Wherein a grown-ass woman unleashes her inner teenage fangirl. Please forgive the idiocy. It's all just meant in good, semi-clean internet fun.
Multi-fandom, baby, because why restrict yourself?
This is a side blog, so if you wondering if I'm following you back, please feel free to ask.

18th October 2014

Photoset reblogged from in the dark i heard your voice with 268 notes

M u r t a g h was one of those men who always looked a bit startled to find that women had voices, but he nodded politely enough.

Tagged: murtaghmurtagh fitzgibbons FraseroutlanderDuncan lacroix

18th October 2014

Post reblogged from Sassenach Wench with 11 notes

lenaguffi:

How are they gonna make Sam look 45? I mean… idk…

If they keep splitting seasons like this, he may actually be 45 by the time we get there.

18th October 2014

Post with 1 note

Is anyone else kind of over Haven? I’d still like to know a few things about the “why” and “how”, but it’s dragging too much to hold my attention.

Tagged: Haven

17th October 2014

Photoset reblogged from Equion with 167 notes

Outlander fans, a message from our President | x

Tagged: outlandermurtaghmurtagh fitzgibbons FraserDuncan Lacroix

16th October 2014

Post reblogged from Eccentricities of a Hockey Filled Mind with 3 notes

playswithsquirrellls:

Not even finished with the 1st book but this popped into my head:

Is it possible that Claire could be related to Jamie if she is a member of the Randall line that stemmed from Jamie’s sister?

No. For numerous reasons, no. Keep reading. You’ll get there.

Tagged: outlander

16th October 2014

Post reblogged from killing time with 200 notes

Outlander Character Appreciation Post: Murtagh

atom1cflea:

To start off a series that I plan to do to highlight some of the ancillary characters on Outlander while on mid-season hiatus, let us start at the beginning with everyone’s favorite loveable grumpy muppet, and list the reasons we love Murtagh Fitzgibbons Fraser.

1. Any hair that sprouts from any visible place on the man is luxuriantly perfect.  

The eyebrows. The beard. The lashes. Murtagh is the shaggy fantasy of every little girl who ever ran a plastic brush through her Barbie’s pony, dreamily imagining the day she would braid her husband’s beard. Was that just me? No matter. It is still the craggy promontory on which the crankiest, dourest expressions break into daydreams of petting his face and crooning him into a twinkle from under those spectacular brows. 

image

image

image

Read More

Tagged: outlandermurtaghmurtagh fitzgibbons FraserDuncan Lacroix

15th October 2014

Post reblogged from Queen of Swords with 2 notes

dreamer-tarot:

I just finished reading Outlander… There are six more books to go in this series, and I am wounded, and ruined, and far too invested. Maker, save me.

Seven. There are seven more books

13th October 2014

Photoset reblogged from outlander network with 275 notes

Tagged: outlandermurtaghmurtagh fitzgibbons FraserDuncan Lacroix

12th October 2014

Post reblogged from SoraOfSkye with 3 notes

Should I or Should I Not?

soraofskye:

Hello beloved followers of mine! Since the Disney Prince Jamie Fraser drawing, I was considering doing another Disney!Outlander piece. Should I or should I not? If Yes then who? Jamie (because why not?) or the other characters?

:D Please reply if you guys are interested. Thanks.

-SoraOfSkye

Adorable sidekick Murtagh!

12th October 2014

Link reblogged from Cards on the table/we're both showing hearts with 6 notes

Hmph →

vivacephoenix:

nooneshouldbethissparkly:

nooneshouldbethissparkly:

vivacephoenix:

So I was reading an interview and came across this about BJR: “Author Diana Gabaldon calls Jack a ‘sadistic bisexual pervert.”

Seriously??? On one hand, the story isn’t pretending LGBTQ people didn’t exist before 1980, but really, the horrible…

Why? The story wasn’t written with the goal of presenting every type of human. That’s not what it’s about. Creating a character just to be the good gay guy isn’t representation; it’s tokenism.

Not every story has to represent everyone, but there’s a very long historical precedent in fiction of the only representation LGBT people had was as evil characters or dead. (In film, you see this via queercoding and the effects of the Hays Code.)

Comic book artist Noelle Stevenson has a great quote on why it’s important to have a variety of women represented in comics and I think a similar principle applies to LGBT characters: “the best way I can figure out how to address that is to have way more female characters. Then it’s not on one woman’s shoulders to represent all women in a positive way. They can be heroes, villains, ambiguously moral, comic relief […] and what you’ve got are — people.”

So BJR being bi and a villain wouldn’t bother me as much if there were more characters to balance him out.

This is obviously an issue that goes far beyond just one book series or author, but it’s good to be aware of it for whatever you’re reading/watching.

I get that, but none of it means that it’s a bad or poorly-written story because we don’t see two nice gay guys for every one evil one. I’m not a fan of the “check all the boxes” mentality. Do we have enough women? Enough gays? Enough non-whites? No? What about religious minorities? That Muslim character is too radical, so we need to add another one who isn’t like that. The lesbian character is too butch; we need a girly lesbian for balance. Wait, what story were we telling, again? Diversity in representation is important, but not checking all the boxes doesn’t weaken a work as much as overt tokenism would. (You may be further outraged to learn that, later in the story, Black Jack Randall is also revealed to be a bit of a pedophile. His thing isn’t bisexuality or pansexuality; it’s brutality and power.)