Prolixious Blushes
myonlyfrearofdeath:

This is like so simple but so cool…

myonlyfrearofdeath:

This is like so simple but so cool…

Rare Words

rosettes:

acosmist - One who believes that nothing exists
paralian - A person who lives near the sea
aureate - Pertaining to the fancy or flowery words used by poets 
dwale - To wander about deliriously
sabaism - The worship of stars
dysphoria - An unwell feeling
aubade - A love song which is sung at dawn
eumoirous - Happiness due to being honest and wholesome
mimp - To speak in a prissy manner, usually with pursed lips

HIJABI COSPLAYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

thatweirdkiddyouknow:

LOOK AT THIS

image

ATTACK ON TITAN!

image

STAR WARS!!

image

CHOBITS!!!

image

HOMESTUCK!!!

image

VOCALOID!!

image

LOLITA!!!

image

HIJABI COSPLAYS!!!!

Click pics for sources (if anyone recagnizes the last one, please link to her too!)

thewinterotter:

urulokid:

millika:

Who’s Alex?
Billboard demonstrating gender stereotypes as most people automatically assume that Alex is the boy.

Actually, I’ve studied design and advertising, and I can tell you that the reason people would look at this and immediately assume Alex is the boy is because, quite simply, the boy is the focal point of the ad.
English-speaking readers’ line of sight goes from left to right and up to down. This ad leads the viewer from the words MEET ALEX etc straight to the boy and then over and down to the girl. I didn’t even notice there was a set of parenthesis with words in them in the ad until I looked the fourth time. 
This is a fallacious confirmation bias, as anyone looking at it will assume Alex is the focal point (i.e. The Boy) and then if they’re perceptive they’ll notice the words at the bottom. Aha! Those damn gender stereotypes gotcha again! Except no, because the ad literally forces you to read it as “Alex is the boy” by the visual language and lines of sight. 
A better ad would have been structured from top to bottom instead of left to right, and wouldn’t have pushed the girl, the real subject of the ad (who, by the way, has been VISUALLY PUSHED OUT OF HER RIGHTFUL SPACE ON THE AD BY HER BROTHER) off to the corner as far away from her identifiers as possible. 
Here, I’ll make you a better ad.

Bam. Shitty stock photo but you get the point. If anyone sees this and assumes Alex is the boy, they don’t have the the ad layout to use as an excuse for their internalized gender shittery. Likewise, the ad isn’t actively trying to make you read it a certain way and THEN making you feel guilty for interpreting it the way they designed it to be. 

Oh thank god for the added commentary because this was driving me nuts. Honestly until this poster pointed it out I didn’t even realize there WAS additional copy pointing out that Alex was the girl, because they’ve purposely set it up as white-on-light text in a position and size that implies pointless fine print. I kept scrolling past this going “okay, but how would a viewer even get the point of the ad without it being explicitly pointed out to them?” Granted, at billboard size you’re less likely to miss the accompanying text, but absolutely everything pointed out here about how the ad is visually structured is spot-on. The visual language of this kind of layout is very well-known, they essentially set a visual trap and then make you feel bad about reading it exactly the way they intended you to read it.
It could’ve been really powerful, but I don’t think they did a very good job of it. As it is now it’s not structured to make you examine your own assumptions, it’s made as urulokid pointed out, to make you feel bad.

thewinterotter:

urulokid:

millika:

Who’s Alex?

Billboard demonstrating gender stereotypes as most people automatically assume that Alex is the boy.

Actually, I’ve studied design and advertising, and I can tell you that the reason people would look at this and immediately assume Alex is the boy is because, quite simply, the boy is the focal point of the ad.

English-speaking readers’ line of sight goes from left to right and up to down. This ad leads the viewer from the words MEET ALEX etc straight to the boy and then over and down to the girl. I didn’t even notice there was a set of parenthesis with words in them in the ad until I looked the fourth time. 

This is a fallacious confirmation bias, as anyone looking at it will assume Alex is the focal point (i.e. The Boy) and then if they’re perceptive they’ll notice the words at the bottom. Aha! Those damn gender stereotypes gotcha again! Except no, because the ad literally forces you to read it as “Alex is the boy” by the visual language and lines of sight. 

A better ad would have been structured from top to bottom instead of left to right, and wouldn’t have pushed the girl, the real subject of the ad (who, by the way, has been VISUALLY PUSHED OUT OF HER RIGHTFUL SPACE ON THE AD BY HER BROTHER) off to the corner as far away from her identifiers as possible. 

Here, I’ll make you a better ad.

image

Bam. Shitty stock photo but you get the point. If anyone sees this and assumes Alex is the boy, they don’t have the the ad layout to use as an excuse for their internalized gender shittery. Likewise, the ad isn’t actively trying to make you read it a certain way and THEN making you feel guilty for interpreting it the way they designed it to be. 

Oh thank god for the added commentary because this was driving me nuts. Honestly until this poster pointed it out I didn’t even realize there WAS additional copy pointing out that Alex was the girl, because they’ve purposely set it up as white-on-light text in a position and size that implies pointless fine print. I kept scrolling past this going “okay, but how would a viewer even get the point of the ad without it being explicitly pointed out to them?” Granted, at billboard size you’re less likely to miss the accompanying text, but absolutely everything pointed out here about how the ad is visually structured is spot-on. The visual language of this kind of layout is very well-known, they essentially set a visual trap and then make you feel bad about reading it exactly the way they intended you to read it.

It could’ve been really powerful, but I don’t think they did a very good job of it. As it is now it’s not structured to make you examine your own assumptions, it’s made as urulokid pointed out, to make you feel bad.

potterbird:

"I’m just gonna ask you 73 questions in an unreasonably short amount of time.”

cornflakepizza:

winchesterbr0s:

hesmybrother-hesadopted:

beesmygod:

“chuffed doesnt mean what you think it means”

image

it means exactly what i think it means its just some stupid word that literally has two definitions that mean the opposite thing

This makes me really chuffed.

This post is quite egregious

image

Well I’m nonplussed by this whole post.

image

shakespearean-spunk:

"you make my heart beat in iambic pentameter."

no you don’t understand shakespeare literally writes to the beat of your heart

  • that’s why shakespearean actors will sometimes pound their chests in time to the words during readings
  • that’s why you use fluctuations in the rhythm to track your character’s emotional state - any irregularities in the scansion are like the character’s heart stuttering or jumping or skipping a beat
  • that’s why when characters share the rhythm - switching off in the middle of a foot - those characters inevitably have an extraordinarily intimate connection

shakespeare fucking writes viscerally, he is literally in your body, and that, my friend, that is why the best shakespearean actors don’t posture and emote

you have to be fucking alive and passionate and electric - it can’t be intellectual, in the end, it has to be about connection and the sweating, cheering, jeering, bleeding masses you’re performing to, because make no mistake, shakespeare may go to lofty heights, but he only works if you’re just as grounded in the earth. he has to be in your body. he has to be in your body.

holy motherfucking shit i love shakespeare so much, get him in your bones, breathe him in, stomp and rage and pine, dadum dadum dadum dadum dadum, it is literally to the beat of your heart

nerdy-opera-singer:

hello-hannie:

Omg I’m dying this is so cute! This little girl recreates celebrity outfits with construction paper and tape! 

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

http://www.fashionbymayhem.com/

She wore it better

edwardspoonhands:

fishingboatproceeds:

This is the special 10th Anniversary edition of Looking for Alaska, available for preorder as of like five minutes ago. The cover was designed by the great Rodrigo Corral, and the book will contain a new introduction, an extensive Q&A, notes from editor Julie Strauss-Gabel about the revision process, an updated essay by me about last words, and several deleted scenes from the early drafts of the book.
It’s hard to believe that ten years have passed. I feel so lucky that Alaska is still in print and still finding readers (some of whom were in preschool when it was first published). Thanks to everyone who has read it and shared it this past decade, and I hope you enjoy the anniversary edition!

Woah…ten years…

edwardspoonhands:

fishingboatproceeds:

This is the special 10th Anniversary edition of Looking for Alaska, available for preorder as of like five minutes ago. The cover was designed by the great Rodrigo Corral, and the book will contain a new introduction, an extensive Q&A, notes from editor Julie Strauss-Gabel about the revision process, an updated essay by me about last words, and several deleted scenes from the early drafts of the book.

It’s hard to believe that ten years have passed. I feel so lucky that Alaska is still in print and still finding readers (some of whom were in preschool when it was first published). Thanks to everyone who has read it and shared it this past decade, and I hope you enjoy the anniversary edition!

Woah…ten years…