Untitled

[reluctanttree]

Happy pride to the entire Monstrous Regiment, Eskarina Smith, Sam Vimes, Sybil Ramkin, Havelock Vetinari, Moist and Adora, most of the Ankh Morpork city watch, the wizards of the Unseen University and the rest of the discworlds queer community

[kriswritesstuff]

Today's going to be a *great* day! I wasn't even awake for 15 minutes before I thought about crashing my car

[jellymish-reblogblog]

Blessings be upon this dash!

[vamplire]

assert your dominance. bite the vampire.

[fangirl4everafter]

WILL HERONDALE

[thesamuraiturnedpretty]

Has NOBODY tagged this 'Granny Weatherwax'?

[kriswritesstuff]

Harry Dresden lol

[fiberartsam]

Every time I give in to despair I read a Pratchett book. Well, when one is available near me.

Because those books are full of anger at the world and the state it's in. Real, actual, barely-concealed beneath clever puns anger. It's a rage, not the pretty "i'm mad" calligraphied in the page in white ink. It's something like "I'm angry and you should be, too" scribbled in red ink over the pages.

But these books are so kind. So hopeful. And it's not mindless kindness, either. It's not "I'm kind until it's not easy or convenient to be anymore". It's actual kindness from people who are angry but turn that into fierce, deliberate, stubborn kindness. And of course you can despair but you can also turn it into anger and then the kind of fierce kindness that you can change the world with.

These books were so important for me growing up, still are. I literally wouldn't be the same person without them. And I reread Night Watch today, as one does, and the terrible fairness of Sam Vimes struck me. The world is a terrible, unfair place, he said, and I'm not participating in that. I'm not adding misery to it. I'm gonna be fair and I'm gonna be good if it kills me. (the same goes, of course, with Granny. It's about choosing to be good. It's about being good if it kills you. It's about desperately hoping and never letting go)

Truth, Justice, Freedom, Reasonably-Priced Love and a Hard-Boiled Egg. And by gods if we aren't going to fight to get it.

[neverenoughmarauders]

When were the Longbottoms attacked?

I've always assumed the Longbottoms were attacked in 1982, but of late I've seen people suggest it happened days after Voldemort's fall. I've also recently come across an article that suggested the earliest had to be 1984.

Which leaves the question: what range are we actually looking at, and how does that change our view on Barty Crouch Jr (CANON Barty, I don't want to think about the abomination that's fanon Barty)

Note that we know a few of the events preceding the attack and the arrest of the Lestranges and Crouch.

Voldemort had fallen, and enough time had passed for people to start to feel safe again

The attacks on them came after Voldemort's fall from power, just when everyone thought they were safe. 

Unfortunately: "just when everyone thought they were safe" can mean a lot of things. We see people celebrating Voldemort's fall like there's no tomorrow on November 1st 1981, but we also know from the trials in GOF that it took time to round up the Death Eaters, and that some believed (rightly) that Voldemort wasn't gone for good. So, how long did Voldemort have to have been gone for people to feel safe? How many DEs had to have been rounded up?

Luckly, we've got other markers of time too.

The Lestranges had talked their way out of Azkaban

"Crouch's own son was caught with a group of Death Eaters who'd managed to talk their way out of Azkaban."

So presumably, after Voldemort's fall, the Lestranges, just like Lucius Malfoy, Avery, Nott, Crabbe, Goyle etc had to be cleared through the mass DE trials.

“You are merely repeating the names of those who were acquitted of being Death Eaters thirteen years ago!” said Fudge angrily. “You could have found those names in old reports of the trials! 

This comment from Fudge also suggests that a lot of the initial DE trials (where people like Avery, Nott, Crabbe, Goyle were acquitted) took place in 1982.

Karkaroff's trial was likely in 1982

We even have insight into some of these trials which help us with the timing. For example, from Moody we learn:

[Crouch]'s done a deal with him. Took me six months to track him down, and Crouch is going to let him go if he's got enough new names.

Six months from what? Some crime he committed? Karkaroff is never really on trial for any specific crime as far as we learn in canon (and we do learn quite a lot about some of these people's crimes). It's more that he was a DE and held accountable for things DEs did:

"There was Antonin Dolohov," he said. "I - I saw him torture countless Muggles and - and non-supporters of the Dark Lord." "And helped him do it," murmured Moody.

It seems likely we're looking at six months since Voldemort's fall. That's when the DEs fell apart, and the Aurors started rounding them up. That's a natural point for Moody to think about when he says it took him six months. And if so, we're looking at a trial that was held more than six months after October 31, 1981.

In any case, we know the earliest the trial can be is after Voldemort's downfall and enough time to have passed for Snape to have been cleared:

“Snape has been cleared by this council,” said Crouch disdainfully. “He has been vouched for by Albus Dumbledore.” “No!” shouted Karkaroff, straining at the chains that bound him to the chair. “I assure you! Severus Snape is a Death Eater!” “I have given evidence already on this matter,” he said calmly. “Severus Snape was indeed a Death Eater. However, he rejoined our side before Lord Voldemort’s downfall and turned spy for us, at great personal risk. He is now no more a Death Eater than I am.”

At Karkaroff's trial, Crouch is described to look"fit and alert":

Crouch's hair was dark, his face was much less lined, he looked fit and alert.

Some time elapsed between Karkaroff's trial and Bagman's and Crouch's/Lestranges'

The next trial we see is Ludo Bagman, which is a direct consequence of Karkaroff's trial:

"Rookwood, who was a spy, and passed He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named useful information from inside the Ministry itself!"

"Ludovic Bagman, you were caught passing information to Lord Voldemort's supporters," said Mr. Crouch. "For this, I suggest a term of imprisonment in Azkaban lasting no less than -" ... "Old Rookwood was a friend of my dad's . . . never crossed my mind he was in with You-Know-Who!"

So between the two trials, Rookwood must have been rounded up, and investigated enough to catch some members (at least one unknowing one) of his network.

And time has clearly passed:

Mr. Crouch looked more tired and somehow fiercer, gaunter

I think this is critical to our understanding of Crouch's description at his son's trial:

Harry looked up at Crouch and saw that he looked gaunter and grayer than ever before.

Because I've always put his change in appearance to grey and gaunt down to the "nasty little shock" he got when his son got captured, HOWEVER that doesn't fit with the fact that he's already appearing more tired and gaunt in Bagman's trial, which is otherwise held in such high spirits that does imply the attack on the Longbottom's hasn't happened yet. Contrast the two scenes:

The atmosphere seemed quite different: relaxed, even cheerful. The witches and wizards all around the walls were talking to one another, almost as though they were at some sort of sporting event. ... Many of the witches and wizards around the walls began to clap. (...) The dungeon was ringing with applause now. Bagman got to his feet and bowed, beaming.

There was total silence, broken only by the dry sobs of a frail, wispy-looking witch in the seat next to Mr. Crouch. ... The crowd around the walls began to clap as it had for Bagman, their faces full of savage triumph.

So clearly, Crouch is being worn down by the trials even before his son is arrested, and while the immense workload is the key driver, time has to play a factor too.

So we know that at some point in 1982 "Crouch's hair was dark, his face was much less lined, he looked fit and alert" and some time after, enough time to pass for them to uncover Rookwork's work and for people to feel safe again and the Lestrages to talk their way out of Azkaban and for Crouch to turn grayer and more gaunt his son is caught. As a side note, it has to be long enough after Voldemort’s fall for Bellatrix to proclaim that “they alone tried to find him”.

Finally, if the attack on the Longbottoms happened after Bagman's trial (which all evidence suggest), we also need to allow time for the Ministry to go from learning about the attack to making the arrest:

The Ministry was under great pressure to catch those who had done it. Unfortunately, the Longbottoms' evidence was given their condition none too reliable.

On the one hand, one could argue they must have acted quickly because they were under pressure to do so (but then again, does that imply they usually acted quite slow, so we can expect significant time to have elapsed between Karkaroff turning in Rookwood and Bagman being on trial?). On the other hand, clearly they had very little to go on to identify who was behind the attack (ie little to go on to identify who to arrest - I’m sure once they caught them they moved swiftly to trial), given the state of the Longbottoms and the fact that no one really knew if the boy was or wasn't innocent.

At the very earliest, the trial of Crouch and the Lestranges would have be at end of 1982, most likely it took place in 1983 or 1984.

Crouch's fall in popularity led Fudge to get the job as Minister of Magic

“So old Crouch lost it all, just when he thought he had it made,” he continued, wiping his mouth with the back of his hand. “One moment, a hero, poised to become Minister of Magic . . . next, his son dead, his wife dead, the family name dishonored, and, so I’ve heard since I escaped, a big drop in popularity. Once the boy had died, people started feeling a bit more sympathetic toward the son and started asking how a nice young lad from a good family had gone so badly astray. The conclusion was that his father never cared much for him. So Cornelius Fudge got the top job, and Crouch was shunted sideways into the Department of International Magical Cooperation.”

In 1981, Fudge was a Junior Minister in the Department of Magical Accidents and Catastrophes, and he's not made Minister of Magic until 1990. I understand politics can drag on, but if we assume Crouch was arrested in 1981, which seems to be the prevailing assumption (but which, for all the reasons above, I consider highly unlikely), then Crouch Jr "dies" in 1982, and Crouch Sr experience a fall in popularity which stops him being appointed as MoM and opens the way for Fudge in 1990. That seems... too long? If we turn it completely around and say it shouldn't take more than four years, then we're looking at a death of Crouch Jr around 1986 and the trials in 1985.

The trial can't be later than 1984

However, that also doesn't quite work, because Barty Crouch Jr is only nineteen when arrested:

“That’s right,” said Sirius, and he didn’t look remotely amused now. “I saw the dementors bringing him in, watched them through the bars in my cell door. He can’t have been more than nineteen. They took him into a cell near mine. He was screaming for his mother by nightfall. He went quiet after a few days, though . . . they all went quiet in the end . . . except when they shrieked in their sleep. …”

And he was a "faithful Death Eater". The youngest we've seen Voldemort make Death Eaters is 16 (Draco and Regulus), meaning that if he was 16 at the youngest in 1981, then the latest his arrest could be is 1984.

Conclusion: The window is somewhere between the end of 1982 and the end of 1984

This window would make Barty Crouch Jr born in 1963-1965 which may help explain why Sirius knew so little about him—he was several of years below the boys.

More than anything, I am intrigued by the trial was 1984 idea, not necessarily as the most likely, but because it fundamentally changes our understanding of Neville's childhood and who Crouch Jr was.

In this world, Neville might have the odd memory of his parents from before they got tortured (whether this be in 1983 with the trial being in 1984 or both events happening in 1984), and he would have been cognisant at the time of how his parents were around one day, and not the next.

Furthermore, Crouch Jr is a completely different person from what I used to picture him as, in this version. He has almost no time with Voldemort, and most of his devotion has to do with the idea of a master he lost, and he wants to find once more. It might also explain why Crouch was never even brought up in any trial prior to this (whereas the Lestranges had to talk their way out). After all, he was literally just a child when Voldemort fell. Even in the Wizarding World.

[rosegoldfire10]

*just saw something unholy*

Bon: Did you just throw your glasses onto the floor?

Konekomaru: No

Bon: I can see them sitting there!

Konekomaru:I can’t

[kriswritesstuff]

Ah yes, Tentoo. Or as I like to call him: Handthony.

[kriswritesstuff]

Zargothrax is the same age as Jesus

[hollow-way]

i've noticed while scrolling in the sam winchester tags, that half of it is wincest (which is disgusting, good lord) or with dean tagged too as the main post, but it makes me realize that a lot of people just see sam always attached to dean. like he's nothing more than an accessory for his older brother? and i KNOW not everything thinks he is, it's just something i've picked up on.

and most the time, those people who don't see sam by himself as his own character—that don't like him or hate him—are also misogynistic? what is this?? he's been fated to the life of what most women characters who the fanbase acts like solely exists for a man have, even when it's his brother and not a love interest.

anyway, yea, it's frustrating to see. he's his own character and we love him dearly. and he fought so hard to be his own person, just to be treated like this.

free my man

[kriswritesstuff]

Hard agree

[vii11]

Omg yes

I see so many woman tearing each other down, to prove a point. Like slut shaming other women to prove they‘re not „like them“, or above them or in some other kind of way „better“ or more „valuable“, to make themselves look better.

But this is just giving in to patriarchal standards and if you, as a woman, use these to tear other women down, you just shoot yourself in the foot. You’re hurting yourself with those double standards just as much as other women

[wiitley]

Gender is a scam created by big gender to sell more genders.

[hollowwhisperings]

writing about hanfu: a guide

so! you have learned what "hanfu" is! congrats!

now i have to tell you, very politely, to forget the word "hanfu".

in most xianxia or historical chinese settings, where characters are assumed to be speaking in chinese, &/or have never been outside of china? all "fu" (clothing) is "hanfu" by default.

because most chinese people (mainland AND diasporic!) are han chinese and han chinese have been the ruling majority for pretty much all of china's history.

(primary exceptions are the mongolian-lead yuan dynasty & the manchu-lead ming dynasty but, in chinese fiction, it is always non-han chinese garments that are specified as such)

with this history in mind, it is almost always anachronistic to specify to chinese characters that something is chinese: the term "hanfu" was only invented when western dress became the assumed default!

so, when incorporating traditional chinese fashions in your english language work?

use descriptors such as "wide-" or "long-sleeved" when meaning these kinds of top garments

"frog-buttoned" or "wide-collared" when referencing manchu shirt styles (such as the modern qipao/cheongsam)

"trousers" is valid (if you're worried about being misunderstood, you can specify that they're "silk" or "wide-legged")

"robe" or "dress" for a single layer of full body hanfu; "robes" for multiple layers.

underwear is anachronistic pretty much everywhere, historically: historical dress uses an "inner layer" or "inner robe" for hygienic purposes. "shift" works too but is more associated with medieval european dress.

if looking up the history of sanitary napkins or loincloths feels daunting, you could sidestep the issue entirely with "undergarments".

"boots" or "slippers" for shoes (but you can also just say "shoes")

no one is wearing heels unless they're from a video game

"stockings" for socks

fabrics can be safely assumed to be "silk" (rich elite/inner layers of the middle-class); "cotton" or "linen" (commoners/inner layers/when exercising). you can also just say "cloth" or "fabric".

(other fabrics did exist historically, wool & hemp for example, but stereotypical hanfu moves like silk and most xianxia characters end up rich enough for it)

most closures will be tied, buttoned or belted. hooks are plausible and so are clasps. zippers do not exist.

(unless you're in a modern setting where characters are regular people buying off taobao)

generally speaking, you only need to use another language's terminology when there is no english equivalent or there is a strong cultural nuance that would be missed. the latter is only true of hanfu when worn IRL, in the modern era, by real people (typically at graduations or weddings).

for more specific terms and insights on traditional chinese dress (hanfu & otherwise), i recommend checking out @ziseviolet and other dedicated chinese-by-chinese fashion bloggers.

if you've been hesitant to write in a historical chinese setting, i hope this post has reassured you that you don't need to learn pinyin to do it. it's scary to write a culture you're unused to! these tips are chinese-specific but the same logic broadly applies to all non-eurocentred cultures.

(the big exception is the names of people and places: don't translate these into english until you have a REALLY strong justification for it. even then, don't treat machine translation a being a reliable source when it really isn't.)

i am but one person with approximate knowledge of many things: these tips can help ENG writers keep readers immersed in CN settings. that's all.

[zaritarazi]

[randomlygeeky]

Talking about Legends with @beifonglover and I joked about this, and then had to make it. Please excuse my shitty so-called editing skills, and/or if this has been made before. Made primarily to amuse myself and BFL.

[kriswritesstuff]

But you can't hate Nate because no one hates Nate XD

[tigstripe]

I’m starting to think we should come up with a different term for fictional shipping, because I realize now that “shipping” can mean one of two things:

- Type A: You honestly believe they’ll get together in canon (the canon matters) - Type B: You just enjoy them together and don’t care about canon (the fanon matters)

Reading some comments on “shipping” recently, it’s made me wonder if I’ve lost people in conversations because I’ve used that term and they interpreted it differently than intended.

To make a point, let’s look at two of my ships that I ship differently:

Queliot (Type A): The show built up that relationship and gave us hope over several years. I did not feel a need to go to fandom content for that, because it was in front of me. Fans (myself included) were understandably upset when it didn’t come to fruition. I definitely shipped them together throughout the run of the first few years of the Magicians, but I never reached out into fan content for a fix. Other examples I see are Supercorp (not canon), Catradora (canon), and McDanno (not? canon, we’re still not sure), or Stormpilot (sigh). We desperately want these ships to be real in canon.

Steelatom (Type B): I saw potential in the ship, but I knew it wouldn’t be canonized. Some people were actually upset that it didn’t happen, making them Type A shippers, and I just don’t understand why - the show made absolutely no move towards making it romantic, and in fact did what they could to enforce positive, healthy, emotional male-male friendships. (This isn’t to mean I wouldn’t have been over the moon if they’d become official.) This was important work, and applauded by many, myself included. I shipped their relationship as I wanted it to be, not how it was. Because of all this, I was happy to look to the fandom for my fix. This is joined by most of your typical ships that don’t have much basis in canon.

The point: It seems so obvious now, but I’m just realizing that you (”you” being a singular person) can “ship” two pairings in totally opposite ways, and using that term could confuse people who aren’t associating it the same way you are.

Addendum: Neither Type A nor Type B are “wrong” ways to ship. You’re free to ship however you want, as long as you’re not an asshole about it.

[gothamgirlgayngs]