The Secret History

Rating:
Summary: Single stars tell us so much ....
Review: When perusing a book on Amazon, I always turn to the single star reviews. Why? Because they deliver a roller coaster ride of hilarious mis-fires, mis-takes, mis-readings, all immersed in a soup of small-minded prejudice and prickly personal vendetta's. They almost make a novella by themselves!

And I have been vindicated once again with The Secret History. The level of inaccuracy in the single star reviews conjures up images of Laurel and Hardy at target practice.

Among the trends that emerge is the strange belief that a novel has to be realistic. If you want realistic, then stand at a street corner and watch cars and people going by.This is a story. Get it? A story.

Tartt rightly avoids reading any modern authors, instead sticking to the Classics. After all, you watch Michael Jordan to get the right form on your shot, not someone who copied someone who copied MJ.

Thanks to this reading discipline, she has managed to create a diction for her characters which is infinitely more entertaining that the dude-speak that would otherwise pervade this work if she tried to be, God forbid, realistic.

Come to think of it, imagine what the NBA would be like if the single star reviewers here were allowed to decide who should play in the NBA ' no doubt MJ would have been banished to obscurity on the grounds that he was too talented.

Thank God for the Western Canon, quotations and all. The novel form exists in its most highly developed state in the West. Thanks to some incredibly muddy thinking, we are now all supposed to be both ashamed of this fine craftsmanship, and also swallow the myth that much finer novels developed somewhere else in the world which we were all intentionally too blind to notice.

Are we also to be ashamed of Western motorbikes and Western computers? Or is this craftsmanship allowed?

Like the most excellent writers, Tartt does not make up our minds for us. She would not patronise us in this way. Those who do not know this seem to feel they are in some sort of raging argument with her, based on the belief that she is trying to ram her ideas down their throats.

The world is not shaped like a best-seller with goodies and baddies. People with some admirable characteristics do bad things. It is up to each of us to make a personal opinion. Unlike the rest of the single star reviewers, I left this novel with no illusions as to the morals of Henry.

The most intelligent and reliable reader I know is three quarters way through The Little Friend and is wearing a permanent expression of joyful amazement. I will read it after her.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent but slightly flawed
Review: The Secret History is a definite must-have, and Donna Tartt is quite a promising writer. Her prose is graceful, lyrical, and beautifully descriptive: she manages to create vivid imagery without slowing down the pace. The book is an utterly gripping, can't-put-it-down story, even though the "whodunit" is revealed on the first page, and the deeper observations and literary allusions make the novel just as good on the second (and third, and fourth) read.

If you aren't one for reading about wealthy, arrogant college students, however, you'll find this book irritating and pretentious. It is pretentious, of course, but I thought it was pleasantly so. I do agree with the many negative reviews stating that the characters are unrealistic, but I think this makes the story more interesting. Sure, in real life, there really aren't people on any college campus who are brilliant, eccentric, picturesque, old-fashioned, and fabulously rich all at the same time. But who would you rather read a 500-page book about--the wealthy, elite Greek students, or a cast of "realistic" characters like Cloke Rayburn? I, personally, found the characters fascinating, especially Henry, Julian and Camilla. However, I do feel the urge to rant about all the other little things that annoyed me.

The book does have flaws, the main one being the passive and boring narrator. It was interesting to see the contrast between Richard's childhood and the other students', so I didn't mind hearing about him at that point. Later on, however, I wished I was seeing from the point of view of someone who was actually doing something. Richard was the most uninteresting character in the entire novel, and he's the one we're stuck with for it's duration. He seemed like just a pawn for the other characters, and it didn't seem like they liked or cared about him at all. At the end, when Richard is shot, none of the other students cared or noticed, and I could see why. Another flaw was the absence of Julian for most of the book. I found him to be one of the most interesting characters, and I loved reading his speeches at the beginning of the novel. However, we never really get to see enough of why the students worship him so much, and he disappears almost completely from the middle of the book. Also, I thought it was ridiculous that the bacchanal, so central to the book, was so inadequately explained. I expected a whole chapter on it, maybe a flashback, but we only got a little summary from Henry.

Another thing that annoyed me was the stereotypical view, not of the Greek students, but of minor characters like Judy and Cloke. Why were they all shown as dumb, superficial, and one-dimensional? There are people who, though they aren't rich, "superior" Classics students, do have some intelligence and depth. Finally, didn't like how Ms. Tartt would just drop little pieces of interesting information and forget to explain them. For example, we learn that there had been a "catastrophe" between Marion and the rest of the group, but we never learn what happened.

Overall, however, I thought The Secret History was an engaging and thought-provoking read.

Rating:
Summary: Beauty is terror - we quiver before it
Review: If I were a rookie writer about to publish my first novel, I might be inclined to make sure it wasn't too good. Why? Well, have you noticed how often an author is unable to better their first novel, and their whole career becomes a vain struggle to match that first, inspired, book? Think Joseph Heller (Catch 22), Kurt Vonnegut (Cat's Cradle) or J D Salinger (The Catcher in the Rye). This isn't just a common condition among writers either. Oasis, The Stone Roses, Portishead and many other bands have suffered the same fate. Weight of expectation quite often cripples a fragile talent not prepared for an industry and public desperate for more of the same.

Donna Tartt may well have outdone all others in this respect. 'The Secret History' is a marvellous, intriguing, beautifully written book, one of the best published in the last 20 years, and certainly the biggest literary sensation (bar Harry Potter) of the 90s. The fact that it is Tartt's first novel should not come as much of a surprise, but having just re-read it, I found myself frequently marvelling at how consistently, and frighteningly, brilliant 'The Secret History' was.

A group of classics students at an exclusive New England college murder one of their own number when he threatens to reveal the extent to which they have revived ancient Greek rituals in modern day Vermont. This we discover on the very first page, but it is how Tartt unfolds the events that lead to this denouement, and the effects it has on the lives of the protagonists, in particular the narrator (and newcomer to the group) Richard Papen, that make this book so special. The narrative is taut, the plot gripping, the characters finely drawn and the themes eruditely fascinating, but it is the attention to detail of Tartt's prose which marks the book as something unique. Many authors have the ability to write about big themes, create memorable characters and think up exciting plots, but only a handful are able to render their novels in such convincing detail that you truly wish they would never end. Tolstoy could do this better than anyone. Fitzgerald and Fowles are two others I can think of. Actually 'The Secret History' reminded me very much of Fowles' 'The Magus' in its references to Ancient Greece and it's themes of moral resposibility and cause and effect. The other book that it owes a debt to is Dostoyevsky's 'Crime and Punishment' (Tartt acknowledges this when Richard has the urge to confess to Bunny's father: "It was I killed the old pawnbroker woman and her sister Lizaveta with an axe and robbed them").

So nearly a decade after 'The Secret History' was first published, Tartt has finally managed to overcome her writer's block and has given us 'The Little Friend'. I haven't read any reviews and don't know many people who have read the book. I'm not sure if I will either. Despite myself, I fear that I may, subconsciously, expect too much. That Tartt is a writer of genius I have no doubt whatsoever. Whether she can ever write another book as good as her first I very much doubt. I think I'll quit while I'm ahead.

Rating:
Summary: Disappointing...
Review: I kept waiting for this book to get better. Though it is easy-to-read, it never did get better, not in all the 524 pages. I spent a majority of the book waiting to find out why the murder happened. And then the reason, when we finally got to it, was unbelievable. I get tired of authors trying to get us to sympathize with immoral behavior. And to expect us to believe that out of a group of such educated kids no one would do "the right thing" is tiresome. These were college kids who got sauced and pilled up hoping for some fantastic experience and then killed someone. Studying the Classics certainly didn't enhance their moral reasoning. There were interesting tidbits (disconnection from families, sibling incestual relationahips) which could have been explored to help us understand the characters more, but I guess she just couldn't find the space in this tome. When I finished this book, my last reaction was "Huh? That's it? Well, I'm glad this is over."

Rating:
Summary: A Review from the other side...
Review: Ms. Tartt presents an interesting tale that deals (sigh) with complexities of the human mind. Enter the Misfit, thrown into a New World. Enter the mysterious group of Greek Students,who, along with their professor form a group untouchable (both socially and intellecually, surprise surprise) by the student body and administration. Enter reference after refence to obscure (to the regular reader) literary works and/or authors, add a murder (ta da!) and then sit back and let it all play out.

The only problem is, nothing really happens. All the characters are static, predictable, and ultimately, boring. In fact, by the end of the novel you probably won't care what happens to any of them, causing the final pages to read with an extreme amount of anti-climax. At the end, people live and people die, but who cares? The story doesn't. In fact, the only thing the story seems to emphasize is dullness, gray, sadness, hopelessness, blah blah blah ad nauseum.
Granted, this book is not a complete waste. In fact, most likely it will take the reader quite a few pages to finally grow weary of what amounts to reading the same chapter over and over. In other words, you'll get about 1/3 of a good book, and the rest, while really trying very hard to be unique, just falls back into the same tired cliches about young people.
Unfortunately, there was no secret in this history, in fact, there's just wasn't much of anything at all.

Rating:
Summary: Not at all what I was expecting
Review: I was not as happy with this book as I originally thought I would be... I had a great appreciation for the time that went into writing the book and the little details about the Greek language (I too labored in Greek college courses--but no bacchanals for me!) I had a hard time figuring out what time this book took place in--one minute it sounded like the 60s, then maybe the 70s? I finally just thought it might be the 80s. It was just a little disorienting... Other than that slightly irksome feature, I did enjoy the book. The characters were unlikable, but they were supposed to be... I think!

Rating:
Summary: murder and betrayal at a quiet New England college
Review: The first sentence of this book tells you Bunny is dead. Like a Greek tragedy, the reader then concentrates on who Bunny is, why he is dead, and the circumstances that led to his death.

The protagonist is Richard Papen, who wanted to escape his proletarian roots in Plano, California by attending Hampden Colleeg in Vermont. More than that, he wanted to study Greek, but Julian, the professor only allowed a handful of select students to study Greek as well as all their other subjects with only him. Richard is intrigued by these five students --- Bunny, Henry, Francis, and the twins Charles and Camilla -- and is determined to join their group.

Once he has enetered this group (all rich and privileged, unlike himself), he realizes they hide a secret among them. Although not directly involved with that secret, Richard helps his new brethren in concealing it from the authorities. In order to properly do that, Bunny must die.

This book is at once mesmerizing in its well-written prose and unique developed characters. Bunny is particularly colorful, and as he is introduced to the reader, you feel aggravation towards him but still remorse that he will die (or, more accurately, be murdered). The plot is horrifying and unfortunately realistic. One's closest friends can very well decide to turn on you and, indeed, dispose of you. It is chilling!

Rating:
Summary: A must read!!!
Review: This book is so descriptive it makes you feel as though you're sharing the experiences. Every page, infact every word that you read makes you want to read on. It isn't you're typical murder mystery - it's well, worth reading!

Rating:
Summary: Greek tragedy at a New England college
Review: Donna Tartt's first novel, "The Secret History," is an ambitious and well-written work that functions as a psychological thriller, college satire and Greek tragedy. We learn on page one that the central characters have committed a murder, but the intrigue is finding out why. What happened to lead up to the murder of the supposed friend, Bunny Corcoran? What happened to the characters after the murder?
The narrator, Richard Papen, moves from California and tries to recreate himself at a liberal arts college in Vermont. He eventually breaks into the tight circle of a group of elitist Greek scholars and their instructor, Julian Morrow. There is a good deal of character study and observation as Richard interacts with the group, both as a unit and individuals. There is Henry, the leader and self-styled intellectual. Francis is the frail hypochondriac and barely closeted homosexual. Fraternal twins, Charles and Camilla, are the fair-haired amongst the dark. Charles is prone to excessive drinking, while Camilla masks her emotions with a frosty exterior. Finally, there is Bunny, the obnoxious nouveau riche sponge who bleeds the others until they resort to murder.
The murder of Bunny is only the center of the story. The spiraling descent of Richard, Henry, Francis, Charles and Camilla is what makes the story interesting.
These are not people I would have liked in college, wearing suits all the time, and moving about in their exclusive, arrogant, and pseudo-intellectual manner, but Tartt does present them as humans with good qualities and flaws. There is a certain Sophoclean irony in the way their lives turn out, and how some of the peripheral characters, like Cloke Rayburn and Judy Poovey, actually succeed after college.
The language is beautiful throughout, with excellent atmosphere in describing the college as the seasons change, and the small insights of the various cliques at the school. While one is following the plot of Richard and his group, there is also a sense that life is going on around them. Life is in the details, and this book comes alive as one reads and is drawn into "The Secret History."

Rating:
Summary: Bit pompous
Review: A friend who usually makes excellent referrals suggested this book to me. I found that while the writer was able to create some suspense and had a good plot, the writing was stuffy and pompous. The characters were all unrealistic and one-dimensional -- they were very sterotypical "wealthy elitists" with no depth of character or intrigue. References to culture were confusing, often leading one to believe that the story was set in the late 60's, then refering to CDs. After a while, the story seemed to ramble on, going nowhere for far too long. At the end, I was left with a feeling of "Oh, what was the fuss about?"