Hannibal Masterpost


Season 1

S1E1 Apéritif
S1E2 Amuse-Bouche
S1E3 Potage
S1E4 Œuf
S1E5 Coquilles
S1E6 Entrée
S1E7 Sorbet
S1E8 Fromage
S1E9 Trou Normand 
S1E10 Buffet Froid
S1E11 Rôti 
S1E12 Relevés
S1E13 Savoureux

Season 2

S2E1 Kaiseki
S2E2 Sakizuki
S2E3 Hassun
S2E4 Takiawase
S2E5 Mukozuke
S2E6 Futamon
S2E7 Yakimono
S2E8 Su-Zakana
S2E9 Shiizakana
S2E10 Naka-Choko
S2E11 Kō No Mono
S2E12 Tome-wan
S2E13 Mizumono

Supernatural Masterpost


Season 1

Season 2

Season 3

Season 4

Season 5

Season 6

Season 7

Season 8

Season 9

Livestream Links



Guys I know irunthehell was shut down, and EVERYONE is freaking out because they did such a spectacular job on it.
Just note that even though the blog was shut down, the google docs were not.
Which means if you’re like me and pin tabs when you’re watching masterposts so you can binge watch…

Anonymous asked: wait what? a song of yours on the radio? which song? which station?


Yes! My original song Ache was on a local station where one of my darling friends is DJ. It was completely a surprise and she only texted me a couple minutes before about it, otherwise I would have let you guys know! Exciting things :)

Jensen Ackles at Soap Opera Digest Award - 1998 (x)


[rebloggable by request]

Well, first of all, WELCOME TO ONE OF MY PET PEEVES.

A female character does not have to be “strong” (whatever your definition of that is) to be a good character.

Women can be strong, or wussy, or emotional, or stoic, or needy, or independent, and still be legitimate people and interesting characters.

In our totally understandable desire to see portrayals of strong women (in reaction to decades of damsels in distress and women as appendages), we’ve somehow backed ourselves into this corner where the only acceptable portrayal of a woman in the media is a strong, kick-ass woman.  That is not doing women any favors.  It just leads to the attitude that you have to be ONE WAY ONLY to be legit as a woman.  You shouldn’t have to be Natasha Romanoff or Xena to be considered a good character.  Don’t get me wrong, I love a good Buffy as much as the next person, but that should not be the only acceptable portrayal.  It should be okay for a female character NOT to be strong, too.  Let’s take Molly Hooper as an example.  She is not the stereotypical “strong” woman.  But hell, she went through medical school, didn’t she?  She’s smart, and she’s funny, and she serves a story function - she is not a major character, but she doesn’t have to be.  But her character gets criticized because she pines after Sherlock.  What, you never pined after somebody?  Did it make you invalid as a person?  You never got a bit silly over a crush?  I know I did.  And I still consider myself a strong woman.  It should be okay for Molly to have a crush on Sherlock without getting the “oh, she’s so pathetic, what a terrible example, what a horrible female character” thing she so often gets.  Yes, because it’s so terrible that a female character should reflect an experience that like 99% of us have had.  

Screw writing “strong” women.  Write interesting women.  Write well-rounded women.  Write complicated women.  Write a woman who kicks ass, write a woman who cowers in a corner.  Write a woman who’s desperate for a husband.  Write a woman who doesn’t need a man.  Write women who cry, women who rant, women who are shy, women who don’t take no shit, women who need validation and women who don’t care what anybody thinks.  THEY ARE ALL OKAY, and all those things could exist in THE SAME WOMAN.  Women shouldn’t be valued because we are strong, or kick-ass, but because we are people.  So don’t focus on writing characters who are strong.  Write characters who are people.

The only bad female character, if you ask me (and you did), is one who’s flat.  One who isn’t realistic.  One who has no agency of her own, who only exists to define other characters (usually men).  Write each woman you write as if she has her own life story, her own motivations, her own fears and strengths, and even if she’s only in the story for one page, she will be a real person, and THAT is what we need.  Not a phalanx of women who can karate-chop your head off, but REAL women, who are people, with all the complexity and strong and not-strong that goes with it.

This is why I disagree with the “damsel in distress” criticism of Irene in the last scene of Scandal.  Here’s the thing about being a damsel in distress…it’s only bad if that’s all she is.  If the character’s defining characteristic is being a damsel in distress, that’s bad.  But if an otherwise complex character with lots of other agency and actions happens to be in distress, then…that’s all it is.  She is in distress.  That happens.  Characters are often in distress, or there would be no plots.  Should a female character never be allowed to be in distress, at ALL, to be valid?  No.

A strong female character is one who is defined by her own characteristics, history and personality, and not solely by the actions or needs of other characters.  She is a person in the story, not a prop.  That is the best definition I can come up with.  Note that my definition did not involve martial arts. 

That was probably longer than you were anticipating!  I’ve had that percolating for a long time.