"So much of the book’s cruelty (in the main characters, I wouldn’t really count like… Straike) is driven by deep shame at what they perceive as the “dark” elements of themselves, reflected outwards…” This is actually genius, and I never would’ve thought of it if you hadn’t mentioned it! Thank you! I wonder if it can be seen with even Mr. Straike: I think a huge part of displaying Straike's cruelty and hypocrisy in the book was done by nothing other than simply contrasting him with the conscientious objectors in hospital and he made it a point to be very insulting about them when Laurie is at home (but this may just be because everyone disliked them at the time).
Re Andrew’s letter though: I think he’s referencing punching Bunny. The thing he wants to kill is both his feelings for Laurie (which are, in that moment, an extension of his feelings of learning about Laurie/Ralph) and also his anger at being suddenly confronted with the truth of his emotions in quite possibly the worst way known to mankind. And I think he says he can never say what he wants to now because even if he establishes regular contact with Laurie through letters (which we aren’t even sure he does), he probably really will never allow himself to speak openly about the things he feels; he believes it’s wrong to feel this way, he might see it as temptation if Laurie looks on it favourably, etc.
‘I hope he finds a kindred spirit at the Quaker house in London.’ This is actually the perfect happy ending for him! It would be very lovely.
It's only been a little bit of time since I reread the book (maybe 2-3 weeks) but since then Andrew's letter is the one part I keep randomly thinking about. Specifically:
"The thing you want to kill is really in yourself. That is why people become cruel in war, because they are doing what I did...there is much more I should like to say, but now I shall never be able to say it. You know I shall remember you all my life.
Love,
Andrew."
I have this idea that Laurie keeps Andrew's letter in his pocket the way he kept the Phaedrus with him at all times; at the end of the book, we see it's still there and I don't think Laurie would get rid of it.
It's only been a little bit of time since I reread the book (maybe 2-3 weeks) but since then Andrew's letter is the one part I keep randomly thinking about. Specifically:
"The thing you want to kill is really in yourself. That is why people become cruel in war, because they are doing what I did...there is much more I should like to say, but now I shall never be able to say it. You know I shall remember you all my life.
Love,
Andrew."
I have this idea that Laurie keeps Andrew's letter in his pocket the way he kept the Phaedrus with him at all times; at the end of the book, we see it's still there and I don't think Laurie would get rid of it.
I completely forgot the line you mentioned about Andrew’s mind being where it should have been, but your comments about it are spot on! Andrew is too saddened by Laurie leaving, and then too distracted by refusing his demands, that he cannot think enough to come up with a way to comfort Charlot, his actual charge. It really makes the whole thing 10x sadder. I'm definitely gonna have to go back and reread that scene now, just to get a clearer sense of it all!
Re: 'the loss of that relationship feels real to me' I think is because it is a real loss. Laurie loved Andrew, and always felt their relationship to be real even when Ralph didn't, but by the end he can never see him again. It's heartbreaking.
Actually, both times I read the book, I came away happy for Laurie but also very sad and I think his relationship with Andrew (and Andrew's whole storyline) is the reason why. If you think about it, at the end of the book, Laurie is put in the exact same position Ralph was all those years ago at school: here is someone who adores him, and who refuses to believe that he's done what he's been accused of simply because he cannot fathom that he'd do it. And what does Laurie do? Exactly what Ralph did: he tells the truth, gives Andrew the Phaedrus and goes away. But what will happen to Andrew after this? We don't know and neither does Laurie. He may die in the next 5 years, but even if he doesn't, it seems hopelessly optimistic to envision a similar happy ending to Laurie's for him.
@telltaleangelina I loved your post about Ralph/Laurie’s philosophy of life compared with Andrew’s, which so resonated with me - they have a kind of heroic idealism which is very attractive, and apart from anything else it supplies most of the drama and action of the book!
But it also made me want to think more about Andrew and his motivations. So, inspired by the 'Hot Austen men' polls, here is some propaganda for Andrew. At fifteen he had to decide whether to throw in his lot with the military side of his family or the pacifist one, and it is made clear he took this decision seriously:
“I thought all around it. I thought there might conceivably even be some circumstances when I felt it was right to kill. If I knew whom I was killing and the circumstance and the nature of the responsibility. What I finally stuck at was surrendering my moral choice to men I'd never met, about whose moral standards I knew nothing whatever."
He becomes a CO not to abrogate moral responsibility but so that he can take responsibility for his actions. Later he and Laurie have this exchange:
“One has to draw the line where one sees it oneself."
"Is that what you call the inner light?"
"If you like, yes."
So the thing that strikes me about the Charlot incident is that his principled stance is not blind faith or rigidity of thought. His main regret is that fighting with Laurie prevented him finding a solution to the problem. He says:
“If I ... if my mind had been where it should have been, I'd have known what ought to be done, something would have come to me."
Laurie says:
"I do this kind of thing. I get steamed up about things that happen to people till I've got to do something or burst, and if it turns out to do more harm than good, hell, what's the odds, it did good to me. At school for instance. A man -- one of the boys I mean, was going to be sacked, and because I liked him I took for granted he couldn't have done it, and I was all set to have raised hell and involved a lot of other people. And all the time he'd done it after all."
Laurie admits that actually it feels good to ‘do’ something, even if the other person doesn't want it. It is easy to see that both of them have a valid point when it comes to the practicalities. But for me, the point is that as long as they are trying to impose their will on each other, and operating from a place of ego, there is no possibility of finding another solution. There are a hundred things they could have done to ease Charlot’s last moments if they had stopped thinking about themselves for one moment. I think it's interesting for example that Laurie is the only person Charlot still recognises but he wants to 'outsource' comfort to someone else.
And then I realised that when Laurie is referring back to his 16 year old self getting 'steamed up' it is Ralph who points out to him that however much he might ‘want’ to ‘do’ something, it will be hurting other innocent people such as his own family (and very likely including Ralph himself).
Often, Laurie is annoyed at Ralph's inability to stand by. The bit on the stairs at the party, for instance, and the bit where he tells Ralph "You can't eat and breathe for me, or live for me. No one can." Pretty strong stuff to say to the man you just made passionate love to a moment ago! And let's not forget the comment about the drunk trying to mend the watch.
Sometimes I think the really sad thing is that Laurie is locked in to a different system of morality (The Phaedrus), one which means he is Andrew’s mentor and protector and Andrew is the innocent and therefore had no real moral agency. I'm not sure that means he could have or should have been with Andrew as a romantic partner, but the loss of that relationship feels real to me.
And finally....I think you have made me understand something that has always puzzled/amused me a little bit about the arguments that Laurie/Ralph have. He uses all those military analogies that seem to suggest that even while he sees that Ralph is trying to dominate him and battles with it, he is also, kind of, comfortable with it. And maybe it is that he sees himself in Ralph, he completely understands why Ralph is behaving the way he does. I always find that so touching (a little bit funny too, especially the captain shouting 'fire'!)
The Andrew description is so so similar to the Ralph one. Fair hair and tanned skin obviously but there are so many details, he's even wearing grey like the school uniform. A proper post will follow but in the meantime omG
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?
“‘Machine’ is journalese....Inexact terms like that are part of the war psychosis. People are never machines, even when they want to be. You have to start somewhere.”
andrew raynes you will always be an anti war king to me, idc what anyone else (ralph) says you will always be famous
I completely forgot about the scene where Laurie seems pleased to be perceived as older! And while I was reading, I never even thought of the idea of molding, or Laurie thinking it's possible or trying to do it 😭 When I read Charlot's scene, I took is as the moment when Laurie finally has to confront the reality of who Andrew is and how different they really are...I will definitely be reading that scene more closely now that you mention it here!
You're definitely right that Laurie should've seen it coming with Charlot 😭 it's not as if Andrew hadn't told him who he is, but I don't think he ever had to really confront it until then. It's one thing to hear about the spine of steel, but another thing completely to rush into it headfirst at 80 miles per hour 😭
I don't understand why Laurie immediately interprets the relationship between Andrew and Dave as anything other than father/child or even just uncle/nephew. I'm rereading chapter 5, where Andrew is telling him all about his father's death and despite the fact that he clearly explains Dave is old enough to have known both his parents, Laurie is insanely jealous of Dave and thinks the whole situation gives him a 'headstart'... why?
I'm trying to think through the rest of what I know happens in the book, and the only other scene I can connect it with is the one where Laurie's sitting with Mervyn and thinks suddenly about how Sandy's friends could misinterpret the situation if they walk by. I don't know if there's supposed to be a connection or anything, but I really do not understand the vibes Laurie is getting at all 😭