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

You guess you agree with Romartus. That's pretty careful of you. I'm just as careful and won't say anything more. -- Style  Guide 19:24, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

Awesome Sauce

Now this is something altogether different. This gentleman deliberately admits to being easily bored, unable to concentrate in the hope of some reward - and on top of that, as a subtext he expresses a hope that Uncyclopedia would drag in more users like him! At least you're not trying to offer any pretext for voting against - you just bluntly go the old tl;dr way. Brilliant! Outstanding! This is the kind of response I want! If more of Uncyclopedia voters thought like you do, the site would have far more articles, since most of them would consist of LOL COCKS URE A N00B!!!??!! I love to write short articles with easy jokes! -- Style  Guide 16:33, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

8===========D~ ~ ~ ~O:

Look, just because I don't want to read fifteen paragraphs to find a joke doesn't make me stupid. Take today's featured article. It's not just about how simple it is, but how well the jokes work together to satirize the topic. One of the main reasons you wrote the article like this is, I think, because you were making fun of how people who discuss subjects such as this usually go on and on. Unfortunately, this prose buries most of the otherwise decent jokes in the article. On top of that, much of the jokes I didn't understand because I don't know who the people the article is referring to are. That doesn't make me stupid, just ignorant of the topic. And that doesn't make the article bad; it's just that if you're going to put it up on the front page, then it should be more accessible to the majority of readers at this site. The article can be enjoyed by people, I just don't think it's good enough to stand as an example of the kinds of things a person can find at uncyclopedia. --Chay <Contribs UNSOC Also> 18:44, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

I never said you were stupid, and I'm not saying it now. Do you want me to reply to any of that? I have replies but they're the same shit everyone has seen a million times. Basically it boils down to: "I decide what's good!" when you vote against an article based on your own sense of humour, as opposed to others'. See how many people did find it funny, quite simply? Do you think they know who Allen Jones is, or was? Yes, of course they know. Also, you don't need to read fifteen paragraphs of text to find a joke in the article. Read the first one and you'll find at least three or four - if you bother to look. If you don't like them it's not my fault in any way. But they are there. So, you approach an article with some pre-conceived idea of humour and when it doesn't hit you in the eye where you want it, the article is not worthy of front page. Well, of course it isn't. I never intended the article to be on the front page. I only put it up on VFH to get to argue with people. Isn't it plainly visible in the way the article is written? I mean - who could ever find anything funny in stuff like "tortoises are boring animals, and have huge cocks" like the third paragraph states? Or the views Allen Jones has on flying Chaucers? Or, for that matter, the insulting way Shakespeare is being handled in the article, as if he were just another cocksucker who happened to write poems about parakeets in heat? -- Style  Guide 18:59, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

Back To The Article

I have re-read your article a number of times and I still think you haven't succeeded with what you intended to write. The first two paragraphs which set up the story are in the voice of a Professor of Advanced Babble and Humour studies and , to a degree . work. I say to a degree because when using a voice like this to write with , you should try and hook a reader into the article . Personally I would have rewritten that bit to be a bit more sensible but to hint that as you read on , the article's voice will become more and more confused about what he is trying to say.

Now a quick skit from the Romans to the Middle Ages with the viking and barbarians thrown in at the 12th century ? Ok , I did wonder what happened to the Dark Ages at this point but then Columbus discovers America after wondering where the Mongols derived their humour from and in due course , brought about the Renaissance.

Then at this point , in comes a bit about East German humour. Eh ? This was a bit of a jump to say the least ! Then before we know it , welcome to World War Two and then 'Satirez' today before going back to the Stone Age to finish it. Which all doesn't make sense , as it seems your original narrative voice in the first two paragraphs has been forgotten and then it seems to be going very random without a great deal of explanation. It would have better In my view that you had kept the style outlined in the first two paragraphs which was at least coherent. I think the rest of the article doesn't really hang well together after the Columbus skit. That is a shame in my view and why I was from the very start a reluctant against as I could see this article could have been very good. To me , it always helps that an article is internally coherent even in a mad way and I don't think this one has succeeded. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 12:54, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you think I was trying to help the reader in any way you have a screw loose. Now you have wasted hours explaining why my article should be bad, while you could just have written a good one yourself. Here's the pee, by the way. See you around, no hard feelings. -- Style  Guide 07:43, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

Since you asked me for my reasons why I didn't think it was as a good as you thought it was , I did spend time studying it and responding as you asked me to. I admit I am puzzled by the line if you think I was trying to help the reader in any way you have a screw loose. What does that mean ? Anyways , I want to finish this too. Good luck for your future work here or elsewhere. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 10:54, December 22, 2009 (UTC)