Dragounet en plumes


256 081 notes








That moment in your childhood when you realize that Diagon Alley is just the word diagonally….


And the Mirror of Erised is just the word desire backwards.

Didn’t even…

As a French kid, reading the Potter series, I always read Dumbledore like 'd'humble-d'or', meaning, 'goldenly humble' which pretty cool for this amazing Grand Father figure. I was quite disappointed when I found out what ‘dumb’ meant in English.

Classé dans harry potter dumbledore albus dumbledore hp french english languages reading

33 374 notes





One of my favourite shows:


One of my least favourite shows:


Do you see my problem

That you don’t actually like Doctor Who?

That you only like RTD-era Who and are being unnecessarily passive-aggressive toward the Moffat era in order to make your opinion seem relevant? 

You are not understanding. Let me break it down for you:



Unpopular opinion (apparently) :

I like Moffat’s writing. (Well, most of it.) I am not the only one.

I am a woman and I can see his mysogyny. I also see very clearly that he has run the show for too long because he has come to write it like he owns it, and well, he doesn’t. (It’s not his show. DW has existed for 50 years, dammit. It’s ours.)

I agree with half the statements of the Moffat pic (plot holes, self congratulatory, mysogynist (but mostly I hate that he changes HIS OWN RULES like how the Weeping Angels work)). But I am somewhat put off by the redundant hypocrisy (or delusion ?) of the Moffat hate, and completely baffled by the praise RTD’s era is receiving (but that last part might be more of a personal feeling).

Overcomplicates storylines and ideas to make the show more interesting

Well, err. How dare you make the show more interesting, Steve !

I personally didn’t (ever) find the story lines too complicated (??) A little complexity now and then is exciting. Plot holes, I found occasionally, and didn’t enjoy, but Who has always had massive plot holes. (RTD’s era has them too… and Classic Who, too.) Complex story lines make the show more intriguing and appealing. (And this is not new to Moffat, Classic Who usually resolved a story over at least 6 episodes) I like story-arcs over one or two seasons, even though it’s very nice, I think, if the show can remain at least 60% of one-shots, independent stories you can enjoy even if you missed a few issues. Just like on Supernatural for instance. Most of the episodes you can watch with no clue as to what’s the arc of the season, although some episodes work in pairs and finals usually unravel stuff that went down during the whole season. It’s still the case on Who.

Companions lives revolve solely around the Doctor.

Do you mean… that you missed having to deal with characters like the intensely annoying Jackie Tyler ?

They should be left behind. God, the show is about the Doctor, his companions (because we need a POV we can relate to) and their adventures ! We don’t need to spend half a season hearing the left-behind family whining. It’s fiction, and it’s good when it tries to be realistic, but there’s something called the suspension of incredulity, and for a reader/viewer, it means that they won’t question when the 11 year-old orphan goes on a quest to save his world, or when the 20-something british woman goes into a blue box with a stranger.

It is true that under Moffat, companions’ lives revolve more around the Doctor, and I can see how some viewers can dislike it (I don’t like a ‘dependent’ companion, but honestly I can only see poor Clara as such. See, Amy (and Rory), just like Martha, were able to say ‘enough’ to the Doctor when they wanted a life of their own, even though they regarded him as their best friend.) (And River, who is the prototype of the character whose whole existence revolves around the Doctor, is a strong woman who runs her archeologist business just fine once the Doctor’s out of the picture).

What we don’t have is a family backstory like we had with Rose, Martha and Donna. Well, I intensely disliked those. They always felt forced, like, they were getting in the way. Some bits were good. Like Father’s Day. But most of it was incredibly annoying. I have affection for her now but Gosh did I hate Jackie Tyler whenever she appeared on screen. Same goes for Martha’s family. Useless. Only there to justify that the companion did have a life before the Doctor.

I am not the only one to feel this way, as the very good review team of Androzani feels the same (they, by the way, do not hesitate to critic Moffat’s writing when it’s necessary, and God knows it happened this last year).

Ok, moving on. About our beloved Russell you said :

Doesn’t have to overcomplicate story lines to make them interesting.

Doesn’t leave plot holes (I rephrased your point)

About the ‘complicate’ story line, I really don’t know what you are referring to. Story arcs over a season ? Like the Bad Wolf thing ? (That was, may I say, far-fetched and full of plot holes) Or are you referring to complex storytelling within a single episode (or a pair of episodes) ? 

I often found single episodes under RTD (not necessarily written by him) lacking trigger/interest/plot. It happens under Moffat too, but much less frequently.

Something else : most the fans’ all-time favorites of RTD’s era (The Empty Child, The Girl in the Fireplace, Blink) were written by Moffat.

My point here is, there is no point in idealizing the past over the present, and we should remember how things really were before praising something that is over. I really think Moffat’s run of the show should have come to an end after season 7, but it’s really wearing on me to read allover Tumblr that he only damaged the show. No. He did well. He did very well, for a time. Now, like most of us, I want him gone. But it’s just not fair to shit on his whole work, just like it’s just plain silly to praise RTD like he was a bloody saint. No, he was good (and he’s a brilliant human being), but some of his writing sucked.Have you seen Love & Monsters ?

To quote Androzani on this episode (nb: they say good stuff too):

And the Abzorbaloff’s death is just plain dumb. How does the Doctor find Elton? Has there ever been a lazier plot device than the cane-snapping? Yes, actually: the sonic screwdriver with a resurrection setting. And why in God’s name is the Doctor able to resurrect the last victim and only the last victim, and just the face at that?


Plot holes in Who are just classic. It doesn’t make them any less annoying but it’s immensely hypocritical to pretend like they appeared like wild raccoons under Moffat’s run.

I’m stopping here. Sorry for the grammar mistakes, English is not my first language. I am very open to discussion on this issue, I am just a bit tired of the one-sided opinions on Moffat. I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t like him as a person but I do like him as the writer of some of my favorite pieces of television ever, even though I hated the last season’s finale, precisely for all the reasons listed above (self-congratulatory stuffing of all his monsters, Clara born to save the Doctor Oh PLEASE, general disrespect of Matt’s era — at least David got a real goodbye —the Doctor didn’t die so the whole Doctor’s Tomb storyline and Clara jumping into the Time Scar doesn’t make sense, etc). HE DONE FUCKED UP. But he also did very well at other times, let’s not overlook that when we judge him.

(via jkpoptterheadiru)

Classé dans doctor who dw moffat moffat hate stephen moffat matt smith david tennant christopher ecclecston gif debate rtd russell t davies

112 285 notes




George R. R. Martin everyone.

My favourite thing about this gifset is that George R. R. Martin acknowledges both of these methods without insulting or dismissing the other. He is a fantastic writer and I know that some other fantastic writers swear by their methods and discount the others, which can be really disheartening as a young writer. Hearing him describe both of these methods without dismissing the other makes me very, very happy, as I am very much an architect and I always get so sad when every writer I look up to is like “NO PLANNING. PLANNING BAD. WRITERS DONT PLAN.”

So thank you, Mr. Martin.

I am by and large an architect but I am not opposed to my building gaining sentience and doing what it wants along the way, a la a gardener. So I feel this. I feel it so hard. Also:

"No one is purely an architect or a gardener in terms of writers, but many writers tend to one side or the other."


(via battling-pink-robots)

Classé dans george rr martin got writing

12 notes

Sherlolly in the OED




So, oddly enough the new word “Ship” being added to the Oxford English Dictionary included the line “I will always ship Sherlock and Molly.” in its definition. Of course all the Johnlock fans went HUH?

Buuuut, isn’t a ship primarily for characters from fiction who AREN’T canon?

yea like johnlock

I think you can ship canon characters. You can ship non-canon characters. You can ship a character with a shoe. Ship the ships that float your boat.

plus sherlock isn’t canonically with Molly so i don’t see your point ?

i love it when dictionaries include new words from our weird little lives

Classé dans sherlock language English ship

79 173 notes


Julianne Moore as “Famous Works of Art” by Peter Linderbergh - for Harper’s Bazaar

Seated Woman With Bent Knee by Egon Schiele, La Grande Odalisque by Ingres, Saint Praxidis by Vermeer, The Cripple by John Currin, Les danseuses by Edgar Degas, Madame X by John Singer, Girl with a Pearl Earring by Vermeer, Woman With a Fan by Modigliani, Man Crazy Nurse #3 by Richard Prince, Adele Bloch Bauer I by Gustav Klimt.

(via makeshiftstars)

Classé dans art julianne moore