Blog

Category: Blog

Your blog category

  • November 17th, 2012 4:40pm

    batcows:

    assistedrealityinterface:

    chifuyu:

    whelmedkitsune:

    chifuyu:

    scottlobdellhateblog:

    batcows:

    the unholy duo

    #and satan himself looked upon this union and thought it good

    Where are the goddamn fanfictions!?

    “R-Rob I have work to do. I have to write.”

    “Leave it,” Rob said into the crook of his neck, his hands traveling up and down the soft curve of his back. “leave it and come rest for a bit.”

    Scott nodded, his knees were weak, his head was spinning and all he could think about was the pair of hands rubbing small, rough circles against the small of his back. “Okay” he said, slightly out of breath. “Superman can wait.”

    and then buttsex

    “Don’t call me Scott in bed, Rob baby. Call me Superman.”

    They would have sex to Nirvana after a long session of Doom and then break to read Youngblood before slamming a dew like the rad x-treme people they are and the thought of that causes me physical pain

    WHAT THE FUCKING FUCK HAPPENED TO THIS POST WHILE I WASN’T LOOKING

    These two need to jump off of a cliff together. 

  • November 17th, 2012 2:50am

    luanna255:

    Just a friendly canon reminder that Dick and Babs liked Jason.

    No. Really. I have no idea why this is so hard to remember, and yet not only does fandom seem to struggle with this seemingly straightforward concept, canon writers are apparently completely incapable of comprehending this as well (Scott Lobdell, I am looking at you. I am looking at you so hard.)

    I think the confusion seems to come from two major misconceptions that have been perpetuated in the years since Jason’s death:

    (1) That Jason, in his role as “the bad Robin”, was so abrasive and unlikable that he never got along with the rest of the Batfamily, and was disliked by all.

    (2) That Jason was clearly “doomed” from the start, and the other Batkids never saw him as fit or capable of carrying on the legacy, but knew right from the beginning that he would never succeed.

    However, the bottom line is that both of these ideas are complete, utter, 100% nonsense.

    Jason had some issues as a kid, sure. But contrary to what some people would have you believe, he did not actually go around antagonizing people just for the heck of it. He was angry at people who deserved his anger, not at the entire world. He was a sweet, lovable kid much of the time, and he had no problem getting along with others. Once everyone got adjusted to the idea of a new Robin, he got along perfectly well with both Dick and Barbara. They liked him. He liked them. They genuinely cared about him. End of story.

    Am I saying no one ever accused Jason of being angry or impulsive? Not at all. Those qualities were there, and the rest of the Batfam worried about it. But you can’t define Jason, or his relationships with the rest of the Batfam, solely by that. Yes, he could be angry and impulsive. But he could also be kind, clever, determined, sweet, funny, lovable, and brave. And when Dick and Barbara looked at him, they saw all of that. They didn’t see some bad seed who was sure to meet a bad end. They saw a kid who had some issues, but who also had outstanding qualities. Someone they fully expected to succeed as Robin.

    And he was someone they both loved, very much. They were shocked and horrified by his death, because it wasn’t inevitable. Because whatever story DC tries to sell you now, Jason Todd was not a doomed, angry misfit right from the very beginning. He was a a nice, likable kid (issues and all) who was like a little brother to Dick and Barbara. He could and did get along well with others, and the other Batkids were devastated when he died.

    Why is this so hard to understand?

    ^

  • November 17th, 2012 2:43am

    A Rant about E-Book Pricing

    fishingboatproceeds:

    So the final volume in Ally Condie’s MATCHED trilogy came out today. The last book, REACHED, is a great ending to an excellent series, and I think very highly of both the series and its author.

    All the pre-publication reviews have been great, and the initial Amazon user reviews were awesome, too. But then this afternoon, I noticed the overall rating for the book had dropped from five stars to four entirely because of a single one-star review complaining that the e-book is more expensive than the hardcover on Amazon. (Edit: The review has been deleted.)

    The hardcover of Reached retails for $17.99. The kindle edition retails for $10.99. As you will notice because you are great at math, THE E-BOOK IS FAR CHEAPER THAN THE HARDCOVER.

    But Amazon discounts the price of the hardcover. They discount it so much, in fact, that they LOSE MONEY on every sale of the hardcover. Why do they do this? So that you will buy your hardcover books at Amazon instead of at a bookstore, and then you will get used to buying things from Amazon, and then you will start to buy far more profitable items that are less steeply discounted, like a Mini Tractor for Your Kid or Kim Kardashian’s Perfume or E-BOOKS. Publishers cannot control this discounting.

    So an Amazon user writes a 1-star review of a book they haven’t read to blast the publisher/author for making the hardcover cheaper than the e-book. But in fact neither the author nor the publisher did any such thing. It is not Ally Condie’s fault that Amazon wants to lose money on her books.

    Obviously, if you don’t believe that an e-book is worth $10.99, then you shouldn’t purchase one. But it’s wrong to see pricing as a simple competition between print and e-book.

    In the end, what makes a book valuable is not the paper it’s printed on, but the thousands of hours of work by dozens of people who are dedicated to creating the best possible reading experience for you.