#also 3-5 business days was apparently accurate because i had this ask in my inbox for 5 days lol

[destroyerofgirls]

your name twin post. that’s all. oh my god.

Part 1

Fuck baby, just like that. Fuck, such a good boy. Such a fucking faggot, sucking me off. Don't worry, my prince, when your dick comes in, I'll be the pathetic fag on his knees instead of you.

Mmmm fuck, you're getting better and better, you're such a fucking pervert. Such a horny little faggot. Fuck, your mouth feels so fucking good, sweetheart.

Those eyes, fuck, those eyes are so fucking gorgeous.

Get up.

You look so much like me, my prince. We're so much alike. Same name, same eyes, fuck, even our mannerisms are starting to be the same. We've been together for a while, haven't we, my prince?

You're going to fuck me, I know, you're nervous. But, you're going to do it, I'm not taking "no" for an answer.

What position? You're the one who's in charge here, you pick. Don't be nervous, if I don't like something, I'll safeword and we can take a pause and I'll let you know. I know you want to be in charge, you're nervous yet excited. Take what's yours, fuck me.

[littlx-songbxrd]

ok so tlh is set in 1903 and there are a few things we know about the clothes from the books themselves- 1. we have a vague idea of the silhouette, as briefly described in the book and the dresses on the cover (although those are mostly incorrect, they do, I suppose, set the reader into the general mindset.) and 2. apparently only pastel colors are fashionable, they do not look nice on cordelia specifically (not all poc girls look 'washed out' in these colors, Kamala, who is often depicted in official art with a similar skin tone to cordelia is stated in the books to look very nice in her pastel dresses)

firstly, the 1900s were a rather odd decade for clothes silhouette wise. this decade was the transition from the 1800s dresses with foot-length hemlines and fuller skirts into the 1910s trends of dresses that reached to the bottom of the calf and a more utilitarian and accessible style. Dresses in the 1900s still had the tubular shape of the 1890s, although it was less severe and it eventually faded out by about 1906 or 1907.

Speaking for now only about the first half of the decade as the books do take place in 1903, the dresses would have had a very structured bodice with flowing skirts that reached to about the ankle. Their undergarments would have included at least three layers (something in between the corset and their body, the corset, and a corset cover) with drawers, stockings, padding at their hips and bust, and at least 1-2 petticoats. dresses consisted of the bodice and skirt as separate pieces, with lace and embellishments used to bring the attention to the bodice.

Day clothes were more structured and less busy, most of them including high necklines and long sleeves. (yes this means that the stupid thing with james always staring at cordelia's chest is not realistic.)

The ballgowns and party dresses that are often mentioned are slightly more accurate. These dresses tended to be very busy with lots of patterns and lace on them, often toward the bust line to achieve an ideal silhouette. skirts were longer and fuller than the day dresses and gloves were always worn with these dresses to make it appear more modest as it had low necklines and short sleeves.

a couple of notes about historical accuracy- number one being the corset. there is a part in chain of gold where cordelia complains about her corset that makes me mad every time I read it. corset were modern bras but more comfortable, they were incredibly supportive and didn't mess with anything permanently. there was always a layer between the skin and the corset as protection for both the skin and the corset as they were intended to be worn for years on end and needed protected from oil and dirt from the body. tight lacing is essentially the historic equivalent to people today who get dressed up in their fanciest clothes for an 8 a.m college class. it wasn't standard and it was only done in very specific situations in which the wearer wanted to look a certain way. for the most part, the super narrow waist wasn't actually all that small, and it looked that way because of padding on the hips and chest.

number two on the standards for fashion at the time. at this point being fashionable was less about standing out as it was about fitting in. If you were wearing something out of fashion it was abnormal and you would be ridiculed for it, along the lines of wearing jeans and a t-shirt to a formal wedding. it was a matter of propriety and respect. Getting dressed a certain way wasn't chore or special thing, it just was.

number three is on the aesthetic dress movement. this would be the category the cover dresses fall into. the aesthetic dress movement encouraged women to dress individually by rejecting the high fashion and emphasizing freedom of movement and practicality. (that is not to mean that high fashions weren't practical and comfortable, its basically just the equivalent of wearing a t-shirt and sweatpants as opposed to something like jeans, a blouse, and five accessories. both are good, its just that they feel very different.) these clothes took from greco-romanic traditions as well as that of eastern asian cultures, with flowing, airy fabrics and loose silhouettes. this style was usually only worn around the home.

next we're going to talk about color. first of all, pastels do not wash cordelia out, she is absolutely stunning in them, as well as the jewel tones. on a more historical note, clothes in the 1900s weren't all pastels????? lighter colors were in trend, as more of an aesthetic dressing style was in fashion, but dark colors could never actually go out of style from a practical standpoint. day dresses from the early half of the decade usually had darker colors, I will link or send another ask with two examples. one, from 1900, is a dark red and gray dress and the other is a walking dress actually from 1903 and is a perfect example of something cordelia could have worn. (it has a very nice brownish gray color with gold embellishments and a high neck.)

now evening dresses on the other hand were usually light colored, almost all of the surviving ones from this decade are a creme or gold color (there are a few in black and some in other colors as well, but the majority are creme, gold, or extremely light to the point they look white.) this is where the biggest plot hole is in my opinion. so it would have been most fashionable by mundane standards to wear a white or gold, which are the mourning and wedding colors respectively, so they obviously couldn’t have done that, which means that the women are either wearing day dresses that wouldn't come into creation until 3-5 years later, they are breaking mundane fashion rules, or they are breaking strict shadowhunter tradition. (out of all the shadowhunter things, the color code seems to actually be the one most consistent through all of the series, aside from the line about the youth in london wearing white sailing outfits.)

cordelias jewel tone wardrobe from anna is incredibly unrealistic in multiple aspects. for one, multiple dresses that would have had to have been custom made by hand plus, correct me if i'm wrong, accessories or undergarments, would have been WILDLY unrealistically expensive. there are plenty of money questions for the shadowhunter universe, but an entire wardrobe like that isn't even historically accurate for the british royal family even with all their blood money. on top of that is the fact that with the cultural implications of certain fashions cordelia very well could have become an outcast for wearing something so wildly out of fashion. there isn't really a modern correlation for it, but while she wouldn't necessarily have become a complete outcast or pariah, with the way we are told the shadowhunters align with societal values of the time (I.e cordelia being ruined) accepting that wardrobe would have been completely counterintuitive to her mission of being accepted by the shadowhunter society.

so that was a lot and i'm not sure if I got everything. let me know if you need any clarification, or want anything continued!!! thank you so much for letting me info dump and rant in your inbox, you are amazing!!

links for photos:

Worth 1903 evening dress

Worth 1903 walking dress

Worth 1900 day dress

plus an article that is the best thing i've ever read

I also have some other video/article links if anyone wants them!!

I will be honest with you anon

I really have nothing to add to all this besides that this is absolutely fascinating

I love how you compared clothing to different types of modern day equivalent that genuinely made it so much easier for me to visualize

I had actually heard complaints about the corset thing before! I had actually seen that many authors seem to write them as if they are the bane of many ya historical fantasies, when in reality it wasn't that at all. So in that scene in chog Cordelias corset was the equivilant of dressing in your fansiest clothes for a class?

See I would have never guessed it!

So more flowy greco-roman inspired clothing got it!

The movement mostly went towards freedom and practicality

Oh that does seem like a problem

The confiction between being appropriate in shadowhunter culture and in the fashion of the time

THE MONEY THING ALWAYS BAFLED ME TOO LIKE HOW ARE THESE HUNTERS WASTING SO MUCH TIME IN THIS WHEN THEY DESPISE FASHION-

Anyways

This is amazing

I will be refering to it more for ficts :D

THANK YOU I WILL BE WATCHING ALL THAT

[lateasalways]

(Damn, I had to make a new post because something weird happened to the cut when I edited, it went into the ask itself and isn’t working and I can’t fix it lmao, sorry!) 

Anon asked:

it would be interesting to me if you made a post about the elton books you have read. like how they differ and your opinion on them. ive only read Me but im interested in finding some other reads

Hi!  I’m sorry this took so long, I’ve suddenly been CRAZY busy with work now that there’s proper concerts happening again (and yay for that), but Anon, you have no idea how much I would like to answer that question and I’ve been thinking about it all week lmao, I think it’s super interesting to look at the differences between them. So of course I went amok and wrote way too long so just bare with me.

I’ve read 5 books in full and I’ve listed them in the order in which I read them.

1. Me by Elton John. You’ve all read that so I don’t have to explain it. It was the first one I read and my fav thing about it is how funny it is, and of course it’s very personal and therefore more emotional than some of the others. I absolutely love it and I honestly haven’t read a book that has engaged me so much in yeeeeaars, I would recommend that book to anyone, not only Elton fans.

2. Captain Fantastic by Tom Doyle. This book focuses on the 70s (but also includes his childhood/youth). I thought it was a great supplement  to Me, because many of the same stories are in there, but since the time span is shorter, it’s more detailed, and we get to hear other people’s versions of the events. What I particularly found interesting is the part about Elton breaking through in America. He’s always described it as sheer luck and being at the right place at the right time himself, and I’m sure that’s his experience of it, but that’s not what happened. I find that extremely fascinating. Here we get to hear from his first American label who basically got Empty Sky for free because it had been rejected by many others. Before they got the chance to release it Elton John came out which is obviously a step up production wise and they dropped everything and started pushing that album instead. Everyone at the label thought it was so great they really went all in with the promotion and managed to create a hype even though he was a complete unknown and that’s how he got the Troubadour gig. This book in several ways I think show that Elton is too humble when it comes to his talent, like you don’t get to headline over established and popular artists before the most important people in the industry as an unknown by sheer luck. It happened because the album was so great, the label were convinced he was going to be a star and they went for it. I really liked the book in general. Even though there is no shocking new info there, it shines a different light on several stories from Me which I find very interesting.

3. Sir Elton by Philip Norman. This book is about his life up until 1991 and it’s really long and super detailed, like some impressive work went into this one. (I listened to the audio book on scribd as they had a 30-day free trial because of corona, I don’t know if that’s still an offer but if it is I really recommend it.) It’s  a bit weird because on one side the author managed to detail and capture Elton’s personality SO well (he’s said so himself too) and the way he writes makes some of the stories so vivid it almost felt like watching a movie. I actually found myself getting as emotional as I did reading Me at several points, like I literally shed tears here and there. But then on the other side, there are several things that bothers me a lot about this book. First of all it seems like Norman for some reason think Stanley was a great father and is trying to convince us that Elton is wrong about everything he’s said about him. Like, why? He’s clearly talked a lot with his 2nd wife Edna and her perspective is obviously very different from Elton’s. But some of his points are just really weird like f.x. he says that Elton says his dad didn’t care about him but this is wrong because he actually had a framed photo of him in his room when he was in the RAF. Like….????? How does that prove anything? As long as Elton didn’t know about it, it means fuck all! You don’t get a gold star because you keep a framed photo of your only son wtf? Another example: One Christmas after the divorce Elton didn’t get a present or a card or anything. But this was because they had very little money and their new son was ill. Well that’s sad, but Elton didn’t know that? You could at least have called and explained it or just sent a card to let him know you were thinking of him too? The whole problem is that he didn’t SHOW that he loved him or was proud of him, he can have as many framed photos he likes but that doesn’t matter when you never show any kind of affection. Another example cause I’m on a roll: Edna says Elton in fact enjoyed his visits to them (which he himself has said he hated) she says he used to sit alone and play with their typewriter. That sounds sad AF??? Why are you trying to convince me this is great parenting? I know it was a different time but fuck! One thing I do believe though is that Sheila probably helped along the narrative that Stanley was awful, I think it’s very likely that she has exaggerated or even made up stories about him, but that’s not Elton’s fault. Another downside with the book (imo) is that Norman is apparently the world’s biggest fan of Dick James and there’s just sooo much boring stuff about Dick James there, I’m sorry but when he starts talking about Dick James I recommend you fast forward. The whole point is to set up the court case between him and Elton that happened in the 80s (in which he clearly thinks Dick was in the right) but I’m just not interested in that at all. If you are though, this is the book for you lol. Then there’s the things the author got wrong. First of all, he didn’t know about Elton’s drug use which is quite essential. Although you can easily read between the lines of what the interviewees are saying, so it’s not that distracting. Second, he seems to believe that Elton is actually bisexual which he obviously isn’t (and before I get accused of bi-erasure, he has said so himself time and time again that he’s never been interested in women and his coming out as bi in 76 was a “chicken out”) and it really bothered me cause it reads a bit homophobic to me as he seems to believe Sheila when she said that he “wouldn’t have been gay if it weren’t for show business.” So I’m a bit conflicted about this book. It has more negatives than the others but the good parts are SO SO GOOD. I would be very interested in hearing other people’s opinions about it.

4. Elton John by David Buckley. Another one I listened to on Scribd. This is a quite new one so certain things have come to light which makes it more accurate. It’s another book that didn’t have  a lot of groundbreaking new information, but he’s for some reason the only one who’s talked to Gary Osbourne and he has a lot of interesting things to tell. I think Gary deserves more credit and he was very close to Elton in a very interesting part of his career/life so it’s worth reading for that. This book is also about his whole life but way shorter than Sir Elton so obviously not as detailed, but there’s some fun stuff and new anecdotes in there.

5. Elton, my Elton by Gary Clarke. Gary was Elton’s on/off boyfriend between 1982 and 83 (ish) and obviously knows him in a way these other authors don’t. I was a bit unsure about reading this as I think it’s a bit tasteless to expose someone to that extent (and he goes into some seriously intimate details), but otoh I felt like it was kind of the missing puzzle piece so I bought it in the end (on ebay) and I can’t really say if it actually answered the questions I had or just gave me more. I thought Elton was weird before reading this and it certainly didn’t make me think he’s any less weird. It starts kind of cute, it almost reads like one of those self-insert popstar fanfics at first (not that I’ve ever purposely read any of that but you know, it’s hard to be on tumblr without stumbling upon that stuff now and again) but then it gets really dark. Which is because Elton apparently was clean when they first met but then after some time he started spiraling, so it’s just… it actually made me a bit nauseous tbh and it’s so frustrating too, I genuinely yelled “Elton, no!” out loud at one point lmao. But I have already talked at length about this book, particularly what I found disturbing about it and you can find that post here. If you’re interested in reading this book though, you should be warned there’s some rapey content, (though to be clear, that has nothing to do with Elton) and dubious consent.

So anon, since you’re looking for some further reading, these are all good and interesting books I think. It’s a bit hard to say which one I liked best because obviously, for every book I read there’s less new info. But then all of the books have stories I hadn’t heard before so they’re all worth reading if you’re crazy obsessive like me and wants to know absolutely everything lol. I really enjoyed reading all of them (well enjoy isn’t the right word for Gary’s book but yk.) so I guess you should just consider what sounds more interesting to you and go for that :) If you take away the negatives I think Sir Elton is probably the one I enjoyed the most, while Elton, my Elton is the most revealing. Elton John is more complete while Captain Fantastic is really good if you’re more interested in the 70s and his breakthrough.

Thank you so much for the ask! I hope you found what you were looking for and enjoy some further reading! To anyone else who might be reading this: if you have thoughts on any of these books or things you want to discuss, please, my inbox is open! :D