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

** spoiler alert **
This novel, like so many other first novels, is full of everything that the author wants to show off about herself. Like a freshman who annoys everyone with her overbearing sense of importance and unfathomable potential, Donna Tartt wrote this book as though the world couldn't wait to read about all of the bottled-up personal beliefs, literary references, and colorfully apt metaphors that she had been storing up since the age of 17.
The most fundamentally unlikable thing about this book is that all of the characters -- each and every one of them -- are snobby, greedy, amoral, pretentious, melodramatic, and selfish. The six main characters are all students at a small and apparently somewhat undemanding college in Vermont, studying ancient Greek with a professor who's so stereotypically gay as to be a homosexual version of a black-face pantomime. In between bouts of translating Greek, the students end up murdering two people, and then devolve into incoherent, drunken, boring decay.
The best thing I can equate this book to is the experience of listening to someone else's dream or listening to a very drunk friend ramble on and on and on, revealing a little too much awkward personal information in the process. The climax of The Secret History's narrative was around page 200, but the book was 500 pages long. So, essentially, this book contained 300 pages of scenes where the characters do nothing but drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, go to the hospital for drinking so much alcohol and smoking so many cigarettes, get pulled over for drunk driving, talk about alcohol and cigarettes, do cocaine, and gossip about each other (while drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes).
Tartt's writing was sometimes genuinely good at establishing a thrilling and suspenseful mood, but other times, especially toward the end, her writing became the kind of self-conscious, contrived, empty prose that I can imagine someone writing just to fill out a page until a good idea comes to them, kind of like how joggers will jog in place while waiting for a traffic light. That kind of writing practice is fine...as long as the editor is smart enough to cut it before the final copy. The last 300 pages were the authorial equivalent of that kind of jogging while going nowhere, and it soured the whole book for me.
In the book's attempt to comment on the privilege, self-interest, and academic snobbery of rich college kids in New England, the book itself comes to be just as self-absorbed and obsessive as its characters -- it turns into a constant litany of unnecessary conversations, sexual tensions that go nowhere, purple prose descriptions of the landscape, contrived plot twists that fizzle out, and forced, overblown metaphors.
The confusing part was that Tartt seemed to identify with (and expect us to identify with) these students -- not to admire them for murdering people, obviously, but to respect and envy their precious contempt for everything modern and popular, as though they lived on a higher plane than normal people. The cliche of academic types being remote from the mundane world and out of touch with reality may have a grain of truth to it, but Tartt took that cliche way too far. The story is set in the early 90s, and yet some of the characters had never heard of ATMs, and they still wrote with fountain pens, drove stick shift cars, cultivated roses in their backyards, wore suits and ties to class, and said things like, "I say, old man!" Did I mention that this story is set in the early 90s? It got to the point where all the anachronisms came to seem ridiculous and gratuitous.
Ostensibly, the point of the novel was to critique the point of view that privileged academics are somehow superior to the average person, but Tartt seemed too enamored of her own characters and the endearing way they held cigarettes between their fingers to really allow that kind of critique to be successful. Maybe Tartt's second novel managed to get away from the claustrophobic selfishness of The Secret History, but I don't feel up to reading it after this.
The most fundamentally unlikable thing about this book is that all of the characters -- each and every one of them -- are snobby, greedy, amoral, pretentious, melodramatic, and selfish. The six main characters are all students at a small and apparently somewhat undemanding college in Vermont, studying ancient Greek with a professor who's so stereotypically gay as to be a homosexual version of a black-face pantomime. In between bouts of translating Greek, the students end up murdering two people, and then devolve into incoherent, drunken, boring decay.
The best thing I can equate this book to is the experience of listening to someone else's dream or listening to a very drunk friend ramble on and on and on, revealing a little too much awkward personal information in the process. The climax of The Secret History's narrative was around page 200, but the book was 500 pages long. So, essentially, this book contained 300 pages of scenes where the characters do nothing but drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, go to the hospital for drinking so much alcohol and smoking so many cigarettes, get pulled over for drunk driving, talk about alcohol and cigarettes, do cocaine, and gossip about each other (while drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes).
Tartt's writing was sometimes genuinely good at establishing a thrilling and suspenseful mood, but other times, especially toward the end, her writing became the kind of self-conscious, contrived, empty prose that I can imagine someone writing just to fill out a page until a good idea comes to them, kind of like how joggers will jog in place while waiting for a traffic light. That kind of writing practice is fine...as long as the editor is smart enough to cut it before the final copy. The last 300 pages were the authorial equivalent of that kind of jogging while going nowhere, and it soured the whole book for me.
In the book's attempt to comment on the privilege, self-interest, and academic snobbery of rich college kids in New England, the book itself comes to be just as self-absorbed and obsessive as its characters -- it turns into a constant litany of unnecessary conversations, sexual tensions that go nowhere, purple prose descriptions of the landscape, contrived plot twists that fizzle out, and forced, overblown metaphors.
The confusing part was that Tartt seemed to identify with (and expect us to identify with) these students -- not to admire them for murdering people, obviously, but to respect and envy their precious contempt for everything modern and popular, as though they lived on a higher plane than normal people. The cliche of academic types being remote from the mundane world and out of touch with reality may have a grain of truth to it, but Tartt took that cliche way too far. The story is set in the early 90s, and yet some of the characters had never heard of ATMs, and they still wrote with fountain pens, drove stick shift cars, cultivated roses in their backyards, wore suits and ties to class, and said things like, "I say, old man!" Did I mention that this story is set in the early 90s? It got to the point where all the anachronisms came to seem ridiculous and gratuitous.
Ostensibly, the point of the novel was to critique the point of view that privileged academics are somehow superior to the average person, but Tartt seemed too enamored of her own characters and the endearing way they held cigarettes between their fingers to really allow that kind of critique to be successful. Maybe Tartt's second novel managed to get away from the claustrophobic selfishness of The Secret History, but I don't feel up to reading it after this.
3580 likes · Like
�
flag
Sign into Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ to see if any of your friends have read
The Secret History.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
September 13, 2008
– Shelved
Started Reading
September 26, 2008
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-50 of 120 (120 new)
message 1:
by
Melinda
(new)
-
rated it 1 star
Jan 23, 2009 08:18PM

reply
|
flag


i think i loved it for its trashiness. and if it were a book that admitted itself to be trashy and didn't take itself so seriously, i would continue to call it one of the coolest books i've read. but this isn't true. it takes itself very, very seriously. and you're right about everything you said. the characters were undeserving of admiration (or fascination, even). they were spoiled and out of touch with reality.
anyway, just wanted to let you know i loved your review. even though i blew through the book. :)






I was asked to read this book by my daughter she is 22 I 54 ,As I feel she was hoping i would like it ( she loves it ) I was shocked and surprised by how poor and obvious the writing was particularly ,with all the great reveiws flying around your review has helped me realise I was not just being grumpy (I only managed the prologue and about 6 pages)so got off lightly. Thanks Tim





While it's true that ATMs weren't widely popular until the mid-80s, I think all my other complaints about anachronisms are still valid even if the story is set in the 80s and not the 90s. I still think using fountain pens, cultivating roses, and saying phrases like "I say, old man!" are pretentiously inappropriate when applied to American teenagers in the 80s.

Except they were American teenagers from WASPy families, or families that wanted to appear to be WASPs, that didn't have the grades for an Ivy League school, yet still wanted to look like they were the blue blood types who attend Yale and Harvard, and who say things like "I say old man!" use fountain pens, cultivate roses, etc. Which was one of the points of the book. I know people like this.

I had forgotten about the weird time period issue, but it's interesting to note others picked up on it too.






This book is two decades old. If you look through the fiction aisles at a bookstore, I'm 100% positive you'll find many, many novels that are less than 400 pages. Some long novels are worth it. Others aren't. Your mileage may vary.
I actually agree with a lot of what you say and yet...I am really liking the book. I don't know why. I just keep reading!





More pretentious than anything I have ever read as an English major and I have read a lot!!!!
May I suggest you stick to more conventional and less challenging works?


I don't need to like the characters in a novel to appreciate the work itself. In fact, most masterpieces are about despicable and unpleasant characters! Why should you need to like the characters you are reading about?
Tartt's writing is as strong and powerful as Fitzgerald as many critics have pointed out. I totally agree. She is more eloquent than most contemporary writers. Her novel is not meant to be taken at the first degree. She does not identify herself with these people, the campus might have been conjured up by Bennington College where she studied, but be very careful not to assume anything.
To me, this is a true masterpiece, mainly because of the unmistakable quality of the writing. Nobody writes like this anymore.
Just my 2 cents.





