#thatchers

[alberta-sunrise]

Switch Time 🤣

[tuttle-did-it]

Rewatching Sliders, episode "Asylum," (season 4, E10). During a war with the villains, Margaret Thatcher was a collaborator with them.

Because of this, any other collaborators are now called Thatchers. And that makes me laugh so, so hard. Because she absolutely would have done exactly this.

they fucking made an amazing photoshop of her doing this and I'm dying with laughter. 😂

[kropotkindersurprise]

On April 8 we celebrate the death of Margaret Thatcher, and remember all the lives she destroyed.

[logorrhea5mip]

[dailyxstuds]

Dorian thatcher

[foone]

Full disclosure ahead of time: I'm trans, and not a fan of Harry Potter, as you might guess. However...

My favorite thing about the writing of Harry Potter is how the first book is set several years earlier for no reason. It's set in 1991 and came out in 1997

Then because of how the books came out over many year and each book is a year later in the story, the last book ends up being set in 1997 and published in 2007, a full decade later.

This would be an interesting writing exercise if it was at all used by J. K. Rowling, but it's not. This very specific dating of the books, and increasing dated setting is just there so that Rowling can make repeated anachronistic errors because she forgot her characters aren't living in the modern day.

There is no upside to definitively setting Harry Potter in the near past: nothing comes of it in a way that'd be impossible to do if the books were set in a vague present. All setting them in the past does is let Rowling repeatedly make mistake, like having Dudley get a Playstation for his birthday.

In the 1997 she wrote that in? Perfectly reasonable present for a kid! In the summer of 1994 this scene is set it? Fucking impossible. The PS1 wouldn't be out in Japan until that December, and wouldn't be released in Europe until the next year, after his NEXT birthday.

And it's like... This is just the most well known of the anachronisms. There's an endless parade of them solely because she decided to set the books in specific years, a choice which gained her NOTHING! This doesn't happen because the final battle needs to happen at the millennium for prophecy reasons, or because she needs her characters to meet up with real life people who were dead or otherwise unavailable by the time the books were written, it's just some story element she picked and then never for one second thought about the consequences.

(Another retroactively funny mistake caused by this is that she ends up having a character inadvertently misgender Margaret Thatcher of all people, because they call the previous prime minister "he", and the because the scene is set in 1996, the prime minister is John Major, so the previous one should be Thatcher, but she's clearly thinking the current PM would be Tony Blair, and the previous one would be John Major)

I dunno. It feels like there's something meaningful in how J. K. Rowling made a clearly bad decision once and hasn't thought about any of the negative effects of her decision, standing by and doubling down on it, no matter how much it doesn't help her or anyone. It just seems like this might be a metaphor for something.

But who can really say?

(that last line assumes you're using dark mode)

[alicearmageddon]

HAPPY ELEVEN YEARS

[candacethatcher]

Computational knit

48” x 48”

Wool

2024

[21st-century-boys]

Dorian Thatcher

[starmergeddon]

💀

[alberta-sunrise]

Lovely 🙌🏼

[sophiethatchersource]

SOPHIE THATCHER in MAXXXINE (2024) dir. Ti West

[sersh]

SOPHIE THATCHER Photographed by Emma Thatcher (2/3)

[the-lumpfish-king]

[se-qo]

death- beginnings, change, metamorphosis

[tlj1988]