Martine's Reviews > The Secret History
The Secret History
by
by

Martine's review
bookshelves: favourites, modern-fiction, north-american, psychological-drama, thriller
Feb 24, 2008
bookshelves: favourites, modern-fiction, north-american, psychological-drama, thriller
The first paragraph of The Secret History roughly sums up the mood of the book. In it, the narrator, Richard Papen, says that he thinks his fatal flaw is 'a morbid longing for the picturesque at all costs'. If you can relate to these words, chances are you'll love The Secret History. If not, you'll probably wonder what the fuss is all about. Personally, I can totally relate to these words, so I love the book. I've read it over half a dozen times, and while I do think it has its problems, I never fail to find it utterly gripping.
The Secret History is both an intellectual novel of ideas and a murder mystery without the whodunnit element. The reader learns right on the first page that Richard and his friends have killed one among their midst. The rest of the book goes on to explain how they came to their gruesome deed and what happened to them afterwards. Against all odds, it makes for compelling reading, despite the fact that you know right from the start who the killers are. Such is the power of Tartt's writing that you find yourself turning page after page, waiting for answers, justifications and possibly a sign of remorse. Once these have been dealt with, the book loses a bit of its power, but until that time, it's near perfect.
Donna Tartt's great gift as a writer is her magnificent talent for description. Her evocation of life at a small private university in New England with its oddball mix of ivory-tower intellectuals and ditzy cokeheads is rich in detail, both shocking and funny. If it's not entirely realistic, she makes it so. Likewise, her skill at characterisation is superb. While Richard is not entirely convincing as a male narrator (a fact I find more noticeable every time I re-read the book), he and his friends make up a fascinating cast of characters: six aloof, self-absorbed and arrogant intellectuals who are obsessed with ancient Greece and don't particularly care for modern life. They're snobs and they have major issues, but somehow that only makes them more alluring. Together, they form the ultimate inner circle, the kind of tight-knit group you know should always stay together. Which makes it almost understandable that they should be willing to kill anyone who might jeopardise that group dynamic, incomprehensible though this may seem to the average reader.
I can think of many reasons why The Secret History strikes such a chord with me. For one thing, I have a thing for timeless and ethereal stories, and this is one of those. Somehow the book has a dreamlike, almost hypnotic quality, despite it being very firmly set in the rather unromantic 1980s. I love that. For another thing, I have always been drawn to the unabashedly intellectual, and this book has that in spades. It makes geekdom alluring, and I just love Tartt for that. I wish I were as geeky as Henry!
Ultimately, what I think I respond to most in The Secret History is the friendship aspect. The Secret History is very much a book about friendship. It's about the very human yearning to belong and be accepted by people we admire. It's about the sacrifices we make to keep friendships intact, the insecurity we feel when we think we might not be completely accepted by our friends after all, and the paranoia we experience when it seems our friends may have betrayed us. About the feeling of invincibility we get from having great friends, and the melancholy and loneliness that follow the disintegration of a once-great friendship. The book basically reads like an elegy on a great friendship, and one doesn't necessarily have to share Richard's intellectual attitude towards life, his morality or even his morbid longing for the picturesque to be able to relate to that. It's enough to have yearned for close friendship and been insecure in friendship. And let's face it, who hasn't?
I do not think The Secret History is a perfect book. As I said, I find Richard somewhat unconvincing as a male character; there is too much about him that screams 'female author' to me. Furthermore, the ending is decidedly weak, although to be fair, I have no idea how else Tartt could have finished her book. The story does seem to be inexorably heading in that particular direction. Insofar as the ending reflects the disintegration that is going on in the characters' lives, it could probably be said to be appropriate. Still, I wish Tartt could have come up with something on a par with the rest of the book. If she had, this would have been a six-star book. I don't know many of those.
The Secret History is both an intellectual novel of ideas and a murder mystery without the whodunnit element. The reader learns right on the first page that Richard and his friends have killed one among their midst. The rest of the book goes on to explain how they came to their gruesome deed and what happened to them afterwards. Against all odds, it makes for compelling reading, despite the fact that you know right from the start who the killers are. Such is the power of Tartt's writing that you find yourself turning page after page, waiting for answers, justifications and possibly a sign of remorse. Once these have been dealt with, the book loses a bit of its power, but until that time, it's near perfect.
Donna Tartt's great gift as a writer is her magnificent talent for description. Her evocation of life at a small private university in New England with its oddball mix of ivory-tower intellectuals and ditzy cokeheads is rich in detail, both shocking and funny. If it's not entirely realistic, she makes it so. Likewise, her skill at characterisation is superb. While Richard is not entirely convincing as a male narrator (a fact I find more noticeable every time I re-read the book), he and his friends make up a fascinating cast of characters: six aloof, self-absorbed and arrogant intellectuals who are obsessed with ancient Greece and don't particularly care for modern life. They're snobs and they have major issues, but somehow that only makes them more alluring. Together, they form the ultimate inner circle, the kind of tight-knit group you know should always stay together. Which makes it almost understandable that they should be willing to kill anyone who might jeopardise that group dynamic, incomprehensible though this may seem to the average reader.
I can think of many reasons why The Secret History strikes such a chord with me. For one thing, I have a thing for timeless and ethereal stories, and this is one of those. Somehow the book has a dreamlike, almost hypnotic quality, despite it being very firmly set in the rather unromantic 1980s. I love that. For another thing, I have always been drawn to the unabashedly intellectual, and this book has that in spades. It makes geekdom alluring, and I just love Tartt for that. I wish I were as geeky as Henry!
Ultimately, what I think I respond to most in The Secret History is the friendship aspect. The Secret History is very much a book about friendship. It's about the very human yearning to belong and be accepted by people we admire. It's about the sacrifices we make to keep friendships intact, the insecurity we feel when we think we might not be completely accepted by our friends after all, and the paranoia we experience when it seems our friends may have betrayed us. About the feeling of invincibility we get from having great friends, and the melancholy and loneliness that follow the disintegration of a once-great friendship. The book basically reads like an elegy on a great friendship, and one doesn't necessarily have to share Richard's intellectual attitude towards life, his morality or even his morbid longing for the picturesque to be able to relate to that. It's enough to have yearned for close friendship and been insecure in friendship. And let's face it, who hasn't?
I do not think The Secret History is a perfect book. As I said, I find Richard somewhat unconvincing as a male character; there is too much about him that screams 'female author' to me. Furthermore, the ending is decidedly weak, although to be fair, I have no idea how else Tartt could have finished her book. The story does seem to be inexorably heading in that particular direction. Insofar as the ending reflects the disintegration that is going on in the characters' lives, it could probably be said to be appropriate. Still, I wish Tartt could have come up with something on a par with the rest of the book. If she had, this would have been a six-star book. I don't know many of those.
1109 likes · Like
�
flag
Sign into ŷ to see if any of your friends have read
The Secret History.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
Started Reading
January 1, 1993
–
Finished Reading
February 24, 2008
– Shelved
February 24, 2008
– Shelved as:
favourites
February 24, 2008
– Shelved as:
modern-fiction
February 24, 2008
– Shelved as:
north-american
February 24, 2008
– Shelved as:
psychological-drama
February 24, 2008
– Shelved as:
thriller
Comments Showing 1-37 of 37 (37 new)
date
newest »


I, too, can relate to the make-over thing. I'm not the slightest bit ashamed of my background (nor do I have any reason to), but for some reason I, like Richard, always yearned for old upper-class England with all of its traditions. I was elated when I got a scholarship to Cambridge, thinking I was finally going to experience something akin to what Richard finds in The Secret History (minus the murders). Needless to say, I didn't; Cambridge is far less romantic and interesting than Tartt's Hampden, though I did have an excellent time there. But I'm glad you did find something like that, and ended up keeping those friends. :-)
I had no problems with Richard as a male narrator until the fourth or fifth time I read the book, when it suddenly occurred to me that certain things he feels or says were rather feminine. I can't think of any proper examples off hand, but some of the things he says about Camilla set off my Female Author radar. However, I suppose you could say Richard is a rather feminine man. I can definitely see why Francis makes a pass at him at one point. :-)


But no matter. I absolutely love this book. And I would recommend that anyone perusing these comments who has not read it do so immediately.

A problem with male narrators written by women, and female narrators written by men: you have to be one to know one. I don't care how much I might identify with women, I am not one, cannot think like one, and never know exactly how a woman might react to any given situation. I can guess, but never know.
Still I loved the book, and I loved the review. Very classy review.

But, when I was finished with the book, I thought that Richard was a girl. For example he would comment on clothes and in particular, shoes. I do not know of many men who would describe shoes other than to say they are wet, muddy, scuffed.
This criticism constitutes quibbling about a very fine book.


Richard's narration was admittedly quite feminine yet I thought this was perfectly suited to his character as an introspective academic drawn to melodrama and the picturesque. He would notice the curls of hair at Camilla's temples because he has an artistic eye and can appreciate her ethereal beauty
I agree entirely about the book's dreamlike quality. Not so much about the friendship - I didn't believe Richard, at least, was ever great friends with any of them, and we didn't get much backstory on Henry and Bunny or Francis and the twins.



I can't for the life of me understand how this novel gets such high ratings. It's as if everyone is reading a different novel than I am. If the main character is not even believable in his actions or reactions how exactly can the story continue through them? I found it tedious, boring, and irritating.












The one thing I disagree with though is about Richard being an unconvincing male narrator. Perhaps it's because I have now listened to the audiobook more than I've read the book, (and reader Adam Sims does such a great job of injecting new life into the characters); but genuinely interested to hear why you think this about Richard.
I also find Richard immensely relatable, in the same way, I think, that I find Jay Gatsby very relatable, but Richard seems more real to me somehow. Like Richard and Jay, I felt a certain desperation to escape the circumstances of my birth and remake myself, and like Richard I departed my rather dreary flat suburban California home for a lush liberal arts college, though the one I attended was also in California, just a short distance from that dreary flat suburban neighborhood. Thankfully my friends and I didn't murder anyone, though, and I'm still close to all of them today.
For what it's worth, I did find Richard convincing as a male narrator, but perhaps that just means that my grasp of the male psyche needs some work. :P