Scan barcode
dabu8712's review against another edition
5.0
This is the second time around I read this book and I must that I was even more mesmerised this time around. All the quirks and subtle things become so much clearer, making the plot even more intriguing and alluring. The major strength of the book is the characters, and although all of them, and I really mean all of them, are a bunch of assholes, you can't help but love all and every one of them.
You get to learn on the very first page about the murder that the book depicts, yet, the suspense is kept throughout the book. The first half of the book describes the characters and how this murder comes to be while the second half is a magnificent description of the psychology and guilt (or lack of) of these truly despicable characters. By all means, well worth the read.
You get to learn on the very first page about the murder that the book depicts, yet, the suspense is kept throughout the book. The first half of the book describes the characters and how this murder comes to be while the second half is a magnificent description of the psychology and guilt (or lack of) of these truly despicable characters. By all means, well worth the read.
knotmeg's review against another edition
dark
emotional
mysterious
medium-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? Yes
5.0
alexboccardo's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
dark
emotional
mysterious
reflective
sad
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.5
mgew's review against another edition
I simply don't have the brain power this book requires right now
paulmichaelpeters's review against another edition
4.0
After reading The Goldfinch and loving it, I went back to read this highly acclaimed earlier work. It's a very enjoyable book that contains the detail and drama Donna Tartt is so good at. Her love of the language is clear and delightful to find in each page. What is absent in this book is a character that is so wonderful and engaging that you are looking forward to their return in later chapters like that of The Goldfinches Boris. The protagonist Richard Papen took longer for me to care about than her other, Theo Decker.
It maybe unfair to compare the two books, especially in reverse order. In reflection, it makes me appreciate how she has grown in the ability to tell a story that is so engaging, create characters that become a part of the readers life as one goes throughout the day in reflection of the last pages absorbed. I agree with others in their comment about the artist, her books are so good that the time spent waiting is justifiable to produce the quality of the next work.
It maybe unfair to compare the two books, especially in reverse order. In reflection, it makes me appreciate how she has grown in the ability to tell a story that is so engaging, create characters that become a part of the readers life as one goes throughout the day in reflection of the last pages absorbed. I agree with others in their comment about the artist, her books are so good that the time spent waiting is justifiable to produce the quality of the next work.
cmdumas's review against another edition
5.0
Okay, whew. What a powerhouse of a book.
READ THIS REVIEW ON MY BLOG ! <3 gimme some support with the clicks xoxo
papilloninmotion.wordpress.com/2021/11/24/thoughts-on-donna-tartts-the-secret-history/
What I like most about this book is how all the characters are all such shitty people. Just like with the characters in “The Goldfinch,” Tartt is definitely not afraid to show the readers the worst side of her characters. And I find that refreshing, though this seems to be a point of contention among readers.
I must admit I have a (bad?) habit of skimming Goodreads reviews before and after reading a book, and I have seen several low-star reviews for this one that say they don’t like the book because the characters are all so unlikeable.
This is an interesting take. What a narrow view that one has to find the characters likeable to enjoy a book. If having likeable characters makes a book good, then we would have to remove a bunch of books from the list of great classics (Anna Karenina, The Stranger, anything by Charles Dickens, Wuthering Heights…), so I’m not exactly sure how having unlikeable characters makes a book irredeemably bad.
I found that the unlikability and (((terribleness))) of the characters gave me an opportunity to suppose why bad people do bad things. In my own world, I hold the view that people should try their best to be good and do good things, but at the same time I can maintain the understanding that even people who are supposed to be good can do evil things. (I’m thinking here of child-molesting Catholic priests and rapist gurus).
People are bad a lot of the time, and I don’t need my characters to be heroes, or even to hold the belief that they should do good things. Donna Tartt gives me bad characters, terrible and pretentious people who do evil things and have no regard for others. By allowing her characters to be imperfect in their own ways, she is making them real. They’re unlikeable, just like a lot of people in real life, right?
Speaking of unlikable, Richard…oh Richard. What an incredibly unreliable narrator. Throughout the novel, he observes and tells us things that distort our understanding of the plot. He protects himself from the full severity of the situation by numbing himself with various drugs and alcohol. He can’t see the picture clearly, so neither can we. Because of Richard’s drunken eyes that we watch the story through, we lack information about the plot, which creates suspense, which makes us turn more pages, and so on. We are trying to find things out just as Richard is. It’s magical really–the unreliable narrator as a literary tactic always gives the narrator a good level of realness, of humanity. The narration feels less like a journalistic report of events and more like the diary of a normal person whose own experiences and prejudices inform their view of the world.
These are the main things that I think are brilliant about The Secret History, but unfortunately I found that while some characters were very real and full (Richard, Henry, Bunny), some were not real enough.
Camilla is so clearly the token female of the novel. It’s almost painful to think about how little substance she provides for the story. However, we must remember that the story is being told through Richard, so it is up to the reader to decide whether Camilla’s underdevelopment is due to Tartt’s bad writing or due to Richard’s misogyny. I am choosing to see Camilla’s flatness as a result of Richard’s view of women. He thinks of her as a potential lay, sometimes remarking that he loves her, to which I wrote in the margins: “she is not your manic pixie dream girl, dude.”
The same flatness and tokenism is there with Francis as well. I can’t really remember anything about him besides him being gay. Beside such strong characters like Henry and Bunny, Camilla and Francis seem way too flat and underdeveloped.
But overall, I found The Secret History to be brilliant. I found that it highlights what I feel is most frustrating about humans–our disgusting nature, our selfishness and self-interest running rampant, the way we are all obsesses with ourselves and our stories and our worldviews.
In real life and in The Secret History, human nature (as revolting as it is), is unfortunately pervasive.
READ THIS REVIEW ON MY BLOG ! <3 gimme some support with the clicks xoxo
papilloninmotion.wordpress.com/2021/11/24/thoughts-on-donna-tartts-the-secret-history/
What I like most about this book is how all the characters are all such shitty people. Just like with the characters in “The Goldfinch,” Tartt is definitely not afraid to show the readers the worst side of her characters. And I find that refreshing, though this seems to be a point of contention among readers.
I must admit I have a (bad?) habit of skimming Goodreads reviews before and after reading a book, and I have seen several low-star reviews for this one that say they don’t like the book because the characters are all so unlikeable.
This is an interesting take. What a narrow view that one has to find the characters likeable to enjoy a book. If having likeable characters makes a book good, then we would have to remove a bunch of books from the list of great classics (Anna Karenina, The Stranger, anything by Charles Dickens, Wuthering Heights…), so I’m not exactly sure how having unlikeable characters makes a book irredeemably bad.
I found that the unlikability and (((terribleness))) of the characters gave me an opportunity to suppose why bad people do bad things. In my own world, I hold the view that people should try their best to be good and do good things, but at the same time I can maintain the understanding that even people who are supposed to be good can do evil things. (I’m thinking here of child-molesting Catholic priests and rapist gurus).
People are bad a lot of the time, and I don’t need my characters to be heroes, or even to hold the belief that they should do good things. Donna Tartt gives me bad characters, terrible and pretentious people who do evil things and have no regard for others. By allowing her characters to be imperfect in their own ways, she is making them real. They’re unlikeable, just like a lot of people in real life, right?
Speaking of unlikable, Richard…oh Richard. What an incredibly unreliable narrator. Throughout the novel, he observes and tells us things that distort our understanding of the plot. He protects himself from the full severity of the situation by numbing himself with various drugs and alcohol. He can’t see the picture clearly, so neither can we. Because of Richard’s drunken eyes that we watch the story through, we lack information about the plot, which creates suspense, which makes us turn more pages, and so on. We are trying to find things out just as Richard is. It’s magical really–the unreliable narrator as a literary tactic always gives the narrator a good level of realness, of humanity. The narration feels less like a journalistic report of events and more like the diary of a normal person whose own experiences and prejudices inform their view of the world.
These are the main things that I think are brilliant about The Secret History, but unfortunately I found that while some characters were very real and full (Richard, Henry, Bunny), some were not real enough.
Camilla is so clearly the token female of the novel. It’s almost painful to think about how little substance she provides for the story. However, we must remember that the story is being told through Richard, so it is up to the reader to decide whether Camilla’s underdevelopment is due to Tartt’s bad writing or due to Richard’s misogyny. I am choosing to see Camilla’s flatness as a result of Richard’s view of women. He thinks of her as a potential lay, sometimes remarking that he loves her, to which I wrote in the margins: “she is not your manic pixie dream girl, dude.”
The same flatness and tokenism is there with Francis as well. I can’t really remember anything about him besides him being gay. Beside such strong characters like Henry and Bunny, Camilla and Francis seem way too flat and underdeveloped.
But overall, I found The Secret History to be brilliant. I found that it highlights what I feel is most frustrating about humans–our disgusting nature, our selfishness and self-interest running rampant, the way we are all obsesses with ourselves and our stories and our worldviews.
In real life and in The Secret History, human nature (as revolting as it is), is unfortunately pervasive.
elleschapter's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
mysterious
reflective
sad
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
beccalikesbooks's review against another edition
dark
emotional
mysterious
reflective
tense
fast-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
4.0
kristinerei's review against another edition
dark
emotional
mysterious
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0