memento mori

remember you will die.

Gryffindor
WEAR

tumblr visit counter

kidanedakh:

Disney + text posts

(via lana-del-creys)

look this dragon is breathing fire on my collarbone

look this dragon is breathing fire on my collarbone

potterue:

Effie Tinket in Catching Fire [1/2]

"Let’s show them what real beauty looks like."

requested by lovetobiasfourever

(via thgseries)

I have three thousand messages in my inbox….

inonibird:

rufftoon replied to your post: anonymous said:Just something I’v…

And since hieroglyphs can be written both left to right or right to left, definitely handy.

image

(haha, that absolutely doesn’t say “The More You Know”; the best I could manage was “YOU KNOW MANY THINGS”, and I’m sure my grammar is atrocious X’D)

(via pantslesswrock)

Our innumeracy isn’t inevitable. In the 1970s and the 1980s, cognitive scientists studied a population known as the unschooled, people with little or no formal education. Observing workers at a Baltimore dairy factory in the ‘80s, the psychologist Sylvia Scribner noted that even basic tasks required an extensive amount of math. For instance, many of the workers charged with loading quarts and gallons of milk into crates had no more than a sixth-grade education. But they were able to do math, in order to assemble their loads efficiently, that was “equivalent to shifting between different base systems of numbers.” Throughout these mental calculations, errors were “virtually nonexistent.” And yet when these workers were out sick and the dairy’s better-educated office workers filled in for them, productivity declined.

The unschooled may have been more capable of complex math than people who were specifically taught it, but in the context of school, they were stymied by math they already knew. Studies of children in Brazil, who helped support their families by roaming the streets selling roasted peanuts and coconuts, showed that the children routinely solved complex problems in their heads to calculate a bill or make change. When cognitive scientists presented the children with the very same problem, however, this time with pen and paper, they stumbled. A 12-year-old boy who accurately computed the price of four coconuts at 35 cruzeiros each was later given the problem on paper. Incorrectly using the multiplication method he was taught in school, he came up with the wrong answer. Similarly, when Scribner gave her dairy workers tests using the language of math class, their scores averaged around 64 percent. The cognitive-science research suggested a startling cause of Americans’ innumeracy: school.

ABBEY IVE HEARD FROM MANY POLYGLOTS THAT YOU SHOULD LEARN MORE THAN ONE LANGUAGE AT ONCE ITS GOOD TO NOT JUST FOCUS ON ONE

plus German is my main focus

but when I get frustrated with German grammar it’s nice to go to a different language and be like “hey, i can do this, languages aren’t the worst”

and keyboard stickers would be great if I could figure out where all the Cyrillic characters actually go on my keyboard

Oh I kind of do Italian on duolingo!!! I think once I get German down I might focus more on Italian :)

YOU ARE ME. have you heard of memrise.com??

yes that’s actually what I’m using for my russian and turkish right now! :)

the worst part about starting to learn Russian is the fact that typing anything takes me like eight years because of the whole separate alphabet thing and the whole “my keyboard is in english” thing

cadysamuels:

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

imageThis show received 42 emmy nominations.

(via fishiesandrainbows)

deciduousprincess:

a lot of meta writing about harry potter tends to forget the role genre plays in the series.  Instead, we get a lot of meta about whether snape was right or whether JKR condones abuse, and reading these arguments has led me to a weird conclusion that I would like to talk through.  I personally very much doubt that JK believes that leaving a child in an abusive home is right, and here is why I think this happens and is unquestioned in the books.

Harry Potter begins as a Chosen One Story.  He’s even called a chosen one in the story itself.  These stories are very common to children’s literature because they give children a sense of power.  Harry is 11 yet he is capable of and even MEANT to destroy Voldemort (or foil him book by book, rather).  This is wonderful to children, and the contrast between living a bad life at home to being regarded as worth something/a hero is very, very valuable to young readers, especially those who commiserate with a bad home life.  For child readers, the concept of an adult or multiple adults expecting harry to endanger himself to save the world is just part of the power fantasy, because it means that harry isn’t delusional, but actually as powerful as he thinks he is.  harry saving the day is necessary to the children’s book.  

Then we have to look at the instances of abuse in the series and examine when abuse is seen as evil and wrong (the Dursleys, Umbridge, Snape) and when it is considered necessary for the greater good (Dumbledore). As a rule, abuse in Harry Potter is used to make its child readers upset.  The Dursleys, Snape, (and Umbridge, later), are all childhood villains that represent childhood anxieties and, unfortunately, realities. Seeing harry go through the same struggles they go through makes the chosen one a relatable hero, rather than a fantastic one.  These villains of the books humanize him, and more importantly, show that he is still a child, like them. Voldemort, on the other hand, represents something much larger and more metaphorical than children have to face in their daily lives.  This is why Umbridge and Snape make us angrier than voldemort does.  the target audience does not content with Big problems like genocide and ultimate evil, but problems like lack of power, not having anyone listen when there is a problem, going around rules that are designed to make you fail—these are problems that children feel passionately about, and this is why the Dursleys, Snape, and Umbridge are written to be so abusive and twisted.  They are designed to represent the things that children may or may not experience, but can understand by comparison, or have anxiety about.  Children understand that they are vulnerable to abuse of power even if their teachers aren’t carving ‘I must not tell lies’ into their skin.

What I’m saying is that having Harry suffer abuse has a narrative point.  The title character must go through trials that would be horrifying and extreme for any real child.  The chosen one narrative structure requires the character to be in danger, but triumph.  The books are compelling because they are a childhood power fantasy.  Harry Potter as a series was never intended to do justice by harry, and it couldn’t have worked without terrible things happening to him.  What is upsetting about the books is how JKR seems to condone or excuse this abuse when Dumbledore does it (and later when Snape is exonerated).

There are some things in the books that I don’t think JK thought through.  She made Harry forgive Snape as soon as he found out Snape was a double agent in love with Lily.  That, I believe, was JKR’s personal bias showing through.  Snape is terrible person, and as a child that Snape abused, finding out Snape was in love with his mother would certainly have felt more like a violation to Harry than a redeeming quality.  A person can be working for the good guys and still be a bad person, and JK never explored that.

As far as Dumbledore as an abusive figure, I recognize what JK was trying to do.  She needed an adult figure who knew more than Harry knew, who was more powerful, in order to make the books work and flow smoothly.  I feel that JK understood that sending Harry back to the Dursleys was wrong, and in order to salvage Dumbledore in the eyes of her readers, she invented the thing about Harry magically being safe there until he came of age.  I can also understand why Dumbledore never shared his plans with harry—it would make a boring book!!  And harry does get frustrated with Dumbledore, I believe, for being so secretive, especially in the later books where the audience is more of a teen audience and this is something they can relate to.  the problem is in how JK handles it.  she never follows through on dumbledore’s morally ambiguous qualities, which she herself introduces and fosters.  The backstory with grindlewald shows dumbledore as less than a paragon of goodness, but JK drops the ball and cops out of her development of the character by essentially saying “But he’s good now” when really, he is still flawed.  He does use harry as a weapon, and though the story is built around this, it goes uncriticized by the author.

harry potter is a special case, i think, because it starts out as a different genre than it ends up as.  dumbledore is not insidious in the first book, but JK reveals more and more darkness the more books she writes, transforming the series into a drama where moral ambiguities abound and there is explicit violence and death.  Yet, at this point, JKR still tries to hang onto the innocent chosen one story, even when her plot and characters have grown out of it.  by the end of the series, harry still adores dumbledore and respects snape, when given what he knows about them, he should at least be questioning his relationship to them and their role in the dangers he has faced.  However, JK foregoes this, and for an understandable reason—she still thinks she’s writing a children’s book.  good must triumph over evil in the story she set out to write initially, and there is no room for ambiguity.  

the question then becomes whether the books should have committed to the darker, more mature route, and fully examined the workings of the order of the phoenix as sometimes morally ambiguous (or actually wrong), or if the books should never have introduced those moral ambiguities and instead stayed a series for children ages eight to twelve.  It’s a really difficult question to answer.

If JKR keeps the story light and appropriate for her younger readers, the story is completely transformed.  The events of the fourth book and onward are already completely outside the children’s genre that the series began as.  Snape remains wholly twisted, and though this may be explained, it is not justified. (or, Snape sees the error of his ways and makes a full recovery, apology included). Dumbledore remains wholly good and does not use Harry as a tool—if Harry defeats voldemort in this version of the series, it is because he took the initiative without dumbledore’s blessing or knowledge.

If JKR committs to the darker story she wants to tell, Harry is written as a more self-aware character.  She abandons archetype and rather than insist that Dumbledore is the Good Mentor character, she shows him as he is.  The conflict of whether the ends justify the means is more fully explored by harry.  Snape may or may not remain wholly twisted in harry’s eyes, but his abuse is only forgiven if he asks for forgiveness.  the concept of the chosen one/fighting alone is challenged.

What JKR did was split the middle, and it made for a very confused bunch of moral conclusions.  In her version, the ends always justifies the means, Snape is Good despite all, Dumbledore is good despite all, and the happy ending erases the bad feelings that should naturally have developed given the content of the story.

(via harrypottermeta)