Suborned by words
kansouame:

by loobeeinthesky

kansouame:

by loobeeinthesky

kyrael:

ghostintaylor:

gallifreyfieldsforever:

I sincerely believe that by 7th year Ravenclaws would just tell the door to their common room to fuck off and it would open for them

 (via)

Q “Why is a raven like a writing desk?” 
A “You shouldn’t shove either up your arse.” 
"…Technically, yes."

so-i-did-this-thing:

eckses:

RALEIGH’S WALL - CELEBRATING ONE YEAR OF PACIFIC RIM FANDOM

Click here to zoom in.

Artists: 1. baldwinboy5ive | 2. geniusbee | 3. lunarinferno | 4. bwoltjen | 5. yimmygo | 6. epic-artist-nerd | 7. ikaijubluemyself | 8. kyoukai-no-canada | 9/10. feriowind | 11. eltsia | 12. homuzu | 13. mumbelguste | 14. wisba | 15. korybing | 16. cheesecake12 | 17. raleigh-puppy | 18. uitch | 19. eckses | 20. tentacledog | 21. becomedog | 22. moptopper | 23. blairtrabbit | 24. justheretothink | 25. lunarinferno | 26. magemg

Photos from daily life in the Shatterdome, and proof that the Pacific Rim fandom is still alive and kicking. Thanks to everyone who took part for the awesome submissions!

These all turned out great!

thesylverlining:

glottalplosive:

Phonetic transcription of the chorus of ‘I’m Gonna Be (500 Miles)’ by The Proclaimers.

omfg sound it out, it’s so on point and hilarious

thesylverlining:

glottalplosive:

Phonetic transcription of the chorus of ‘I’m Gonna Be (500 Miles)’ by The Proclaimers.

omfg sound it out, it’s so on point and hilarious

Lemony Snicket

literarystarbucks:

Lemony Snicket goes up to the counter and orders a caffé Americano. It is bitter. The barista is armed. The man in the corner has poisoned someone’s drink. The espresso machine is on fire. Lemony Snicket begins to run down the street as the Starbucks explodes. He is being chased. He spills his coffee.

cultofthepigeon:

Stacker “i dont know how child adoption laws work but i found this child so im keeping it no you may not take away this precious angel from above i will fight you for her motherfucker i will fight you with a giant robot fucking try me” Pentecost

New phrase: “Dumbledore gay”

blue-author:

theotheropinion:

eshusplayground:

When a fictional character is identified as gay by their creator but nothing in the source material explicitly reveals the character’s sexuality.

How original.

Read More

Okay, now I’ve seen the post that you thought I was referring to 11 months ago.

Let me blow your mind.

Ready? I’m serious, brace yourself, because I am about to expand your brain to vistas that you apparently are incapable of considering.

Imagine the Harry Potter books exactly as they are, with Dumbledore exactly as fully fleshed out and 100% as realized and well-rounded and plot-driving as he is in them as they exist right now.

Now picture the scene in King’s Cross Station, where Dumbledore is 1) dead, 2) no longer Harry’s teacher/headmaster, 3) past the point of all secrets, and 4) desperate to make his youthful actions understood to Harry.

Bear in mind as you’re picturing this scene that this man canonically believes that love is the most powerful force in the universe.

Imagine he says the words, “Harry, you have to understand, I was in love.”

BAM!

Is your mind blown?

It should be, because with one line, we know that he was in love with Gellert Grindelwald, but everything that makes the character well-rounded is fully preserved. We know that he was queer, but we still know everything else about him that we knew. Does this somehow magically shrink his entire story to being about nothing than that? No. Does it shoehorn in something irrelevant? No! The fate of the world literally hinged on this relationship in a way that’s talked about, but the nature of the relationship is spoken around in a way that’s really obvious and jarring in retrospect.

Here’s the thing that people—queer as well as straight—keep missing: straight people’s sexuality, being accepted as default, is allowed to pop up all over the place.

I hope you’re recovered, because I’m going to blow your mind again.

Imagine the book series exists as it does now, but for some reason, the books had to be scrubbed so it was not apparent that Molly and Arthur Weasley are married and in a relationship. One or both of them can’t have their last name mentioned. One or both of them can’t have their relationship to the Weasley children mentioned. They can’t call each other “dear” or refer to each other in spousal terms or be shown living together. And yet they both are expected to fulfill the same roles in the plot.

Imagine this is true of every mixed sex couple in the book. Their roles are the same, but their relationships are talked around. We can’t mention why Molly Weasley is suspicious of Fleur or why she suddenly changes her mind about her, because we can’t mention Fleur’s relationship to Bill. We can’t mention why Harry had twitchy nervous avoidant fascination feelings with Cho and then Ginny, only show the outside after effects of those. And the before and after of his dates.

Would these changes make these characters more well-rounded? Less about who they’re having fun tiems with? Would they make the story better?

Or would they leave it awkward, unbalanced, and full of holes?

People’s relationships aren’t ~*what the story is about*~, but they’re part of the story unless the author bends over backwards to make them not. She wrote Gellert and Albus’s boyhood romance into the backstory of her world to the point where a world war equivalent hinged on it, but she talked around it and then mentioned it after the fact.

It wouldn’t have weakened the character or the story to not do this. It’s leaving it out that did that. We just accept it as normal because… well… it has been made normal.