Blue

lestradeisasilverfox:

Nathan Fillion is not appreciated enough.

gnawruto:

foodtrucker:

I manage to turn everything into crap wow

yes that’s called digestion

officialunitedstates:

been carrying around this sack of bees ever since my grandmother told me beauty is in the eye of the bee holder.  to be honest sometimes I wish she had never told me this information

girlintoomanyfandoms:

and my personal favorites

santa:

bandoge:

why does santa get more things for rich kids

*sweats nervously*

tulililli:

katkayes:

fuckyeahdekutree:

ok so i tried to do this
AND LOOK WHAT FUCKING HAPPENED


Its like midnight but I cant stop laughing help

or buy a fucking toaster oven jfc

tulililli:

katkayes:

fuckyeahdekutree:

ok so i tried to do this

AND LOOK WHAT FUCKING HAPPENED

image

Its like midnight but I cant stop laughing help

or buy a fucking toaster oven jfc

I don't mean to be rude, but I keep seeing reblogs about your book and as a lesbian woman, I'm seriously put off by how you keep repeating/insisting that your main char being lesbian "isn't a plot point" and "barely comes up!!" and etc. and it feels very minimizing and erasing and more than a little bit appeasing ("don't worry, straight people!!") and honestly turns me off the book 1000% because I don't want to read a book with a lesbian lead that minimizes and erases her sexuality in-text.-cont
Anonymous

facts-i-just-made-up:

harmonyinkpress:

facts-i-just-made-up:

-cont I just thought I might send something to you because I haven’t seen this come up really, and it’s been bothering me for a couple of days now. It just really hurts to constantly see someone “defending” lesbianism by minimizing its existence.

Please note first that most if not all of the posts mentioning the character’s sexuality are asks and replies. It’s never been a selling point for me, I’m not using lesbianism as a cheap draw.

But to answer your criticisms, I’m not in any way minimizing her being a lesbian, I’m minimizing the romance aspect of the book. It’s an action book and I don’t want people to think it’s a book just about being gay or centering on a romance.

This is in absolutely no way to reassure straight people of anything, if they can’t deal with the main character being lesbian I don’t really want them reading it anyway. It’s to assure readers that this isn’t another book where a gay character is reduced to their sexuality or defined by it. Frankly I find it offensive that nearly every book with a gay protagonist has to make the whole story center on them being gay. I find this to be much more reductive than not mentioning it at all.

I do not in any way whatsoever erase or undermine her sexuality in-text. She’s gay and has a crush on a woman and that’s part of the story. In the sequel there’s much more of a relationship. I maintain it’s not a significant plot point in Valhalla because the book is all about the action and spycraft. I feel it’s important to let potential readers know that. I’d not want people to read it just because they think it will have a story about being gay, nor do I want people avoiding it thinking it’s a book primarily about being gay which also has some action scenes. It’s a sci-fi action novel, so when asked again and again about the main character’s sexuality, I feel it important to remind those who ask that the book isn’t focused on that. It’s focused on explosions and flying cars and ray guns.

I did not set out to defend lesbianism. I don’t claim to, I don’t even think it’s this book’s place to try. But some readers feel that representation is important, and others feel that representation without comment is also important. When I reply to those readers, I’m happy to clarify that this book features a few gay characters without further comment on their sexuality.

I’m very sorry that you feel minimized by that. It’s not in any way designed to minimize you or your sexuality. It’s meant to treat it realistically, and that means when you’re shooting bad guys and blowing up bridges, you’re not polluting the book with ruminations about the main character’s love life.

I hope this at least explains why I’ve posted what I have and clarifies that it’s not my intent to minimize lesbianism in any way. More than that I hope you’ll take a look at the novel so you can see that it’s not de-sexualizing its character in any way, and that you’ll consider the offending posts in context- As tumblr messages and replies about a subject that’s not the focus of the book.

Sort of like if people kept writing to J.K. Rowling to ask about Harry’s heterosexuality. It’s there and it factors into the books, but she’d no doubt prefer readers read the book on the merits of the world and story she’s created. Harry’s straight, but the books are about him. Not him being straight.

Violet’s gay, but the story is about her. Not her being gay. If every book about a gay character had to focus on the fact they’re gay, that would be far more minimizing by suggesting that gays are defined exclusively by their sexuality.

Sorry if this post is longer than you hoped, I just want to be very clear on my intent. Which is not to minimize or erase lesbianism, here or in the novel.

I really hope you’ll give the novel a chance. I think you’ll find it very respectful and complete.

When I talk to people about what kind of books they want to read that involve LGBTQ+ main characters, they want books like Valhalla. They want characters who are LGBTQ+, but it’s just another part of them like having curly hair or brown eyes or dark skin or braces or freckles. Many of the people I’ve talked to want a Harry Potter or Katniss Everdeen or Percy Jackson or Hazel Grace who happens to identify as LGBTQ+. None of their stories revolve around those characters being straight, even the ones with romance (other than the obvious bit of the romance being with a presumably cis person of a different gender). So why should a story with an LGBTQ+ protagonist?

In Valhalla, the fact that Violet is a lesbian is as important as the fact that she has violent tendencies, that she doesn’t know how to read, that she’s from Scotland, and that she sometimes herds walruses. Those things all play a part in who Violet is and they shape her choices in the story, but the plot doesn’t revolve around any of them.

Valhalla doesn’t minimize the fact that Violet is a lesbian. It comes up when it’s relevant and there was never any doubt in my mind that she was lesbian when reading the manuscript. What Valhalla does do is refrain from giving her a romance. No one else has a romance either. It’s just not that kind of book.

I think that Valhalla is exactly the kind of book a lot of people I’ve spoken to are looking for: one where the main character is LGBTQ+ but the story doesn’t revolve around that.

Reblogged with an addition from the publisher. I hope this further clarifies things. Please feel free to write again and let me know if it does, my ears are always open.

facts-i-just-made-up:

metalheadadam:

Does this mean that feeding beef to my dog is forcing him into cannibalism?

No more than if you ate a Canadian.

facts-i-just-made-up:

metalheadadam:

Does this mean that feeding beef to my dog is forcing him into cannibalism?

No more than if you ate a Canadian.

agentsofcracked:

leviathans-in-the-tardis:

hiddenthoughts-and-racinghearts:

thewantedjackie:

officialfrenchtoast:

facts-i-just-made-up:

darrynek:

These pics were taken one second apart
Lightning is REALLY BRIGHT

That’s the thing though, this isn’t lightning. The photos were both taken in daytime, the right photo being the normal condition. What you’re seeing in the left photo is a darkning strike.
Darkning is 50,000 times more rare than lightning, in fact most storms will never have a single instance of it. But when static charges between clouds become so energized that the electricity begins to form its own gravity, a black hole like the one created at CERN is briefly formed, sucking up all the light in the area and resulting in a brief “unflash” of darkning.
Less dangerous than lightning, Darkning lasts for a shorter time and you’d have to be within the event horizon to be harmed by it. Despite thousands a year dying of lightning strikes, only one man has ever been recorded as killed in a darkning strike, and that man was Lewis Caroll, author of Alice in Wonderland, which many historians believe he wrote based on that strange and fatal experience.

thank u photography side of tumblr

But then why are the street lights on in the first picture if it’s daytime. Man, I’m confused.

Inconsistencies. So many.

look at the guys URL people

I was about to ask how Lewill Carol was murdered by not-lighting and then wrote a book about it

agentsofcracked:

leviathans-in-the-tardis:

hiddenthoughts-and-racinghearts:

thewantedjackie:

officialfrenchtoast:

facts-i-just-made-up:

darrynek:

These pics were taken one second apart

Lightning is REALLY BRIGHT

That’s the thing though, this isn’t lightning. The photos were both taken in daytime, the right photo being the normal condition. What you’re seeing in the left photo is a darkning strike.

Darkning is 50,000 times more rare than lightning, in fact most storms will never have a single instance of it. But when static charges between clouds become so energized that the electricity begins to form its own gravity, a black hole like the one created at CERN is briefly formed, sucking up all the light in the area and resulting in a brief “unflash” of darkning.

Less dangerous than lightning, Darkning lasts for a shorter time and you’d have to be within the event horizon to be harmed by it. Despite thousands a year dying of lightning strikes, only one man has ever been recorded as killed in a darkning strike, and that man was Lewis Caroll, author of Alice in Wonderland, which many historians believe he wrote based on that strange and fatal experience.

thank u photography side of tumblr

But then why are the street lights on in the first picture if it’s daytime. Man, I’m confused.

Inconsistencies. So many.

look at the guys URL people

I was about to ask how Lewill Carol was murdered by not-lighting and then wrote a book about it