Reviews with content warning for Panic attacks/disorders - The Secret History

Reviews tagging 'Panic attacks/disorders'

The Secret History by Donna Tartt

486 reviews

edwardian_girl_next_door's review against another edition

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

selfdeprikate's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark reflective tense medium-paced

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

5.0

Content Warnings

happyknitter2020's review against another edition

Go to review page

adventurous challenging dark emotional relaxing sad tense medium-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Character
Strong character development? Yes
Loveable characters? It's complicated
Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated

5.0

Stunning...read the 30th Anniversary Hardback publication. How have I not read this before. Dark academia, damaged souls brought togethe, absolutely fantastic story.

Content Warnings

pmejia's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark mysterious tense 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? It's complicated

4.5

Content Warnings

karinaymejia's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging dark emotional mysterious reflective tense slow-paced

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

3.25

great for people who dont like too many things going on, thriller, and classics.

i feel like the title is a bit dramatic for the story. it makes sense of course, but i feel like there should have been another title used for it.

this book is slow and may feel boring at times. it's interesting to see how the story progresses. i am personally not a huge fan of this style. i sort of liked the read. i wanted a more dramatic story, but thats my cup of tea.

i like the time period where this is in because I get to read what it feels like during this time.

i find it unsettling about the characters that Richard encounters and becomes friends with. I think Charles and Henry make me the most unsettling, especially near the end.

overall i had a bit of higher expectations because of the popularity. i understand the mixed reviews now!

Content Warnings