When I used to think about Voldemort’s horcruxes I imagined a soul divided in equal portions residing in the different horcruxes and Voldemort himself. I realised that this can’t be true in The Half-Blood Prince Slughorn describes making a horcrux as splitting ones soul in two. This means that when Riddle made his Diary into a horcrux he split his soul in half and physically removed one half from his body and placed it in the diary. This means that he only had half of his soul left when he made his next horcrux, Marvolo’s ring. This half would have been split in half leaving only a quarter in Voldemort’s body. This goes on and on the amount of soul remaining in Voldemort halving each time he makes a horcrux until he had only 1/128 or 0.78125% left in his body. As shown in the graph above. So next time you wonder why Voldemort could have done some of things he did, remember how little human he had left in him. I don’t know about you but I think that this is crazy.
Come on guys, I didn’t do maths for 14 notes
#OKAY BUT CAN WE PLEASE TAKE A MINUTE TO APPRECIATE#THE OTHER THING THIS GRAPH THROWS INTO SHARP RELIEF:#THE FACT THAT FUCKING GINNY#HAD *HALF OF VOLDEMORT’S SOUL*#WHISPERING IN HER EAR AND CRAWLING INSIDE OF HER AND TRYING TO CONSUME HER FROM THE INSIDE OUT#YEAH#LIKE COOL HARRY HAS A SCAR AND CAN TALK TO SNAKES AND SOMETIMES GETS HEADACHES#POOR BABY#MEANWHILE GINNY ‘DERIDED BY FANDOM’ WEASLEY#TAKES IN HALF OF THAT FUCKER’S SOUL#AND STILL CAME OUT ON TOP#who’s your hero now harry potter fandom#yeah that’s what i thought (via riversonglife)
So Harry actually has more of Voldemort’s soul in him than Voldemort himself? Never thought about it that way!
WHO LET THE DOGS OUT?!
Wait… Who let the cats
Back to your time slots… *points authoritatively*
Day 21: Night
#tapetum lucidum is the name of a layer of tissue in the eye of some animals that reflects light back through the retinas #causing the phenomenon known as ‘eyeshine’. #it allows for superior night vision and for this reason is usually found in nocturnal animals #especially carnivores #and those that hunt their prey at night.
This is the kind of stuff I say on Twitter, if you were curious.
Since I can never let anything go and I get weirdly self-conscious whenever my commentary starts to spread around the internet, I thought it’d be a good time to elaborate on these two quippy tweets I made the other day.
This is a point I make with some frequency, although it’s kind of divorced of context here because, you know, Twitter. Basically, I get a really bad case of eyeroll whenever I see/hear people complaining about how the romance/love triangle in THG was “unnecessary” or “annoying” or any of the other million words people use to say they think the series would have been better if Katniss was a lone fox who never kissed anyone.
Here are my main problems with this.
1) The initial “romance” between Katniss and Peeta was LITERALLY STAGED. SHE DIDN’T REALLY CARE OR WANT TO DO IT. There’s an entire subplot dedicated to Peeta’s sadfeels about the fact that Katniss wasn’t really into him and did it for the cameras/survival.
2) The subsequent actual developed romance between both Gale and Peeta was about a frightened, confused teenage girl hashing out some very complicated feelings about life, death, love, and friendship/family. The girl was loaded with a whole lot of baggage she didn’t ask for or deserve. I’m perfectly okay with her wanting to kiss a boy once in a while as escapism or just getting a jolly in amidst the misery. If I were a teenager whose life was in literal danger all the time, I’d want some nice memories, too.
3) Anyone who’s actually read the books knows that, comparatively speaking, the “romance” takes up very little of the series. It’s a subplot at best. She does have feelings for and cares for both boys, who have very intimate, personal ties to her and her constant near-death experiences. Sue her or something.
4) In my mind, Gale/Peeta has always been a metaphor of choice between revenge and healing for Katniss. That’s how I read it. I hate seeing it reduced to some throwaway kissy-face to appeal to the teenybopper girls or whatever.
5) The “Team Peeta vs Team Gale” stuff has always been spearheaded by the media, not the series itself.
These are the reasons I tend to eyeroll whenever The Hunger Games is criticized for being too heavy on the romance, or Collins accused of bowing to the corporate publishers’ desire for sexy kissy-time. It grates on me.
THAT SAID, the context of these particular tweets is steeped partially in these observations, and also in some other, overreaching personal observations. As background, I first read 1984 as a 17-year-old senior in my AP English unit of utopian/dystopian literature. I loved the book. LOVED it. Liked it more than Brave New World, which I also read during that same unit. I have no doubt that it was formative in my love of dystopian literature.
To get this out of the way, I’ll admit that every time I make this point, I *always* hear the following arguments:
You can’t compare 1984 to The Hunger Games because one’s a literary classic and one’s a contemporary commercial bestseller.
You can’t compare them because the context in which they’re read is different and THG is at the forefront of media and fandom in the modern age, while 1984 isn’t read that way.
And here’s my response to those arguments: that’s not the context in which I’m making the commentary here. I’m fully aware that it’s pretty much impossible to accurately compare the two works because they’re from different times and often read in wildly different contexts (academic vs pop culture). But that’s also part of the issue.
Academia is not some untouchable monolith whose intentions are always pure and true, first of all. Academia is far and away influenced by carefully selected “quality” literature filtered through a lot of sieves that end up producing a lot of books by white guys. We’re at a period in history where the past is largely overwhelmed by dominant voices and minority voices are still only just being recognized as worthy, when they’re recognized at all. Books we consider classics today are classics because we’re told they’re classics. They’re the books that survived and were labeled “literature.”
I’m not here to argue that THG is destined to become a classic. Probably not. But who knows? Ultimately, my argument is that these two books are books that we feed teenagers. They read 1984 for class as assigned reading, they read THG at home for pleasure. The context is that we make snide remarks about a teenage girl written by a woman as having needless romantic entanglements that muddy the story, while we teach that the man sleeping with a woman is expressing love in a society devoid of it.
We read Winston and Julia as metaphors, as foils, as illustrations of the opposing themes of the novel. This is what we tell young adults reading the book for the first time — this relationship is a metaphor, it has a purpose.
Katniss’ relationships, however, are stupid. Pointless. Meaningless fluff to appeal to girls and distract from the “real” story. This is what we’re telling young adults, too. That THIS relationship, in THIS dystopia, in THIS context, is totally the worst and not worthy of exploration.
Time and time again, I hear people argue that men who wrote the literary classics knew how to write love/sex without making it “distracting” from the core literary thread. Ladies, however, remain the damned mob of scribbling women who can’t write a single kiss scene without it ruining an otherwise worthwhile story.
Can we really compare 1984 and The Hunger Games? I think so, on some level. They’re the same genre. They explore similar themes of destructive totalitarian governments and oppressed citizens. There’s love, hate, betrayal, destruction, misery. It’s not a far stretch, really.
Can they ever play on the same field? Well, I don’t know. We don’t really let them, do we? 1984 is removed because it’s an academic classic engrained in our curriculum because somewhere down the line someone thought it was worth it. We don’t have to give THG that distinction. We can write it off.
(And before people argue that 1984 is THE dystopian novel, I’ll just remind you that dystopia in fiction existed decades earlier)
Can we argue they’re the same quality with the same teaching potential? Yeah, I think we can. They’re different, certainly, but we have a tendency to write off modern literature as lacking when compared to the classics. We do it in art, in literature, in music… always. Nothing that’s made today is ever good enough to compare. Except that it is, and some of the art we create today WILL survive and WILL be “classic” a century from now. It all depends on how the cards shake out, doesn’t it?
Anyway. I’m rambling. This is why I don’t try to make elaborate arguments on Twitter. That’s what my Tumblr’s for.
THESE ARE MY THOUGHTS, I HOPE YOU ENJOYED THEM. If people want to make counter-arguments, that’s cool. I laid my cards on the table. Let it lead to wherever.
I DID enjoy these thoughts very much!
The thing I always like to point out when people are like “BUT CLASSICS, YOU CAN’T COMPARE THOSE TO THE TRIPE PEOPLE ARE CHURNING OUT TODAY” is that hello, Shakespeare and Dickens are considered part of the canon today, but in their own time, they were more or less commercial hacks. They wrote good stuff! But also they were prolific because they were trying to make a buck and appeal to the lowest common denominator, especially Shakespeare! (Like, seriously, anyone who doesn’t realize this has never really read Shakespeare. SO MANY DICK JOKES.) In this case I actually don’t know if 1984 was popular in its own time because I’m too lazy to check, but that’s not really be the point anyway. I don’t think there’s any way to know what works are going to become classics, and the fact that they’re popular really has absolutely no bearing on that.
So at my grad school recruitment thingy this past weekend, I got to meet my future professors and future fellow grad students. Predictably, I answered the question “what are your research interests?” many times over, and given that the single-word summary of my research interests is “fandom,” this sort of thing came up in many of my answer variations. I mean, I don’t quite have a standardised spiel yet, so sometimes I end up going off on a Nerdfighter tangent, or sometimes I go off on a fanfic tangent, or a fanworks-in-general tangent, etc.
Anyway, during several of my rambles about my fandom-related research interests, I ended up talking about my feels about what qualifies something as a ~classic~ (i.e. I would argue that there isn’t really anything that legitimately stops THG from being considered in the same rarefied air as 1984 and Brave New World, and in fact I think someone doing - for example - a survey of dystopian literature would be doing themselves a disservive if they left out THG just because it’s new/features a teenage girl protagonist/is widely considered “pop culture” instead of “literature”).
Interestingly, at least to me, I also had this conversation with someone about fanfiction. I had pointed out that things like Jane Eyre and basically 90% of the plays Shakespeare wrote are essentially fanfic, and then the person I was talking to was like “okay, so then when does fanfiction become literature” and I was like “who cares?” Because why does it matter? Does fanfic have to be “literature” to be art? Does it have to be either of those things to be a valid or important way to engage with source material? I would argue that the answer to all those questions is no.
so Charlotte Bronte read Emma by Jane Austen and was really interested in this minor character named Jane Fairfax who was poor and would have been a governess had she not married well and then Bronte wrote her own novel exploring the plight of the poor governess who married this guy named Edward Fairfax Rochester in a novel called Jane Eyre and my point is don’t let anyone tell you shit about fanfiction.
when you hear people talking about your fandoms in public
how is this so unbelievably accurate
#conceal #dont feel #dont let them know
levels of headcanon:
- This is heavily supported by text/subtext and is likely what the creators intended for me to get from this
- this is sort of supported by the text and could, conceivably be what the creators intended for me to get from the text/subtext
- there is no evidence either way
- there is slight evidence against my headcanon, but I don’t care
- I’ve stopped giving a shit about canon
after you’ve been through like a string of fandoms and you’ve decided your favourite character/s for each one, there will come a day when you will list all your faves from each fandom side by side and look at them carefully and realise
you have a type
Look at him being respectful.
Look at him recognizing the fannish enthusiasm of women in a way that doesn’t demean them, or bait them, or wink-wink-nudge-nudge them in a way that’s only just this side of mocking.
Look at him recognize the intelligence that goes hand in hand with goofy posts about randomly appearing stags and flower crowns on Will’s head.
Pay attention, creators, writers and show runners: this is how you talk about fans, especially female fans. This is how to not be a dick.
I didn’t choose my OTPs. They chose me. I didn’t ask for this shit.