Reviews with content warning for Toxic friendship - The Secret History

. i think it was a little overhyped and i wasn’t sure what to expect so i decided to leave it there. i’m glad i picked it back up.

this book does an excellent job of showing the blinders people in academia frequently have on and how the isolation under the guise of supremacy can be detrimental. nobody was ever happy. they studied the classics because it was the thing to do, the only one who concluded their studies was richard because he financially had to and, of course,

was alive to do so

. for most of them, classics was something to study because they could and less so because they were actually interested in the subject. the book also expertly showed the favorite pastime of affluent white people, ignoring things they don’t want to deal with or “sweeping it under the rug”. these people, richard excluded, have no actual experience with dealing with their problems.

when bunny is essentially threatening to go forward with what he suspects about them, they never talk to him about it, they give into his extortion and when that gets too tiring they decide to murder him.

it’s less a secret history of what happened and more so outing the secret ways that the wealthy go about ignoring their problems and finding ways of not dealing with them.

i guarantee you i will read this book again.

Content Warnings

ilsabelle's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging dark mysterious reflective tense

Loveable characters? Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

4.25

Content Warnings

olorin85's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging dark mysterious reflective sad slow-paced

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

3.0

Content Warnings

deparme's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging emotional funny reflective medium-paced

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

5.0

Content Warnings

ains_reads's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark emotional sad slow-paced

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

2.0

Content Warnings

clairebear23's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark 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

2.0

Well.

Did I finish the book in two days? Sure did. I wish I would have gone to bed instead.

I have a lot of problems with this book. It was entertaining, I can certainly admit that. But I wasn't drawn into the story by any measure of concern for the characters. I just wanted to know what the mystery was and how everything turned out. For all his aloofness and intellectual elitism, Henry did manage to get me hooked on finding out his secrets.

I agree with many others that the characterization fell flat. Like used-powdered-sugar-instead-of-flour-while-baking-cupcakes flat. When every character has a selfish motivation, it's boring. There's nothing unique about a person acting in their own self-interest and -preservation. No one was able to actually face their emotions about anything -- the beginning was fine before the drugs and alcohol induced hazes of the next 75% surfaced. For a book about intense emotion and living in the moment, everyone seemed intent on being miserable and trying to stoically ignore their inner turmoil that definitely most certainly most obviously were there (/s).

I really had a problem with the way Francis was portrayed. I think Tartt relied heavily on the "predatory gay" stereotype that tends to pop up in "gritty" stories / anything created earlier than 2014. Francis doesn't respect boundaries, comes on to every male in his life, and only seems to have sexual rather romantic or platonic interests. When Richard reflects on the moment they had in the canoe where their hands brushed, he made it seem like it was an inevitable thing that Francis would hit on him. It wasn't inevitable, Tartt just chose to play along with the oft-touted epithet of closeted bigots: "well I'm a man, and you're gay, so therefore you must be attracted to me" and "what if he hits on me? Because he's obviously interested in me because I'm a man." Didn't like and it put a sour taste in my mouth.

It honestly didn't feel like there were any stakes. I was never worried at any point for them. Again, I simply was curious and wanted to find out what the hell was happening. Even when Julian found the letter at the end, I knew nothing was going to happen. Julian was barely in the whole book, so why now should he play an important role?

What the hell was up with the Camilla and Charles incest plot. Awful. Ridiculous. Charles did not get enough shit for that

.

The whole story was overly pedantic and pretentious. I kept waiting for them to all turn on Henry and realize how miserable they were living their life in isolation and with their nose stuck in the past.

It almost got there, and then Henry shot himself (which, was a weird scene in itself)

. Just set me on edge. I love me some Shakespeare and I can and will talk your ear off about his plays, but this was just too much. Personally a matter of taste, I think, in this regard.

Generally, I'm not a big fan of "dark academia" because I find them to be overly pretentious. So I admit I had a bias coming into this book, but I feel justified in not liking it as a whole because of the flat characters, loose ends to major plots (ie Charles and Camilla), Francis, and just the vibe. Thanks for reading.

Content Warnings

More...