theliteralmagpie:

aruf0nsu:

okay so imagine an au where the potters live. harry dates oliver wood briefly. james hears of this and pulls harry aside. stares him in the eye with a deadly serious face
“he’s a Keeper”

You made an entire AU that would alter almost every facet of that series
For a pun
You’re a beautiful person.

theongreyjoy:

A frequent complaint I seem to have with TV, especially within the last 5 years or so, is this industry standard that killing off characters is a way to keep a story fresh and exciting. this feels especially true in supernatural/fantasy esque stories. Like these writers want to keep us on their toes, and they aren’t creative enough to do it in any other way other than teasing a potential death, building it up, and (9/10 times) eliminating a mostly minor character who is well liked and under developed. The show can collect its shock and awe points and generate some internet buzz and keep people talking into the next season.

Writers for these shows are like broke addicts huffing paint thinner for a quick fix. Its lazy and unprofessional. More that that, its predictable. It eliminates effort to create truly stimulating art. It eliminates  the responsibility that writers have to pump out a finale/pre finale/episode that will shock you by it’s own merits. It’s part of a culture of television that bores and frustrates it’s most passionate viewers, who groan upon hearing the announcement that there will be “two shocking deaths” by the end of the season. “Of course there are”, we think. There always is. Who is the most expendable. Which character did you decide to shortchange for the sake of shock this time? How many episodes will it take for that character’s name to leave the lips of the surviving cast forever; for that character to be erased and cemented as a plot device in an unnecessary attempt by writers to deliver a promise of unpredictability and brutality to it’s fans. 

But heres the thing. True Detective wrapped up it’s first season a few months ago without a single major/supporting character death. Despite it’s wild west feel, almost every major character in Deadwood survived it’s finale. The most shocking, skin crawling scenes in Breaking bad weren’t the moments of a characters death, but the scenes of quiet, tension between two characters that were still alive. Doctor Who is one of the longest running scifi/fantasy shows of all time and the large portion of it’s successful run was spent preaching and practicing mercy. 

and i’m not saying that character deaths are inherently useless; or even that killing off multiple characters is inherently problematic. Some series manage to pull this off without a hitch; the difference being that the deaths in question all work fluidly within the world the death occurred. When people talk about Breaking Bad, nobody complains that ____ shouldn’t have died. You don’t hear ASOIAF/Game of Thrones fans say that ____ was unfairly killed off.

There is a level of acceptance in these deaths because they were all centered around pragmatism and story telling, not thrills. It doesn’t feel as if somebody tossed names into a hat and conjured up a cheap exit for the unlucky winner(s). Writers aren’t beating their chests and teasing spoilers about these deaths to drum up viewership or trick fans into thinking that the stakes are higher than they actually are; and that killing characters is akin to great/moving writing.

This new trend where developing characters and plucked from the their stories by ambivalent writers who have either dug themselves into a hole or can’t conjure up enough organic tension really does nothing but frustrate fans and make us believe a little less in the shows that we have attached ourselves to. im pretty sick of it. 

in short: stop being lazy.

forever why i sigh when people say harry should have died at the end of deathly hallows, or that there weren’t enough deaths.

dangerhamster:

Rubeus Remus Potter. You were named after the only two people at Hogwarts who seemed to give shit about me, because come on who else would I name you after? A verbally abusive dickbag who was in love with my mum and gave me shit all my life and someone who convinced a bunch of children that they needed to be soldiers? What kind of awful aspirations would that make you end up having? Come on son I’m not an idiot…

compasswaters:

lavender brown gets more hate for how she handles unrequited romantic feelings than snape does and i find that incredibly disturbing

wimptoad:

do your old fandoms ever just come back to you, and you remember how much you love one character, and your just like “I forgot about you for a while but I’m back and I love you too my beautiful baby.”

this game is so ridiculous

queerjames:

[suspicious snape voice] “you’re saying your friend named remus lupin definitely isn’t a werewolf”

[shocked, disappointed james potter voice] “remus lupin, a werewolf?? is it because he’s named after a guy raised by a wolf? is it because his surname literally means wolf? well. you’re wrong. his middle name is john, there’s no way he could be a werewolf.”

you’re deep harry

you’re deep harry

  • voldemort: let me be your ruler
  • death eaters: (ruler)
  • voldemort: you can call me queen v

jimmyneuteredtron:

fangartist:

can-u-not-my-wayward-son:

alienaelizabeth:

drunkaster:

harrys so cute i want 7

image

its funny cause the hp fandom hijacked a post that was about harry styles

Slow clap for the HP fandom

image