Colorado. Runner. Yogi. Fucking hilarious, like, 17% of the time.

how else are you supposed to judge a book?

I assume that if you are not allowed to judge a book by its cover, you're supposed to use the title. Right? I mean, it's just ridiculous to expect people to READ a whole book before passing judgement. That doesn't make any sense at all. Yeah, let's try the title thing. What would I suspect these books were about if I couldn't see the covers?

Salem's Lot: a serious look at the accused witches in Salem, MA, and their lot in life. Or something about someone turning into a pillar of salt, maybe. I'm going to say 2.5/5 stars. (My rating for the actual book, 3/5. Stephen King didn't used to be as good as he is now!)

Ishmael: Moby Dick II, obviously. Suspected rating: 4/5. Actual rating: -10/5. THIS IS THE WORST BOOK EVER. A talking gorilla lectures you about being a bad person for 263 pages. It sucks. The cover doesn't illustrate that any more than the name does, though, so I'm not really sure what the takeaway here is.

Half Life: Science? Specifically nuclear chemistry, maybe? Assumed rating: 0/5. Actual topic, which is TOTALLY CLEAR from the cover, is conjoined twins. Actual rating: 3.5/5. (It was pretty depressing.)

There you go. Through the magic of a very small and hand selected sample, I have proved that stupid saying is wrong at least 2/3 of the time.  Not too shabby. Judge by all the covers you want, people, I give you leave.


better luck next time

a new rule