the secret history: a dark academia wet dream

does such a thing as 'the fatal flaw,' that showy dark crack running down the middle of a life, exist outside literature? i used to think it didn't. now i think it does. and i think that mine is this:

there is a lot of rambling in this one lol, so if you read any part of this probably skip to the end for the “the tragedy of it all” section.

---

even approaching writing this piece was a struggle because the secret history by donna tartt is such a behemoth of a book. it is 600 pages of poetic writing, character work, murder, homosexuality, and an astounding lack of plot points.

the novel depicts the fall from grace of a certain 6 college students studying greek, narrated by the late-comer to the group: richard papen. these students live luscious, rich, lives, coming from upper-class backgrounds furnished with the best goods money could buy - except for richard. richard grew up in a small town in california, heir to the great fortune that is his father’s gas station.

what is it about?

at its heart, i think this book is a satirization of the rich. though henry, francis, the macauley’s, and bunny (kind of) all possess unimaginable wealth, this does not deter their downfall; one may even argue that this is the cause of their undoing. the inherent pretentiousness that comes with their status makes the characters of the secret history disconnected from the real world, in the belief that they are a class unto their own, better than everyone else. henry, even more so than the others, lives in a state of isolation (he didn’t even know the moon landing had occurred?). his life is dictated by a disparate code of ethics, that of his ancient studies. henry’s obsession with the classics is an escapist habit that leaves him vulnerable not only to manipulation by julian, but by the texts themselves. his obsession with the ritual stops for nothing, and when he finally decides he must end his own life, to wash away blood with blood, as he did with the pig sacrifice, he does so with no hesitation.

although it is an overt romanticization, the secret history is still a satire and critique to an extent. it highlights the dangers of pack mentality and conformity, while also obviously making fun of the pretentious academic. and yet, the romanticization is highly successful. every reader of this novel has been swept away by the exclusivity, the darkness, the intellect, and the friendship. the autumn air, the hot drinks and alcohol, and the weekends away at francis’s. we all had at least one moment in which we wished, even knowing the direction in which the story was going, to be part of this group. their allure is unmistakable in the book, as the reader experiences it through richard’s eyes at the start.

this leads me to the next important note about the book: richard’s eyes - his perspective. richard is literally #1 wanted in the nation for unRELIABLE NARRATION. there are two facets to this. one! richard doesn’t have any fuckin idea what is going on ever! everything he discovers, and by virtue of that, the reader discovers, is after-the-fact, secondhand information and much of it is inaccurate and incomplete. richard’s removal from the actual plot of the book leaves the reader with a third-hand understanding of the transpiring events. it’s hard to know what actually happened, as not only was richard not highly involved in the story, but the information that is revealed to him by the other characters could also be faulty. secondly, we know that richard is a big ass liar. one of the first things we learn about him is that he is a great liar. the reader can truly never be sure that the information richard presents is true! super trippy. i sort of don’t understand why this choice was made because it makes it really difficult to connect with the novel. i often found myself wanting to know more and more about what actually happened the night of the farmer’s murder, on the trip to italy, and in the interactions between the twins, and henry, and we just don’t get much of this.

the characters

i just have to devote an entire section to discussing these characters because the way that donna tartt frames and characterizes everyone in the book is so masterful. she managed to pull together a group without any of them being too trope-y and archetypal, and every single character is compelling.

we have to start with henry winter. henry starts as this domineering, intimidatingly tall and smart, standoffish guy who everyone has a crush on (everyone in the friend group, richard of course, and i’m sure many of the readers). throughout the book he is revealed to be a caring friend, showing up for richard and camilla, and supporting everyone else financially. finally, his seemingly true nature is revealed, and henry turns out to be a sociopath, willing to dispose of anything and anyone in the way of his ideals. he is the force that ties the group together, all of them drawn to him, and even when he begins to plot the literal murder of bunny, they defer to him for everything and stand by him to the bitter end. henry has a quality to him that draws people in, that entices people, and causes them to abandon their better sensibilities. henry winter is a sort of siren.

next up is francis abernathy. now i knowwww that many people who read the book fell absolutely in love with francis, but let’s all acknowledge that he doesn’t really do much. except for the paradigm-shifting hookup with richard (which is soon to be discussed, don’t you worry), francis plays a moderate role in the story. to some extent, he is the most reasonable member of the group, and the kindest to richard, but he still plays along with the murders.

there isn’t much to be said about richard, because we actually know sparingly little about him. he grew up poor, has a sour relationship with his parents, and has led a mostly directionless life. one thing we can glean about him is that richard is apparently smoking hot because so many people try to sleep with him. so that’s that. probably the most important thing we know about him, and one of my favorite lines from the book, is that he has “a morbid longing for the picturesque at all costs,” which is like, so real.

then there are the twins. clad in white, and projecting austere vibes, the macauleys are two of the most intriguing characters in the story. charles goes from a nice, fun, and good friend, to incestuous?? alcoholic?? abusive?? charles outwardly displays the inward deterioration that all five of the characters undergo. he is also just super scary. what he does to camilla, and the way he acts toward henry… just leaves you with a bitter taste in your mouth and an uncomfortable feeling in your stomach as you read.

the most elusive character in the novel is camilla, and we know even less about her than we do about richard. she is the only girl in the boys club, and is the object of affection of not one but three of them (charles included…), and the object of torment for two (again, charles included…). it is revealed at the end that camilla and henry were lovers, though richard pined after her. the name camilla means “helper to the priest”, which makes sense given camilla’s right-hand position to henry in his sacrifices, as she was the one who went down to check on bunny’s body with him.

lastly, there is bunny corcoran. the first to befriend richard, the first to dislike him. the character who at first seems so friendly, and turns out to be such a bitter, greedy, bigoted, and asinine man. though we know that killing him is not the answer, donna tartt expertly brings to life the perspectives of his murderers, making us sympathize with henry and co. more than we probably should. and yet, when the letter bunny wrote julian comes to light, we again feel for him in his crazed delusions of persecution: he was right. though he is the ‘worst’ of the group, spewing vitriol and attacking people, he is morally the most upstanding; though he doesn’t turn them in for the murder of the farmer he is clearly more upset by it than any of the others.

i would be remiss not to mention the force behind the story, the presence pushing our characters to do what they did: professor julian morrow. julian was just such a wierd character. he was a well-off professor who donated his salary back to the college, and in exchange was allowed free educational reign. he handpicked a selection of wealthy, attractive students so that he could…? what? teach them? groom them? julian is enigmatic in that we are never really sure why he does what he does. for a while, i believed he was in on henry’s entire plot, until the letter scene where he finds out they killed bunny. his reaction to the discovery (fleeing and never being seen again) was shocking to me, as i always believed julian would be someone who thought like henry, and would excuse the sort of ‘necessary sacrifice’ the group had to make in killing bunny. the most uncomfortable aspect of julian’s character is his close relationship with the students, especially henry. henry says that he loves julian “more than anyone in the world”, and is the only of the six who had ever been to julian’s home. considering the greek view of relationships between older men and younger boys, a romantic involvement would not be shocking.

gay!

i gotta say, the secret history was soo gay. there were many instances of homoeroticism and even overt stuff. most obviously, there is the fact that francis is gay, and hooks up with richard, the latter of which insists that he doesn’t like men. then there is the fact that richard is clearly also in love with henry, which he acknowledges at the end of the book when he says to camilla: “i loved him too”. then there is the matter of bunny’s homophobia, which to me seemed a little sus. i mean he ranted about gay men all the time, and it was starting to sound like he was covering some of his own… inclinations... lastly there is richard’s weird obsession with describing camilla as “boyish” and “masculine”. ok wishful thinking!

the tragedy of it all

on a more serious note, the secret history was a true tragedy. what began as educational pursuit ended in a two murders and a suicide, with the remaining living characters miserable. it is a true greek tragedy in the sense that when the ancient greeks went to watch plays, they already knew the endings, as all plays were retellings of well-known myths. the real question of the story is how the characters arrive at their tragic fate. we start out the book knowing already that bunny will end up dead, killed by his closest friends; from the chilling and iconic lines - “the snow in the mountains was melting and bunny had been dead for several weeks before we came to understand the gravity of our situation.” now the rest of the book is spent discovering just how they arrive at this point, what drove them to do what they did.

i have seen an idea circling that suggests that maybe henry, francis, and the twins did not actually kill the farmer, and it was a wild animal that they encountered. this theory is compelling, as it attempts to make the story seem as though it was all for naught, as though there was no point to the group’s decay. i think the truth is to the contrary. it does not matter whether or not they killed the farmer or found him dead already, because they wanted to have killed him (and anyway they didn’t care that they killed him. except for camilla’s brief grieving episode it didn’t seem to bother anyone much at all). the goal of the bacchanal was to lose control and become wild. if they did not kill this farmer they would have done something else, if it wasn’t that night it would have been some other evening, and some other tragedy; because the entire group suffered from the same ailment that richard did: a horrible yearning for the dramatic. their classical education imbued them with an obsession, with the desire to be embroiled in a conspiracy, in a carnal tale, and they got exactly what they wanted.

many readers find they dislike the epilogue, and i think that that is the point. the epilogue wrenches you out of the story, out of the aesthetic and romance of the tale, and shows you that it is not an episode that ends in drama, but in misery for everyone involved. it is a lesson: do not be fooled by the story told here, as the characters are fooled by it - know better, and don't romanticize and idealize what happened, because at the end of the day both the living and the dead end up unhappy; chased by oresteian furies for the rest of their days.

another common qualm held by readers is that the book drags on for too long. in my opinion, this is one of its strengths. not only does a higher page count means we get to read more of donna tartt’s beautiful writing, but it also serves to further entrench the reader in the story. the grueling winter months, the extensive funeral section, and all the other parts of the book that drag on embroil the reader in the plot leaving us experiencing the same slow despondency richard does.

~~~

what consequences do reprehensible actions have on a person? What happens when you aestheticize the tragedy and romanticize the violence? what does that do to your psyche? and to your conscience? as richard puts it:

I suppose at one time in my life I might have had any number of stories, but now there is no other. This is the only story I will ever be able to tell.

it sticks with you. it clings to your soul forever. A moi. L’histoire d’une de mes folies.