Rating: 
Summary: More evidence that critics don't read the books they review
Review: This is simply a terrible novel. I've read and enjoyed The Secret History for what it is (I could hardly call it a literary masterpiece, but it was an engaging "whydunit"). And I looked forward to this new book after so many years. I had no preconceived notions about the book, and couldn't have cared less whether it in any way resembled The Secret History.That said, the book is dreadful. It opens with a promising premise but then slows down. Nothing happens. Nothing at all. For about 100 pages this didn't bother me very much. I told friends: "Well, nothing much is happening but I'm still enjoying it. It's mostly well-written, has relatively engaging characters, and I like the atmosphere Tartt is creating." After 300-400 more pages of the same, I was far less generous. It took effort to open the book and continue reading. I found excuses to do anything BUT read the book. The writing was clean and sometimes quite vivid, but it was also a little too fussy, too consciously and obviously labored over (especially all the parenthetical descriptors). I have the same criticism of Michael Chabon. The writing attempts to be virtuouso, but also comes across that way to the reader--which means it fails to reach its goal. If it were truly virtuouso writing I never would have noticed the attempt. So the book went on and on, but I kept telling myself, "Something will happen. It's not a thriller, after all, it's more low-key than that." But I was only rationalizing, unable to believe that the book was, indeed, truly awful. As the remaining pages dwindled, I got the sinking feeling that the ending was going to be thrown together and sloppy. If only I'd been that lucky! Instead, there is no ending. It just stops. I, too (like some other readers who've posted here) checked to make sure pages weren't missing. If Tartt was a capable novelist (as opposed to a composer of sentences) she'd have known that you can't drag a reader through 500+ pages of writing and then leave them flat. I don't give a hoot what point she was trying to make (i.e., Life is unresolved, not everything in life can be tied neatly together in the end with a nice little bow, etc.). It's just inexcusible for a novelist to pull a stunt like this, especially with a novel like this one. Had the book been marketed as an experimental/highly "literary" exercise, as opposed to an actual story, then I maybe could have excused the ending. Hell, I'd even have forgiven the ending if *anything* had been resolved. I don't mind (and often even enjoy) ambiguous conclusions to novels and movies. But this atrocity shows just how unskilled Tartt actually is as a story teller. And most galling is the fact that it's not even like she simply feels above action/violence/melodrama--that her artistic/moody/literary/serious novel couldn't *possibly* stoop to such pedestrian tactics. In fact, she writes several extended scene with gunshots, blood, hair-pulling and all sorts of "action" so it's not that she doesn't recognize the need, in a novel like this, to have something *happen*. She might also be interested to learn that in order for something--anything--to happen she need not resort to gunplay and drownings. Readers don't need chase scenes and stuff life that--we just need tension, climax, resolution. The whole novel could have been resolved inside Harriet's head and might still have been satisfying. I won't go on, but suffice it to say this novel was simply rotten. It can hardly be rightfully called a novel. It sprawls everywhere, with varying degrees of effectiveness, and results in nothing. It should perhaps have been 2 or 3 unrelated short stories/novellas about Southern life in the 70s. Or maybe a 250-page novel with *something* being resolved in the end. Or at least tell us more effectively why things *aren't* being resolved. Again, this book stinks.
Rating: 
Summary: just right
Review: Awesome thriller are the two words that come to mind
after finishing this one. I haven't ventured in
reading "the secret history' but this one blew me off.
Why? The storyline was A-mazing. Deep in Southern
America on Mother's day - one fine evening a nine-year
old's body is founf hanging from a tree right in his
own backyard, tearing the family apart and
dsyfunctional. Cut to: Twelve years after the gruesome murder the
child's youngest sister Harriet wants to know who
committed the murder and avenge it. Setting out with
her inhibitions and a best friend Hely, they will go
to the very edge to know the truth and undo the
wrong.During the entire book I was taken aback by the
sheer simplicity of writing. Ms. Tartt knows the art
of juxtaposing ideas - she knows where lines are to be
drawn so that the book does not get boring. I must
mention I was put off by the ending - too expected and
nothing like out-of-the-blue scenario but yet this one
is a literary page turner!!
Rating:
Summary: The Little Friend
Review: I called in sick to work to finish The Secret History, that's how good it was...when this book came out I bought the hardback right off the shelf and...Well, I'll just say this...this was one of the WORST books I have ever read. Horrible and oh so boring. If you're thinking about getting this book my advice is just to run the other way or at the very least get it from the library. God, it was terrible.
Rating: 
Summary: Library Journal Best Book of 2002 ???
Review: How many reviewers do you think were influenced by the success - and excellence - of Tartt's first novel? If the public was smart enough to pick out her first novel - and be right - might they not be correct about this one as well? The first dozen of so pages were great, but the author just got too enchanted with her own word processor.
Rating:
Summary: Editing?
Review: I never read the Secret History, but was eager to read the Little Friend after all the publicity about the author. I am 200 pages into the book and am having a hard time getting through it. While the writing in places is eloquent, I can't help but feel the book could have used a good editor. I'm not of the MTV generation with a short attention span and like to read long books that hold my interest. The Little Friend seems to have too much extraneous material. It's a little like watching paint dry, waiting for something to happen.
Rating:
Summary: A guarateed cure for insomnia
Review: In nearly 40 years of reading, I can count on two hands the number of books I have NOT finished. I can now add "The Little Friend" to that not so illustrious list. And why you may ask... simple, I could not stay awake while attempting to slog through this incredible bore of a book. Overwrought, overhyped and worst of all, overwritten, this novel gives new meaning to the word tedious. With so many excellent books out there waiting to be read, do not waste one moment of your time on this fiasco.
Rating:
Summary: The Little Bore
Review: What a disappointment! Too long and embellished. Where was her editor? Several little mysteries were contained in this book - none of which was answered. Don't waste your time.
Rating:
Summary: An Organized Trashing??? Hardly
Review: Dear Lovers of this book: Yes, we who are disppointed DO Get IT.It's a Southern thing. It's about loss of innocence and race and class and laconic summers in small town Mississippi,we just don't think Miss Tartt GOT IT. It's not the writing, it's the storyline which, contrary to rumors in certain graduate English departments, is pretty damned important to a novel.
As for me, I am not part of any organized movement,just pissed off. I bought two copies of this book and gave one to someone else and then had to apologize for it. And it was my Mother, who took a degree in literature before most people writing reviews here were even born!
'Nuff Said.
Rating:
Summary: Add me to the I-Gave-Up list...
Review: Southern Gothic fiction is ordinarily my favorite, and I really wanted to like this book. However, after 150 pages of ABSOLUTELY NOTHING happening, and all the reviews I've read that say nothing ever does happen, I'm giving up on it. Call me one of the masses that don't understand great literature, but I just don't have the attention span or patience (same as with Faulkner... I tried and just couldn't stay with it.) I may pick it back up later and give it another try, as the language and characterizations are wonderful (the aunts all remind me a lot of my own family.) But I have a stack of other books begging to be read, and life is too short!
Rating: 
Summary: Just couldn't make it through...
Review: I tried, oh, how I tried to get through this book. But when reading becomes more work than pleasure I feel it's time to throw in the towel. I was a big fan of Tartt's "The Secret History," so I was really looking forward to a strong follow-up novel. In many ways, this IS a strong novel--Tartt gets very deep into each character and there is not a detail she glosses over--perhaps those are two of the reasons I found this such a tedious read. It starts off promising--dark, descriptive and full of mystery, but it seems that the mystery will take forever to unravel, and I just got so bogged down in the details I didn't care anymore. Maybe I'm just a dilettante, but I felt like there was WAY too much information in this novel, and rather than enhance the plot, it weighed it down and prevented me from making it to the book's end.
| 
