#my legacy will be my TSH word vomits

[willothewispwisteriadawn]

My head is hurting after Secret History inner ramblings.

I think the one thing that’s difficult about this book is that EVERYTHING is a little true and a little false at the same time? It’s weird because sometimes I go to make a statement on something or post a thought, and I just can’t get the nuance right ever. All my opinions have a bit of a “but here’s where that thought ends” aspect to them. Here’s what I mean:

1. Henry and Camilla: I think someone kind of disliked something I said once when I said I was skeptical about Henry’s relationship with Camilla. And I tbh had strongly worded my thoughts. But here’s the deal. Henry, based on what we know of him, likely doesn’t have a good concept of love. And Camilla feels safe with Henry. Due to this, I think Henry views Camilla as something to protect. He sees her as aesthetic and wants to pursue her because he has clearly been taught by Julian and his own long history with many books and few human interactions that what’s important is what is ethereal and arcane and pretty. Camilla is going through a lot with Charles and she knows all the other guys are, in varying ways, terrified of Henry. Bunny was a jerk but his obsessive attitude toward Henry was indicative of his fear and his needing to know what Henry is up to, an attitude which makes increasing sense as the novel progresses. Richard has slips about Henry all the time but the most memorable to me is when he almost says “What if it’s Henry” instead of “What if it’s the cops?” when Charles knocks. Charles is so blatantly frightened of Henry and for good reason: Charles never seemed to want to kill Bunny, was was pulled into the murder (but it was still his choice), not taken seriously when he tried to lament Bunny, and then put into a situation where he had to just keep talking about it while minding his every word. Then there were strong indications Henry was trying to kill him. Camilla isn’t dumb. I’m sure she sees things that the guys see. She’s certainly disturbed when Henry made her douse herself in pig blood. But she allows Henry to have what he wants so she can be safe. 

Now, I don’t even think Camilla is wrong to make this choice. In fact, Richard’s attitude towards her decision was uncalled for. That said, we now have a relationship built on a man who is buried in fanciful ideas about things and a woman who is fully aware of everything wrong with him and just goes with it because she’s scared. But it’s weird because saying that this relationship is entirely destructive isn’t perfectly true either. It’s true for the above reasons. But I also see Henry and Camilla do having some semblance of a positive relationship too. He does treat her kindly and, whatever the reason, he does help her when she’s struggling with Charles. We’ve seen signs of Henry looking out for Camilla throughout the whole book. And, you know what? We even get tiny indications that she really believes in some of his nonsense. But, by the end of the novel, I was so skeptical of anything Henry did and so wary of how emotionless he’d gotten that I couldn’t really believe he wouldn’t ever hurt her (my goodness, this guy could read some ancient myth arguing that some random, toxic action is somehow akin to love and he’d take it seriously). But bottom line is that this isn’t an easy thing for me to voice my opinion on without immediately disagreeing with my own wording. 

2. Francis being untruthful about Charles. When I say Francis’s story about Charles isn’t correct, I mean that there are indications Francis is twisting facts. I’m saying it makes too much sense that he bore blame too, based on what we know of Francis. But what I’m not saying is that he spoke nothing but lies. This book is about illusions and things hidden in plain sight. Francis saying that Charles and Camilla being pretty makes it hard to see that they aren’t good does ring very true. It’s similar to Richard’s statement that he has a tendency to view interesting people as good (he says this about Julian). I do believe Francis when he says that Charles, even Camilla in a more subtle or different way, is jealous and manipulative— and the twins have been that way for a long time. We can pick that up ourselves throughout the novel. And he’s probably right that the bacchanal brought the worst of it to light. He definitely tries to tell Richard about something awful Charles did that night and can’t bring himself to. 

That said, Francis is also clearly framed as being illusionary himself. He’s compared twice to a fox in this scene. His reason for why Charles won’t admit to having been with him is flimsy. It’s an odd understanding of Charles who won’t speak of his drinking when personal details aren’t involved. And alcohol was involved every time Francis and Charles hooked up (in the story about the first time it happened, when they left Richard’s room, and at the funeral). Francis even admits that was a driving factor in their relationship. At the Corcorans’, we also see Charles say Francis attempted to coerce him into something only for Francis to cut him off. So it’s just that, knowing alcohol was involved, knowing Francis has tried to take advantage of an inebriated Richard, and knowing that he’s trying to cover up truths… it just doesn’t give us a picture of a Francis who was entirely innocent in the matter and who didn’t at all take advantage of his friend. 

A few things can exist at once because I think Francis’s big deal is being something of a doormat. He balks in the face of anything scary from doctor visits to certain social interactions; he goes along with others. He can be sharp-tongued and he does have strong desires, but he is often scared back into place. He clearly wants something with Richard (he goes for it twice) but won’t attempt to push when Richard is lucid. He asks permission, is denied, and accepts it (good!). But when Richard is vulnerable, Francis is more aggressive (fair point to Francis: this is not all the time. He’s seen Richard drunk and sleeping and been normal about it). Francis does get pushed back into place by Charles as well. Camilla states this when she tells Richard why she can’t move in with Francis rather than Henry. We also see Francis mock Richard’s speech patterns then immediately become really meek and apologetic when he sees that Richard is actually angry. And I’m kind of wondering if Francis knew all about Henry potentially setting up Richard and kept his mouth shut while Charles perhaps attempted to save Richard by taking him to the bar the night the police came. I say this because Charles says he knows Francis would betray him to Henry. And this moment seems more that just drunken rambles, based on Francis’s reaction. Francis’s suicide note even apologizes for NOT doing things. This fear does seem likely to cause him to merely take advantage of people when they’re vulnerable, to push until bitten back. (By the way, I think the alcohol he has during the funeral bathroom moment was purchased by Charles when he went out since it was in the glove compartment? The rest is vague but, to me, Francis is taking advantage of a weakness. To be honest, I like to think even Francis realized this. He payed Charles’s rehab bill. I think he knew that, in encouraging the drinking or, at least not stopping it, that he’d failed Charles— and Camilla who was directly affected.) 

This is a lot of things. So I think me having moments of “OK FRANCIS WAS CLEARLY MANIPULATIVE HERE” is not the same as me saying he was totally wrong. Just like me saying he’s likely right about Charles is not me saying Charles wasn’t a vulnerable and mistreated party too. 

3. Bunny being more morally aware than others. This one is the TRICKIEST. Because Bunny is really bad too. He’s such an awful friend. But my big-hard-to-capture-thought is that I do not believe Henry when he says Bunny’s reaction to the farmer-slaying was purely feelings of being left out. And I think Bunny was aware of and disturbed by the things going on in the group in a way the others largely weren’t. Richard says Bunny was a bloodhound for insecurities and that’s true. But I also got the sense that he was actually seeing his friends flaws and going, in some deep part of himself, “wait, this is really bad.” Julian mistakes Bunny’s behavior for a possible religious conversion. I think that’s very close— it was a moral crisis, I believe. But Julian is onto the same principle which doesn’t align with what Henry said (that it wasn’t at all moral). Furthermore, I think Henry (and Francis) was wrong about Bunny’s feelings of jealousy and hatred towards Richard. Again, this line between partially true and partially false is light because maybe Henry did note real feelings of inferiority (Bunny did harass Richard despite him not being at the bacchanal and there’s that mean moment where he tells Charles to give Richard a drink without washing the cup). But this is all thrown in to question with Bunny’s letter to Julian which doesn’t mention Richard at all. I just wonder if Bunny, despite all his rampant -isms and blatant mistreatment of his friends, was the first to wake up. And he was killed for it. Similarly, Charles starts to wake up in ways. He, in the midst of all his own crimes, was getting impacted by having helped take a life. And Henry’s reaction repeated itself; he went to silence this person who, within all his madness, was right about something. AND YET AGAIN. This is only true in some manners because Henry was also thinking of Camilla.

Revisiting my whole thesis: It’s like anything I could possibly say about this book has limits and other considerations. Many things are true to a point and false at a level. So I look back at every post I make and am like “well I still think I was right, but I wish I could shine a flashlight on every little detail and exception.” I just want to be fair about everything all the time!