(Henry Doesn't Count That's A Totally Different Kind Of Obsession I Have With Him) - Tumblr Posts
Charles is both an abuser and a victim, and I think this is important for reading the other characters.
I think sometimes when I talk about Francis and Charles as characters it comes across like I think Francis was the worst one and that Charles did nothing wrong, and that’s really not the case. It’s more that I feel that fandom tendencies make the discussions about them just inaccurate? And my thoughts here are not about memes and silly posts purposely woobifying characters. It’s like based on… legit theories and fanfics that weirdly depict the characters.
I think my issue with the Charles discourse is how much Charles is seemingly held up as a scapegoat so people can safely adore other characters in the book. And it’s all just inaccurate to what happened. For example, the concept that Henry was benevolently trying to swoop in to rescue Camilla from Charles is something I see framed a lot. And that phrasing of it seems more intended to be ship fodder than anything because that’s honestly a really watered concept of what happened, in my reading. Charles did wrong, but that doesn’t mean Henry was just the good guy in the situation. He definitely had selfish motives; he wanted Camilla, and it wasn’t pure saviorhood. If it were, he wouldn’t have antagonized/pressured Charles into insanity and kept him drunk on purpose. Camilla wanted Charles to get better— she said so. But Henry convinced Francis and Richard to keep Charles intoxicated. And he didn’t tell Camilla that Charles was still drinking.
(Side thing, this also indicates Francis could be wrong that Charles is faking memory loss— either by genuine mistake or because he’s wants Richard to feel sorry for him. I guess we can’t know for sure, but we have it presented as valid by Camilla and not by Francis).
Anyway, this isn’t exactly honest, helpful behavior on Henry’s part. And Camilla definitely wasn’t ok with everything he was doing. He lied, at least by omission, to her.
It’s very likely Henry intimidated Francis when he visited Camilla (Francis seemed rattled and said Henry wouldn’t leave the room), and I suspect he said things to Francis when they were alone before Richard called about finding Charles in the snail. This is why Francis echoed Henry’s bullshittery about detoxing being bad. I do think Camilla wanted to date Henry and that she asked him for help— their relationship had been going on the whole book— but it’s also highly implied she was wary of some of his behaviors and that she wouldn’t have wanted her brother to get murdered. I think Henry did help Camilla. But I also think his manipulative actions show that his motives were self-serving and that, by the end of the book, he’s using violence as his modus operandi. Henry is a pretty horrible guy. He has a sort of joking coldness about Bunny’s death as well as the death of the dog he killed, and he openly admits to not caring much for others. He’s a super incredible character, and I do find him charming and fascinating. But I feel like I’ve seen this whole situation with Charles become about how Henry just adored Camilla so much and was willing to protect her from evil. I’ve even seen it insinuated that everything Henry did from the start of the novel was really just to liberate Camilla. As if he isn’t a selfish bastard who did the bacchanal as means to rid himself of his conscience so he can do what he wants (again, from his own mouth).
Henry himself was clearly— and by his own intention, I argue— a factor in Charles’s insanity and using Charles’s sins to his advantage. Just because Charles was rotten doesn’t mean he’s at fault for the entirety of what happened. It doesn’t mean that he wasn’t used too. He was bad but also really sick. Henry and Francis both knew this and manipulated it. Again, it’s not that he’s innocent, it’s more that the conversation around him often becomes about acquitting other, more beloved characters by invoking the name of Charles for everything. But Henry’s motives for the bacchanal were selfish and Francis was a spineless manipulator at points.
(Hopefully I’m not strawmanning people here!!! I think it’s easy to find fake groups of people to argue with in posts like these. And I admit fault if I’ve been taking theories and posts I see too seriously, but this is my issue with a few specific theories I have seen that seem to depict Francis as too inculpable and Henry as too selflessly in love)