apparently today would be Annabeth’s 21st birthday

I hope that by now she’s done with prophecies and gods and she can finally focus on college, rebuilding Mount Oypus, and her sleepy boyfriend who drools on their pillows

didn’t her laptop have daedelus’s delta on the back?

#not nitpicking#this is awesome


I’ve gotten a lot of questions like:

"My partner makes me miserable and does a lot of things I hate and the relationship makes me unhappy and anxious all the time.  Is this abuse?"

It can be hard to say from what I’m given.  But the uncomfortable thing about questions like this is that I think they’re asking another question, which is: “Should I leave this person?”

And that should not be the same question.  Something should not have to rise to the level of abuse to give you a reason to leave.  You don’t have to stay in a relationship that makes you miserable unless (until?) it becomes actually abusive.  Wanting to leave is reason enough.

There is power in the realization of “holy shit, this is abuse.”  Sometimes that is what someone needs to leave.  Sometimes when you can’t trust your own wanting to go, sometimes you do need to hear “yeah, that’s abuse.”

But it’s not true that abuse is the only justification to break up—hell, I don’t think you need any justification to break up.  This is a decision you’re making, not a case you have to prove.  Your partner doesn’t own you until you can prove that their behavior was so bad that they forfeit you.  You own yourself and don’t need to make a case to anyone before deciding what to do with yourself.

"I’m unhappy with this person.  Is it abuse?"

I don’t know.  But I do know that you’re unhappy, and you deserve to be happy.

"You try to give away what you want yourself."
Lois McMaster Bujold (via asamthinketh)
  • Me: I'll sleep early tonight and get a good 8 hours
  • Me: *watches entire season of tv show*
  • Me: *reads every book i own*
  • Me: *goes on quest to find the holy grail*



Does anyone else who watches Leverage have hella Autistic Parker headcanons?

I’m especially interested in opinions from people who are Autistic themselves. I’m not Autistic, and I’m aware that writing about disability headcanons for disabilities you don’t share can be really really dangerous. But my sister and some of my best friends are Autistic, and I’ve been immersing myself in Autistic advocacy blogs and literature recently, and I really want to talk about Autistic Parker.

Like, there’s the obvious things like her special interest in thieving/breaking and entering/safes and security systems, and her played-up issues with emotions and social cues. But I’m most interested in how the writers distinguish her (implied) Autism from her emotional trauma and the things she can overcome from the things that she can’t/shouldn’t have to. Parker was an orphan in foster care and we know that a lot of her relational issues stem from that (although that doesn’t necessarily contradict her Autism at all — hellish experiences in foster care are quite common for developmentally disabled kids). But for example, as the show progresses she learns to get close to people and be affectionate, but she does NOT learn to guess that her team members mean “start an argument” when they tell her to “pick a fight” with a stranger at a charity event (within the frequently violent context of their work, when they often do start physical fights on the job.) And when this happens, everyone admits that it was their bad and they’ll say “argument” next time.

And her close relationships still don’t look like everybody else’s and no one seems to mind. The show still hasn’t answered the question of whether she and her boyfriend are sexual (and/or whether Parker is ace, which is another really valid headcanon, though I prefer Bisexual Parker because she seems to spend the first couple seasons really unsubtly checking out women) and it seems to be a complete nonissue so far.

And it just makes me really excited to think about it because like, there is a male computer geek on the Leverage team, but he’s NOT the one who has a ton of Autistic traits, and that makes me happy.

So I did some more research and it looks like there is hot debate about whether this is canon? It seems like some of the showrunners have addressed it, and mostly have said that they don’t want Parker to be Autistic in canon because they don’t want to conflate Autism with abuse. Which I think is really well-intentioned but also kind of disappointing to me, because people who are Autistic can also be abused? And are more susceptible to many kinds of abuse as children? And you can have both PTSD and Autism and have them interact and shape you in different ways? It seems kind of sad that you have to like pick one or else people will be like “TOO COMPLICATED. CHOOSE A SINGLE DIAGNOSIS/*ISSUE* FOR THIS CHARACTER.”

I’m sorry, I can’t speak to the autism thing either, but I started watching Leverage recently and I love Parker so much so it makes me happy to know  there’ll be these good treatment things of her and her things as the show progresses. (If unhappy about the ‘must choose one issue’ thing).

A message from chead
hey what's up with the "!" in fandoms? i.e. "fat!<thing>" just curious thaxxx <3
A reply from molly-ren

I have asked this myself in the past and never gotten an answer.

Maybe today will be the day we are both finally enlightened.







woodsgotweird said: man i just jumped on the bandwagon because i am a sheep. i have no idea where it came from and i ask myself this question all the time

Maybe someone made a typo and it just got out of hand?

I kinda feel like panic!at the disco started the whole exclamation point thing and then it caught on around the internet, but maybe they got it from somewhere else, IDK.

The world may never know…

Maybe it’s something mathematical?

I’ve been in fandom since *about* when Panic! formed and the adjective!character thing was already going strong, pretty sure it predates them.

It’s a way of referring to particular variations of (usually) a character — dark!Will, junkie!Sherlock, et cetera. I have suspected for a while that it originated from some archive system that didn’t accommodate spaces in its tags, so to make common interpretations/versions of the characters searchable, people started jamming the words together with an infix.

(Lately I’ve seen people use the ! notation when the suffix isn’t the full name, but is actually the second part of a common fandom portmanteau. This bothers me a lot but it happens, so it’s worth being aware of.)

"Bang paths" (! is called a "bang"when not used for emphasis) were the first addressing scheme for email, before modern automatic routing was set up. If you wanted to write a mail to the Steve here in Engineering, you just wrote "Steve" in the to: field and the computer sent it to the local account named Steve. But if it was Steve over in the physics department you wrote it to phys!Steve; the computer sent it to the "phys" computer, which sent it in turn to the Steve account. To get Steve in the Art department over at NYU, you wrote NYU!art!Steve- your computer sends it to the NYU gateway computer sends it to the "art" computer sends it to the Steve account. Etc. ("Bang"s were just chosen because they were on the keyboard, not too visually noisy, and not used for a huge lot already).

It became pretty standard jargon, as I understand, to disambiguate when writing to other humans. First phys!Steve vs the Steve right next to you, just like you were taking to the machine, then getting looser (as jargon does) to reference, say, bearded!Steve vs bald!Steve.

So I’m guessing alternate character version tags probably came from that.



  1. I want this story to be written
  2. I don’t want this story to be written by anyone but me
  3. I don’t want to write this story

(Or even I do want it written by someone else, that just isn’t going to happen).


There is a difference between:

a queer character whose story doesn’t revolve around them being queer


a queer character whose story completely ignores the fact that they are queer



I have yet to hear it explained more succinctly.


I have yet to hear it explained more succinctly.