A review by audreading
The Secret History by Donna Tartt

challenging dark mysterious tense slow-paced
  • Plot- or character-driven? Character
  • Strong character development? No
  • Loveable characters? It's complicated
  • Diverse cast of characters? No
  • Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

3.0

I seem to be in the minority in my feelings about this book, so take what I say with a grain of salt.
First, the positives: Donna Tartt is an incredible writer and the book is undoubtedly well-written. The dark academia vibes are there if that’s what you’re looking for. The imagery is so vivid. I felt like I could clearly see the campus and visualize all the characters, which typically isn’t easy for my nd brain. It was a page-turner for me despite how slowly things moved (though I wonder if that is because I kept turning, hoping to find what everyone was raving about).
Now, for the negatives: After hearing the reviews for this book, I went in expecting pure dark academia with layers of mystery and intrigue (one reviewer said it was like “grown up Harry Potter”; my expectations are not Tartt’s fault). I expected suspense and plot twists around every corner. But, to be honest, it didn’t take long to be able to predict what was going to happen at each turn. Yes, the characters seem at first to be unpredictable, but in reality they turn out to be entirely predictable to the point of being a cliché. So okay, maybe suspense and plot are not the purpose of the book. In that case, what is? When I finished the book, I was so confused. Was that really it? They supposedly have this obsession with Greek, but everyone except Henry seems hardly interested in it at all. So what are they forming their cult around? Henry himself? Boredom? None of them had an ounce of remorse, only fear of consequences. It felt like they were a group of sociopaths. Was this some commentary on privilege? If so, then why were only two of the characters actually rich? Why can’t the less-privileged ones see any horror in what they’re doing? Many people said that they found the characters likable at first and slowly realized how horrible they were, but that wasn’t the case for me. They had their moments, and certainly they were intriguing, but they always seemed horrible. And strangely all alike, with none of them except Bunny feigning disapproval of the wild decisions being made. Maybe they aren’t meant to be realistic characters, but a representation of this addiction to superficial aesthetics? If so, that point wasn’t really driven home for me. I am searching for anything substantial to get out of this, but sadly I haven’t found it yet.
Expand filter menu Content Warnings