Adventure lies where the sword and pen meet... RSS

Archive

Sep
18th
Thu
permalink
What if women had minstrel cycles instead of menstrual cycles? You’d just have a guy with a lute follow you around for a week every month and play you songs constantly?

My boyfriend (via thecarrionlibrarian)

#no but can you imagine if that was how you learned once a month you weren’t pregnant#by some dude singing songs about the victory of it#you wake up and he’s there and you are so happy#this dude becomes your favorite dude#but then you realize you haven’t seen your friend’s minstrel in a while#I mean everyone notices#like half the people are on the same cycle so for one week out of four your job is just flooded with fucking minstrels everywhere#the cacophony#but Mary over there is all alone#and she’s like my minstrel is late#but we all fucking know#her minstrel has gone off to find her a baby#a nine month journey he must make alone#and until he comes back there is no music in her life#what a glorious world this would be#I love the minstrels (@onionjuggler)

WHAT ABOUT MENOPAUSE THOWOULD YOU JUST THANK HIM FOR HIS SERVICE AND SEND HIM ON HIS WAYTO FIND A NEW NOT-PREGNANT GIRLOR DOES HE DIE WHAT HAPPENS

(via herestothedesperatedasher)

Can we please have a story about this?

(via kageyawa)

(via talkedtoomuchsaidtoolittle)

Sep
16th
Tue
permalink
Sep
15th
Mon
permalink

I hate wedding planning so much

Most of you probably don’t want to read this. I hurt my arm in TKD and I’m probably PMSing so I’m grumpy, but the logic of that doesn’t make the feelings go away.

Read More

Sep
13th
Sat
permalink
Sometimes setting details – like a jungle on fire, or moonlight sparkling on a lake – are so important to plot or character development that it’s appropriate to include visual setting at the launch of a scene. This is often the case in books set in unusual, exotic or challenging locations such as snowy Himalayan mountains, lush inlands or brutal desert climates. If the setting is going to bear dramatically on the characters and the plot, then there is every reason to let it lead into the scene that will follow.

Jordan E. Rosenfeld (via writingquotes)

Ohh this is a good one, I’m writing something really setting-centric right meow.

(via yeahwriters)

Plus, I love nature and unfortunately/fortunately studied ecocriticism a little, so I tend to think the nature and the general setting is important no matter what.

(via danielles-scribbles)

Sep
11th
Thu
permalink

So Marvel’s obsessed with twelve percent, and google’s apparently on board.

Sep
8th
Mon
permalink
permalink

Anonymous said: why do black people use you in the wrong context? such is "you ugly" instead of "you're ugly" I know u guys can differentiate, it's a nuisance

edwardspoonhands:

miniprof:

rsbenedict:

prettyboyshyflizzy:

you a bitch

It’s called copula deletion, or zero copula. Many languages and dialects, including Ancient Greek and Russian, delete the copula (the verb to be) when the context is obvious.

So an utterance like “you a bitch” in AAVE is not an example of a misused you, but an example of a sentence that deletes the copular verb (are), which is a perfectly valid thing to do in that dialect, just as deleting an /r/ after a vowel is a perfectly valid thing to do in an upper-class British dialect.

What’s more, it’s been shown that copula deletion occurs in AAVE exactly in those contexts where copula contraction occurs in so-called “Standard American English.” That is, the basic sentence “You are great” can become “You’re great” in SAE and “You great” in AAVE, but “I know who you are” cannot become “I know who you’re” in SAE, and according to reports, neither can you get “I know who you” in AAVE.

In other words, AAVE is a set of grammatical rules just as complex and systematic as SAE, and the widespread belief that it is not is nothing more than yet another manifestation of deeply internalized racism.

I love linguistics! 

permalink

hurraaid:

pleatedjeans:

Things Are a Little Different in Scotland (22 Pics)

SPEAKING OF WHICH

WE WERE ON THE WAY TO MY GRANNY’S TODAY AND WE SAW A MILK VAN AND JUST

image

SCOTLAND

(via talkedtoomuchsaidtoolittle)

Sep
7th
Sun
permalink

gwendabond:

best-of-memes:

Love foxes

They’re just so strange. (Not behemoth-depths strange, but strange nonetheless.)

Foxes!!

(via curlyjules)

Sep
4th
Thu
permalink

Anonymous said: Why do people care about Hermione's Yule Ball dress color? As far as differences between the books and movies go, it seems pretty trivial to me.

bronzedragon:

It’s a trivial difference, but I can hazard guesses on both the fandom and personal levels.

On a personal level, as a kid who identified with Hermione and also loved the color blue, it was another “Hermione is like me!” moment and bb!me was excited to see the dress in the movies in the same way that bb!me wanted to see Hermione arguing with Umbridge over finishing the DADA book or the way that bb!me wanted to see the Ravenclaw Common Room on-screen (…hell, adult me wanted to see the ‘Claw common room on-screen.) So as a personal reaction, it bugs me on that level - a minor/unimportant change, yes, but something that bugs me on a silly gut-level/emotional/out of proportion to logic level.

(On a personal level, the Ravenclaw color and mascot change bothers me much more - it fucked up all the official merchandise forever and that really makes me sad.) But, yeah, that’s definitely a “just me” reason and not “fandom” reason - and of course I can only speculate on greater fandom, because obviously I am not the the spokesperson for Greater Fandom.

I can hazard a hypothesis on why this bothers Greater Fandom, though. On a larger level, the dress change is emblematic of the movies’ larger issue of changing things for no good reason - of change for change’s sake, not because it furthered the story, streamlined the plot, or helped the adaptation. I think it’s become a larger symbol of ways that the movies bothered people, going beyond making the excisions and changes that are needed for a successful adaptation. On a micro level, it’s representative of the way that filmmakers tended to add, alter, and otherwise change things for no particular reason. Two other examples that come to mind easily are shrunken heads and the failure to talk about the origins of the Marauder’s Map - they’re both tiny alterations in and of themselves, utterly trivial issues that movie-only people wouldn’t care about or miss, but that when taken with a dozen other tiny things begin to add up and end up becoming emblematic of the larger problems with the films.

I know, it seems a stretch to go from “the dress should be BLUE!” to thigns like confetti Voldemort, turning Ron into comic relief, making Hermione more flawless/less human, larger disappointments with adaptation choices (particularly in the endings of later movies - the GoF/maze sequence, OotP/DoM sequence, HBP/no First Battle of Hogwarts, DH/Confetti Voldemort), choosing to excise things like Snape’s Worst Memory in OotP or the Pensieve flashbacks of HBP, and even the way that the end of DH part 2 left some movie-only people thinking that Snape was actually Harry’s father - but with larger changes, you can argue that they have some reason or advantage. In most cases, you can make a case for the change, maybe even understand that a HBP battle sequence doesn’t matter when DH2 is a huge battle sequence or that the GoF maze sequence as written might stretch on for too long and end up breaking the budget. You might even be able to argue something like “movie audiences will find the written ending of DH2 anticlimatic!” and understand the origins of Confetti Voldemort, or argue the cuts to Pensieve flashbacks as things that would throw the pace of the movie and introduce new storylines too late in the game. But there’s really no possible rhyme or reason to change something as tiny and trivial as Hermione’s dress color, and so it’s easier, in some ways, to rally behind something as trivial as a pink dress. You can argue the merits of many of the larger changes, the change in dress color is something that really has zero merit. It’s not necessarily negative, but you can’t argue a positive from it, either - and again becomes a symbol of movie-makers changing things simply because they could, not necessarily because it would improve the storyline, which is something that book fans in general are going to resent.

Basically, I think it seems to bother people out of all proportion to the size of the change because it is a pointless change - and it’s a pointless change that is unarguably pointless, and in being thus becomes representative of the larger changes that bother people so much.

Just my thoughts, of course - other people might be able to articulate other reasons why they hate that particular change.