#delicate ring

[sechijewels]

Natural Crystal Quartz Ring, 925 Sterling Silver Ring, Clear Quartz Ring, Quartz Silver Ring, Healing Stone Ring, Ring for Women

[loquarocoeur]

btw do you notice the difference between charles's and max's hands or is it just me going insane over this

because charles' hands are so veiny and big (cue how he held baby leo) and max's are a bit small and delicate and soft compared to his whole stature AND did you see how their hands look clasping with each other

sorry im having some very intense feelings im sorry

HELLO omg no, I also have very intense feelings about this and I don't think we talk about it enough!!!

I was actually having a whole pinterest spiral about this the other day, but it was during my self imposed tumblr ban, so I had to suffer alone, but I can yap today, and let me use this ask to do so

Okay, okay, okay so:

Call me delusional, I don't care, but you can kind of see the difference here in this picture with how they're holding their hands, especially with the veins and fingers

I'm telling you Charles' hand is bigger than Max's, I swear, I think Max just has longer fingers and it throws you off a bit

But Max just has these delicate, pretty little hands and I don't think this fandom talks about that enough, because it's not very top Max coded of him, and there aren't enough of us modern thinkers out there, but I'm here and I can and will talk about Max's pretty hands, and you will listen!!

Because LOOK

Look at his long, thin fingers and the tendons on the back of his hands looking so thin, and somehow his knuckles are just so ridiculously dainty

He just has hands made for shiny things, and he never wears any rings or bracelets, he's always just walking around with them criminally naked like this

But now look at Charles' hands, perpetually bedazzled as they should be of course, but oh my GOD

Because no just look at his palms are so much broader and he's got very noticeably thicker fingers that Max I'm telling you LOOK

It's just asdfghjkl, the forearms, the wrists, the watches, the bracelets, the VEINS

And I feel like we never get a good picture of them doing the handclap, but this one from Monza is so good.

Like look at how Max's hand is just swallowed by Charles'!!!

Like okay, call me ridiculous and delusional, and maybe these specific pictures are a bit research biased, but I don't care, this kind of delusion is an essential practice in fandom shipping to me

But idk, there's just something about how every part of Charles is just a little bit smaller than Max except his hands, (unless we talk about shoulders, but that's a whole different spiral)

He's just one centimetre shorter, he's just a tiny bit leaner, no matter how ripped he gets, I think Max's biceps will always be just a bit bigger than Charles', but his HANDS.

And there's also just something about how Charles never gets his fists out for anything, but in the mad max era especially, but kind of now even, Max is always two seconds away from throwing a punch even if he has hands that just aren't made for that kind of thing

I don't know, in that last picture especially, it looks like Charles' hand just swallows Max's whole

I need them to compare hand sizes right now. For science. And gayness. Mostly gayness

[harrietvane]

So, in Busman’s Homeymoon, Lord Peter buys Harriet Vane a mink cloak worth 950 pounds (according to the Dowager Duchess’ journal entry), but he buys Tallboys for “only” 650 pounds.

Even bearing in mind that real estate really did used to be cheaper, do you understand how that is possible? Or how to find out more about relative purchasing power? I used an online calculator website which gave me some figures, but it still seems insane that one could buy an entire Elizabethan farmhouse for 2/3 the price of a garment! Very curious to learn from others who understand this better than I do.

Ah, I see my esteemed colleague @oldshrewsburyian has also had some interesting thoughts on this, so I'll link that here as well before I begin.

So, it's a legitmate question, and there's no catch-all simple answer (in the gotcha sense of 'why didn't i know that bit of cultural Truth'), but there are mitigating factors that take it from a ridiculous price comparison, to merely outlandish. Even taking into account that the coat is quoted in guineas, not pounds, and that PW says the bank valued Talboys at £800 via a mortgage (the paid price was a discount, for paying in cash quickly, which is Plot Relevant), it gets us to roughly the same place, value-wise. Or shall we say PRICE-wise, rather than value, as I'll get into below. There's several factors at play here - they mainly relate to class, and spending power:

-The house is Not That Great, in terms of the kind of property that PW would usually be buying. I mean it is still a large-ish house, big enough to have 2 adults and small children in, but it's not what would be on his radar normally. The only reason they know about it, it that it's near a place where HARRIET grew up as a child. It's not getting any high marks in particular Beauty, Convenience, or Quality - the main reason HV's drawn to it is sentiment, rather than anything else. They both know that they will have to significantly add to it, and alter it, in order for it to be a comfortable home. That would usually be out-of-budget for someone in Harriet's position, who would expect to buy something that meets her needs 'as-is'. Most people looking at buying that house would be Harriets not Peters, so it might be a tough sell.

-The house has no power, and limited plumbing: There's dark references to DRAINS by the dowager duchess, it's entirely possible that this house has no modern plumbing at all - they make the comparison that the huge palace the Wimseys grew up in wasn't plumbed until recently, but then again they do have about 800 servants, whereas Talboys is just a regular house: they will have Bunter alone (at first), with an assist from Mrs Ruddle. There's mention of "a cistern" with some basic valves, but the scullery is mentioned as having a copper, from which hot water is "scooped into a large bath-can" - a copper being, simply, a large metal basin over a fire, in effect. No running hot water, maybe no flushable loos - it's a factor. They also talk specifially about having to electrify Talboys themselves - it's candles and lamps until then. It's fancy camping. By the mid-1930s, a lot of middle-class buyers would expect a little more convenience in both water and wiring, unless they had significant support staff, which Talboys would not be expected to house.

-There's probably no farm! It's a farm house - not a wider land purchase. People like PW's brother the Duke are wealthy primarily because they own land, not because of the big palace they have (which eats money, rather than generates it). The land is what gives them spending power, because other people are paying them rent to live on it, farm on it, or both. PW's own personal 'younger sibling' wealth is also mentioned somewhere to be primarily in real estate (assumed to be in London) - sad to say: he's a landlord, and that's why he's rich. Talboys, on the other hand, as a purchase, would not, in almost any way, be expected to generate revenue through either farming, agriculture, or charging rent. Until they invent house flipping in 80 years, or until the motorway goes through in 40 years, there's not much expectation that Talboys would increase all that much in value.

-Lastly, there's a massive disparity in what The Market Will Bear when we compare a basic residence vs a luxury item (like a mink coat) in the mid-1930s. This is not particular to that time, though. Like any first-year economics student will tell you, the price of something is not it's intrinsic value, it's what someone is WILLING to pay for it. If someone is willing to pay such a price, that's the price it will be. So, we're not comapring Objects, we're comparing Buyers: the the main purchasers of a slightly run-down farmhouse located nowhere special are Harriets, and main purchasers of mink coats are Peters. Talboys is priced for Harriets. The mink coat is priced for Peters.

Compare for example, a contemporary parallel: the Hermes Birkin bag. It's a leather handbag with a starting retail price of about USD 11,400. Just for the bag. Then, you have fancier versions of the fancy bag, eg wikipedia tells me one version sold at auction for USD 380,000 in Hong Kong in 2017. Now, the Harriets of today are not buying a Hermes Birkin handbag, but they are probably trying to buy slightly run-down houses outside urban centers for (one hopes) slightly less than 380k. The Wimseys of the worlds are clearly buying Birkin bags. In that way, it's actually pretty easy to get to a place where Person A might buy a single luxury item for X pounds, and Person B might buy a whole residence for X pounds, and neither feel like they'd done something insane. The key here is in a Wimsey/Vane marriage, they run up against this concept immediately, and repeatedly.

There's a good reason the first epistolary section of the novel is almost entirely taken up with money chat - the ring, the purchase of shirts from Burlington Arcade, the marriage settlement, the gift from the bride to the groom, the mink coat, the bitchy exchange between Helen and Harriet about HV being allowed "six free copies of her book" to distribute. These people come from 2 fundamentally different experiences of the world. They might have gotten engaged using the word 'Magistra', specifically to emphasise their fundamental equality (in the context of learning and the mind, to begin with), but it can't be denied: there's gaps that need to be bridged. They both know parts of their married life will be spent in attempting to do that, hopefully to their mutual satisfaction. Mention of a mink coat for 950 guineas is a nice, neat shorthand for illustrating what's still at play between them here.

[windowsloth]

devonia doodle

what kind of creature is her aspect of the crucible transformation supposed to be? Is there some kind of consensus in the fan community about that? I definitely thought it was a centaur at first, but even if you ignore the extra set of limbs, it still has cloven hooves, so. Really not 100% sure what’s going on there

EDIT: I’m so dumb I forgot cows have cloven hooves. She’s got those big almost horns on her helmet and everything; she’s got a reverse minotaur thing going on. Big ol bull body

[hikarielizabethbloom]

You know, what really bothers me about this all 'haladriel is toxic' argument is that fans treat Galadriel like this young naive woman who got manipulated by the older bad boy.

SHE IS NOT.

She's the leader of an army, she was on a quest for revenge, she manipulated the leaders of Numenor to get a army, she manipulated Halbrand himself because she needed him to be a king, she was ruthless with Adar talking about committing genocide to get rid of the orcs, and she is smart enough that the moment Halbrand started to show his truest colors she realized who he was.

I know that Galadriel keeps saying that Sauron deceived her but really that's just because she feels guilty that she got a crush on him.

[mightnotfeelrealbutitsok]

all of Aragorn and Arwen's love story in the ROTK appendices is so beautiful... first meeting in the woods of Rivendell at sunset?? Aragorn singing the Lay of Luthien and Arwen looking just like Luthien and him crying Tinuviel just as Beren did???? meeting years later in Lothlorien and Aragorn dressing up nice enough to make Arwen fall in love this time?? (Galadriel the wingwoman. she so set that up.) walking together barefoot in the elanor and niphredil?????? Arwen making the standard as a symbol of her faith that Aragorn will become king???? (and having this sent to him as a gift/message during the course of LOTR) Once Aragorn dies Arwen going to live alone in the waning Lothlorien (where they fell in love, remember) until she dies on the hill where she chose their love over immortality?????

[anetherealpoetess]

me: can you believe sauron pinned galadriel against a wall and thrust ... me: ... me: ... me: ... me: ... me: ... me: ... me: ... me: ... me: ... me: ... me: ... me: ... me: ... me: ... his crown into her you: bitch

[rickybaby]

<3

[miquella-everywhere]

Miquella and Torrent before the dlc nerfed them for a retcon ajdhsjsj

[archi-pelago]

@asvidema's Levant... absolutely enchanting

[sechijewels]

Natural Labradorite Statement Ring, 925 Sterling Silver Ring, Handmade Ring for Her, Wedding Jewelry Gift for Women, Daily Use Ring for Wife

[wavesoutbeingtossed]

One day I’m going to finish that essay or whatever it was in my drafts that’s about the themes of womanhood/relationships/thirtysomething stuff and TTPD but since part of this discussion has been revived on the dash but also it’s Saturday so this won’t ruffle as many feathers, I think one thing that sometimes gets lost in the shuffle in the conversation about the muses and stories in the lyrics is just why the recurring theme of the broken dreams pops up all over the album, and why they permeate the discussion of both muses, if not *all* the muses in the album.

Not to project things on Taylor, but it feels pretty clear to me* that the dreams she’s talking about specifically are about having a family, and that is the through line in the album, and why the successive blows devastated her. (*I don’t want to presume that anyone else feels this way and this is just my interpretation etc.)

The suburban gothic allegory in Fortnight depicting a miserable, lonely marriage. The ring on the ring finger in TTPD making her explode with joy because it was a shorthand for lifelong commitment. “He saw forever so he smashed it up” in My Boy. “I’m pissed off you let me give you all that youth for free” and dying on the sacrificial altar in So Long London. Marrying her wild boy in But Daddy. “Get the matches, toss the ashes off the ledge” in Fresh Out the Slammer (as in, she burned her life down). “You shit-talked me under the table talking rings and talking cradles” in loml. “The deflation of our dreaming leaving me bereft and reeling” in How Did It End. “Promises ocean deep and never to keep” in Peter. The allusion in The Manuscript that the man in question made her think he was in it for the potential of a serious commitment only for her to feel used when he moved on. And there are probably more examples I’m not thinking of off the top of my head here.

But what I’m trying to get at delicately is that from what she’s put down in TTPD, as well as what she’s put down in previous albums (“give you my wild, give you my child,” Paper Rings, Lover, renegade, YLM, etc.) building a life and a family with this person (Joe) was not only something she wanted, but seemingly deliberately planning and working towards. So in the death throes of the relationship, her grief was not just about things like losing someone she once loved, the breakdown of this relationship that was once comforting to her, what she gave up to make their life work, etc. but about this important thing she had dreamed of and what she seemed to feel was on the horizon. What I think I’m trying to say is that it had likely shifted at some point (even just based on the album pipeline) from a hypothetical “one day we’ll have ten kids and teach them how to dream” thing you wonder about with a partner to something that felt a lot more… tangible. (Again trying to be sensitive in my word choice/not project or assume things etc.)

I don’t want to make any accusations or assumptions on main, but I think those kind of life plans feeling within reach not only makes it understandable as to why someone would stay in a relationship whose cracks were turning into fault lines, but on the flip side why giving up on something that felt like it was on their doorstep would be so wholly devastating.

But it’s also why what happened in the two successive relationships *was* so devastating in the songs on the album, and why the Matty thing specifically was so twisted. He’d reentered her life and he’d insinuated himself back into her circle and gained her confidence which in turn led her to confide things in him (the “hostile takeovers” of it all, the whole bridge of The Smallest Man with its honey pot spy mission imagery in which like a mark he sweet talked her into sharing her most vulnerable, compromising “secrets” only to then turn it around to use her and ghost her like a trained operative). And given the way the family thing appears in both presumed storylines, it’s again because Muse #2 used the info gleaned about the life with Muse #1 to sell her a con about an alternate path to what she was mourning so deeply. (And why it’s such an unconscionable act because it’s manipulation, at least going by her own words about her experience of it. It’s as cavalier as the organ donor line in The Manuscript, with the same effect.)

The shittalking about rings and cradles is both of them (if not all of them) because in all cases, they ended up raising her hopes only to not plan on following through. One because he maybe couldn’t commit, one because maybe he was never serious about it. (And the one who did it first who was both 🥴.)

If I had to guess (because I am not Taylor so I will obviously never know any of this for sure besides picking up context clues), the dream was like a carrot dangling in her mind, feeling like this is what the “agony” to quote another one of her songs was for — like, things may be hard, but life is hard, and at least they were building towards *something* she felt they both wanted. And as that dream slipped through her fingers, it created a cascading series of events that crippled her emotionally for a time. So when she mourns that life in her songs, it’s almost like it’s the same dream, just in shifting contexts. The conman selling her dream back to her is comforting at first, but hits doubly hard and leaves her broke when it disappears.

The story throughout the muses on the album isn’t “she jumps to the person who promises her these things,” it’s that it’s a whole life she’s built that crumbles under the weight of reality knocking at the door and a foundation that shifts until it disintegrates. And losing that foundation and the dreams built upon it leaves her searching for answers in the wreckage — and looking elsewhere for clarity for a time. And it’s why it’s so hard to remove one muse from the other (or again, all of them), because that central driving force is used by each of them in different ways to build her up and take her down. And why working through the pain of one situation bleeds into that of another.

It’s hard to delve into this more without crossing boundaries or whatever, but it’s just such a palpable open wound in the album, but also why working through the pain in different contexts on TTPD brings to light all these different kinds of hurt but also the emotions that go along with them.

Anyway. That other essay will write itself at some point idk.

[throwbackgaylor]

march 30, 2018 | six years ago today

the ‘delicate’ vertical video was released on spotify and taylor also posted it to instagram

during it, she teased ‘lover’ with her nail colors and wore the vs angel ring as well as the matching diamond eye ring she has with karlie kloss

[perfectlyscentedturtle-7]

Little treasures of mine with a vintage twist!🗝🤎

[raviollies]

Unironically the best hands I've ever drawn

[gay-boy-detectives]

what if niko made edwin watch yuri on ice with her