Hi! I remember you saying something a while ago about The Secret History, where Camilla was like Persephone, and Henry was like Hades, and whether or not Julian was Dionysus. And I was wondering who the others in the Greek Squad would be, in similar comparisons. Sorry if this doesn't make sense, thanks!
no, not at all dear! it actually makes so much sense, since i think donna purposely built up all the tsh characters as symbolic representations of the greek gods, but really much mixed up with so many other classical figures as well? if you’ve studied those subjects, it’s almost impossible not to notice all the hits the author left all around the novel, you know. and then, obviously there are even your own interpretations, as a classicist and/or as a reader, so it’s almost impossible to discern where donna’s intention ends and our personal opinions might begin? so, consider what i’m about to say as my personal interpretation of the matter, even if it’s clearly supported by some kind of obvious intention of the writer, ok? :)
said that, certain comparisons are explicitly written down in the novel, for example the one you already mentioned, henry being hades andcamillabeing persephone. that is said as a metaphor in the book with those clear words, no hits or allusions. it’s interesting tho, the fact that on the other hand at the very beginning of the novel bunny compares camilla to diana - in other words, artemis. i find this funny and super interesting not just because obviously to any person not completely unfamiliar with greek mythology camilla and charleswould immediately be the exact representation of artemis and apollo, but what really intrigued me about this is, i’m quite a “deeper scholar” of ancient greek deities and their philosophies, i’ve read pretty much everything you can read about those subject by now, i did out of passion, and as anyone who has actually studied those matters digging a little more, i’ve come to realise in many fragments and text and poems, artemis and persephone actually were described as the same deity - at some point of the orphic hymns moreover, persephone is first called “artemis” and then a few lines afterwards, demeter even says something like “oh, my poor daughter! you were destined to bear the glorious offspring of apollo and now you are married to that hideous man!”.. does it ring a bell? camilla is first in some kind of relationship with charles and then she falls for henry? who is compared to hades? anyways, i’ve already written about this and i absolutely don’t wanna bore you with the all hows and whys, but this superimposition of deities on the same figure is a pretty common phenomenon in ancient mythologies and it’s called “syncretism”. the same god could have many names depending on the function he was summoned for. artemis, persephone, selene, hecate - they were in truth just one goddess whom aspects had several names. so it’s super funny and as much as intriguing to me, that in tshcamillais actually first called “artemis” and then “persephone”, given the fact that she first is with charles and then with henry, respectively apollo and hades. i don’t know if donna tartt was aware of all this and did it on purpose, or if this is merely a coincidence, but it’s totally something i’m really fascinated by and that makes a huge, cosmical sense in my “classicist eyes”? lmao and i have to say they are oh so bloody perfect for the role? all three of them? camilla being the fragile forest creature who could actually eat you alive anytime, without even blinking; charles being so much apollo he could even be the god himself as far as we might know: charming, handsome, calming, nice, but at the same time violent, anxious, deeply possessive and jealous, his dark side as deep as his ability to enchant others; and henry, well, am i even to explain what makes him a perfect hades? shady, riflessive, lost in his own world, cold intelligence and a total self-made moral, so close to the one a king could have made up to excuse himself anything? superiority/god complex, great leader, but at the same time hunted by his own demons and his own solitude, so much he wanted to find some way to escape his personal “dark kingdom”, his own mind? and he then falls precisely for the said apparently delicate creature that in truth is so much like him it is almost scary when we do find out? do tell me if all those are coincidences, i really don’t think so.
regarding all the others, it is much more difficult to say, tbh? because we are not told something as explicit, you know? if you already read my other ask, then you know that i’m really sceptical about considering julian being the novel’s personification of dionysus. i kinda see francis much more fitting for that role if i have to name someone, but honestly i don’t actually thinkdionysusto be among the characters of the novel - he is indeed in the novel, but being himself. in other words, being at the same time everyone and no one at all. that’s the nature of dionysus, his very purpose and i don’t think i could accept any other interpretation, tbh. also bunny and richard, i don’t think they are the representation of any deity whatsoever in this book. they are respectively the representation of what we are going to call the “non-believer” and the “believer”, so dear to the ancient tradition of the cult of dionysus. i don’t know if you are already aware of this or not, but it’s really a fundamental theme of dionysus’ painful journey to regain his “godhood”, meeting this two symbolical figures wherever he goes. dionysus is the god who died and was reborn, the one god who become human and had to prove his own divinity once again before being allowed to come back to olympus to claim what was his by birthright. so, every single time, in every single myth, the theme is always the same: someone does not think him a god, they disrespect him and his power, trying to kill or imprison him and they always end up slaughtered in the most amazing ways. that’s bunny. bunny who never takes anything seriously, bunny who wouldn’t understand and so that is not invited to the bacchanal, bunny who realises everything and disrespects the holiness of the act, taking the accidental murder as an atrocious act and nothing more than that, bunny that does not see it as the sacred consequence of an even more sacred experience, bunny who blackmails the actual “maenads” of dionysus (that’s what the clique became that night, kind of, in a representative way) and bunny who has to be killed, not just because of the actual modern danger of what he knew, but even because of the moral ancient one - he doesn’t get the divine importance of what happened that night; dionysus himself would have wanted him dead. this is the non-believer’s doom. the second recurring figure in all the dionysus’ mythology is a poor, usually misunderstood and underestimated human who, while everyone is making fun of this young lad who calls himself a god and wants to punish him for that, they actually believe in dionysus’ godhood and help him achieving his purposes. this is what i called the “believer” and that’s what richard is in tsh. richard doesn’t really fit in the clique and he kinda always sees things from the outside, even in the very end. he’s a man in a land of gods, no matter how badly he wants to become one, he’s well aware he is not, he himself tells us this at the very beginning of the novel. but unlike bunny, his merit is that he just gets it. he gets the beauty of what happened, he gets the higher purpose, he gets the importance of it. richard respects and is deeply fascinated by the all story, so he’s rewarded for it in the end, just as the “believer” is always eventually rewarded in dionysus’ tales. he cannot aspire to become “that high”, “that important”, “that godly”, but he is the best a human being can aspire to be - mixed up with gods’ business, helper of the gods, touched by the gods, accepted by the gods. and that’s no light thing in the end, if we think better about it.. no light thing at all.
and here we arrive atfrancis, don’t we? francis is the most difficult to frame, he’d always been to me. he can seem many things, but he’s truly none of them at the end of the day. after accurate consideration, the god to whom i feel more comfortable comparing him is hermes, without any doubt. now, hermes is always seen as the playful god of thieves and mischief, apollo’s best friend, never serious, grand in wit, but not that important, am i right? well, in truth hermes is one of the most important gods of all the greek pantheon and i think he fits francis’ character perfectly as hell. first of all, hermes is playful yet always unreachable on the outside, but really complicated and shady on the inside. he’s not just the god who protects commerce and trades, he’s also one of the few phsycopompos deities of all ancient greek mythology, in other words he has the power to freely come and go as he pleases between the different realms of existence, both the living and the dead one - he’s both light and shadow. also, hermes is one of the freest sexual-oriented gods i know (he fathered hermaphroditus), but he kinda always keeps everything for himself? he doesn’t go around showing off as all the other gods. he loves deeply, but there’s always something holding him back, some shadow following him everywhere he goes. he’s also the messenger of the gods, he has the power to create a bound, a real contact between divinity and humanity. that’s so francis, tbh. francis who seem so unreachable, but at the same time so easy going and comfortable with anyone, francis who is probably the only one who actually really bounded with richard (the humanity i was talking about), francis who is never free to completely be himself out of the fear of letting down his “theoretical role” in the society, but at the same time never shows his sorrows on the outside with anyone? he lives constantly divided between two worlds, never having the courage to be fully “a god”, but scared to death to be left alone in the land of the humankind. that’s precisely hermes in my eyes, even if i don’t actually think this was really donna’s intention? who knows. i’ve certainly always seen him in this particular light.
really hope this will make any sense to you? lol if not, i’m so deeply sorry. i tend to be a little too passionate about those subjects, you know!
Bring to life these ready-to-color pages filled with your favorite Big Bads and monsters in your own way in this follow-up to the Buffy the Vampire Slayer Adult Coloring Book. Forty-five original black and white illustrations give you the Chosen One and all the Scoobies, and a rogues gallery of the very worst and most interesting vampires, demons, witches, and more, interspersed with elements of magic, a little humor, and the heart of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
Illustration: Karl Moline, Georges Jeanty, Pablo Churin, Yishan Li, Newsha Ghasemi, Stephen Byrne, Taylor Rose; cover: Karl Moline.
Martin Luther King Jr. the Lost Speech - The Casualties of the Vietnam War
the reason that we are posting this speech is because we have a belief looking at the situation as it exists in politics today that Donald Trump is going to start a war.
if he does it will be exactly the same war that Richard Nixon fought in Vietnam. He will do it by sending all minorities and people he considers undesirables.
Just like Nixon, Trump will spill poor peoples blood. once again sending minorities off to foreign lands, to fight for those he considers too good to get their hands dirty for America’s RICH ideals.
I lived during this time and I can tell you that I know what happened.
Yes I followed it intensely as a child and a student. Richard Nixon was exactly who we see today Donald Trump.
He is Hateful. He is a separationist. He has no relationship whatsoever to the majority of people in this country.
People, who did not vote for Trump. People who he will end up disenfranchising purposely.
Do not be deceived
Do not look away
and do not pretend this is not happening because America you made this.
AMERICA you did this
Stand up and look at yourself in the mirror. Look at yourselves and be disgusted at what you truly invented this time.
Nothing but hate. Nothing but divisiveness. Nothing but pure lies.
America this is what you have done now stand up and look at what you are going to have to deal with because you did it.
said Richard Papen to Francis, the most exotic one of the set. Angular and elegant, Francis was precariously thin, with nervous hands and a shrewd albino face and a short, fiery mop of the reddest hair he had ever seen.
Richard thought (erroneously (no homo)) that he dressed like Alfred Douglas, or the Comte de Montesquiou.
One day Francis, in a swish of black cashmere and cigarette smoke, had brushed past him in a corridor. Richard thought for a moment, as Francis’ arm touched his, that he was a creature of flesh and blood, but the next he was a hallucination to him again, a figment of the imagination stalking down the hallway as heedless of Richard as ghosts, in their shadowy rounds, are said to be heedless of the living. He was not attracted to Francis.
On Trump's Batshit Interview Today with Lester Holt
This is the “dog ate my homework” Presidency.
Dumb excuses, no learning, bad lying.
The ineptitude would be comical IF NOT FOR ALL THE FASCISM.
Keep calling, texting, and emailing your U.S. Senators and Congressional Representatives, urging them not to cooperate with Trump on anything at all, ever.
The man is both compromised by a foreign adversary and out-of-his-skull, dangerously batshit.
I firmly believe we’ll get him impeached. The GOP soon must run their midterm campaigns tethered to the least popular POTUS in modern history. Which will force them to go down with him or finally speak up and distance themselves from a traitorous monster.
The Boomers brought down Vice President Spiro Agnew and President Nixon AND ended the Vietnam War.
in tsh, do you think they believed richard's story about his parents and where he's from, and if they didn't, what do you think they believed? i was actually kinda surprised that they believed his story, and think maybe they didn't, they just didn't care enough to find out the true. anyways, have a nice day🌹
i don’t think they believed his story, tbh. more specifically, i think this particular thing is clarified at some point in the novel: i recall pretty distinctly that in the part richard starts to enumerate all the little things that made bunny just this nasty, unbearable person, explaining this made easier for them to kil him, because he was just an awful person even in the smallest details, well at some point richard starts describing a time they all were at dinner together (i think they were at the twins’ place) and bunny started teasing him about the story he told them about his family and his life in california, telling him he met a student in hampden who was from the very high school he was supposed to come from too and that he said he didn’t know richard, even if that was a pretty small school and all, and basically with that bunny started very openly insinuating he found out richard was a liar and went on teasing him about his family and money, etc for very long, until camilla just brutally changed the subject, helped by the others. that means everyone just had figured out at some point richard wasn’t telling the truth about his life, probably out of pride, but it kinda didn’t matter to them? maybe at first they were just not interested enough, but in the end they progressively grew fond of richard and just accepted what he said without asking questions and knowing it wasn’t completely true?