Riiiight. I've just finished this along with a few wines and I'm reading to spout. Firstly. Bill Posters. Whilst I see what you mean about the whole psychological dimension thing, this wouldn't be the case without things occuring. Events happening, and the ambiguity caused by a 1st person prose gives the sotry its structure even admitting as Anna points out that Richard's point of view in the first part seems somehow highjacked by the characterisation in the second.
Even this though is no great shakes. Events happening how they did saw these cold calculating strage beings suddenly cast in a more human light, even though they are still quite uptight. (eg, Camilla being miffed after Richard asks her to leave his room following certain revelations by Francis).
And what about Richard and Camilla, Anna? What's so bad about them? I think they're great, and from the protagonist's view point, this was more or less alove story between him and Camille. Never does he cast her in a negative light without also giving her some re-deeming quality, and this is after the lovely sophie and mona etc.
I agree with Rakehell's conclusion of Julian. Richard's analysis seemed far too overbearingly... fond, to be considered accurate from what had been said about him previously, but perhaps this is over-compensation for henry's sake which I'm coming to.
Todd - the apparent disparity between the moon landing and the Sadam thing is surely not a mistake, and I don't think Tartt wouyld try and be *that* clever by doing as you mooted across the generations. So why then? I'm stumped as you were. The only thing I can think is that she used the moon landing as Richard's hyperbole to describe henry, but it seems a little odd.
Paleface - your uncomfort with the incest aspect is interesting given that I thought it was integral to the charaterisation of the group as a whole. From the outset it was clear that the "twins" - although there was no real evidence for them being such, as evinced by the shrewd FBI - were carrying on together - but I thought this added a whole dimension to the group insofar as it made the end (implausible) relationship between camilla and henry more feasible.
Throughout the book, both Tartt and Richard, and all the characters for that matter, make Camilla seem saintly and yet sexual to boot. The oddly warm enormity of her character strikes me as a plot device for Henry to be excused his misgivings. Without her, Henry's final acts seem silly and poorly done. She's the reason that he is allowed to end the book so resolutely.
In my reading of the book, it seems that Henry is not dead, but seeing as how no-one else has posited this idea, perhaps it is nothing more than a drunken bagatelle. Francis and Richard talk about seeing him, he lived for 12 hours after shooting himself (as if, as richard notes, he wanted to carry on). Only Francis went to his funeral (allegedly). Most of all though, the reason Camilla doesn't want to marry Richard at the end is not because she doesn't love him, but because she loves Henry. Present tense. Cf Richards past.
Shit, maybe I'm going off on a tangent, or maybe I'm simply too drunk. Night all. Sleep well. |
