Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Rebecca's Reviews > The Secret History

The Secret History by Donna Tartt
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
285565
's review

did not like it

** 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.
3580 likes ·  âˆ� 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)


Melinda This is my favorite review! Good job!


Hannah Brilliant review. I don't understand how so many people could love this book. I just finished reading it and came on here looking for answers, hoping I was missing some larger point that would prove this wasn't, in fact, one of the worst novels ever dreamt up. Oh well, I guess it is.


Molly Levine i'll start by saying i just finished this book today and i really enjoyed it. that being said, i really loved your review. i think you were very honest and captured all of the things i was sort of thinking in my head the entire time but pushed away.

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. :)


message 4: by Mike (new) - rated it 1 star

Mike I agree about the book (I detested the characters) and I liked how you pointed out the anachronisms. One thing I disliked about it was how hard it was to get a handle on the time period. Sometimes it seemed as if Tartt was trying to transplant the trappings of Brideshead Revisited into a modern setting, and it just all rang false to me. And yes, the self-importance drove me batty, not only in the characters but in the book itself.


Kristin Excellent review, I think you summed it up quite nicely.


message 6: by Shel (new) - rated it 1 star

Shel I'm so glad I'm not the only one who hated this book!


message 7: by Ed (last edited Jan 15, 2011 03:33PM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Ed Good review. I liked the book even less because I listened to an audio book version read by the author. It sounded like a pretentious 8 year old girl mouthing the conversations of immature college elitists. I think it rated the worst audiobook I ever listened to in some 10 years and probably close to 200 audio books.


Stephanie Good review. I hated the anachronisms. They didn't make any sense, and that made it hard for me to like this book at all.


message 9: by [deleted user] (new)

great review


Stephanie Agreed!


Jessica Jernigan I picked this up last night, trying for the second time to read it, and I think I hate it more now that I did 15 years ago. It's not just that the characters are odd, and it's not just that they're unlikable. They are also completely improbable. And I think that I am too old to find adolescents -- especially adolescents that are spectacularly pretentious even by adolescent standards -- anything other than irritating.


message 12: by Alexander (new)

Alexander Pup Profound and to the point. Thanks for the review.


Corina Romonti Great review. While I was reading the book I had one question in my mind: Who talks like that? I mean, seriously..who in the world talks so pretentiously without saying anything interesting. She wanted to create these interesting `out of this world characters` but the only distinct features between them seemed to be the gayness of Francis, Bunny`s uncultivated nature, the incestuous relationship between the twins and Henry..well obviously he`s the evil genius. The narrator doesn`t have anything really. Flat characters that don`t do anything,,except drinking and planning a murder, than more drinking.


message 14: by Timbo (new)

Timbo your review has so much more worth than Donnas silly showing off .So well written you have great flair for critism .I am very fond of film reviews and would be interested to see any you wrote.
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


Josiah Patterson What a sad review.


message 16: by Timbo (new)

Timbo I am really impressed with the time and effort you have made to critique this review the art of analysis lives intellectual debate is made flesh, and ideas abound fantastic a revelation no holds barred a tour de force an explosion of ideas wit and and creativity in four words


message 17: by E. (new) - rated it 4 stars

E. On one hand, I think this is a pretty fair review from the POV of someone who disliked the book. But the statement about the book's setting is inaccurate: it's pretty obviously set in the early-to-mid 1980s. It's been too long since I've read it to point out the specific cultural references that enable you to place the date, but they're usually dropped into passages about the students who are outside of the book's main clique.


message 18: by Sara (new) - rated it 3 stars

Sara You have summed up my thoughts in a far more erudite and fluent way than I ever could. Fantastic review.


message 19: by Kama (new) - rated it 3 stars

Kama If anyone cares, the book is not set in the early 90s. It's set in the 80s. Someone in my book group found a mass market edition (that looked like a romance novel) from 1993. The confusion arises from a typo early on (and which is still in the 2006 edition I had): someone references having a 10 year old 1998 Buick. Given the original pub date (1992 I believe), it's pretty obviously a typo that was never corrected.


Rebecca E. wrote: "On one hand, I think this is a pretty fair review from the POV of someone who disliked the book. But the statement about the book's setting is inaccurate: it's pretty obviously set in the early-to-..."

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.


message 21: by Kama (new) - rated it 3 stars

Kama Rebecca wrote: "E. wrote: "On one hand, I think this is a pretty fair review from the POV of someone who disliked the book. But the statement about the book's setting is inaccurate: it's pretty obviously set in th..."

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.


message 22: by Lord (new) - rated it 2 stars

Lord Humungus I wrote a review for this book as well, but yours sums it up better and I wholeheartedly agree with all your criticisms. Great review.

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


message 23: by Nik (new) - added it

Nik Bramblett "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)." Sounds like Hemingway. I'll definitely have to read it. :)


Kenneth Margo Agree Nick -Bored with all that drinking and smoking and coming and going to each others apartments. If she had edited out half of the extraneous stuff, she would have had a taught Greek tragedy


Kenneth Margo meant taut-Freudian slip.


Holly Leigher Love this review. It says a lot of things I meant to say in my own review, but didn't have the patience to get to due to my disgust. What strikes me as odd is that it is clear Ms. Tartt was brought up in intellectual circles - she of all people should know that people don't talk and act like that. Instead it came off as her personal fantasy world thought up by someone who had never taken a classics course in their entire life.


message 27: by Rita (new)

Rita Flynn Agreed. I abandoned it halfway through and skipped to the epilogue. I don't think I missed anything.


Kenneth Margo Why is it that all these novels nowadays seem to be 400 pages or more? Are publishers demanding it? Maybe that's why so many otherwise good well written novels seem 'padded' like this one where the essence of the story, a kind of modern Greek tragedy,gets lost in a lot of unnecessary incident and verbiage.


message 29: by Kama (new) - rated it 3 stars

Kama Kenneth wrote: "Why is it that all these novels nowadays seem to be 400 pages or more? Are publishers demanding it? Maybe that's why so many otherwise good well written novels seem 'padded' like this one where the..."

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.


message 30: by Yuan (new) - rated it 2 stars

Yuan Thanks for your review. It really speaks what I thought after reading this novel.


message 31: by [deleted user] (new)

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!


message 32: by Tim (new) - rated it 5 stars

Tim Cheesman I loved the book on the whole, but was similarly confused about the date. I was mostly picturing it as set in the 50s based on the way the main characters seemed to dress and speak, but then the odd reference to hippies made me think it was more like the 60s/70s and only the occasional mention of things like Saddam or VHS tapes made me realise it was more like late 80s.


Corbin Actually it's implied that the story takes place in the 80's but nice try. Next, you really think Bunny dying is the climax? Did you miss the whole Charles trying to kill Henry followed by Richard getting shot followed by Henry shooting himself scene? When you read something, try actually thinking before writing myopic words in a silly immature critique of a book you couldn't grasp.


message 34: by Tim (new) - rated it 5 stars

Tim Cheesman Thanks


message 35: by John (new) - rated it 1 star

John Swanson This book was a disgusting waste of time. Thank you for taking the time to write the review it deserves. I made it to around page 200 and just can't stand it anymore and for all of the reasons you've mentioned. Thanks for saving me from the last 300 pages. Bad book!


Bigcillz I didn't see things the way most of you did with this book. I took the book as a challenge to dip in to the dark side of myself. I do agree that 500 pages was a bit much to get the point of the book across. I loved the book. But I appreciate that you stuck with a book even though you were not all that in to it. Most people would not. As with books and opinions... To Each His Own!


Corbin Well, Goldfinch has been compared to Dickens. So, I'm definitely going to read it.


Sophie Rivara If only you could write half as well as Tartt does, I would give you some credit! What a pathetic review this is!!!
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?


Julie This review surprises me. I feel like the characters are supposed to be pretentious try-hards - that is the point. They are so wrapped up in the aura and persona that they (and Julian) have cultivated for themselves that their whole existence is somewhat inauthentic. They want to live as the Greeks did; they want to be fully exist in some other, past time, but they can't escape reality. That is demonstrated by the circumstances of the first murder. Many times I feel like the author is poking fun at the characters, and showing us just how obsolete and ridiculous they are. Take, for instance, the part where Henry decides to try to poison Bunny. Where does he look for information about poison? In an ancient Persian treatise! Richard is clearly taken aback by this zany and ridiculous behavior. I mean, the characters never even amount to anything later in life. I just cannot understand how anyone can read this book as anything but an indictment of their lifestyle.


Sophie Rivara The point is that Tartt herself is highly critical of these wealthy and amoral characters. That is the whole point of the book. How intellectual snobbery and inevitable boredom lead to decay and decadence.
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.


Adriaan Birnie Yeah..just finished it, can't stand it.


Molly Horan I wasn't impressed by this book at all, even if it has been labeled one of the books you should read before you die. I had a hard time grasping the time period and she used the term "half-mast" in reference to flying the flag after Bunny died. That is on a ship..."half-staff" is on a flag pole. She used it incorrectly twice. Ha! Big deal, I know, but if you are going to write like you are pretentious....know your shit!


message 43: by Suzanne (new) - added it

Suzanne Well, as someone pointed out, the book takes place in the 80's, but you should know that here in New England, in 2014, students still wear ties and suits to classes - prep schools, I mean. And, you don't cultivate roses in your back yard? Well now, that's just weird.


message 44: by Suzanne (new) - added it

Suzanne Hah - Jamie Lynn - there were no hippies in the 80s?! I graduated college in 1988, there are, and still are an abundance of "hippies" in western Massachusetts where I went to school. And all up through Vermont, and into western New Hampshire. I don't know where you live or where you went to school, but hippies, the Dead, now Phish, tie-dyes are alive and well. I should know - my nephews fit the description now, I fit the description then. Just walk around NoHo (North Hampton) and Bennington for awhile.


Alienor Oh thank you thank you thank you! I just finished it, and just threw a few of my thoughts on GR, but your review is exactly what I wish I'd written!!!


message 46: by Kevin (new)

Kevin Schmidt Hate to tell you this, but stick shift cars are still a thing.


Ilias I'm honestly just curious, but have you ever studied classics? I feel like it might affect your perception of the book.


Nancy I enjoyed this review but I also love this book. It's one of my favorites. Maybe because of my connection to the college and believe me, in the early 90's Bennington was like this... Still is.


Diane The Goldfinch was amazing I highly recommend.


Diane Agreed.


« previous 1 3
back to top