= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gjm comments on Open thread, Aug. 10 - Aug. 16, 2015 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (283)
Stating the obvious: I don't think those stains are meant to be ketchup. (And maybe "owl with bloodstains" feels scarier than "owl with ketchup stains".)
They don't look like blood either.
Well, if we're going to be picky, neither does the owl look like an owl. It's not that sort of picture. But I suggest that "blood" is a more likely answer to "what do those red bits indicate?" than anything like "ketchup".
But it does. It's stylised, but it is certainly an owl, not a crow, a hawk, or a tit. As to the reddish brown bits, they match the colour of the pixel droppings in the bottom left of the cover, I think. Hard to say what was in the mind of the graphic designer...
Perhaps I wasn't clear. The red looks (I think) about as much like a bloodstain as the owl looks like an owl. That is: no one would mistake one for the other, but the resemblance is there and you can certainly take one as an indication of the other.