This does not demonstrate the trope to me. The image is pointing out what we see without making any kind of analysis on it.
Keep it breezy!Yeah, I don't even know what the image is talking about. The criticism of it is more to the point, but that's just a caption and its not really as direct a it should be for the trope.
Did you guys read the caption?
Yes. I don't see how it's didactic.
Brought here since apparently not suitable for What Do You Mean, It's for Kids?.... If I only had an idea
:D It's a classic in the field of misguided analysis!
edited 10th Apr '13 8:09:59 PM by Noaqiyeum
The Revolution Will Not Be TropeableNoa, I think that one is beautiful. If you hadn't brought it over from the other thread, I was going to.
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.Yeah, if I'm outgunned I'd concede and go that route too.
edited 10th Apr '13 8:22:04 PM by shoboni
+1 for the Oz book.
Found a larger version of the cover and scaled it down.
edited 11th Apr '13 6:43:39 AM by Noaqiyeum
The Revolution Will Not Be TropeableI like that. Especially since it fits the What Do You Mean, It's Not Political? theme.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanCaption:
"The Historian's Wizard of Oz" synthesizes four decades of scholarly interpretations of L. Frank Baum's classic children's novel as an allegory of the Gilded Age political economy — SAY WHAT?"
edited 11th Apr '13 8:33:39 AM by Madrugada
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.I like the OZ book but do you think you can scale it down again?
Keep it breezy!I like Oz. Was looking for something else, but all I found is several essays on Where The Wild Things Are (who are, admittedly, several orders of magnitude longer than the work they are analyzing) though none make a good page image. So +1 for Oz
Looks like I'm outgunned, so +1 for the book.
Pall - how much?
The Revolution Will Not Be TropeableThe book, at its current size, should easily fit inside the description with little, if any, example hang...I think it's good as is.
Noaqiyeum - about half the size it is now, I would say. I do not like big images in articles; they tend to shove all the text to one side and that does not seem right.
Keep it breezy!That would take it down to 150 px in width and possibly make the small text illegible...bad move.
how about just shrinking it a little it a little, like 10-20%?
Looking at, even 5% would probably be enough.
edited 11th Apr '13 1:30:12 PM by shoboni
Depends on the program being used. Nonetheless, I estimate a 25% reduction in size would suffice.
Keep it breezy!I'd suggest giving a few suggestions on how it would actually look if reduced. Hard to tell just throwing numbers around.
Check out my fanfiction!Noa's version is 300 pixels wide. I scaled it down in three steps of 25 pixels each step.
at 275 wide (9% reduction): | at 250 wide (18% reduction): | at 225 wide (25% reduction): |
edited 11th Apr '13 3:11:59 PM by Madrugada
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.Looking at them side by side like that, I personally prefer 250 wide.
edited 11th Apr '13 3:10:27 PM by Madrugada
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.Ditto.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Since a joke could work well for this one, I'd like to suggest this I found a while back, I know we don't like demotivationals, but it's really funny and shows the trope
[1]◊