Does it ever make sense to judge a book by its cover — literally or metaphorically? Tell us about a time you did, and whether that was a good decision or not.
Well, I’m going to take the unpopular position. This expression is meant to say a good book can not be judged by a bad cover and if that is so the converse is true; you can not tell a bad book for its good cover. The smart publisher matches the two. They put effort into it. They want to attract good readers; a specific type of reader.
A hundred years or so ago about all books had the same cover. Such an expression made sense. Nearly all books have different and descriptive covers now. If there is blood and gore on the outside it is safe to assume that is what will be on the inside. If it contains gratuitous sex and violence on the outside that is obviously meant to attract a particular type of reader.
The expression is often applied to people. I think the same is true. If I see tattoos, bolts, studs, piercings and so on that’s what the person is on the inside. (This applies with those who dress goth, when I see a goth I see depravity.) It is true that some obtain these things out of peer pressure, regret it later, and must live with the results, but if I see all those things going on that person wants to repel and shock me and it works. I don’t buy the idea that it’s body art. Tie a Van Gogh around your neck. And this business about those things don’t tell the person that is on the inside is hogwash also. That’s not to say people can change, but if one is willing to do that to their body it not a stretch to believe they have no problem poking, prodding, and piercing other persons’ bodies for the mere pleasure and thrill.
Yeah, I have friends that have tatts, but when they start to give me the song and dance about them having deeper meanings I mention history is full of people with real conviction and meaning to their lives and found a way of expressing them without a tattoo, a stud, a bolt, or earlobe you can drive a car through; give me a break.
That said, I don’t think Ted Bundy or Adolf Hitler had a tatt, piercing, stud, and so on. Let’s get real, look at how people come out of prison or those who lead a terrible and debouched life; thats how you want to look or is that who you want to be associated with? If you’re a good clean person and get tattooed, pierced and so on you are only confusing the issue. Criminals and lowlifes can say, “Everybody wears them, even good people, you can’t tell a book by it’s cover.”
I want to know who the good guys and who the bad guys are and if you good guys start doing what the bad guys do you got to find a job someplace else, metaphorically speaking, of course.
If you should decide to comment how wonderful your tattoo is you are only trying to justify your poor decision.
None of this means I hate or don’t treat them with dignity and respect. They are the ones sending the message.
By the way, if one have a cross or Jesus tattooed on you it’s all the same.
Anyway, Ben Huberman, you opened the door.