Reviews with content warning for Sexual violence - The Secret History

This book is insanely written. Richard, the narrator, focuses so much on the mundane, intricate, and picturesque of his life- leading to a dense read. The details that Tartt focuses on from the greenery of the college to the way that Francis, Charles, or Camille move and talk help the reader dive right into this world. The relationships and characters are so flawed, yet you root for them at a point in the book. Richard's refusal to take off the rose-colored lens provides a perspective of "Oh, they really should have gotten put away for this, but why do I kind of agree with them". Until you don't.

The suspense is always creeping in the back, you never really know if anything will happen but you think it will. It is a long, dense read but the way Tartt gets the reader hooked in this world of friends and their whacky (highly illegal) actions is so entertaining. She has so many themes of class and wealth, politics, race, etc that are veiled through Richard's experiences that bring it together. 10/10

Content Warnings

anneroza's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark emotional mysterious reflective sad medium-paced

Plot- or character-driven? A mix
Strong character development? Yes
Loveable characters? It's complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

4.75

Content Warnings

littlehedgehog's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark emotional mysterious tense slow-paced

Plot- or character-driven? A mix
Strong character development? No
Loveable characters? No
Diverse cast of characters? No
Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

2.5

- TSH pretends to be a critique of elitism while simultaneously romanticising every aspect of it. It feels like Donna Tartt wrote this initially to scrutinise the class of young, rich elites who feel like they are above everyone else because they have enough money to study pointless classes like Greek, but fell too much in love with the romance of this lifestyle on the way, so all in all this reads like classicism fanfic (which seems to be the general takeaway for a lot of people if you look at how this book is treated by people who love dark academia).
-The characters -
Most of the characters are flat as a pancake. Except for Henry and Bunny, no one, not even the main character, is really anything. This is especially peculiar because you as a reader are supposed to detest the characters - because they are wealthy, haughty and ignorant. Which I didn't, which is probably in part caused by the fact that they are essentially hot elitist cardboard-cutouts instead of real three-dimensional characters.

Like how can it be that Camilla sleeping with Charles (which is revealed at 80% of the book), her twin brother, is the only remarkable thing you get to know about these two?? The reveal of Julian actually being a coward the whole time was so badly done. No one in their right mind would've thought that Julian is some kind of charming guy. I found him to be pretentious and slimy from the first page on. And the book trying to sell to you that Bunny being an asshole wasn't apparent until he went mad is so?? He wasn't "hearty" or "endearing", bro I can READ he was a piece of shit and a freeloader from page one, why are you pretending I'm stupid.

On a meta- level, it is hilarious that this character study is in fact so bad that a lot of people (see other reviews) actually think it is desirable to be a part of such a group of friends because they are so ✨aesthetic and erudite✨.
However, most of the time, I found them to be tepid and pretentious. All of the characters are essentially that dude from uni who has more money than is good for him and keeps talking to you unpromptedly about nihilism and Nietzsche and you just think "bro don't you have enough money to buy yourself a tad life?".
- The plot -
Everything about the "thriller" part of the plot has been done better in Tana French's "The Likeness", which has a very similar premise. I also found it particularly infuriating how every time something interesting could be happening, Donna Tartt spoilers it just 20 pages before it happens by saying things like "but that would be the last time I saw X" or

"in three days, Bunny's body would be found"

. Just so you are not surprised in any way, that would be a shame. Also, when in the middle part the big secret of the friend group is revealed

(them holding these baccanalia and the subsequent murder)

, Richard remembers a lot of times where, due to missing context, he didn't understand what was happening. However, you as a reader, were absent for all of them! How is that any kind of a satisfying reveal? On the other hand, the scenes alluding to this secret, are not really being brought up again? All of that felt so weird.
- The writing -
The writing is one of the more positive aspects of this book. People love Donna Tartt for her ornate language and extensive metaphors, which I found amusing at best and annoying at worst. In isolation, they might seem to spring from a meaningful book; however, I can assure you, they don't. Most of these extensive descriptions and great metaphors go nowhere, have nothing to say. They make great quotes on an insta page in front of a vintage letter background, but that's it.
- The pacing -
My god, the fucking pacing. For example: We know that this friend group kills Bunny. We even know how, since all of this is explained in the very first pages. Interesting premise, right? Wrong. Donna Tartt wastes your time so much with coming to any kind of plot point. There are, at times, 200 pages in a row where nothing is happening regarding the plot. There is even a part where the characters surmise what the best way is to kill Bunny - Well, we as a reader KNOW how they killed him! Since page one! Instead you have to watch these buffoons pondering with which poison to kill him while knowing they will push him down a ravine. Just wow.

- Other aspects -
There is some sexual violence sprinkled in pretty randomly. Francis basically has, even in the most benevolent eye, sexual intercourse with his male friends under dubious circumstances (them always being blackout drunk to have deniability why they engaged in homosexual activities) which becomes even more appalling when he advances in a clearly rapey way on Richard. Speaking of Richard: One day, he talks to Camilla who shows him the severe injuries she suffered through Charles' abuse (yes that's the brother she fucks) because he is possessive and doesn't want her to fuck Henry, another friend (you still keeping up?). She is then engulfed by a stream of the sun shining in, a light that makes her glow in such beauty that Richard can't help but be entangled by such a fondness for her, that he wants to throw her on the bed and strangle/rape her. You were surprised? Yeah, me too. Hitted me like a fire truck, that one. Btw she's, before and after that scene, his love interest. He even proposes to her. Just Lovely.

Overall, the only thing that saves this book is that, in 1992, this was probably a new idea and the writing is nice sometimes. Oh, and it's a great book to learn flowery words if English is your second language.

Content Warnings

maygetdizzy's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging dark emotional mysterious reflective medium-paced

Plot- or character-driven? A mix
Strong character development? Yes
Loveable characters? It's complicated
Diverse cast of characters? No
Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

4.75

Content Warnings

stratospheric's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark mysterious slow-paced

Strong character development? It's complicated
Loveable characters? No
Diverse cast of characters? No
Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

4.25

Content Warnings

typemay's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark emotional mysterious sad tense medium-paced

Plot- or character-driven? A mix
Strong character development? Yes
Loveable characters? No
Diverse cast of characters? No
Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

5.0

Content Warnings

_david_'s review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging dark mysterious tense slow-paced

Plot- or character-driven? A mix
Strong character development? Yes
Loveable characters? No
Diverse cast of characters? No
Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

3.5

I somewhat enjoyed the book.

I liked the niche approach of student choice: the outgoing introverted dark academia type of students of classic languages. This is a group which I can recognise in fellow students from my high school days, who coincidentally also studied classic languages.

The plot is interesting to me. It's a very believable story of a group of people who make very bad choices which seem the easiest to them in the moment, but which have long lasting consequences.

One thing I wish the story improved is character depth. The main character and Henry are interesting. Bunny is interesting but not very rounded. But Charles, Camilla and Francis are underdeveloped eventhough they were part of the main cast of characters. The main character's crush on Camilla also made my eyes roll. It was very over the top and often distracted from whatever she was doing. Her appearance got mentioned waaaaay too often. I'd rather have known more about her personality.

Somewhere around the halfway point the story becomes very slow. You might have to push through long paragraphs about seemingly unimportant details. There shouldn't have been much more of it or I would've dropped the book. Speaking of Tartt's writing style: either do not mind having to look up words or be accepting of only understanding the general gist of a word/foreign sentence and moving on.

The ending was very satisfying to me. The effect of the events in the story are different per character. I found this very interesting to read about. Something clicked when the main character described that the main cast is a group of naturally insecure people who have been taught to feel superior instead. This explains a lot of the behaviour shown.

Content Warnings

More...