A review by taylorc19
The Secret History by Donna Tartt

dark reflective slow-paced
  • Plot- or character-driven? Character
  • Strong character development? No
  • Loveable characters? No
  • Diverse cast of characters? No
  • Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

1.5

I think I should start with the few things I liked about this book, just to begin on a happy note. Donna Tartt is evidently a ridiculously gifted writer. Her descriptions of Vermont in the fall at the beginning of the novel are superb. She created a cast of rich characters with relatively distinct personalities. 
Now, for what I didn't like so much: 
  1. This book dragged. It took me two months to finish it, and I'm someone who usually can finish a book within a few days of opening it. I couldn't push myself to finish more than a chapter at a time. I found my eyelids growing heavy and my yawns becoming more frequent as I tried to slog my way through the dense yet uninteresting plot. This story could have been written in 300 pages. I gained absolutely nothing from the monotonous chapters of the character who died's funeral or from the search party for them. I found myself skimming through the last 40% of this book, and I wouldn't say I missed much. 
  2. Maybe I'm not made for character-heavy, low-plot books. But that brings me to my next grievance: how can you write a character-driven book and make every single character utterly vile? The only character who I found myself somewhat sympathizing with by the end was Judy, the neighbor of Richard who gossiped too much and frequently did drugs such as cocaine and meth. Could we really not give any more positive personality traits to the core six students or Julian? Camila and Charles (the twins) appear to be kind and relatively receptive towards Richard when he first joins the group, however, they spiral into a violent alcoholic (Charles) and a manipulative liar (Camila). Bunny goes from jovial and bubbly to a person who blackmails their friends and is so insecure he is driven to a mental breakdown. And, my God, don't get me started on Richard. He is possibly the most uninteresting person I have ever had the displeasure of reading about. He seems to live such a pitiful existence where all he wants is acceptance from others. With character-driven books, I feel like I have to actually care about the characters. I wish nothing but the worst for basically every single person in this book. These characters were snobby, elitist, reprehensible, borderline sociopathic criminals yet I'm still supposed to believe Richard's favorable descriptions of them?
  3. Why are we adding random bouts of incest into this book???? I don't understand what that added to any of the characters nor why it was important to the plot??? It felt included merely for the shock factor.
  4. I think this book would have benefited from switching narrators during the second half. After the murder (and I use that term rather loosely) occurs, Richard should not have been the narrator. He doesn't know what's going on at all, he isn't involved in any of the police proceedings, and he spends the last 300 pages of the book rambling in a drunken stupor about-wait for it-NOTHING! I wish we had switched narrators to Henry or even Charles. People who were actually being questioned and were actually plotting on how to get away with the murder. Henry is framed to be this psychopathic mastermind. However, we don't actually get any explanation of his thoughts after the murder, who he planned to pin it on, or how he explained virtually anything to the police. I understand it's not a police-proceedings book, but I mean, come on, give us some explanation as to how they got away with this instead of just throwaway comments at the end by a paranoid Charles. Giving us Henry's point of view would have also explained the ending more since that came out of nowhere.
  5. Why did we throw in that line about Richard having the urge to rape Camila????????????? And why did we never touch on that again??????????? 
It's strange, I read "If We Were Villians" a few years ago, and many people compare that book to "The Secret History." Critics of IWWV claim that the plot is ripped off from TSH and that TSH is worlds better. I disagree. I enjoyed IWWV far, far more than The Secret History. 
This book was dense, boring, and had no real point. Having superfluous, flowery language and rambling about Greek studies does not make for a good book! I almost DNF'd it hundreds of times while reading, but I needed to be able to say I gave it a fair shot. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone unless you enjoy reading about miserable creatures who think they're God's gift to the world. Someone please tell me what I'm missing that is so magical and life-changing about this book.
Good riddance, Hampden. I won't miss you.
Expand filter menu Content Warnings