𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐥𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐲𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬’𝐬

isnt it cool that борщ/borsht commemorates a plant that was once upon a time used to make it. борщівник/hogweed/heracleum may have long since ceased being the ingredient for borsht and is mostly associated with a vicious invasive plant now, but the memory of it remains

i am currently rereading the secret history, and in doing so i remember the confusion i first felt when i saw how people interpreted the book.

the entire dark academia aesthetic doesn’t necessarily apply to the book, because to me donna tartt did a wonderful job at showing how almost performative it seemed. from henry and his constant umbrella carrying, to francis’ fake pince-nez, the characters themselves seem to be stuck in a persona. richard, too, finds himself wrapped up in this when he immediately jumps to buying clothes that similarly match their styles despite not having known them for very long at all.

their intelligence, as well, seems exaggerated or even romanticized by a lot of readers, especially when it comes to henry. bunny himself says that he believes francis is equal to henry when it comes to intellect yet henry is put on such a pedestal. so many readers treat the greek class like they have rare, unseen forms of genius. this in itself isn’t true. they are smart, you cannot ignore that, but we see judy poovey repeating what julian would say in lectures, just with less ancient references.

another commonly misinterpreted character is camilla. she is often infantilized. posed up, displayed as feminine, treated as innocent without flaw. so many ignore the fact she was often described as masculine, she was complicit in the murder of two men, and she was also a grown woman who had intercourse with her twin brother.

camilla is a victim, yes. she is a victim of her brothers later abuse as well as the unhealthy view the boys had on her— but camilla is still just as bad as the rest of them. the incest cannot be called consensual as it was not two healthy people making an informed choice, it is something both charles and camilla are both the perpetrators and the victims of. they are orphans, isolated, who latched onto each other, and it formed a toxic bond. charles did later become abusive, but it was a result of the trauma of bunny dying. this isn’t an excuse, simply a reason, but before bunny charles never hurt camilla.

donna tartt is a genius. richard, in his obsession, makes us view the group as he does. from the aestheticism to the romanticization, the book carries on by the reader’s themselves unintentionally writing in richards perspective.

unreliable narrators are not dangerous in what they don’t reveal, but how we interpret what they do.

‘the slow burn will make you insane’ god forbid a woman has hobbies

henry winter moodboard

i don't know if i've ever seen someone with a take like this, so i might as well share.

i've seen many people ignoring charles's character taking a turn for the worse and instead choosing to only focus on book 1, the "good" charles. contrary to popular opinion, i think that charles's major crash out and descent into madness in book 2 is what MADE his character interesting. and it shouldn't be thrown away.

book 1 charles was certainly a sweetheart and i much prefer his friendly caring nature than his vengeful and resentful self in book 2. however, i believe that his shift in personality is what made him memorable. it made him stand out. it gave him the complexity every other character in tsh has.

i believe charles wasn't always a horrible person – it's very evident he had some good in him. but his vices ruined his, and his sister's, life. and that's very sad and tragic. i can't help but feel bad for him. i don't think his actions should ever be excused, but it was very sad to witness him deteriorate in such a pathetic way. such a dramatic downfall. it was like a night-and-day difference. i can't help but mourn the person he was, the person he could've been.

with this book especially it's very important to differentiate Liking Someone and Liking Someone's Character. i (of course) don't like charles as a person in book 2. but do i love his character? yes. he's very very intriguing, and, when it comes to fiction, being a bad person isn't a good excuse not to analyse their character (this should apply to pretty much every character in this book 😭). i would love to do a whole character deep dive on him one day.

in a way, i think the downfall of his character has some interesting parallels with bunny's character going downhill too. with both of them, their ugliest sides came out at their lowest points. and in both cases, henry was partially at fault. but that's a post for another day.

new henrymilla just dropped i was inspired by this photo

I’m gonna be so real some of you just need to lock in and stop trying to find excuses not to apply.

You don’t need any more information, stop scrolling.

You already know what it is you need to do.

So just decide.

Decide you have what you want RIGHT NOW and don’t let anything break you from that resolve. You have it right now.

Persist in the knowing that you have what you want.

Just lock in. Stop waiting. Stop living your old story.

i need the secret history set in england. instead of bunny saying “hello, old sport”, it’d just be him going “wagwan bruv”