ABOUT

Webster || 15 || USA

child of apollo and Gryffindor.
I’m a super lame teenager with an even worse blog.

the blog

personal and fandom blog. posts: hemlock grove, Supernatural, oitnb, dr. who, 5sos, sherlock, wtnv, 1d

status

active thanks to summer break.

currently

reading

recommend me books!

watching

death note

amazing people

friends

|| || ||

los libros

♕ ♕ ♕

updates tab credit

a special thanks to my homie who helped install this lovely updates tab for me
clockworkdiangelo ♡

pretty people

♕ ♕ ♕


#hp
theatricalpopculture:

chihuahuawho:

miakosamuio:

mishastolemywormstache:

sandandglass:

CNN actually researched how much it would cost to go to Hogwarts

#NO WONDER THE WEASLEYS ARE FUCKING BROKE

How exactly did they “research” this? Looks like they just pulled a bunch of random figures out of their butts.
It’s stated in the books that tuition to Hogwarts is “free for all children in Britain”. I don’t know why they thought it wouldn’t be - it’s a British high school, not a college. So there, you just saved yourself $42,024.
In Chamber of Secrets, Mrs. Weasley emptied her entire bank account which contained only two galleons [£10 / US$20] and she managed to buy all five children’s entire set of books and potion ingredients with this, as well as Ginny’s robes, hat, clock, cauldron, and wand!!! And we know she bought all of these as she mentioned having to buy them. The fact that she bought all of these with only £10 pretty much proves how absolutely ridiculous CNNs estimation is.
If you want more proof, the actual cost of Harry’s want is far over estimated here, and the exact price in both pounds as US dollars can easily be found right within the books! Harry’s wand is bought for seven galleons, a galleon being worth about five pounds [mentioned by JK Rowling in an interview and in FBAWTFT/QTTA] means that his wand was £35, or US$53. So there’s some straight-out-of-the-books-and-word-of-god proof that the figures CNN have given are way off the mark. Not to mention the fact that even if you don’t go to Hogwarts, as a magical human you’re gonna have to buy a wand anyway if you want to do magic.
As for the school books, I’ve done an approximation based on various prices given through-out the books and on Pottermore. While these prices involve a substantial amount of guess-work, I think you’ll agree that my calculation is far more accurate than CNNs:
The Standard book of Spells costs one sickle [29p / US59c]. On the back of my comic relief copy of Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them it says it costs fourteen sickles [£4.60 / US$8.26]. One Pottermore, all text books are one galleon [£4.97  / US$10.17] - however Pottermore currency only uses galleons so it’s likely they have rounded off. Lockhart’s books, the most expensive in the series, are five galleons on Pottermore meaning that the exchange rate in the books puts them around two galleons and fourteen sickles [£14.60 / US$20.80]. If we put a high average on this and assume that all textbooks are approximately a galleon [they are likely much less], and that each year has around seven required reading books, the entire price for seven years worth of books would be forty-nine galleons, which equals approximately £243, or US$367 - and remember, this is the maximum estimated price for the textbooks.
For the minimum, we need to consider that the Weasleys get a lot of things second hand, with Ginny’s copy of A Begginers Guide To Transfiguration being described as “a very old, very battered copy” - likely no more than five sickles. If they got all their books around that price, it would cost them no more than £14 / US$21 for the entire seven years worth! So school books, far from being US$516, fall somewhere between US$14 and US$367 for the entire seven years at Hogwarts.
Next we have robe, glove, cloak, and hat prices - these are never mentioned in the books or on Pottermore, so I can’t account for that. However I seriously doubt it’s as a high as they’ve got here. Considering books in the wizarding world are generally much cheaper than in the muggle world, I think it’s fairly safe to assume that clothing is as well. Likely a maximum of a galleon for a single set of robes.
They’ve also forgotten a huge number of things - cauldrons, potion ingredients, scales, and star charts, among others.
So yeah, I really don’t know where they came up with these figures. It looks like some guy just wanted to make a story about how expensive Hogwarts would be and put a bunch of American college figures together and thought “yeah, this looks good.”

The Harry Potter fandom doesn’t fuck around
Get your shit together CNN and stick to current events

THEY’RE SUCH BULLSHITTERS OMG

theatricalpopculture:

chihuahuawho:

miakosamuio:

mishastolemywormstache:

sandandglass:

CNN actually researched how much it would cost to go to Hogwarts

#NO WONDER THE WEASLEYS ARE FUCKING BROKE

How exactly did they “research” this? Looks like they just pulled a bunch of random figures out of their butts.

It’s stated in the books that tuition to Hogwarts is “free for all children in Britain”. I don’t know why they thought it wouldn’t be - it’s a British high school, not a college. So there, you just saved yourself $42,024.

In Chamber of Secrets, Mrs. Weasley emptied her entire bank account which contained only two galleons [£10 / US$20] and she managed to buy all five children’s entire set of books and potion ingredients with this, as well as Ginny’s robes, hat, clock, cauldron, and wand!!! And we know she bought all of these as she mentioned having to buy them. The fact that she bought all of these with only £10 pretty much proves how absolutely ridiculous CNNs estimation is.

If you want more proof, the actual cost of Harry’s want is far over estimated here, and the exact price in both pounds as US dollars can easily be found right within the books! Harry’s wand is bought for seven galleons, a galleon being worth about five pounds [mentioned by JK Rowling in an interview and in FBAWTFT/QTTA] means that his wand was £35, or US$53. So there’s some straight-out-of-the-books-and-word-of-god proof that the figures CNN have given are way off the mark. Not to mention the fact that even if you don’t go to Hogwarts, as a magical human you’re gonna have to buy a wand anyway if you want to do magic.

As for the school books, I’ve done an approximation based on various prices given through-out the books and on Pottermore. While these prices involve a substantial amount of guess-work, I think you’ll agree that my calculation is far more accurate than CNNs:

The Standard book of Spells costs one sickle [29p / US59c]. On the back of my comic relief copy of Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them it says it costs fourteen sickles [£4.60 / US$8.26]. One Pottermore, all text books are one galleon [£4.97  / US$10.17] - however Pottermore currency only uses galleons so it’s likely they have rounded off. Lockhart’s books, the most expensive in the series, are five galleons on Pottermore meaning that the exchange rate in the books puts them around two galleons and fourteen sickles [£14.60 / US$20.80]. If we put a high average on this and assume that all textbooks are approximately a galleon [they are likely much less], and that each year has around seven required reading books, the entire price for seven years worth of books would be forty-nine galleons, which equals approximately £243, or US$367 - and remember, this is the maximum estimated price for the textbooks.

For the minimum, we need to consider that the Weasleys get a lot of things second hand, with Ginny’s copy of A Begginers Guide To Transfiguration being described as “a very old, very battered copy” - likely no more than five sickles. If they got all their books around that price, it would cost them no more than £14 / US$21 for the entire seven years worth! So school books, far from being US$516, fall somewhere between US$14 and US$367 for the entire seven years at Hogwarts.

Next we have robe, glove, cloak, and hat prices - these are never mentioned in the books or on Pottermore, so I can’t account for that. However I seriously doubt it’s as a high as they’ve got here. Considering books in the wizarding world are generally much cheaper than in the muggle world, I think it’s fairly safe to assume that clothing is as well. Likely a maximum of a galleon for a single set of robes.

They’ve also forgotten a huge number of things - cauldrons, potion ingredients, scales, and star charts, among others.

So yeah, I really don’t know where they came up with these figures. It looks like some guy just wanted to make a story about how expensive Hogwarts would be and put a bunch of American college figures together and thought “yeah, this looks good.”

The Harry Potter fandom doesn’t fuck around

Get your shit together CNN and stick to current events

THEY’RE SUCH BULLSHITTERS OMG

Anonymous asked:
"What is 50 shades of grey about? And what's so bad about it?"

middleclassreject:

dysonrules:

aconissa:

50 Shades of Grey was originally fanfiction based on the Twilight series, which was then published as a novel (along with 2 subsequent books). It sold over 100 million copies around the world and topped best-seller lists everywhere. It’s about to be adapted into a film, set to come out early next year.

It follows a college student named Ana Steele, who enters a relationship with a man named Christian Grey and is then introduced to a bastardised and abusive parody of BDSM culture.

While the book is paraded as erotica, the relationship between Ana and Christian is far from healthy. The core mantra of the BDSM community is “safe, sane and consensual”, and 50 Shades is anything but. None of the rules of BDSM practices (which are put in place to protect those involved) are actually upheld. Christian is controlling, manipulative, abusive, takes complete advantage of Ana, ignores safe-words, ignores consent, keeps her uneducated about the sexual practices they’re taking part in, and a multitude of other terrible things. Their relationship is completely sickening and unhealthy.

Basically, “the book is a glaring glamorisation of violence against women,” as Amy Bonomi so perfectly put it. 

It’s terrible enough that a book like this has been absorbed by people worldwide. Now, we have a film that is expected to be a huge box-office success, and will likely convince countless more young women that it’s okay not to have any autonomy in a relationship, that a man is allowed to control them entirely. It will also show many young men that women are theirs to play with and dominate, thus contributing to antiquated patriarchal values and rape culture.

REBLOG FOREVER.

Boycott this fucking movie, for the love of god. These kinds of ideas are dangerous and set us back as a society 

shubbabang:

WHEN THE BACK OF YOUR THROAT ITCHES AND YOU CANT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT

image

image

image

image

solluxcraptor:

"you’re too cute to be single!"

then date me

bent-duck:

crimewave420:

He is ready to FUCK

its time to B O N E

#fob
  • baby: p..p...p
  • dad: papa?
  • baby: PUT ON YOUR WAR PAINT
  • baby: *angry orchestral noises*

onthesideoftheotters:

bodysexgender:

vexednature:

tuxedoandex:

modernvampiresofnewyork:

What girls look for in guys

  • brown eyes
  • messy hair
  • cute nose
  • 4 paws
  • golden retriever 

but a man looking for a certain thing in girls? misogyny right? guys can’t be like “I look for girls who wear glasses and are thin and like to talk” nope that’s misogyny and it’s horrible. “equality”

oh my god did you even bother reading the post 

"not ALL dogs"

m’owner

#1d

bearmouth:

donnacabonna:

goodladnicelittlebody:

WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT ALL OF THIS 

image

LOOK AT HIS CUTE PANTS AND THE LITTLE DRAWSTRING

image

LOOK AT THE FACIAL HAIR THE LIPS THE EYES

image

THE MOTHERFUCKING SWEATERPAWS

image

LOOK AT HOW CUTE HIS SWEATER SITS ON HIS SHOULDER OMFG

image

HIS FUCKING DEFINED CHEST WHAT THE EVER LOVING HELL

image

THE FUCKING HAIR PEAKINGOUT FROM THE BACK I CANT CONTAINMYSELF IM GETTING SO FRUSTRATED CAN I TOUCH LOUIS PLEASE

wtf

oh my god

playbunny:

growing attached to people but not wanting to be that clingy friend

image