Reviews with content warning for Gun violence - The Secret History

A book about shitty people being shitty, not taking accountability for their actions nor learning anything. I know it’s a ‘’satire’’ but no, it was a pain to get through.

Content Warnings

crabinspace's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark mysterious reflective tense slow-paced

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

4.5

Content Warnings

sparrow_1's review against another edition

Go to review page

funny mysterious reflective tense slow-paced

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

4.0

Content Warnings

hazyskyys's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark emotional mysterious reflective sad slow-paced

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

3.5

i feel as though there isn’t a lot to say about this book, but i also feel that i have to put my thoughts somewhere after i’ve finished it.

one of the things i loved the most about this book is the commentary it made about human nature; how people have the tendency to romanticize others and only acknowledge their best traits, even if that’s not who they are. the narration through richard was one of the best ways to display this. he so deeply wanted to fit in, become someone else, become exactly like the members of julian’s class that he forced himself (probably unknowingly) to think of the best parts of them. it makes it almost impossible for the reader to not fall for these characters, as they are painted in an ideal manner that makes us overlook the terrible things they are really doing.

i think it’s interesting how everyone seems surprised every time someone does something immoral, especially when richard was shocked that henry was throwing him under the bus during the entire investigation and keeping secrets from him. richard perceived a version of henry that was far from his deceitful and cunning manner, and it caused him to think henry was a better person than he was.

i also liked how the group rationalized the bad decisions they were making, and excusing their murders as if they were almost no big deal. we did occasionally see richard get upset and realize the gravity of what they had done, but nobody else seemed upset about it on the surface. they seem more upset about the stress of the aftermath than the fact that they killed their peer (and a rando), and i think this said a lot about class distinction and morals in general.

all of this being said, i do think overall, the book was a bit of a drag. i find it a bit foolish to put the major plot point of the murder smack in the middle of the story, because after that it pretty much fell off and turned into a mish mosh of basically irrelevant side stories (wow henry needs pain meds oh no.. oh my god they are drinking again)

i think because of this, many of the characters ended up losing development they could have had. henry and bunny were the most complex and well developed characters in the whole book, and the rest served as stereotypes in my opinion. francis was just gay, camilla was a love interest (for like everyone), and charles was a drunk. i feel that this could be because of the way richard perceived them, returning to my original point, but their dialogue didn’t do much for me either, so i feel inclined to say it’s not that.

also there were a lot of unnecessary plot points?? like the n word scene and the twin incest plotline… and when richard had that thought… very confusing..

i’m a sucker for dark academia, so i did enjoy this book and the world it set up, but i think it was a bit of a flop. i would recommend though if you’re willing to read 500+ pages.

Content Warnings

edwardian_girl_next_door's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging dark emotional mysterious reflective sad tense 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

2.0

I think most of the problems I have with this book have been voiced by other non-fans, but for the sake of my own record keeping, I'm going to say them anyway. (I tend to dislike things and forget the reasons why, so then I can't back up my argument when talking to other people! "Uh... it was bad... because, uh, I didn't like it...") My rating is definitely influenced by seeing the hype about it literally EVERYWHERE and then not enjoying it. Also the fact that I read this directly after Jane Eyre, so the bar was pretty high.

1) Overall: This book had a bit of The Great Gastby and Brideshead Revisited in it ~~(I might go as far as saying it ripped them off)~~, plus a dash of Dickens with the plethora of ridiculous Corcoran family members. It also reminded me of Columbo, where the audience knows who the perpetrator is the whole time. Honestly, the whole book was a parody of itself -- a hoity-toity, remote college; a mysterious mentor; people walking around in suits and sunglasses, cosplaying as the Secret Service to go to their language classes;

everyone having sex with each other;

drinking and drugs 24/7... but maybe that's the vibe Tartt was going for. Knowing the whole plot through, it sounds like a good read, but it just fell a little flat. The actual execution and circumstances were just too unbelievable for me to get invested.

2) The characters are all the same. Honestly, this book was a Henry/Bunny-fest, because they were the only characters which Tartt took the time to delve into. Charles, Francis, and Richard are all the same stock character, and Camilla's only distinguishing feature is that ✨she's a girl✨ and therefore fuckable. Henry soaked up any actually interesting characteristics that might have been given to other characters. If Tartt had given everyone distinct personalities, it would have been much more interesting to see how they interacted with each other to cause the plot points, rather than sticking them into a plot and forcing them to go along with it. My feeling is that she decided on the plot first and then shoved the characters in, rather than coming up with an event and seeing how it developed based on the characters' personalities.

3) Wtf was Julian for? I felt cheated in this respect, because Julian basically never appears. I was all for seeing how this man managed to single-handedly run a department where he decides who is let in, teaches students "all" their classes, and all for no salary? Plus in a remote, disused building? Sounds like a predator to me. But no, he barely makes an appearance, and is not the evil influence touted in the reviews. Lame.

4) Richard was less involved than me, the reader. Some other non-fans have lamented that Tartt could have gotten Richard more involved in the crime(s), rather than having him on the outside for the whole book. He has barely any skin in the game, and merely hears about all of these things after they happen. I think Tartt was going for the same structure that Gatsby has, with a shadowy narrator who becomes involved a world separate from their own -- but I don't think she lived up to it.

5)

A Bacchanal? Really? You want me to believe that they ripped that man open because they were sprinting around barefoot, high off their tits and having sex with each other? As someone that is interested in true crime, this sounds exactly like the excuse murderers give when they're confronted by the police. "He hit his head" or "I blacked out and when I came to they were dead." Uh huh. Okay. And given that this is set in the Satanic Panic, a cult is a perfect excuse for criminals. I thought maybe they had committed the crime for some other reason, and then used the bacchanal as a cover-up, but no. They really did have an old-time incestuous drug party in the woods, and it's as implausible and uninteresting as that.

6) Henry seemed much older than he was, with how he managed the murder, the fallout, and literally everything else. Maybe I'm just incompetent (which is entirely plausible) but I can't even make a doctor's appointment. Meanwhile he's travelling, renting hotel rooms and apartments, driving around, moving Camilla from place to place, and whatever else he manages to do. He seems like he's about 25 or 26, not 21. He is also, I should note, the only person with any agency in this book, in terms of getting things done. He is the sole mover of everything, besides maybe Bunny, and that makes things really boring. I also don't get why everyone is madly in love with him -- not only is he dangerous, but he's a little pathetic as well. I'm all for problematic book boyfriends, but him? Girlypops, is he really worth all your time?

7) The buildup to Bunny's murder was irritatingly slow. Get on with it, stop dropping inane little hints. I get some suspense, but it was hell to get through 200 pages, and all for so little payoff.

8)

The incest was an overdone and cheap shock factor. Again, it might have been interesting had Charles and Camilla had actual personalities, but even then I think it's a lazy way to spice up the plot. As with the bacchanal, if you have to use sex to make your book more interesting, you've got a boring book. (This is not to say I'm against sex in books, only that it shouldn't be propping up the reader's interest in your story.)

9) The ending was SUCH A LET DOWN.

I don't understand why Henry shot himself. Was he afraid of getting arrested for shooting Richard, since he had the gun in his hand? Did he decide death was preferable to a life lived without feeling, or lived looking over his shoulder for the random dude & Bunny murders? He should have shot Charles, logically -- it might have done Charles some good. And the fact that Richard is shot and no one cares. Oo0o00o, it's the symbolism that no one has cared about him all along 😱 /sarcastic. The epilogue was just anticlimactic. Everyone disperses and leads vapid existences, clinging to the memory of Henry and running their lives into the ground. That's probably the whole point, but as someone who doesn't see the allure of Henry at all, it seemed like a lazy way to end things. I suffered through 500+ pages for that!

All that aside, there were some things I eked enjoyment out of. I think Tartt could set a mood well (albeit one saturated in drugs and alcohol); and I enjoyed the first 2/3 of part II. The absolute wildness of Bunny's family was entertaining to read -- again, it had a hint of that Dickens whimsy. The creeping dread of discovery and arrest that plagues the characters was delicious. Also, special shout-out to the scene where Richard and Francis try to communicate in Greek! As someone who takes a foreign language, I laughed so hard, because it's so true. Using cobbled-together textbook-speak to communicate is just a universal experience for people who learned languages through academia.

Content Warnings