Scan barcode
A review by oliveslittlelibrary_
The Secret History by Donna Tartt
challenging
dark
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.25
Ok ok i needed a day to collect my detailed thoughts...
Holy sh*t this book is incredible. I have quite possibly never read a work by an author where the prose and pacing of the story was so well controlled. IMHO the only book that rivals how well-controlled this one was is A Little Life (and i may be biased bc that's one of my favorite books of all time, but still). I think the pacing of this book (and the impressive amount of control Donna Tartt has over her craft) was the most admirable thing about it from an artistic standpoint.
You kind of "love to hate" the characters in this book. Our narrator Richard comes from a much more humble background than his peers in the Classics department, so initially he is someone you are kind of rooting for--it's complicated--but as you watch him get so absorbed in the ways of his Hampden peers you question yourself all over again and wonder if you should really be on his side, or anyone's at all for that matter. Though bad things happen in the book, with a specific focus on two distinct acts of immorality by Richard and his peers, a specific "villain" is never really revealed or made obvious. I LOVED that about the book- it suggests that immoral acts are just acts and can be committed by anyone, even people one might not see as "immoral" people.
My critiques and what I would have liked to see more of:
Despite how well-paced and well-controlled the book was, the plot did lull at times. I think this partially just comes from it being such a long story and a deep study of character and scene. I was never tempted to DNF it, not at ALL, but I would say around the 2/3 mark, it lost a little steam. That's really it from me, though, stylistically.
Something i WISH this book did more of was characterize Julian, the Hampden Classics professor, a bit more. This is something I think the author deliberately chose to do--she wanted his background to remain a mystery--but I found myself wanting to understand him a bit more so I could better contextualize the impact he had on the students. I think a character study of Julian could be quite interesting had we had more info on him.
I think anyone who loves academia and morally ambiguous characters would especially love this book, even people fascinated with crime and the motives of criminals may love it too. However I think any reader could find something to love about The Secret History. I can see this book being studied in AP Lit classes in the near future (if it's not already) and being etched into the literary bible as a "modern classic."
Holy sh*t this book is incredible. I have quite possibly never read a work by an author where the prose and pacing of the story was so well controlled. IMHO the only book that rivals how well-controlled this one was is A Little Life (and i may be biased bc that's one of my favorite books of all time, but still). I think the pacing of this book (and the impressive amount of control Donna Tartt has over her craft) was the most admirable thing about it from an artistic standpoint.
You kind of "love to hate" the characters in this book. Our narrator Richard comes from a much more humble background than his peers in the Classics department, so initially he is someone you are kind of rooting for--it's complicated--but as you watch him get so absorbed in the ways of his Hampden peers you question yourself all over again and wonder if you should really be on his side, or anyone's at all for that matter. Though bad things happen in the book, with a specific focus on two distinct acts of immorality by Richard and his peers, a specific "villain" is never really revealed or made obvious. I LOVED that about the book- it suggests that immoral acts are just acts and can be committed by anyone, even people one might not see as "immoral" people.
My critiques and what I would have liked to see more of:
Despite how well-paced and well-controlled the book was, the plot did lull at times. I think this partially just comes from it being such a long story and a deep study of character and scene. I was never tempted to DNF it, not at ALL, but I would say around the 2/3 mark, it lost a little steam. That's really it from me, though, stylistically.
Something i WISH this book did more of was characterize Julian, the Hampden Classics professor, a bit more. This is something I think the author deliberately chose to do--she wanted his background to remain a mystery--but I found myself wanting to understand him a bit more so I could better contextualize the impact he had on the students. I think a character study of Julian could be quite interesting had we had more info on him.
I think anyone who loves academia and morally ambiguous characters would especially love this book, even people fascinated with crime and the motives of criminals may love it too. However I think any reader could find something to love about The Secret History. I can see this book being studied in AP Lit classes in the near future (if it's not already) and being etched into the literary bible as a "modern classic."
Content Warnings
Graphic: Drug use and Murder
Minor: Homophobia and Racism