a brief reprieve

I'm having my one-year Streamaversary on 4/4! I hope some of y'all can make it! It should be a fun time!

https://www.twitch.tv/artquilliam

I'm doing a Pokemon Gijinka art series on my Twitch channel! This is my most recent one: #35 Clefairy. I was really happy with how this one turned out!

For more of my stuff and details about commissioning me, check my website: https://www.artquilliam.com

"jk rowling does holocaust denial" is something that in 2004 would have been worldwide headline material for how shocking it is but in 2024 is frankly so expected that not a single person ive talked to has anything to say except "oh shes doing that now?"

White people will casually be like "yeah I GUESS some men experience oppression but it never relates to how they are men"

Like, I'm genuinely a little impressed that they managed to bury their head in the sand the entire time there were global Black Lives Matter protests. Were you on earth? What were you even doing? Were you hiding in a bunker with no internet access and only other white people that entire time? Did you slip into an alternate reality? Can I go there?

Hey, Monster of the Week players!

The Pararomantic guide book has a move where one of the options a player can choose is "receive a gift from your Guide" after you spend quality time with them.

I was wondering if anyone has any experience with this particular mechanic? I'm a Keeper and one of my players chose to do this. I have an idea of what the gift will be, but I'm not sure what to make it do, mechanically. Any ideas? Anything you've done or received as keepers/players that went well? I want it to be rewarding for my player.

Any advice is helpful! And don't be afraid to give me ideas even if you haven't played MotW, but have experience with TTRPGs in general. Thanks!

support group for ppl who used to be the same age as their favourite character but then got older

I'm gonna outlive that fucker.

Don’t forget that in Rowling’s world there are only three kinds of women:

Mothers (or nurturers), bitches, and jokes.

That’s it.

Petunia is a bitch until she admits to worry for Harry and Dudley.

Narcissa Malfoy is a bitch until she admits to worry for Draco.

Mrs. Black is a mother who refuses to nurture and is a bitch.

Fleur Delacourt is a bitch until she chooses to devote herself to nurturing Bill.

Rita Skeeter is a bitch.

Bellatrix Lestrange is a bitch.

Dolores Umbridge is a bitch.

Aunt Marge is a bitch.

Pansy Parkinson is a bitch.

Molly Weasley is a mother.

Lily Potter is a mother.

Mrs. Longbottom is a mother.

Tonks is a mother.

Ginny is a joke until she becomes Harry’s emotional support, and postcanon is a mother.

Hermione’s entire role is to support Harry and Ron and—yup—in the epilogue is a mother.

Narcissa is redeemed by being a mother.

Luna Lovegood is a mother and teacher.

Minerva McGonagall is a head of house—what we in the US call a housemother—and headmistress.

Professor Hooch is a teacher.

Professor Sprout is a teacher.

Merope Riddle is a mother and entirely devoted to a man.

Cho Chang’s entire character is “I’m devoted to a man.” She straddles the line between mother and joke.

Professor Trelawney? Joke.

Moaning Myrtle? Joke.

Also, note that when Rowling wants you to dislike a female character, she always goes straight for their looks. Narcissa always looks like she’s smelled something unpleasant. Umbridge looks like a toad. Rita Skeeter is “mannish.” Petunia is “scrawny” while Aunt Marge is described as fat in super-fatphobic ways and Umbridge is described as looking like a toad. When we first meet Hermione she’s described as “frizzy-haired and bucktoothed” and her teeth are magically fixed after she becomes a love interest. Cho’s friend, I forget her name because she literally only shows up once, turns in Dumbledore’s Army and her punishment—which is treated as a joke—is disfiguring acne and scarring across her face.

And let’s not forget the implication that Umbridge was raped, which is also treated as a joke!

Yeah, that sure is some feminist writing right there!

Don’t forget that Merope is also a r*pist because she used a love potion, entirely negating consent in her relationship with Tom Riddle Sr.

Not only is she a rapist (hon you gotta type that out for the Tumblr blacklist to catch it, this ain't TikTok), here's a list of OTHER people in the books who've committed sexual crimes: --Romilda Vane (attempts to give Harry a date rape drug, accidentally drugs Ron instead) --Molly Weasley (admits to using date rape drugs, which is treated as a silly thing girls do sometimes) --Moaning Myrtle (admits to hanging out in the prefects' bathroom to see them undress and bathe) --Rita Skeeter (hides in the boys' dormitory; it's unclear whether she watched them undress) --James Potter (restrains a boy against his will and exposes his genitals to a crowd of onlookers; demands a date from a girl in exchange for stopping the assault) --Sirius Black (aids and abets James Potter in the above) --Aberforth Dumbledore (fucked a goat, apparently) --Fred and George Weasley (produce and sell date rape drugs, which they market toward underage girls) And a bonus via horrible metaphor: Fenrir Greyback (lycanthropy is supposedly the wizarding analogue of HIV/AIDS; Greyback deliberately attacks and infects Lupin) Notice something funny about this list? Because I do. All the victims--except the goat, which is a goat--are male, and every single one is underage. The only victim in the entire series who's over the age of 18 is Tom Riddle Sr. and the lesson we're supposed to take away from that is "if you're a rape baby, you're gonna be a murderous racist psychopath." So let's see...we have nine separate confirmed instances of sexual assault, ten if we assume the heavily-implied Umbridge assault scene was definitely assault. Seven of them are played for laughs. One is played as a tragedy. Two are played as horrible violations. ....wait.....hang on..... The "feral gay man who deliberately infects others with AIDS" stereotype metaphor and the "coded as a trans woman or possibly a lesbian" stereotype metaphor are the ones seen as horrible violations.

WHOOPS. Should we add that the only canonly gay character is actively a child groomer, and the text straight up calls him out for it? ("You're raising him like a lamb to the slaughter.") So much for "she's not homophobic"! And I'd also suggest she's an active danger to young boys, given her apparent zest for writing them as victims of sexual assault.

a lot of the offensive stuff in Harry Potter is more offensive knowing what she’s up to these days, harder to write it off as a generic fantasy trope or whatever

Nah we were complaining about the fatphobia, rampant girl-on-boy and centaur-on-villain sexual assault written off as a joke, and various unfortunate implications of some of the foreign characters and fantasy races long before the terf stuff came out. The terf stuff gives it context but readers already weren't happy.

I'd like to add that Remus Lupin's very first lesson involves telling a 13-year-old boy to imagine Snape (a man who Remus used to bully at school) in his grandmother's clothes which then manifests as a joke to fight off a boggart. How original. Man in a dress joke. Isn't it *soooo funny* when men are acting outside of their prescribed gender roles? The transphobia's written in the text too, played for laughs.

Also played for laughs is Archie, at the World Cup in the 4th book, being told he has to change out of what he's wearing because he's wearing clothes intended for muggle women. To which he responds that he "likes a nice breeze around his privates." A hilarious instance of the wizard government harassing a random guy for not adhering to his expected gender performance.

Also on the note of Remus is the case of his relationship with Tonks, who really seems to be coercing him into something he doesn't want less than a year after his last old friend from his main friend group dies. We get all of it from her self-pitying perspective. And then they get married & have a child like she was right about ignoring his refusal to be in a relationship with her. (Not to mention the significant age gap & his hesitancy to even have a child in the first place for fear he'll pass on his lycanthropy.)

On a side note - this has absolutely nothing to do with HP - JKR was calling Trump supporters "sad virgins" on Twitter during the 2016 US presidential election. Which, like, yeah those people are worthy of criticism, but is "sad virgin" really the feminist slam dunk you think it is, Jo?

Thinking about MLM transmascs who are seen as “fujoshis fetishizing gay men,” vs WLW transmascs who are seen as people who “would rather be misgendered than admit they have privilege” and are “invading” women’s spaces

But then you also have straight transmascs who are “stolen lesbians”

And it’s not like queer spaces want them to be ace or aro either so like…what exactly do you want from them?

Don’t tell me, I know the answer

Thinking about MLM transfemmes seen as a fakers or “fetishizing trans women’s experience” vs WLW transfemmes who are seen as predatory men trying to invade women’s spaces

But then you have straight transfemmes who “should expect” violence for wanting to talk to straight men

It’s not like queer spaces want them to be ace or aro and even if they aren’t sexual at all, their existence is hyper-sexualized anyway.

So what exactly do you want from them? Sure sounds like the answer is the same!

I felt like the fears in this style would be cute as hell, and I was right

Y'ALL

remember when good omens (2019) came out and neil gaiman made it clear in no uncertain terms that angels and demons were inherently nonbinary, that angels and demons (and crowley in particular) can and Do have a variety of presentations that they choose for themselves, and that the story is a Love Story between two nonbinary entities fighting for their right to love each other openly in the face of religiously charged black and white thinking that’d forced them to hide and deny their love for each other at the threat of punishment.

and then instead of celebrating the openly queer, openly trans, openly fluid and neutral and non-conforming relationships and people presented by the series people were just Legitimately like “Wow, can’t believe neil won’t say that aziraphale and crowley are gay (read: Cis) men, looks like queerbaiting is alive and well 🙄“ and nobody stopped them

people have switched their understanding of queerbaiting from “intentionally implying representation that they have no intention of following through on to attract gay people’s Money but not isolate their straight audience” to “queer representation, but not the kind that I want”

I appreciate all of the people insisting that they Tried to stop them by explaining the importance of nb representation and how explicit both neil and the show/book are about their relationship (thank you for your service), but personally I meant with this gun I just found

I’ve seen a few people asking about the representation in the show itself as well as what neil’s said about it, so here’s a semi-cohesive discussion on it!

first, lets start with the claim that angels and demons are inherently nonbinary. This is something that’s been especially highlighted with the adaptation, but has been present since the original novel!

the novel was published in 1990, so the term used then is “sexless,” but it’s stated plainly that angels (and by extension demons) aren’t men or women. The implication here is that they Physically don’t present one way or the other by default, but that they can Choose to if they want to. I think it’s also worth noting that with the addition of Physicality (they’re nonbinary in the identity sense, but they also aren’t gendered at all by default) that angels and demons Also fall along the lines of intersex (which is something that I don’t see brought up often). they can Choose how their physical parts manifest, and there’s absolutely nothing that says that that choice has to be limited to cis or perisex ideas of what bodies “should” look like.

and of course, we have Many Many instances of neil confirming that this was the intention.

[Link]

and we can see this followed through on in both the casting and presentation for the angelic and demonic characters! according to neil, the casting itself completely dropped the barrier of gender, with people of any identity and presentation auditioning for the exact same roles. [Link]

as a result of that we have casting like the archangel michael, a character with a traditionally masculine name and traditionally masculine presentation played by the actress doon mackichan.

we have beelzebub, the prince of hell who’s pointedly never referred to with pronouns at all throughout the course of the show (though neil has suggested the possibility of zem using zir pronouns [Link], which would be the first time I’ve seen neopronouns in Any piece of mainstream media, which I really hope makes it into season two) who’s portrayed by anna maxwell martin.

We have pollution (not an angel or a demon but certainly related) using exclusively they/them pronouns while baring the title of king, who’s portrayed by lourdes faberes.

all of this is to say ! angels and demons are canonically nonbinary, canonically not constrained to gender or physical sex at all, and this is present in both the novel and the show and was carefully considered in both the casting and presentation of these characters. this Alone is overt and intentional queer representation. but naturally, this isn’t the main course when people talk about queer representation in good omens, so lets turn our attention towards our leads!

crowley is an obvious first start, fans of the show are likely to jump straight to nanny ashtoreth and for good reason, but I’d like to wait for a moment.

crowley, a being defined both by change and by pushing boundaries, actually shakes up his presentation quite often! though it’s more commonly in ways that aren’t as obvious to the audience, either because it’s more subtle, or because the style is so old it’s not recognizable.

for the latter, crowley was presenting femininely during the crucifixion scene ! wearing a style of robe and headdress that women wore at the time (which was confirmed as intentional by neil gaiman on twitter [Link]).

and then of course, what many people don’t realize is that crowley’s more modern looks are filled with subtle feminine touches ! This post goes into it all in more detail: [Link]

but for instance ! his iconic shades are women’s valentino glasses [Link], his pants are Mostly women’s jeans, his accessories are Very Often women’s, and his waistcoat and jacket are a women’s cut (low to accommodate breasts). Every article of clothing crowley is wearing in the picture below was designed for women, even the scarf.

he’s generally read masculinely in modern times, but the truth is that it’s a Mix of masculine And feminine.

which is where I’d like to acknowledge nanny ashtoreth. this is the point where crowley’s feminine presentation is the most overt (neither subtle Nor lost to a modern audience), but it’s also unfortunately not always taken in good faith. quite a few people have expressed concern that it’s an example of the transphobic man in a dress trope, which is a common kneejerk reaction to plot beats like this in media.

here’s the Truly important aspects of nanny ashtoreth:

1: while it’s true that crowley presents femininely while he’s posing as nanny, this is far from the Only time that he presents this way (as we’ve covered!). he wasn’t trying to “pretend” to be a woman for ill gain, he simply had to take on the role as warlock’s caretaker and chose to spend that time presenting femininely, as he’s done before and after. there was nothing about the situation that Necessitated that crowley present that way, he chose to because he Wanted to, simple as that.

2: nanny ashtoreth isn’t supposed to be funny. at least, no more than the situational comedy of a demon and an angel trying to raise the antichrist together in the hopes that their influences would cancel each other out creates. nanny is filmed neutrally, the show doesn’t call attention to or question her presentation at any point. and in fact, the script book describes crowley’s reveal as nanny as “sexy and domineering.”

which itself is Toned Down from the description the book uses for her.

good omens doesn’t want us to think that nanny ashtoreth is funny or strange or off putting, good omens wants us to think that nanny ashtoreth can get it. just like Canonically.

and notice how the book And the script book uses she/her pronouns for nanny, even when it’s in narration or description as opposed to dialogue. when crowley’s presentation changes her pronouns do too.

it’s also worth noting that neil himself has acknowledged the “man in a dress” reading of crowley as nanny and expressed Sadness at it coming across that way to anyone. this was also in the context of him agreeing with a post all about the nonbinary presentation of the characters in good omens. [Link]

which is to say ! crowley has a history of playing with gender presentation, presenting femininely and masculinely and everything in between, since the very Creation of presentation itself to modern day. he is an Overtly fluid nonbinary character, which is particularly important because that also sets him apart from other demons and angels. crowley is defined by the fact that he Does understand and Love humanity in a way that other demons simply don’t. while demons are simply Devoid of gender, crowley is intimately familiar with humans and their presentation and chooses to be All of it. he pushes boundaries for presentation by choice rather than incidentally.

and then we have aziraphale! zira is, of course, nonbinary by the very nature of him being an angel, but of course his presentation doesn’t play with gender as overtly as someone like crowley does (or even archangel michael), but I do think it’s still There.

while crowley is defined by Change, aziraphale is defined by Comfort, Routine, and Indulgence. crowley is othered from the other demons with his overt presentation, while aziraphale is othered from other angels by the things that he Likes and the ways that he Acts.

where crowley is more likely to embrace the outright feminine, aziraphale is Effeminate. he’s Soft, he’s clean, he likes his clothes Posh (even when dressing like an aristocrat got him in trouble in revolutionary france), he likes good food and dancing old slang and his library (and he of course loves his crowley). and the story doesn’t fault him for these things, it wants him to Drop the shame that heaven makes him feel for them. Drop the shame that he’s not the perfect solder represented in gabriel, uriel, or michael (drop the shame of a guardian of the eastern gate who gave his sword away to humanity because he loved them).

and on the face of it, none of these traits Have to be related to queerness in and of themselves. but good omens directly makes that connection. lets go back to that book quote from earlier, now with slightly more context.

aziraphale is interpreted as a gay man by the people around him, and he has been for a Very Long Time. and this fact is, quite literally, one of the many things that aziraphale Happily claims for himself. that he learns to wear with Pride when he lets go of the notion of having to be what an angel is “supposed” to be.

this line in particular doesn’t make it into the show, but this makes it way through in shadwell (the bigoted old man set in his ways) who reacts to aziraphale the ways you think a character like him might. when shadwell calls aziraphale a “southern pansy” aziraphale knows exactly what that means. he was alive when that slang was popular, he was alive and Knew shadwell when shadwell learned that slang in the first place.

which is why its significant, then, when aziraphale finally drops all pretenses of needing to abide by heaven’s rules, when he possesses a body so he can find crowley and stop the war that heaven wants (a feminine body, which is significant as this is the first time that aziraphale has been allowed to present overtly Femininely. which I highlight because neil himself always includes it with the instances of crowley presenting that way, making it intentional), and shadwell uses that term for him again and we get this

aziraphale affirms himself, affirms his life on earth, affirms his individuality, affirms his desire to leave heaven behind to choose earth and humanity and Crowley, by declaring that he’s The southern pansy, that he’s Queer.

and of course, this is far from the only instances of aziraphale being overtly queer, but I wanted to highlight how it’s framed by the narrative. that it’s not just there but Celebrated. that the fact that he is the way that he is, that he’s able to Embrace it and Love himself as he is, is exactly what saves humanity. that We’re supposed to love him as he is too.

but while we’re here, lets talk about the subtler details for aziraphale’s queerness.

- Soho, the area his bookshop is located, has been a historically queer area for quite literally hundreds of years, populated with gay bars and clubs, and is still a hub for queer culture in london in the present day. [Link 1, Link 2, Link 3]

- aziraphale learning how to dance isn’t just queer for the fact that it’s something that no other angels do. aziraphale learned the gavotte in a “gentlemen’s club” in the 1800s. the gavotte is a kissing dance wherein you kiss your partner, eventually working your way through the room. kissing a room full of men in a gentlemen’s club recreationally is already pretty Queer, but we have further confirmation outside of the series itself ! neil confirmed on twitter that the club aziraphale learned in was “the hundred guineas club,” which was not only a real gay club in london at the time but was one of the Most Prestigious, Expensive, and Exclusive of its time (”The” southern pansy indeed). [Link 1, Link 2, Link 3]

- aziraphale’s Impressive collection of oscar wilde books. which of course ties him to queer culture on its own, but it can also be noted that it’s rumored that oscar wilde gave his first editions to his lovers. which michael sheen (aziraphale actor) has readily played into on twitter [Link] commenting on fanart of aziraphale looking smitten surrounded by flowers Like This

- the script book gives us more context on what aziraphale (and crowley) were doing in rome thanks to a few lines that were apparently cut for time.

aziraphale was in rome in the first place to influence Nero, who (after aziraphale’s apparent Influence) would become the first emperor to marry another man (three times in fact).

now, you may be asking yourself, if aziraphale is so strongly coded like a gay man, with this fact being reinforced by both other characters (and even the narration) throughout the book and show, then why can’t he be interpreted As a gay man? well, the simple answer is that he can be, as long as we also acknowledge that he’s still nonbinary. I’m a nonbinary gay man, and the fact that I’m one of these things doesn’t erase or Diminish the other. it just comes down to Respecting both aspects of his character.

that said, he doesn’t Have to be gay or aligned for his presentation and personality and coding to be this way. there are nonbinary people who Don’t identify as gay or as masc-aligned who look and act like aziraphale. and that’s exactly Why neil insists on refusing to label him that way, just like he’s always insisted that Fans can and should interpret his work however they want. he will not say that aziraphale is a gay man because he wrote him as nonbinary, but he fully supports people reading him as an aligned nonbinary gay man (or any interpretation at all, as long as they still acknowledge that he and crowley love each other).

and all of That is to say that crowley and aziraphale (along with all of the angels and demons on the show) are Overt and Intentional queer representation Regardless of how you read their relationship (if you think it wasn’t overt enough or, bizarrely, you try to insist that crowley and aziraphale weren’t intended to be in love at all). it is, in fact, Transphobic to say that Overt Nonbinary Representation isn’t “enough,” or worse that it’s Queerbaiting. if you think they should’ve kissed on screen, if you think they should’ve said “I love you” in so many words, if you think they should’ve said with their mouths that they were dating now, you’re free to feel that way. but none of that means that good omens Doesn’t Have overt queer representation.

this was Mainly focused on the queerness in good omens in terms of gender and presentation, so I may come back and do a breakdown of Exactly how much I disagree with the notion that aziraphale and crowley aren’t overtly in love in the show (not the least because neil says says as much every opportunity he can, and both the actors playing the leads have said as much themselves), but this is long enough and I’m sick of writing it now afkjlsd

so to close this off: the next person who calls good omens “queerbait” has to personally pay for my top surgery.

I think the Hunger Games series sits in a similar literary position to The Lord of the Rings, as a piece of literature (by a Catholic author) that sparked a whole new subgenre and then gets blamed for flaws that exist in the copycat books and aren’t actually part of the original.

Like, despite what parodies might say, Katniss is nowhere near the stereotypical “unqualified teenager chosen to lead a rebellion for no good reason”.  The entire point is that she’s not leading the rebellion. She’s a traumatized teenager who has emotional reactions to the horrors in her society, and is constantly being reined in by more experienced adults who have to tell her, “No, this is not how you fight the government, you are going to get people killed.” She’s not the upstart teenager showing the brainless adults what to do–she’s a teenager being manipulated by smarter and more experienced adults. She has no power in the rebellion except as a useful piece of propaganda, and the entire trilogy is her straining against that role. It’s much more realistic and far more nuanced than anyone who dismisses it as “stereotypical YA dystopian” gives it credit for.

And the misconceptions don’t end there. The Hunger Games has no “stereotypical YA love triangle”–yes, there are two potential love interests, but the romance is so not the point. There’s a war going on! Katniss has more important things to worry about than boys! The romance was never about her choosing between two hot boys–it’s about choosing between two diametrically opposed worldviews. Will she choose anger and war, or compassion and peace? Of course a trilogy filled with the horrors of war ends with her marriage to the peace-loving Peeta. Unlike some of the YA dystopian copycats, the romance here is part of the message, not just something to pacify readers who expect “hot love triangles” in their YA. 

The worldbuilding in the Hunger Games trilogy is simplistic and not realistic, but unlike some of her imitators, Collins does this because she has something to say, not because she’s cobbling together a grim and gritty dystopia that’s “similar to the Hunger Games”. The worldbuilding has an allegorical function, kept simple so we can see beyond it to what Collins is really saying–and it’s nothing so comforting as “we need to fight the evil people who are ruining society”. The Capitol’s not just the powerful, greedy bad guys–the Capitol is us, First World America, living in luxury while we ignore the problems of the rest of the world, and thinking of other nations largely in terms of what resources we can get from them. This simplistic world is a sparsely set stage that lets us explore the larger themes about exploitation and war and the horrors people will commit for the sake of their bread and circuses, meant to make us think deeper about what separates a hero from a villain.

There’s a reason these books became a literary phenomenon. There’s a reason that dozens upon dozens of authors attempted to imitate them. But these imitators can’t capture that same genius, largely because they’re trying to imitate the trappings of another book, and failing to capture the larger and more meaningful message underneath. Make a copy of a copy of a copy, and you’ll wind up with something far removed from the original masterpiece. But we shouldn’t make the mistake of blaming those flaws on the original work.

As a nonfan, one thing I’ve always appreciated about the “love triangle” of THG is that it’s the one YA love triangle I’ve ever read where the heroine DOESN’T choose the brooding, violent bad boy. Every YA novel that has love triangles is copying Wuthering Heights and Jane Eyre where the broody guy is “not like the others” making the heroine “original” and oh so special for falling for him when he’s literally an abusive jerk.

My FAVORITE part of this though, is that in violent, oppressive, dystopian Panem Peeta IS the different one. Every person Katniss meets has dark, broody feelings for completely valid reasons (another thing shallow Bad Boy archetypes usually lack). Peeta (sry it autocorrected to “pasta” and I cracked up) is one of the only people in Katniss life who’s telling her “Hey, you can do this, we’ll get through this, people shouldn’t have to die for it though.” And that’s, like, the most revolutionary mindset in a world where brutal violence is so normalized it’s broadcast on television as mandatory entertainment. Katniss didn’t pick the “nice guy” she picked the healthy worldview she and her society need to heal.

Moreover, Peeta picked well too. He’s a child abuse victim from a houseful of people who wouldn’t stand up for him in a town that derides him for having a minimally better station in life than them, and here’s this girl who willfully stands up to every injustice she can. Seriously, how often does the love interest in copycat YA lit have a convincingly compelling reason to love the heroine other than she’s pretty or “different” or “we’ve always known each other so I guess let’s get married”?

Also, their initial interactions, he’s not kind to her because he has a crush on her. He’s kind to her initially because he’s a kind person.

It’s also never *definitely* clear exactly when he developed romantic feelings for her. Sure, he claims he had a crush all along, and that might be true, but also he’s shown to be an excellent improviser who can and will lie extremely convincingly on the spot to manipulate public opinion when he feels it’s warranted (fake pregnancy, anyone?), and also a deeply kind person, and in combination? He may not have loved her yet when he first claimed to, in the first public interview. But he knew she had more to win for than he did, and if she won, it would help their whole community, by extension everyone he cared about, PLUS she has the kind of skills that are useful in the Games, far more than he does. She wasn’t ever going to get the public-opinion support that would improve her chances on her own, she’s too blunt, too rough around the edges. She’s already pissed off the elites enough to manipulate the rankings to punish her.

But a tragic, star-crossed-lovers story? THAT might get people rooting for them, and by extension, for her. That might be enough that Katniss, whose family primarily rely on her to feed them since her father’s death (unlike Peeta’s family, who can fend for themselves), gets to go back home alive at the end of all this. He never had a ghost of a chance anyway.

And Peeta is a kind person.

I just rediscovered how glorious this image is so excuse me while I laugh uncontrollably every time I look at it again.

It was taken in Kensal Green Cemetery in February.

Terry borrowed the white jacket from our editor, Malcolm Edwards, and grumbled that it did nothing to keep him warm on a very cold day.

“Sometimes you have to be cold to look cool,” I told him.

“It’s all right for you,” he said. “You’re wearing a leather jacket.”

“You could wear a leather jacket too.”

“I’m wearing white,” said Terry, pointedly. “That way, when they come after us for writing a blasphemous book, they’ll know I’m the nice one.”

(After the photo was taken we noticed the bat-winged hourglass, which we hadn’t seen during the photo session, and requested bat-winged hourglasses as a design motif in the book.)

Missing Terry on his anniversary.

ngl i wish anyone other than me would talk about how jkr is Islamophobic?

don't get me wrong, every single thing she's being called out for is valid and she's a nasty horrible person but every time i mention she's Islamophobic people brush me off? so is that not worth outrage as well?

anyway cw: Islamophobia and transphobia, 2 for one special, because this is an excerpt from her shitty crime novel

Sorry for the irritated tone but I am tired of people ignoring me. I don't get why it's not a bigger deal for people that she 1) Demonised Muslim women who choose to fully cover up. 2) Implied they were predatory in nearly the exact same way she does with trans women. 3) Implied that the acceptance of fully covered women in women's spaces puts other women at risk.

all this in a country that is already hostile to Muslim women /immigrant women?

and im sorry but what will it take to get people to realise that this conversation is also worth taking up space in the universe of discourse people are having about this shitty woman?

Since I didn't see this in the notes, just want to add this passage is from The Silkworm, which was released in 2014. It was getting passed around in 2020 before Troubled Blood was released that year. This Daily Mail article talks about it (but I understand if you don't want to give them a click lol). I saw a number of people at the time get confused and think it was from Troubled Blood, so I wanted to point that out.

While I'm at it I'll make it clear that this passage is not taken out of context at all. This is 100% a serious theory the heroic main characters of this book are considering. They move on pretty quickly but at no point are we the audience supposed to think they're being racist.

the best thing you can do is give people an alternative

Thinking about getting this so I can play through them when I start streaming on twitch again!

RIP Chidi Anagonye, you would've hated the new poll feature