Jonah Hill & Morgan Freeman

One of my favorite celebrity interviews ever.


i would give my left kidney for asexual taystee jefferson.

she’s an extrovert who cares more about her family in all its forms than she is in dating.

none of her flashbacks or current prison drama revolve around fucking.

when poussey kisses her she says she’s “not like that” but cuddling is fine and she obviously enjoys that - why is everyone assuming she means she’s straight?

when she yells at p in the library she never says the issue is that she liked her, it’s that she liked her “like that” and “wanted her to take off her clothes and shit” - those are not the words of someone uncomfortable with a lesbian. those are the words of someone uncomfortable with sex.

she jokes about sex but it’s /always/ a joke. “a nubian king with a nubian thing”? come on. she uses it like a punchline. she uses it like an ace.

can you imagine? if any show were to have some ace representation, i could see it being orange is the new black. and can you imagine it being TAYSTEE? the fan favorite, loud and happy and dancing - sings like an angel, stings like a bee - can you imagine? taystee saying, “no, i’m asexual. not like a fucking plant, like a person. i just don’t like it.” can you IMAGINE? allosexual people being forced to see an ace character who wasn’t a novelty or a joke or treated like it was a disorder? can you imagine allosexual people actually /hearing/ the word asexual on one of the most popular tv shows that exists right now? can you even imagine?


In life the people we know are usually consistent to their own personalities and characters; whether this be consistently pessimistic or consistently unpredictable. keeping your characters as true to their, well, character isn’t always easy. Of course it helps if you know your charactersinside out, back to front and all around. They should be like people to you, like friends you never meet in person or old work colleagues you haven’t seen for a while. Once you know them it’s much easier to apply their unique personality to paper with consistency and efficiency. 

Here’s a checklist that will help you to do so;

  1. Consider their physical abilities (and awareness of them); most people are aware of their physical abilities and limitations, some think they’re Glasgow/Berlin/Atlanta’s answer to superman or catwoman. This is as much a part of their personality as anything else; an arrogant individual may think they can overcome their physical limits when they really have to, a delusional one may think they have no limits. Though the first is quite common, the second might hint at any number of factors that cloud the mind, think: alcohol, drugs, mental illness. If you want some quick advice on physical capabilities and how to exceed them see; Here and Here, respectively.
  2. Consider their personality; are they argumentative? Shy? Do they seek confrontation or actively avoid it? Remember a personality is made up of many facets; a person who looks for confrontation, has a short temper and is a staunch pessimist will react differently to a situation that someone who hold these qualities but is an optimist. While the first will see reasons to be angry and people to argue with more often, the second may need to be actively argued with or antagonised before they ‘snap’. They may also be more forgiving. 
  3. Consider the reality of the situations you put them in; almost every person, when cornered, when desperate, is capable of killing (mentally). It may be that they lack the physical capability to kill but no living creature is born without the desire to live and will to fight for survival. Arguably only a true saint or complete coward could face torture or certain death without fighting back. So think; is your character one of these types? Are they the kind of person who would lash out only as a last resort? Or the kind who uses violence of all kinds without guilt? Does your characters reaction to the situation you create fit them or do they act this way to service the story? If the second is true then you might need to reevaluate your character arc in order to bring them to a point where this act fits their psyche.
  4. Evaluate their motivation; it should be something that the reader, knowing your character, believes would move them to act in certain ways. We wouldn’t believe that, upon receiving good news, someone would become agitated and angry but if we were then told that for some reason this was not good news for them we would reevaluate our stance.  For example, consider the (fantastic) film ‘Steel magnolias’; in any normal circumstance we would be shocked that a mother would react badly to her daughters planned, consensual and desired pregnancy. But considering the fact that Shelby has severe diabetes and runs the risk of compromising her long term health with a pregnancy, suddenly, we understand her mother’s actions; she is fearful. She loves her daughter and thus is angry at what she sees as a flippant disregard for her own life.

By asking the right questions during the revision stage of writing you can easily determine where your characters are straying slightly, if it’s not already obvious to you as the author. The most reliable way to catch character deviations like this, however, is to give the story to someone else to read, someone who likes the genre you’re writing in, too. An interested reader will pick up on small falters in characterisation with the ruthless efficiency of a bloodhound and, if you pick the right person, they wont be afraid to tell you. If these issue come to your attention, no matter how, these four points can be used, also, to fashion a ‘repair’ for these issues. Just as you use them to confirm that actions are consistent with characterisation, you can use them to answer the question “If this is not what they’d do, what would they do?”

Is your kind and intelligent but quick tempered teacher realistically going to slap a child? No, probably not.

 So what would they do?

Well; a kind, intelligent, quick tempered teach might physically lash out at a pupil if they;

  1. Were facing physical violence from a pupil and had no other options; not to be crude but anyone would lash out if faced with assault, rape, murder or extreme humiliation.
  2. Were under the influence of mind, and therefore, personality altering substances; drugs/drink etc. Some antidepressants, on the rare occasion, can induce anger in an individual.
  3. Had experienced something that altered them as a person for good; we’re not talking the boiler breaking down or a partner cheating. We’re talking loss of life, limb or individuals; we’re talking stuck in an elevator for three days, forced to survive on a kitkat and tear open the rusted escape hatch with your fingernails. Real, permanent and irreversible change of a person’s psychological fingerprint requires a high impact situation. Certainly it needn’t be a physical situation but it should match the corresponding change in magnitude.

Lacking real change they’re likely to;

  1. Bite their tongue and soldier on; someone with a passion for teaching would most likely wish to help all their pupils, even the troublesome ones. Especially if this person were also inherently kind. 
  2. Shout or, verbally, lose their temper; they might feel guilty afterwards, or remonstrate themselves for lacking in professionalism. 
  3. Turn the anger inward and, if the situation is long term, persistent and severe, self destruct.

This is a limited example but, I hope, is helpful nonetheless. 

No matter how progressive, liberal, or politically and socially astute we think we have become, everyone living in the United States (and elsewhere, for Dahl was certainly not American) has been affected by ideas about which children can be — and cannot be — viewed as innocent. Of course, in the Enlightenment, and afterward, there are examples of dark-skinned peoples being viewed as noble savages. However, the prevailing cultural script that has been handed down over the generations is that some children are more innocent than others. We notice this, but we are not encouraged to speak it aloud, because the construction of childhood innocence on foundations of race is something that is implied but never spoken, lest we offend others.

we have a pretty good idea how badly cap took bucky's death after the fall from the train, but how hard do you think it hit dum dum?

— Anonymous




No, but okay, here’s the thing.

Dum Dum was on the train too.  He was just a few cars away.  

They were up and arresting Zola, right?  And I bet they were laughing, he and Monty and Morita and Dernier.  Maybe someone did something stupid.  Maybe Morita cracked a joke.  Maybe, maybe - the point is, Dum Dum can’t actually remember, because when they get off the train they see, back behind, where Gabe is having to literally drag Steve out.

They were laughing when it happened.

That’s what Dum Dum will remember.



He and Bucky had a special relationship borne of the right timing and the right mesh of personalities - a lot like Steve and Bucky actually. They met at the right time, under the right circumstances and Bucky is the only person - even of the rest of the Howlies Bucky is the only person - for whom Dum Dum is obnoxiously loud and boisterous and overly affectionate. He feels like Bucky’s big brother. He’s protective in a way he’s never been before you know??

And then they meet up outside the train, and Bucky Bear isn’t there. Bucky Little Bear because everyone always describes Dum Dum as a bear - look at him. But Sarge is all fierceness and teeth when it comes to Steve and the people he cares about. Warmth and cuddling too but it’s the ferociousness he’s willing to dole out on Steve’s behalf that makes the nickname stick for Dum Dum. 

And he’s not. There. And Steve looks like a part of him got torn open. And Dum Dum will never forget this - not as long as he lives.

They call each other family out here but for Dum Dum Sarge was the only one he ever really meant it for.



No okay but have you considered:

  • Bucky Barnes always being the caregiver and protector for his siblings, for Steve.  Bucky always putting himself between everyone else and the world.  Bucky being a metaphorical (and sometimes literal, with Steve getting into fights) wall that no one has ever been able to truly get through.
  • Dum Dum Dugan looking out for himself.  Dum Dum always taking care of number one - that is, his own ass - because other people are only going to drag you down.  Dum Dum who is that guy in the stories, the one who appeared and disappeared in almost the same breath.
  • Dum Dum and Bucky meeting at basic.  Dum Dum noticing the way that Bucky always goes out of the way to talk to the really homesick guys, who goes back during runs to make sure that everyone gets to the end.  Dum Dum starting to notice that there isn’t anyone really returning the favor.
  • Bucky suddenly having this mountain of a man badgering him about eating enough and sleeping enough.  Bucky having someone who backs him up at almost ever turn.  Bucky not knowing what hte hell to do about that.
  • Dum Dum learning to give a shit, even two, about another person.
  • Bucky learning to let someone actually take care of him for once.
  • In the battlefield, before they’re captured, Bucky stepping in front of the other men and Dum Dum trying to step in front of Bucky.
  • Bucky giving Dum Dum the name Dum Dum.
  • Dum Dum fucking RAGING when they drag Bucky away to Zola’s laboratory.  Dum Dum trying to get them to take him instead of Bucky.  Dum Dum sitting and staring at a wall and wondering how this happened, how he got stuck with this dumb kid who is too smart for his own good.
  • I just



In all other cases except the Triwizard cup, portkeys only go one way at one specific time. Touching them again does not activate them to return to their place of origin. Also, when Harry grabs the cup a second time, it does not return him to the middle of the maze. It takes him to the entrance of the maze, in front of everyone.

Therefore, when Crouch Jr. (as Moody) bewitched the cup, he planned to have it take anyone who touched it first to the graveyard, then to the front of the maze.The cup was probably supposed to be a portkey to take the winner to the front of the maze anyway, so they wouldn’t have to try to fight their way out again.

Voldemort obviously planned to kill Harry. He had to. That was the whole point; to kill Harry in front of all his Death Eaters, all the ones who had deserted him and doubted his power to return.

There’s the possibility that he wanted to send Harry’s body back, either to divert suspicion somehow or to intentionally flout his victory in Dumbledore’s face. Except Voldemort had promised his precious Nagini several times she could eat Harry, and it seemed like a promise Voldemort was going to keep.

So who was meant to take that return trip?

Voldemort could use it as a ticket into Hogwarts for a surprise attack, but he’s freshly reborn, his Death Eaters are 13 years out of practice, and there’s a flock of powerful wizards there for the Triwizard. That would be an idiotic move.

Or what if Harry—or someone who looked like him—had returned to Hogwarts as if nothing had happened in that maze? As the victor of the Triwizard Tournament AND the Boy Who Lived, Harry would be able to go anywhere and do anything. Everyone trusts him.


There was one Death Eater already waiting at Hogwarts who had very carefully been spending a whole year getting to know Harry, watching his every movement: Barty Crouch Jr.

So here was Voldemort’s complete plan: Use Barty Crouch Jr. to infiltrate Hogwarts as Moody. He gets to know Harry and sets him up to be selected for and eventually to win the Triwizard Tournament. He makes sure Harry touches the cup first. Harry is then transported to the graveyard where Voldemort is waiting. Voldemort uses Harry to rise, calls his Death Eaters to him, and then humiliates and kills the Boy Who Lived in front of them.

Then Voldemort strips Harry’s body, takes his hair, and transforms into him (or else has one of his DE’s do this—but really, who would he pick? Lucius is an idiot, Bellatrix is still in jail, and he believes Snape has deserted him). He then takes the cup and goes to Hogwarts as Harry. Later that night, Moody disappears, and Crouch takes Voldemort’s place as Harry Potter. Then, when the moment is right, Voldemort-Harry or Crouch-Harry will assassinate Dumbledore (incidentally gaining the power of the Elder Wand, though he wouldn’t know it), stage a coup of Hogwarts, and take over the wizarding world.

Heck, he/they might not even drop their disguise as Harry. The wizarding world has faced Voldemort as an enemy before, but if their savior Harry Potter suddenly turned out to be just as powerful a Dark Lord as He Who Must Not Be Named? It would be a far scarier prospect than simply dealing with Voldemort’s return.

It solves the problem of why Voldemort went to such lengths to get Harry through the Triwizard, when there were far easier ways to capture him: Voldemort didn’t just need Harry’s blood; he needed Harry as the world’s hero.

And all that time in Hogwarts would give Voldemort time to search for a relic of Godric Gryffindor, the one founder he never made a horcrux from.

Of course, none of this could have worked because Voldemort could never in a million years fool Ron or Hermione or Dumbledore, not even for a minute. But there’s Voldemort’s greatest weakness again—he doesn’t understand love.

You’re welcome.