#i should reread these books

[troutwithfur]

i never thought of the cats in the warriors series being feral when i initially read it, so in my head the battle at the end of the first book was going down like this.

[inumbrapugnabimus-maybe]

I read Howl’s Moving Castle and it is officially a comfort book now so here is Sophie :D

[domo-arts]

long time no wangxian

[mxssacre]

"You do not dance everyday with the fear of living in headlights, the hunted, the deer"

Her slow descent into the fear and paranoia that would eventually envelope her will forever be ingrained into my mind

[naomistares]

i love making those short tlt comics but i need another person who knows the books front to back to just fact check everything i draw beforehand😭 (person who only read the books one time only more than 3 years ago(i didn't read half of nona (john chapters) and i don't think i even read the ending))

[hollowed-theory-hall]

Normally, I post theories on this blog, and what I usually do is solve plot holes, but I'm currently rereading Deathly Hallows, and I honestly forgot how stupid some decisions there are. So, I'm compiling some of them here to maybe theorize and solve these plot holes later. But for now, I'm baffled.

1. I just reached the part where they started camping in the woods, and Harry just started being hungry, and I don't think I can adequately describe how dumb that is. Like, I can get wanting to stay hidden and stuff, but why not call Kreacher?

I mean, Harry showed in HBP he can just call Kreacher to him:

But the question was, how to call him? What did you do? Quietly, tentatively, Harry spoke into the darkness. “Kreacher?” There was a very loud crack, and the sounds of scuffling and squeaks filled the silent room.

(HBP, 419)

Why not call Kreacher and tell him to bring food to the tent? He's a house-elf, so he could apparate through their wards with no problem. They could've had Kreacher's cooking still, I just don't get it.

2. They didn't actually need to leave Grimmauld Place at all. The book explains it like this:

“Harry, I think he can. I—I forced him to let go with a Revulsion Jinx, but I’d already taken him inside the Fidelius Charm’s protection. Since Dumbledore died, we’re Secret-Keepers, so I’ve given him the secret, haven’t I?” There was no pretending; Harry was sure she was right. It was a serious blow. If Yaxley could now get inside the house, there was no way that they could return. Even now, he could be bringing other Death Eaters in there by Apparition.

(DH, 271)

But Yaxley wouldn't be a Secret Keeper, he couldn't bring other Death Eaters inside. This isn't how the magic works.

After Dumbledore dies, everyone he told the secret to becomes the Secret Keeper. Hermione is a Secret Keeper. She can reveal the secret to Yaxley by appparating him, but that doesn't turn Yaxley into a Secret Keeeper. It's just one Death Eater who knows how to get in that Harry and Co can kidnap, obliviate, or kill if they're really stressed about it. Yaxley couldn't bring anyone else inside regardless of how much he wanted to. He isn't a Secret Keeper, so all the other Death Eaters would've had to wait outside and watch the place the house should be in like they did up to this point.

And sure, Snape is a Secret Keeper but considering he somehow lied his way out of telling them the secret, even though we see Death Eaters stationed outside Grimmauld Place, I think it's safe to say, he wouldn't tell even after Yaxley knew and potentially returned with this information. I mean, the fact the Death Eaters are watching outside Grimmauld Place tells us Snape didn't tell them, and it should tell Harry, Ron, and Hermione Snape didn't betray the secret, as otherwise, the Death Eaters would've just broken in to search for them.

3. If we're talking of the Fidelius Charm and Secret Keepers, I don't get why Bill and Arthur Weasley have to be their own Secret Keepers. Why create this plot hole so late in the game? I mean, up until book 7, I didn't question why James and Lily had to have a third party as their Secret Keeper. It was just how the spell worked. Well, not anymore.

So, now I have to wonder why they were convinced they needed someone else, someone outside the house? Perhaps it was out of paranoia? So that if something happened to them anyway there'd be someone outside who could bring help?

4. And don't even get me started on the Battle of the Seven Potters. I mean, apparition or side-along apparition are completely viable methods of transportation, so why brooms? Wtf?

I mean, the Order makes this same ludicrous decision in OotP, when they transport Harry from the Dursleys to Grimmauld Place on brooms, so at least they're consistent in their stupidity.

Like, I could make an excuse for the use of brooms if they're trying to evade the Trace. According to how I believe the Trace works, the Trace wouldn't pick up on a broom the same way it didn't pick up on the flying Ford Angelica. It's an item already enchanted, magic isn't being cast, so it doesn't pick on it. So, while the Trace would pick up on apparition, it won't pick up on broom flight.

The problem with this is that in OotP we see the Order cast magic inside the Dursleys' house, making any chance of avoiding the Trace moot:

“Don’t be stupid, it’ll be much quicker if I — pack!” cried Tonks, waving her wand in a long, sweeping movement over the floor. Books, clothes, telescope, and scales all soared into the air and flew pell-mell into the trunk.

(OotP, 53)

And in DH, Harry is already 17, and the Trace shouldn't be a problem for him, so this excuse doesn't really hold water...

I'm sure I'll remember more as I continue reading, but these are the ones that really bother me now. Rant over (at least until I find a hopefully not super contrived way to make all this make sense in-universe).

[emily-e-draws]

wip of the faves... at any given moment I am thinking about the scholomance trilogy

(preview from the latest batch of sketches going up on my patreon!)

[risegoobie]

here’s swannie from Swanatello by @tangledinink

i just love this comic sm, its amazing

go read it

[tickfleato]

hi i forgor to post art. adam be upon ye

[dedshomas]

my beloveds....

[benevolenterrancy]

@doctorbluesmanreturns so true, so true!

The Big Bad Wolf and his commitment to self-improvement!

book titles all courtesy of @meso-mijali who is funnier than me:

Mirror Mirror: 10 Steps to the Fairest You 7 Dwarves' 7 Steps to Romance, by Doc Red Riding Hood and You: Finding Your Inner Child and Learning to Trust Again Into the Woods: CPTSD and the Self Gnolls, Trolls & Wolves: It's what's inside that matters

(+ "Meyers Briggs: we aren't astrology for STEM, honest!" which didn't quite make it in, but assume it's one of the untitled books u.u)

[queerfables]

This came up in my recent discussion with @indigovigilance, but for my own reference, I wanted to make a dedicated post about it.

Fandom speculation in the wake of season 2 has pointed to the themes of deception, sleight of hand and memory tampering to suggest there's an unsolved mystery woven through the season that we can piece together with the right evidence. I think there's a solid case for this, but I also think it's possible we've been deliberately lead into overthinking things.

Crowley and Aziraphale's conversation about Clues-with-a-captial-C is a reference to Terry Pratchett's iconic Discworld detective, Samuel Vimes. Vimes is skeptical about Clues. He considers assembling a singular, intricate explanation that accounts for every available piece of evidence a great way to end up with a theory that is enormously clever and completely off base.

From Feet of Clay:

Samuel Vimes dreamed about Clues. He had a jaundiced view of Clues. He instinctively distrusted them. They got in the way. And he distrusted the kind of person who’d take one look at another man and say in a lordly voice to his companion, “Ah, my dear sir, I can tell you nothing except that he is a left-handed stonemason who has spent some years in the merchant navy and has recently fallen on hard times,” and then unroll a lot of supercilious commentary about calluses and stance and the state of a man’s boots, when exactly the same comments could apply to a man who was wearing his old clothes because he’d been doing a spot of home bricklaying for a new barbecue pit, and had been tattooed once when he was drunk and seventeen and in fact got seasick on a wet pavement. What arrogance! What an insult to the rich and chaotic variety of the human experience!

From the Fifth Elephant:

Mr. Vimes had told him never to get too excited about clues, because clues could lead you a dismal dance. They could become a habit. You ended up finding a wooden leg, a silk slipper and a feather at the scene of a crime and constructing an elegant theory involving a one-legged ballet dancer and a production of Chicken Lake.

Coupled with the conspicuous barrel of red herrings in the opening credits, I have to wonder if the show, while teasing the possibility of a mystery, is explicitly telling us not to look too hard. I'm not ruling out some kind of twist, but I'm inclined to think that for this story, theories are strongest when they rely on only a few pieces of evidence and follow a clear, straightforward narrative. If there is something still hidden in season 2, maybe it's not an elaborate puzzle but a simple misdirect.

[remusawoooo]

Chapter 5 or the wolfstar chapter

Obviously starting with our gold mine- personally, I too would stare at Sirius at the dinner table as he is arguing.

Remus -Sirius defender first, human second- Lupin (Molly was cold as hell for this btw). I just love that Remus spoke sharply and surely here when Molly crossed the line, for Sirius.

And I love this entire exchange ( there is more) of wolfstar being so in tune! I think it is more so Remus fully listening and engaging with Sirius, joking at appropriate times and backing him up as he finally says his piece. It is just really important to me that Remus was participating in the conversation rather than just listening because Sirius wanted to be really heard the whole time. Also, establishing wolfstar as a duo! There is just so much chemistry with them simply being together in a scene... the fucking potential.

Bro, what if we became a comedy duo? but also make out?

mine and harry's extra parents everyone!!! (also Harry really catches onto non-verbal communication very well, my sweet boy)

This is very married couple behavior btw. idc what #she did or says, they definitely at least held hands and gazed into the depths of their eyes (full homo)

Anyway, love my gay dads and think they are super neat.

[witchfinderlieutenanttable]

To all of you who think Howl's reactions are overly dramatic, I'll let you know that after having spent more than a week in bed with the combination of a never ending illness and a perpetual bad hair day, I slowly grew to understand where he's coming from.

[camellia-thea]

okay. just rambling here, but, i think armand took more than just the end of the interview away from daniel.

we got that little moment about that night, saying 'you asked me to' to louis. 'you asked me to take this from you, you could not live with it,' leading into, 'i look after you when you cannot look after yourself, i make those choices for you.'

we know that during the chase and devil's minion era, daniel was an addict, who was, by his own admission, slowly killing himself. he was also addicted to blood.

it's really not too far to make the jump, if devil's minion occurred, that armand made the choice to step in, in his own mind, for daniel's best interests. i know this isn't a unique jump to make, but; again with armand's "i look after him when he cannot look after himself" continual reiteration, i think it's a fair assumption.

he can also replace and blur memories, which makes the discussion of alice and paris -- why the dessert from that night? -- and how immediate and sincere his answer of "she wanted to say yes, but she didn't trust you. you hadn't given her a reason to." this could be the night he took them away, replaced himself with alice, planted something similar for her to start the relationship, then step back and watch it fall. and i think the thing that stands out there is just how tender he is while saying it. there's an undercurrent of something else entirely underneath, it isn't a dig at daniel in the moment, despite the pushing earlier in the scene.

and then in s1, when louis say to daniel, "i'd give it to you now." and the cut to armand, still in disguise, and his micro-expression of horror, the way he stiffens and looks away... and the little moment of what i read as conflict when daniel says no. his jump to "may i be excused?" i can't tell in the moment, if he's horrified about the offer itself, the fact that it is louis offering to turn daniel rather than himself, or the fact that daniel denies it. because i don't think armand could actually let daniel die if this was the case.

the disguise itself-- why pretend to be rashid? i think part of it is to try and hide behind a human persona to keep those memories at bay; especially given the little moments of flashback that got triggered by little mannerisms. i can't decide whether they're intentional pushes or not, whether armand wanted/wants daniel to remember on his own, or wants to keep it under wraps. i think, even if he believes he doesn't want it to come forward, he truly does deep down.

and once he's revealed himself as armand, the way he gazes at daniel, his beautiful boy. the continued "our boy", from both he and louis, the "he's still in there, somewhere..."

and i think "our boy" is also really interesting, because why would daniel be armand's boy, based solely on the moments that louis initially remembered? armand didn't really have any emotional connection to daniel that night, sure, he saved him, but that doesn't really mean anything; he saved daniel for louis, not for daniel's sake.

and, jumping back "our boy,[...] he's still in there somewhere"... there's implication that louis might know about it? again, i don't think this is related to the original interview, or at least, limited to it? i don't have anything concrete here, just vibes, but again, why is armand's boy still in there somewhere?

and sure, some of these are reaches and i don't think i'm necessarily right, but god it would be deliciously awful if i was.

[a-dauntless-daffodil]

once again remembering how a signed, first edition copy of Will of the Empress by Tamora Pierce single handedly made little pre-teen me go from "wait these girls are kissing. can I read a book with girls kissing each other in it???" to "I aM Going to REREAD everY moment where Daja and Rizu exiST Together and Giggle The Whole Time", singlehandedly turning me gay forever

also singlehandedly setting the bar for breakups so high, like, excuse you having Daja keep a little portrait of Rizu to remember her by and be caught looking at it while riding home with her sibs is so freaking sweet, the empress wanting Daja to stay specifically just to make Rizu happy again is so sweet,

and them breaking up not because of a fight or from a lack of love but because they both have Other Things in their lives and those Other Things are just as important as being in love, and they're not bitter about each other for it?

Sad yes, hurt, heartbroken- but it wasn't the wrong choice to not choose each other in the end, and it wasn't the wrong choice to choose each other at the start. Like, damn. 12yo me's mind was BLOWN