I debated ending my review series with this book, the grandmama of the sub-genre, but I decided it is time to tackle this one next.
First published in 1992, The Secret History seems to be the genesis of these types of stories. We have a prestigious university, a group of very intellectual students who are too smart for their own good who form an elite clique, an instructor who encourages them in their pretentiousness and overall bad behavior, a narrator with questionable reliability who has a coming of age story mixed in with the rest of the plot, and we have a murder known from page one.
There is a LOT going on in this book; it is quite long and dense, which is Donna Tartt’s signature writing style. Her book The Goldfinch is one of the best books I have ever read. I felt like I lived in that book, and it holds a very special place in my heart. However, I did not feel that same love for The Secret History, which has a massive cult-like following of people who think it is perfection.
I really wanted to like this book more than I did. At times the writing is very evocative and you have a looming sense of horror even though you know on the first page who is murdered and who does it. You know there must be more to the story so you keep reading. At times, there IS more and Tartt makes it worth your while. But too often she goes on and on and on describing things that have little to no bearing on the story and then gives meatier parts of the story only the barest glance. It was frustrating. And, I should note that she is overly descriptive in The Goldfinch also, but I never felt a word was unnecessary or wasted. Her style, for me, didn’t work as well in The Secret History.
There’s a whole Classics/Dionysus/Greek/superiority thing going on and her words have meaning. The clique studies the Classics (which, ultimately, is what gets them into trouble) and I have thought many times that perhaps reading more about this subject could enhance a reading of The Secret History. I don’t reread books much these days, but this is one that might be worth a second read with some research done first.
By 3/4 of the way through the book you know that all of the characters are horrible people with no redeeming qualities. This is fairly common to the sub-genre. However, I found that their “superior living” and thinking came across as off putting and annoying, whereas in other books in the sub-genre, the appeal of the clique or society is much more apparent. I find myself responding more to books where you find yourself, inexplicably at times, wanting to be part of the elite group or secret society, even knowing what you know about the dark side of them. I never found myself wanting to be part of the clique in The Secret History.
Finally, I found the “timeless” feel of the book appealing and at other times confusing. For quite awhile I couldn’t even figure out what decade it was supposed to be set in. Finally I figured out it was the late 80’s. I think? The murky time period contributes to the overall hazy and slow feel of the book. If you like a fast pace, this is not for you.
Given the many positive reviews posted on Goodreads, I would strongly suggest reading this book, despite my review being lukewarm. When you see comments such as “I don’t even know what to say” “I can’t stop thinking about this book” “dangerously beautiful” “I’ve read it over and over” “why did I wait so long to read this” and so on, you know it’s a book that speaks to many people. Plus, as far as I know it has spawned an entire sub-genre of novels. Pretty impressive feat.
Bookgirl Reviews and Recommendations 