Carola

Literature Grad / 23 / Specialized in Hispanoamerican and Classic Literature

[carolaetroses]

Henry on a poly relationship with all the group. Thoughts?

I think I have stated before that the Greek Class seems to work like a hierarchy or harem, where the center is Henry. I do not have enough information about polyamorous relationships and how they work, but I believe it would "fit".

Richard feel attracted towards almost everyone, Francis likes Richard as well as Charles, Charles does have certain tension with Francis, but he is still strangely obssesed with Camilla (unrequited, even when the abuse is under control most of the times). Camilla, however is a strange case, she doesn't seem to like anyone except Henry, and has to live trying to avoid getting hurt by accepting Richard's and Charles' moderate attention, but she seems quite fine with Francis (we know they do greet by kissing each other, which implies Camilla's safety towards Francis, she knows she is physically safe with him because he's no attracted to her, which is why she allows such attentions). Bunny is another complex case: his feelings are often implied as romantics towards Henry, even if he rejectes the homosexuality. I could argue that he might even feel attraction to Francis, but that is another matter. And I have said it before: every single one of them, without failing, seems to be enamored of Henry.

Henry, however, seems to only like Camilla romantically, platonically he favours Francis, even Bunny, then, Richard and Charles. This order, however, could change based on his needs (as we see in the book). Nevertheless, I believe him capable of work in the hierarchy, even if he is not attracted to anyone besides Camilla, just to keep things in armony and peace. He doesn't seem to care deeply about romantic feelings towards other men, and if he was homosexual or bisexual, I believe he wouldn't care about it, what Henry cares about is order and control, he knows he is the center of the group, and as such, he would take his place and just work with it, maybe like a task that sometimes he enjoys.

[aschraart]

Henry Winter~the secret history

[carolaetroses]

I cannot express how good of a representation of the book this is. Absolutely stunning.

[carolaetroses]

Every time a reader thinks Camilla wasn't being abused by Charles through their relationship and establishes her as a consensual partner, the angel of critical thinking and reading comprehension cries, loses its wings and then dies.

The fact that she was totally disgusted and wanted to escape from their relationship is not even on the subtext, it is right there, not only on the text but semiotics of the book.

[carolaetroses]

Why do you think Charles agreed about the bacchanal? It's weird because he was violent with Francis when he just tried to kiss Camilla I can't imagine why was he ok with the bacchanal

I firmly believe he saw a chance of sleeping with her through the bacchanal. As I have said before, after studying the book with literary theoric conceptions, I stand on the narrative of Camilla and Charles as an abusive relationship, where sexuality was not involved, which is why he was so out of himself and wild on the bacchanal, trying to catch her, and also why he agreed to the whole ritual despite his violent and jelous nature. He thought that he could finally sleep with her, without feeling the guilt of forcing her.

[carolaetroses]

It is not my intention to be rude, but for the love of God: Read the book and analyze it before make things up. People have this strange conception that you cannot make mistakes on interpretations and theories and such when it's around media, specially books. That's enterely wrong. Most of the things people tend to call interpretations are not well argumented. Not theorics behind. Literature has theorics, and they're esencial for any single "interpretation", if they're not argumented, they're nothing but mere spineless thoughts; and you cannot try to sell it out like it is the only truth, like you are the only one right about it. If you are going to have such a position, you need arguments.

I have seen a lot of these kind of problems around The Secret History. People tend to just think out loud based on spineless thoughts and feelings, and that is not the way to make a correct interpretation.

This is not against head canons or such, there's nothing wrong with having these ideas or thoughts, what is wrong is to try to act like you have the only truth about the book when you merely voiced out your feelings and ideas with no background theorics.

This is, by the way, not against someone specific. I have just seen this happening a lot of times on the fandom, and I find it particularly interesting that no one has approach this problem (or at least, I have not seen someone approach it).

[carolaetroses]

Finally about the Richard's dream and the way it is connected with Henry's position as a Grecian hero:

Henry, who is the tragic hero of the book (for reasons I have stablish before), seems to know his path. Going to the usual narrative and tradition, we know that the classic Grecian Hero has to fall in a few characteristics: the son of a God or divinity (or some kind of relation with such), must have this strong constitution (which Henry does), etc.

And, there's this one thing that no hero can escape from: a hero is a hero because they do not manifest the weakness of the human. A hero is a form of superhuman, and as such, he must do things that normal men do not. In the most elemental way, it is related to death. (I am basing all this information on Mircea Eliade's books, specially The Myth of the Eternal Return, as well as Rudolf Otto's, if you are interested). The hero is a hero because they have some kind of contact with death, and they survive it (Even Orpheo is considered a hero, mostly because of this and because his actions were based on love).

The hero must die, or find himself in contact with the death, a katabasis of some sort, but somehow live. That is the difference with the mortal men, normal and common men just can experience katabasis and stay dead, but the hero lives after death, because death is an extension, not an end. Death is the return to the primordial: they go back to the base of existence, and then, come back stronger, more real.

And this is exactly what we see in this conversation: Henry saying he's having problems with his passport, is because his process is not done. He is there, but he is not to come back yet. He is a hero enough to face death and be conscient, be there in entire mind, but not enough to live. More Hero than any men, but less than he needs to be, at least for the moment.

Perhaps, eventually, he will indeed come back. Perhaps he won't. But, meanwhile, he is having problems with his passport.

[carolaetroses]

Someone said something about Henry being like a gentleman

Thoughts?

Well, Henry is a very educated person on manners. It is only needed to see closely on the book: when someone stays on his place, he lends the bed, when it's more than one person, he lends them everything, even if he has to sleep on the floor. He often asks the basic questions: "Hello, how are you?", even with Cloke, if I am not mistaken. He's often very composed and "gentle", even with Bunny's parents at the funeral (which would be argueable because of the concept of guilt, but this talks loudly about his manners, specially with his migrain).

Perhaps we could argue that he was rude to Richard the first time they met, but this seems to not happen ever again. He cared for him when Richard got sick too, allowing him to stay on his apartment, even cooking.

He's only "rude" to Charles (if we can call it rude, when he's simply not very verbal, or simply existing with Camilla). Being cold does not equal to being rude. This as well could be seen through the Judy incident: he didn't said a single word to her, nor tried anything violent to her, only to her friend, a man. He is more a gentleman than he is rude, there is no doubt of that.

There are few more concepts to explore, but these are the first I could think of.

[carolaetroses]

You think Henry is religious?

Well, he was raised catholic. And, he does have a firm believe in divinity (pagan, though), which is clear through the whole process of the bacchanal.

But, if you mean it about the catholic. I firmly believe Henry is the kind of person that engages in intimacy or pleasure on a church, arguing that it's sacred or divine (if he studies the bible, which I'm sure he would, more like literature than a belief). I think that defines how religious he is.

He is the kind of person that would have intimacy or any sexual/erotic display on a church, in somewhere private, though. But this is enterely a thought, if you wish, I'll make a longer research on this.

[carolaetroses]

Henry is such an interesting character, I can absolutely understand why everyone on the Greek class was enamored of him. No matter who they are, or if it's the consequences of their own actions, or if it's the smallest inconvenience ever, Henry would handle it for them.

Henry couldn't fantom the idea of someone bringing a problem or complanining about a situation and not solving it himself. It doesn't matter if it wasn't his problem, every problem of his group that was brought up directly to him, was his to solve.

[carolaetroses]

how badly do you want to mash Bunny-supporters like potatoes and gravy

I have nothing against Bunny-supporters but I'm afraid a lot of them misunderstand his character quite a lot, which is a shame (in terms of defending something/someone that isn't enterely understood), however, I'll say that I understand why they try to justify his actions. I don't like Bunny, but his character is interesting, so I usually do with his character what I do with each character and event in the book (and to many other books): take them with my fingers and dissect then like insects so I can see the details.

[carolaetroses]

One day I'll write how Richard's dream in which Henry says that he has "problems with his passport" is most likely related to Henry's position as a greek hero (also related with his name), specially when we think about the nature of the ancient heroes and their path.

[carolaetroses]

Ive seen ur blog and like it a lot You write a lot about Camilla and Henry so want to ask your thoughts on Camilla being celibate (I think u wrote something about it but didn't formulate)

I enjoy this topic quite a lot, specially because the picture Francis and Richard paint of Camilla as a man-eater (my first post) makes just a perfect ironic sense.

Firstly it is needed to approach the imaginary and symbolism of her whole character: it is described to us that Camilla is often in white, an usual color associated with purity and virtue, we also see this in Charles, but, Charles' symbolism of purity ends inmediatly and is absolutely limited to the color white, which we can read as merely a factor that is there to make a resemblance to Camilla. Meanwhile, Camilla is described with much more elements that show her as a celibate.

One of the most obvious is her comparison with Diana, the roman Godess of hunt, the moon and wild animals, Diana is one of the few Godess that choose a perpetual virtue. Then, there's the deer, the dear is Diana's animal, and if we look closely into the mythology, we find that Ifigenia, the daughter of Agammenon and Climenestra, is closely related with the deer because the narrative exposes Ifigenia being turned into a deer by Artemisa (the equivalent of Diana for the Greeks) to save her from becoming a sacrifice. Which paints the perfect and quite obvious picture of Camilla saving her virtue by becoming a deer.

Now, this heavy and well-represented despiction changes, not after the bacchanal is discovered, not after the forced kiss of Charles, but when Henry takes Camilla with himself. She's no longer Diana, nor a deer, she's described as Proserpina, the maiden stolen by Pluto to be his wife. Which exposes (in the symbolic language of the book) that Camilla was chaste until she left with Henry.

In the literal focus of the book, we also have a lot of clues (as I explained in some other posts), one of my favorites is Charles focusing on Henry sleeping with Camilla during their conversation. When Henry told him to stop saying "fuck", Charles could have had make a comment about how he slept with Camilla, we know he can make those kind of comments, but since Camilla and Charles didn't had sex ever, he approached by trying to shame both Henry and Camilla for sleeping togheter. It implies his jelousy, knowing he didn't have the same closeness with her that Henry had.

[carolaetroses]

You think Camilla is androgynous? I see a lot about that on others content

Oh, I have seen a lot of discussions about it before. Actually, I don't think she is, but people enjoy the thought of her being androgynous because it implies certain liking in the characters, specially in Richard.

If she were androgynus, I'm sure Richard would have said that first, yet, our first description of Camilla is "A pair, a boy and a girl", so Richard did knew Camilla was a girl, either through clothing or her face. Then, he says that he firstly thought they were a couple (which, by the way, is possibly influenced by the older Richard trying, once again, to manage Camilla's rejection, which I talked about on my first post). Richard knows that Camilla is a girl, and he knew from the begining.

On another side, we have the polices' talk. They also knew Camilla was a girl, they show no doubt, and even said that Camilla and Charles didn't look too similar, as expected on twins.

I'm not saying, however, that Camilla is an extremely femenine person, or that she has long hair, etc., but reducing her character to being "fem" or "masc" or "butch" is inmensely strange, and shows a lack of understanding of the character. She's a normal young woman, who is seen through the eyes of Richard who rejects his sexuality on her and forces her to fit into his fantasy by describing her like a man (Example: Boyish ankles, he's forcing even the smallest thing about her to be boyish).

In addition to that, everyone that usually sees her as boyish seems to have a problem with their sexuality (Richard, Bunny and even implied on Charles), while Henry and Francis, who seem comfortable with their sexuality by accepting it, don't seem to consider her what people would name "a tomboy".

[carolaetroses]

Do you think Henry knows how to dance?

Actually, and against a lot of expectation, yes; dancing is often necesary on wealthy families (of course, a very classic type of dancing, nothing else). We could argue, perhaps, that his family is what would be called "new money", but even with this background, Henry possibly had to learn to dance anyways, it's expected on reunions, parties, events and else. I'm not saying, however, that he enjoys it, or even that he does it artistically, because I'm quite sure his character doesn't fit that.

He might not enjoy it, specially with his bad leg, but he would possibly push himself to do it properly once he had to learn, and achieved it to its methodic perfection. And we know he can use both legs for hard work too (we notice this by the way he carried Camilla during the glass incident). However, I can say that he would usually deny it to avoid dancing, but, he would be able to do it, and quite properly.

[carolaetroses]

What kind of father you think Henry would be? Would it be like his father was with him?

It's quite complex. First, we know Henry doesn't seem excited to have children, if I recall correctly, when Bunny said that he was thinking about having a family with Marion, Henry pointed that having children is some kind of nature-trick, that having offspring was a shown of oneself fading.

However, I think that, if Henry lived longer, perhaps he would have children, specially since he himself recognizes it as a natural development of humanity. But, I think he would wait to a proper age, not only for the common reasons among normal people (like money, house, travels, etc.), but because he would wait to a perfect age, that would allow the child a proper development. I would say he would wait to his 30's, or close to that age.

About how he would be as a father, I have no doubt he would be very academic, reading to the child even during the gestation, possibly putting on classic music. His main concern, surely, would be to give a proper education and fullfil any physical needs. On another side, I think he would indeed treat differently a girl and a boy. I asume he would be a bit traditional on a few aspects, perhaps more strict with a boy than a girl on physical matters; this is deeply related also with the enviroment, I've said before that, if Henry lived longer, he would have had go to a farm and live there, a quiet life. I'm fairly sure he would have teach not only in an academical way, but he would have taught more practical activities, like gardening (which we know he enjoys), or raising animals (I still have some doubts about this one, specially because animals can become noisy and that would be against Henry's desires, possibly), and these kind of matters. Of course, he would most likely not allow television or these type of entertainment.

I definitely see him growing frustrated sometimes because children aren't something that can be faced in a methodical way, nor with books, but, again, he would try to make things be as perfect as they can be. I will point out that, surely, Henry isn't much of a warm person, and that won't change even with children. He would show his affection through a very different language.

But, I think he would not be as his own father. We don't have much information about Henry's father, but what we know is that they weren't close as a family, yet, Henry says that even without a great relationship, his father would definitely take him out of trouble, which implies certain security. Still, I think Henry would try to be closer to his own children than his father was with him.

[carolaetroses]

Your thoughts on Henry x Reader?

I don't see why would it be wrong. It's merely a liking, perhaps it is argueable if it's a good despiction of Henry or not, but that isn't a result of the Henry x reader itself, but more about who writes it.

Some people usually excuse their dislike towards these kind of texts through saying that people "shouldn't like Henry because then they didn't understood the book", which I find, honestly, very cheap narrative, you can enjoy something and still be objective about it (Example: I like Kant's Critique to Pure Reason, and still decide what I like and what I don't like about the idealism), only people without a proper criticism system wouldn't be able to do so, in which case, no matter if they read Henry x Reader or an essay, simply because they aren't able to read without being influenced and unable to criticize. So, I don't have a single argument to be against Henry x Reader fanfictions or texts.

[carolaetroses]

You think Henry loves more Bunny or Camilla?

Camilla. Even though we could argue that Henry did loved Bunny (however I don't think Henry felt romantic towards Bunny, but that Bunny did felt romantic about him), the fact is that he also killed Bunny. He grew this hatred against Bunny, to the point of not finding it so hurtful for himself to kill him.

There's an abysmal difference between Bunny and Camilla for Henry. Camilla is often described similar to Henry, often at his side and under his protection, smart, cold and quite methodical, which is an indicator of how they possibly understood each other like no one else could.

At the end of the day, Henry did killed Bunny, and he could have kill the whole Greek class (and this is possible what they could have wanted for themselves, as I explained in other post, with the exception of Charles and perhaps Richard), yet, he decided to kill himself as a way to save Camilla and the others from any more questions.