Scan barcode
A review by anastashamarie
The Secret History by Donna Tartt
challenging
dark
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? N/A
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
2.75
⭐ 2.75/5. It took me nearly the entire length of TWO Libby borrows to get through this thing. The prose is pretty, but for as floral as it is, the plot really kind of stinks. I'm not even going to do my usual "emojis for the vibes" because I'm so upset that I could even like this book that I really, really wanted to love. If you enjoyed this, look away, because I don't think you'll like what I have to say. This is a pretentious book for pretentious people.
⚠️ TWs: this book contains themes of animal death (including death of a dog), murder, incest, sexual assault, substance use, alcoholism, and suicide.
I'm REALLY struggling to understand what the hype is surrounding this book, which is saying something because I'm a fan of dark academia and murder mysteries, both of which I thought this would be, and neither of which it really delivers upon. They go to class less than a dozen times through the story and the only thing generally academic about them is that they like to read and that they're pretentious (she says, sort of tongue in cheek, almost done with her own PhD).
"But it's so atmospheric! I want to live this aesthetic!" I'm sorry but bish, what? They're a bunch of mentally ill drug addicts who can't see past their own narcissism. Did you not read this book? None of this is a pleasant aesthetic. And none of this is what college in New England or the Mid Atlantic region is actually like, if that's the aesthetic you think you like (she says again, acutely away that this might also seem pretentious and conflicted about mentioning her own collegiate experience again for that reason).
Is it atmospheric? Yes, technically. Does any of the atmosphere actually matter for the story? Debatable...and I would argue on the side of "no." There's such minimal character development and I didn't care about anyone or anything until Part 24/28 of the audiobook, when everyone began to really descend into madness in the aftereffects of the murder...and then just abruptly came to the epilogue as soon as I really started to care.
Not to mention that the atmosphere and minimal plot line are buried under mountains and mountains of purple prose. I felt like literally half the book could have been cut, such was its superfluousness. But for the word count of this book, there was very little showing and very much telling. There were points of the story where I literally exclaimed, out loud, "Why is this a retrospective? It would have been much more interesting if it happened on the page!"
Not to mention that the relationships were entirely flat because there was no foundation to them. Which maybe was the point...but if the whole point is that your characters are so unlikable that they don't even like each other, and that it's steeped in layers of pretention to really drive home how pretentious everyone is, and your plot is so shallow that you can't even drown it it -- what even is the point of the book? Is it masterful or is it just people making something out of nothing and everyone just agrees so they can be "in" on it?
The pretentiousness is the biggest problem of this book, and I don't mean in that the characters are pretentious. I get that they're supposed to be, and I get that their own narrow prospective ends up being their downfall (that, at least, this book does well). But where my problem lies is that the book itself reads as entirely pretentious, like the author herself is on some high horse about how she knows all this stuff about classicism and you're either part of the group or not. It's definitely "a modern classic," in the sense that it has a bunch of allegories and symbolism that my AP English teachers would go wild for.
Ugh, anyway. I'm going to stop because I feel like these awful characters are rubbing off on me.
⚠️ TWs: this book contains themes of animal death (including death of a dog), murder, incest, sexual assault, substance use, alcoholism, and suicide.
I'm REALLY struggling to understand what the hype is surrounding this book, which is saying something because I'm a fan of dark academia and murder mysteries, both of which I thought this would be, and neither of which it really delivers upon. They go to class less than a dozen times through the story and the only thing generally academic about them is that they like to read and that they're pretentious (she says, sort of tongue in cheek, almost done with her own PhD).
"But it's so atmospheric! I want to live this aesthetic!" I'm sorry but bish, what? They're a bunch of mentally ill drug addicts who can't see past their own narcissism. Did you not read this book? None of this is a pleasant aesthetic. And none of this is what college in New England or the Mid Atlantic region is actually like, if that's the aesthetic you think you like (she says again, acutely away that this might also seem pretentious and conflicted about mentioning her own collegiate experience again for that reason).
Is it atmospheric? Yes, technically. Does any of the atmosphere actually matter for the story? Debatable...and I would argue on the side of "no." There's such minimal character development and I didn't care about anyone or anything until Part 24/28 of the audiobook, when everyone began to really descend into madness in the aftereffects of the murder...and then just abruptly came to the epilogue as soon as I really started to care.
Not to mention that the atmosphere and minimal plot line are buried under mountains and mountains of purple prose. I felt like literally half the book could have been cut, such was its superfluousness. But for the word count of this book, there was very little showing and very much telling. There were points of the story where I literally exclaimed, out loud, "Why is this a retrospective? It would have been much more interesting if it happened on the page!"
Not to mention that the relationships were entirely flat because there was no foundation to them. Which maybe was the point...but if the whole point is that your characters are so unlikable that they don't even like each other, and that it's steeped in layers of pretention to really drive home how pretentious everyone is, and your plot is so shallow that you can't even drown it it -- what even is the point of the book? Is it masterful or is it just people making something out of nothing and everyone just agrees so they can be "in" on it?
The pretentiousness is the biggest problem of this book, and I don't mean in that the characters are pretentious. I get that they're supposed to be, and I get that their own narrow prospective ends up being their downfall (that, at least, this book does well). But where my problem lies is that the book itself reads as entirely pretentious, like the author herself is on some high horse about how she knows all this stuff about classicism and you're either part of the group or not. It's definitely "a modern classic," in the sense that it has a bunch of allegories and symbolism that my AP English teachers would go wild for.
Ugh, anyway. I'm going to stop because I feel like these awful characters are rubbing off on me.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Incest, Suicide, Murder, Drug abuse, Drug use, Alcohol, Animal death, Sexual assault, and Alcoholism