Scan barcode
A review by littlehedgehog
The Secret History by Donna Tartt
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.
-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.
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
- 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.
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
Graphic: Addiction, Alcoholism, and Sexism
Minor: Sexual violence and Sexual harassment