Reading Envy Readers discussion

Some of you have already crossed the finish line, so here is your safe place for full book discussion. I'm also curious about those of you for which this is a reread... how did the book change in this reading?

Caution: SPOILERS ABOUND

One of my big questions is, in the prologue, it reads: "What are you doing up here? said Bunny, surprised, when he found the FOUR of us waiting for him." Four? Weren't there five: Richard, Henry, Francis, Camilla, and Charles? Did I forget something? Was someone not there?
Maybe I'm misremembering something . . .

The only thing I can think of is that one of them was out of sight and Bunny could only see four? I am at work (and this book is checked out so I can't grab it,) but when the incident is described again later in the book, and I believe it is, maybe this can be confirmed?

Elizabeth wrote: "The only thing I can think of is that one of them was out of sight and Bunny could only see four? I am at work (and this book is checked out so I can't grab it,) but when the incident is described ..."

Yes, this is exactly what happened-Henry was initially out of sight, "thirty feet away, safely at the shady margin of the wood." He was digging up ferns, then steps "out of the shadows." The encounter happens in the pages just before Book II begins. In my hard cover edition, it starts on page 268

Good question about the four versus five- thanks for clearing that up! I actually was thinking it was going to be a significant plot point- that someone backed out of the plan.

I have another clarification question before we move onto the meatier stuff. Did anyone else think when Charles got sick that Henry poisoned him? I had this whole theory that this was the reason he had Camilla move out (so she wouldn't accidentally ingest it). And then when Richard, Henry, and Francis are at Charles' place to pick up things for him, and Richard almost grabs the scotch bottle, I thought Henry and Francis were acting really suspiciously in wanting him to take it- like maybe that was the poisoned bottle and if Richard took it, he would get blamed. Though, Henry does back out of it with buying him a new one, so maybe this was just supposed to be taken at face value that they were concerned for his withdrawal? This exchange is on page 479 of the paperback edition.

Lorraine wrote: "Elizabeth wrote: "The only thing I can think of is that one of them was out of sight and Bunny could only see four? I am at work (and this book is checked out so I can't grab it,) but when the inci..."
Ah! Thanks for that insight! Makes more sense now.

Vinny wrote: "Good question about the four versus five- thanks for clearing that up! I actually was thinking it was going to be a significant plot point- that someone backed out of the plan.

I have another cla..."

In that last section I was seeing violence even when there wasn't violence, so maybe!! I also thought Henry had killed Julian, also thought he'd seduced him, although in reverse order.

I'm still wondering about Julian's role in all of this and how much he knew.

Vinny wrote: "Good question about the four versus five- thanks for clearing that up! I actually was thinking it was going to be a significant plot point- that someone backed out of the plan.

I have another cla..."

I, too, thought that Henry may have poisoned Charles, especially with all his research on the mushrooms.
When Charles arrived with the gun, I kept trying to predict where this was all going to end. One thought was what if this whole story turned out to be Richard's testimony in trial?

It was interesting to watch their lives and friendships crumble after the dirty deeds. I also wonder about Julian's influence on them in all of this. For him to hand the letter back to Henry and then to just disappear. Suspicious!!! Who was the seducer? Henry or Julian? What did Julian mean when at the end he said there was nothing more he could do?

I wondered about Julian too. I guess he felt guilty that he could have influenced them? Sort of a bad version of Dead Poet's Society. Or maybe he just had a weak character to not turn them in as it might ruin his reputation...or he was too fond of them to turn them in? I also was a little let down that none of them felt the need later in life to come forward and tell the truth. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night. But having said that, I could see this happening in this age group. That age brings out a lot of passion.

Oh, God! Now I can envision this whole scenario where Julian was running an experiment with these core students from the very beginning. Letting Richard in was just another variable in the experiment. Thoughts?

Sue wrote: "Oh, God! Now I can envision this whole scenario where Julian was running an experiment with these core students from the very beginning. Letting Richard in was just another variable in the experime..."

YES!

See what I mean, everyone seems nefarious by the end!

Carol wrote: "I wondered about Julian too. I guess he felt guilty that he could have influenced them? Sort of a bad version of Dead Poet's Society. Or maybe he just had a weak character to not turn them in as it..."

I agree that Julian felt guilty. He wanted them fully immersed in the subject matter, and basically took over their academic lives but when he saw the paper with the hotel logo he realized at that moment that they took it way too far. He probably thought he could be connected to what happened to the farmer and Bunny by association and decided to put the whole College behind him. Wow, the scene in the book was gut wrenching!

Vinny, I did consider the same thing about Henry poisoning Charles, because it was sort of suggested in the book and then subtly dropped. I do wonder if Henry's decision to kill himself was a grand one, in the manner of doing something profound like the ancients or whatever, or just pure and profound fear of the kind of person he knew himself to be. Like when he was talking to Richard about the sense of exhilaration he felt after the farmer guy moment. I would like to think that with time, Henry became afraid of himself and what he could be. That's me trying to make Henry seem better than he is, probably, because I kind of liked him the best (sorry) (I know) (how can I like anyone in this book). This article sums up my awful impulse to try to like anyone: https://thinkprogress.org/why-you-sho...

Julian strikes me as weak and narcissistic, mainly. Honestly, he reminds me of a few "charismatic" people I've known. At the end of the day their concern for their own reputation and the idea they have of themselves is more important than, you know, actual people in their lives.

Carol Ann- glad I'm not alone: when I was reading that part I flashed back to the poisoning research portion. I guess we don't know for a a fact that Henry wasn't the cause of Charles' sickness--Tart seems to like to leave certain things ambiguous. For that matter, Jenny, I never thought about your idea with Henry offing Julian-- that's not out of the realm of possibility, as he was very disillusioned with his reaction to discovering the truth (Jeff, agreed on your reaction to that- gut-wrenching it was!). With this extreme interpretation Henry has three murders and an attempted murder, which makes it remind me of the film Heathers a little--Henry as Christian Slater's character, Richard as Winona Ryder's.

Speaking of film parallels - Carol, I like your comparison to Dead Poet's Society--it's so true. I'm with Subashini- I tend to dislike this charismatic/inspirational persona, where their popularity comes from their personality and a vague inner-wisdom, rather than hard work, teaching methods, and genuine concern for students as individuals. One theme of the novel seems to be tearing down the myth of the infallible leader through the twin disappointments of both the students with Julian, and the rest of the group with Henry.

Loved the thinkprogress article Subashini--Breaking Bad is a good comparison. It's really true that we tend to like or dislike personalities first, and then try to rationalize their actions. I found myself liking Henry too for his seemingly unassailable logic and quiet confidence, but when Charles goes on his rant against Henry to Richard and chalks up all the mistakes he's made over the course of the novel, it does show you that Richard's "fatal flaw" is something that we all share in varying degrees.

I haven't finished my re-read, but I definitely found it harder to read this time. I was far more annoyed with everyone involved. While I was reading I was still very involved in the story, in part because of the wonderful writing, but every time I put it down it was hard to pick up again because I just did not want to be involved in the characters' lives again.

I'm enjoying reading all the comments and insight.

For me, reading this was like eating a convenient hot meal that doesn't taste exactly bad, and so you keep shoveling it on in, faster and faster and please pass the salt and no I don't need a napkin thank you ever so much, thinking volume must make it better, but it doesn't, and now you're just uncomfortably stuffed, and thirsty, and eying the leftovers thinking, well maybe.....?

I read this in a rush. I mowed it down like clover. And when I was done, the analytical part of my brain itched to reread through the lens of Romanticism and Postmodernism paying particular attention to the crumbling nature of society and the self. And then I paused, because it started to feel as if I was wrangling rabbits or herding chickens or counting raindrops.

I've had time to reflect, and I'm still torn. I wanted to see more change, I wanted to empathize, but maybe such absences are part of the point? I'm still not sure.