Reviews with content warning for Medical content - The Secret History (Abridged Version)

Reviews tagging 'Medical content'

The Secret History (Abridged Version) by Donna Tartt

166 reviews

deathmetalheron's review against another edition

challenging dark mysterious reflective sad 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

4.25

This is one of those books that comes with a lot of hype, a lot of culture surrounding it, and if you even dip your toes in it's hard to sort of step back and give an honest rating. I had never heard of it til this year so it makes sense that it's a "modern" classic, but it's important to sit back and give it a sober impression.
First off, there is so much good in this book--in spite of being slow-paced, it's an incredibly gripping read. Richard + crew are exactly what you want out of morally compromised protagonists, they are flawed and overall bad people but they are compelling enough to read about. The references and the overlying theme of Greek tragedy playing out slowing in postmodern Vermont is really a stroke of genius. You can get little treats if you go back and read the parts in ancient languages again, learning new aspects about the characters and early foreshadowing in some cases.
The strongest aspect of this book is its condemnation, or rather strong criticism of elite academia and university. While there is no "hammer to anvil" moment where Richard goes on a diatribe about why college/"university" is dumb (and the text is all the better for it), the overlying theme of this permeates the vast majority of the text and creates the relationship dynamic with Richard and thew crew. By the end Richard has his realization that while college was somewhere he wanted to go and where he felt he had to, to the other Classics (particularly Henry) life is nothing more than an extremely extended stint in college, due to their wealth. Julian (arguably the true antagonist and representation of the entirety of academic excess) is basically the end-goal for Henry.
The other factor that shines is how even though everyone is unlikable to some extent, Bunny, who features some of the more obvious detestable traits like elitism, bigotry, and begging for money, it is

still remarkably sad that his murder is what the story is framed around, and by the end when Henry and the rest are revealing their true characters you come to realize that in his soul Bunny was no worse than any of them. In that sense his death feels extremely tragic.

Now, where do I find critique with this text? For one, the obsession with the aesthetic of this damn book leaves a sour taste in my mouth--this is certainly one of those books where it's easy to get lost in "no, you don't get it, this is the real point" I do feel that moping around smoking cigarettes and wearing New England prep fashion is not exactly the takeaway you want from this book. I have the benefit of reading this in my 30s, and I knew people like the Classics when I was in college. The Magicians is much more hokey and goofy but it gets away with making fun of dark academia without making it feel sexy. The reaction to that makes me wonder if the themes of anti-elitism should have been more prominent and we didn't need to spend as much time going over the times Richard walks around drunk or how many Bloody Marys Charles orders and how fast he drinks them. At around 400 pages the prose begins to dip and we get extended, plodding sections that really betray the pace.
It's a phenomenal book, and I have so much good to say about it. But at the risk of falling into the milieu of takes on this book, there is a very clear set of themes to me, and yes, you can miss it if you get too lost in the aesthetic.

Content Warnings

plathandthebelljar's review against another edition

Go to review page

adventurous challenging dark funny informative mysterious reflective tense medium-paced

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

5.0

Content Warnings

taylorc19's review against another edition

Go to review page

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:

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.
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?
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.
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.
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.

Content Warnings