One of my favorite things of TSH is that none of the characters are consistent, and itâs definitely done on purpose. I feel like the two explanations to this are either:
A) that Richard just⌠doesnât really understand anyone in the Greek class and therefore tells us contrasting information.
Or B) that these characters, like real people, exist in sometimes opposing ways. People are complicated, sometimes they donât make sense. And sometimes people change, too.
And this is true for all the characters, consistently.
1) Charles is a sorta special case, because I feel like his, rather than being traits of a complex person or Richardâs mischaracterization, is simply how he changes.
When we first meet Charles, Richard describes him as âniceâ (in this same scene Judy Poovey disagrees and I guess you could choose to trust her judgement more). But really the part that made me want to write this out is on page 100, when Charles says heâs afraid to hurt Camilla even though sheâs already hurt.
I feel like this scene already highlights the roles of everyone in the Greek class, or at least the roles Richard assigns to them. Henry is written as the savior, a hero, while Camilla is in need of saving. Bunny is absent, Richard is more a bystander than anything, and Francis is, for lack of a better word, useless in the face if danger. These roles are all repeated in the final scene of book 2, except for Charlesâs role.
Charles goes from being a sweet, empathetic person (at least to Camilla) to being violent and impulsive.
2) Camilla is also a special case (really, this rule applies to all of them in different ways). I do believe that this one more so lies on how Richard himself views her rather than any intense character development, but she could also just possess these opposite qualities.
For one, Richard describes Camilla and Charles as âvery much alikeâ (as does some of the other Greek class) but then the Agent on page 376 says that the donât look all that alike âthereâs a family resemblance, but your hairâs not even quite the same color.â
For two, Camilla is often described as âboyishâ by Richard (ignoring the queer subtext of that for now) but he also gives a whole paragraph on page 224 about how sheâs still girly⌠right. âShe was still a girl, a slightly lovely girlâŚâ
For three, and this is going back to the scene on page 100 and the end of book 2, sheâs drawn as someone who needs protecting, almost like a damsel that needs Henry to save her. But, sheâs also described as just as competent as Henry, and often times it seems like she cares far less about morality and their actions than anyone else, even Henry. I personally like to think of this part as a deliberate action of hers because, really, sheâs described as someone with a very fawning reaction (Francis practically gives a speech about how she leads everyone on⌠which is probably som type of trauma response, but I wonât comment considering we donât know the exact details of the twinsâ relationship pre-canon.) I do think that sheâs probably the best manipulator out of all of them, not that it makes her the villain or anything, but definitely that she was using the others for her own benefit and safety at times.
3) Francis is the first one I noticed in this light, because his is the most deliberate. He might be the only one Iâm not connecting back to the same two scenes though.
I feel like this one is definitely just Richard misunderstanding him more than anything, because no one else really describes Francis like Richard.
On page 218, before describing Bunnyâs homophobia towards Francis, he says, ââŚI was perfectly comfortable being alone with him even in the most questionable situationsâ drunk, or in his apartment, or even wedged into the back seat of a car.â
And he says this even though Francis is revealed to be very predatory. (Iâm not gonna go on about Francis hitting on Richard when the first met, or making a pass at him on the boat, because those arenât outright bad on their own.) But I will add the specific line that Francis says, âIt shouldnât surprise you. If you drank as much as [Charles] does, I dare say I would have been to bed with you, too.â And the whole scene on page 289âŚ
But also, on page 291, Richard goes back to (as he did at the very beginning) describing Francis as respectable and cool, well-mannered, when we know that he, out of everyone, is probably the least. At least here Richard fully acknowledges it as an illusion though.
4) I saved Henry for last because I feel too complicated about him. But I think this most applies to him.
Henry is described as almost inhumanâ he laughs when Richard discovers the murder, heâs painted as the hero in the scenes on pages 100 and the end of book 2, he seems unfazed by most modern morality. But heâs just⌠not.
More than being the first person in the isolating Greek class, heâs also a young adult who spent his entire life isolated. This is shown in the scenes when he has no idea about the moon landing, or how much TVs cost. Julian is the closest thing he has to a decent father (very questionable title of âdecentâ) and Henry reveals as much when he says, âI loved him more than my own father. I loved him more than anyone in the world.â
In that whole scene, actually, heâs rather emotional, and Richard straight up writes, âI never could get used to seeing him without them, that naked, vulnerable look he always had.â
And even towards the beginning, Richard describes how shaken Henry was after accidentally killing a duck.
Itâs clear that Henry definitely isnât as cold and calculating and inhuman as Richard constantly describes him asâ if fact, Iâd argue that out of everyone, that description least fits Henry. But thatâs an argument for another day.
5) I saved Bunny for very last because he just⌠doesnât really fit this. Iâve talked about the whole Sin and morality thing with him about a million times already, but aside from that heâs really not described all that contrastingly.
This is all way longer than I intended it to be sorry guys.