Suggestion: What Do You Mean Its Not Didactic

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]◊

This does not demonstrate the trope to me. The image is pointing out what we see without making any kind of analysis on it.

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

Noa, I think that one is beautiful. If you hadn't brought it over from the other thread, I was going to.

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

I like that. Especially since it fits the What Do You Mean, It's Not Political? theme.

Caption:

"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

I like the OZ book but do you think you can scale it down again?

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 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.

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.

I'd suggest giving a few suggestions on how it would actually look if reduced. Hard to tell just throwing numbers around.

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

Looking at them side by side like that, I personally prefer 250 wide.

edited 11th Apr '13 3:10:27 PM by Madrugada

Ditto.

Ditto.