Psyche Entering Cupid’s Garden, 1903, John William Waterhouse

The TE Lawrence quote ‘Sacrifice uplifts the redeemer and casts down the bought’ – you mentioned that it might be a clue to how Alec/Ralph’s relationship ended.  I wondered what your thoughts are on this?  I can never work out if it is that Alec wants to ‘look after Ralph’ or doesn’t want Ralph to ‘look after him’.  I mean, a bit of both I’m sure, but I still wonder what it looks like? And also, how was it reading that cliffhanger ending for the first time?

So, my whole idea comes from the fact that Alec and Ralph seem somewhat similar in personality to me. I got the impression that both wanted to take some responsibility; Ralph in literally everything, and Alec in a relationship...about the T.E. Lawrence quote: full disclaimer, I haven’t read the book it's from. I'm probably way off base, but just on its own, the quote to me came across as: complex men understand that sacrifice uplifts the one who partakes in it, and casts down the one for whom it is done. The first redeems the second, but the second will always be beneath the first; he is ‘bought’ (i.e. indebted) and also ‘cast down.’ When it’s mentioned by Alec, I assumed he was referring both to himself and Ralph as being those ‘complex men’ who also 'sacrifice.’ There was also a direct mention of Sandy prior to it being brought up, so I linked the whole thing both to Alec’s relationship (and impression) of Ralph (who he says is ‘complex’ but remains innocent about it), along with his relationship to Sandy (who I assume is the one ‘bought’).

So, the way I read it was: Alec identifies himself as a ‘complex man' who understands the implication of being the one to sacrifice for another person; he identifies Ralph as such a complex man too, but seems annoyed that Ralph doesn't understand that the people for whom he sacrifices are inevitably 'cast down' and 'bought.' He maintains an innocence about things in general and this bothers Alec. Later on, Alec obviously says that Ralph never let him do anything in their relationship, so I made a leap and connected this comment to the quote and came away with a vague idea that in their relationship Ralph probably would’ve been the one who 'sacrificed’ and Alec would’ve been the one who was ‘cast down,’ i.e. Alec was expected to depend on Ralph, who took all responsibility while Alec was never allowed to fulfil any similar role; Ralph never let himself depend on Alec, or let him help in any way. This would’ve been an inherently unequal relationship and I don't think Alec would've liked it (because again, I see him as similar to Ralph in the sense he wants responsibility; he himself also says most of their arguments resulted from Ralph's inability to just let him help or do anything).

Re the cliffhanger: the first time I read it, it did a number on me…I didn’t much understand it, because I was rushing to get through and see what happened with Ralph. When I finally got to the end, and read ‘I should’ve had to come back,’ I was honestly...flabbergasted, I think is the correct word? I didn’t realise that Laurie was lying, so it seemed the sweetest thing in the world. I remember the whole day after I finished the book, I kept thinking about those words and wondering what happened! The last paragraph seemed to indicate a happy ending (I read it like three times over lol), but I hated how abrupt it all was. It wasn't until some time had passed that I actually started to liked the abruptness. Also, it really made me want to read the Phaedrus!

The Blessed Damozel, 1878, Dante Gabriel Rossetti

Medium: oil,canvas

james is actually just gonna wander around with Cordelia's glove and mourn over it for at least 1/3 of chain of thorns lol 😭

congratulations alexias son of myron you just invented christianity

Alastair: Happy father’s day, I guess.  

Elias: You got me a present?  

Alastair: Yup, it’s a list of all your accomplishments as a father.

Elias: this is a blank sheet of paper.

Alastair: Yep.

Hello! OK this is more an ask about a question, but you know you on the tag game when you mentioned Bunny and what happened in the car, you made me think. I'm not sure if there was actual contact, I tended to think of it as Bunny 'trying it on', but when I re-read it, it's clear Laurie is genuinely scared, and perhaps he suddenly realises he has no real idea who this guy is but he's also trying to make light of it. And then the little internal monologue is so pompous I find it hard to be sympathetic with him! But anyway, I wondered what you thought about it?

Hey! Thanks for this ask! I was debating making a post where I talked about it because it really confused me but you beat me to it with this question! When I went back to reread that scene, I didn’t expect to be so confused. I definitely agree that Laurie’s got some huge pompous lines in this one, but that wasn’t really the part that captured my attention or confused me. I was expecting the lines because I remembered reading them the first time. What I didn’t remember was getting the sense that Bunny was a real threat to Laurie. I think this is because I didn't realise how impossible the situation was?

The part that really made me think twice about Bunny and the car scene was this:

“Something primitive stirred in Laurie, as in a solitary man beset by the creatures of a swamp or forest “Oh, no,” he said. “I shouldn’t take that tone, if I were you.” This, thought Laurie, is what he doesn’t tell everyone. The practiced inflection had held many chapters of inadvertent autobiography. “You know,” he said, “Ralph’s going to wake up before long and ring the hospital to see I got back all right. If I haven’t, what do you expect me to do tomorrow? Back up your story?””

The line that caught my eye here was 'The practiced inflection had held many chapters of inadvertent autobiography.' I don't know why it did, but based on the situation as a whole, it kind of seemed to imply to me that Bunny was someone who coerced others?

So, if you think about it: here we have Bunny who puts Laurie in an impossible situation. Laurie is physically disabled, and needs to be conveyed to the hospital. They're out in the middle of the night, in the middle of nowhere when Bunny makes advances and is rebuffed. Angry at this, he tries to throw Laurie out of the car. Again, they're in the middle of nowhere, in the dark, and Laurie cannot walk. At this point in the story, he can barely be on his leg for an hour or two (at most) without his pain flaring up. So, there is no way Laurie can leave that car and get to the hospital safely. Only Bunny can get him there; he is entirely dependent on him. This is the situation he finds himself in. Bunny knows this, and after Laurie refuses to leave, responds saying: "I shouldn't take that tone, if I were you.' These words make clear that he knows Laurie is at his mercy, and is also warning him to be more agreeable. And it's not even just the words apparently, because Laurie says: "The practiced inflection had held many chapters of inadvertent autobiography." In other words, this tone of warning is itself practiced and reveals something about the one using it; based on everything above, I assumed it revealed that Bunny had done this all before, i.e. put others—who may not have had a Ralph to threaten him with—in similar impossible situations where the only way out would be responding favourably to his sexual advances.

I don't know if I'm reaching or reading too much into it, but this was what I got when I read it. I hope this made at least some sense. What do you think? And of course, thank you for the ask!

At the end of The Charioteer, Laurie lies to Ralph but feels the lie as if it's true. There's something that must be done, and only he can do it. He accepts this, even if he lies in order to achieve it.

Before, Ralph told Laurie he hates to stand by watching while there's pain or the possibility of it, and do nothing. It's not the way he's made, he says. This is a direct contrast to Andrew, who we see literally standing, watching and doing nothing when caring for Charlot. This is not because Andrew is unkind, it is because there is right and wrong and nothing whatever in between. Ralph is not like this: people need someone, he takes on that responsibility, even if it isn't his to shoulder. He acts like God, they say. He's the opposite of Andrew in this regard. Maybe the point is that Laurie isn't like Andrew either, although he loves him. It's also not in his nature to stand and watch people suffer; this is why he felt something ought to be done in school when Ralph was being kicked out, and why he feels it at the end of the book when he realizes what Ralph is planning to do. It's why he feels the pressing demand to deceive Charlot even as he knows that, in his right mind, the man would never want it. I got the sense the first time I read the book and now the second, that Laurie is much more generally suited to Ralph, and this is why.

I don't know if this makes sense, I've not gotten much sleep. Any thoughts? Do you think this is right, wrong? Am I overthinking it?

just finished the charioteer today and can't stop thinking about it, will probably start rereading it again today smh

Gustave Caillebotte (French, 1848-1894), Le Petit bras de la Seine à Argenteuil, c.1890. Oil on canvas, 81 x 62.3 cm.