While I agree with the comment, one can see a deeper meaning in the original post. Any given person seeing this on their dash isn't likely to know the book and what it's about. So we judge it by it's cover, because THAT'S WHAT COVERS ARE FUCKING FOR. But still. Anyway.
You catch their attention. Because in school you're always taught to "use a descriptive title" for your essays and short stories (if your Language Arts classes are anything like mine), the person thinks it's a book most likely written by some guy telling girls how to change themselves for guys to like them. They think that's what it's about, so they disagree with this book. They do not like its ideals. So the burning of the book is pleasing to them.
It's not about destroying the book. It's about destroying the society and thoughts the cover represents.
That's why you read a summary before making hundreds of people assume something by basing it off of a cover.
You think people will just read the title and make up an explanation ? Some people read the book to make sure, like the person explaining.
I realize that. But the thing is, at least if you're anything like me, you don't take posts seriously. You reblog what catches your attention for more than two seconds. You don't research a post. Because you've been conditioned to judge a book by its title and cover. Because that's what the title and cover are for.
I see what you are trying to say meowiamacat, but I like the message that book makes when it is read. The post is going to cause people not to read the book and assume its actually that superficial.
And that is a problem. The question then stands: which is more beneficial, the message the post is trying to convey, or the message the book is trying to convey?
The thing is, they're conveying the same message. It's just that one has been and will be seen by thousands, while the only time I've ever heard of this book is through this post.
I personally stand on the side of the post, but I can see your point, and I respect it if you stand on the side of the book. It's quite an interesting debate, really, about what exactly the post means and is it a good or bad post.
You catch their attention. Because in school you're always taught to "use a descriptive title" for your essays and short stories (if your Language Arts classes are anything like mine), the person thinks it's a book most likely written by some guy telling girls how to change themselves for guys to like them. They think that's what it's about, so they disagree with this book. They do not like its ideals. So the burning of the book is pleasing to them.
It's not about destroying the book. It's about destroying the society and thoughts the cover represents.
You think people will just read the title and make up an explanation ? Some people read the book to make sure, like the person explaining.
The thing is, they're conveying the same message. It's just that one has been and will be seen by thousands, while the only time I've ever heard of this book is through this post.
I personally stand on the side of the post, but I can see your point, and I respect it if you stand on the side of the book. It's quite an interesting debate, really, about what exactly the post means and is it a good or bad post.
NEVER BURN A BOOK
GET YOUR OWN MEDICINE EVIL VACCINE BOOK