The Secret History by Donna Tartt

Absolutely one of my favorite books…I give it as a gift frequently

Did you just learn to read?

That book has been out for almost 30 years.

I've recommended it to many, R1, you have impeccable taste. She is a fine writer and I love the ending, the last scene always gives me chills. Henry is one of my favourite characters.

Weird, I just picked this up (after sorta hearing about it for decades) after reading a New Yorker article about the professor at Bennington, Claude Fredericks, that the professor in The Secret History was based on.

Tartt went to Bennington and was Frederick's student. Frederick wrote a journal all his life that was to be "his great work of art"... apparently 75,000 pages. Although he had an interesting life (he was James Merrill's first lover) apparently the journal is pretty boring.

I am just 50 pages into The Secret History... ok, but not in love with it yet.

I also read that Tartt hated the movie made of The Goldfinch (written 15 years after The Secret History) to the point she fired her agent for letting it happen and is pretty reticent about letting The Secret History become a film.

R2, so have many classics, and your point would be? Does one stop discussing them based on the length of their existence? Perhaps a novelty shop would suit you better than this thread.

The Goldfinch SUCKED MY GRANDMA'S MONKEY BALLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! However, if this one is good I may read it just to confirm that I am allergic to Donna's Tarts.

R5 Yes,,,, R2's comment is like the old..."oh that, I liked their first album better... Sniff sniff."

Those kids were annoying. Nobody talks like that. Lost interest after the first 20 pages. FAIL.

After years of hype I finally read it. Except for bringing back memories of going to a LAC in the 1980s, it was just ok. A mystery novel of sorts with characters specific to a certain culture. She creates atmosphere. But overall the plot was kinda overwrought. Better than average but I failed to see why it’s hailed as best book ever by so many for so long. I think any Franzen book looks like a masterpiece compared to this. More like a good pop novel.

R4 that is quite juicy information, Julian was an enigmatic but oh so interesting character. It's a shame that the Goldfinch film has made her gun shy.

R6 So you acknowledge your simian genetics...

I love this book. Just like "A Confederacy of Dunces", I think it would be a very difficult book to turn into a movie, since so much would hinge on the casting decisions (and for some characters would be *very* difficult to find the right actors/actresses), you have to nail the zeitgeist, the art direction has to be able to fully reflect the atmosphere of the novel, etc.

I disliked it. Tartt is too impressed by her own characters and it leads into lazy estimation of how the reader perceives them. If an author has to keep telling you how brilliant or pretty or tortured or whatever it is someone is supposed to be, then they're not doing their job very well.

And as she gives her own narrator character short shrift (he's colorless), the other characters are reprehensible and fairly one-note, and Tartt tunes out anything to do with the campus beyond this one tightly circumscribed circle, there is nothing to root for and nothing at stake.

It's like The Green Hat minus the undertones of fascism or The Sorrows of Young Werther if nobody died.

R12 Some of the scenes she wrote were so vivid, I won't reveal spoilers since one person is still reading it. Francis brought to life would be tremendous. I have a hard time visualizing anyone playing Richard for some reason. The twins wouldn't be too hard to cast, tons of pretty blonde actors in Hollyweird. Her description of Henry doesn't bring any one male actor to mind. I see Derek Jacobi as Julian although he's too old now for the role.

I know the real-life Bunny. He lives in LA, married to a big Hollywood producer and is a stay-at-home dad. Kind of a twat (quel surprise).

The Goldfinch was a Dickensian novel. The move destroyed that structure to try and make it a mystery.

It didn't work...

S P O I L E R S

It was excellent until the murder, and then the book just drags until it finally hits the last couple of chapters. The funeral scene, for instance, goes on for fucking ever. The problem with that last third is that Richard is our only perspective on what's happening, and the most interesting stuff about the murder investigation Richard doesn't witness.

I think it would make an excellent limited series on HBO or Netflix. You'd have a third-person perspective on the investigation, and that would liven up that draggy third.

END SPOILERS

If they wanted to liven up the Julian character, age up Hiddleston a bit and let him play Julian as a vigorous man in his 50s. Hiddleston is a Classics major who literally speaks fluent Latin and Greek.

R17, Hiddleston is perfect. He's erudite enough to pull it off and has the lovely speaking voice. Julian I always thought was in his sixties but I could never tease out his age precisely. I don't think Tartt ever states exactly how old he is. The stuff at the Corcoran's house does drag on a bit. I would also love to see who they would cast as Cloke and Judy. You may be quite right it would work better as a series.

Julian is supposed to be in his late 50s or 60s. Towards the end of the book, Richard mentions reading about the well-connected Julian being acquainted with Orwell and mentioned in Orwell's letters. Orwell died in1950, and the book is set more than thirty years after that, so Julian would have to be at least mid-50s. His age isn't really a major thing, though, except that he has to be old enough to be a distinguished classics professor and a mentor to the college-aged characters. Give Hiddleston a beard and some grey in his hair, and he'd work fine.

The Goldfinch movie was bad, starring whatsisname.

I was thoroughly entertained by The Secret History and have read it more than once but anyone who thinks it's anything other than high-grade middlebrow fare is kidding themselves. She's a better writer than GRRM (not difficult) but ultimately it's the same cultural level.

My cast list if they started filming tomorrow:

Richard: Kodi Smit-McPhee

Camilla: Maya Hawke

Charles: Joe Alwyn

Francis: Asa Butterfield

Bunny: Freddie Fox

Henry: Jacob Elordi

Julian: Tom Hiddleston

I found it entertaining even if I hated that group of pretentious annoying nerds. I cant stand the characters.

Well shit, they're not good people. I think that's what we're supposed to figure out at the end of the novel. Even Richard is sort of a terrible person, in a quiet way.

The Goldfinch didn't turn tartt off from optioning TSH into a movie. She did option it but a movie was never made and the rights reverted to her.

I agree with earlier post about tartt's dialogues. Young people don't speak like that. Tartt is a fan of classic Hollywood movies and she thinks all the cool kids speak like Hepburn and Grant.

Her books are greatly flawed but I still find them engrossing enough and she writes very well. There have been other threads about this book and one of them was ongoing as I was listening to the book. I remembering posting I loved how she in the most low key way revealed a character was gay.

Tip, don't listen to the audio book. Tartt reads it and it's a prime example of why you leave audio books to the pros. Her voicing of bunny nearly ended the book for me. I credit the book for being engaging enough to withstand tartt's misguided attempt at audio book reading.

Spoiler

R15, you're a liar , we all know bunny died in college.

R24 By the end? I am 50 pages in and I know they are all horrid people.

It would be great if they went ahead and set it in the early 80s. You could have a rocking New Wave soundtrack and vintage clothes. Also, the plot only works if people don't have cell phones and social media.

I so enjoyed reading this, and I wasn't really expecting to at the time. I've been hopelessly hooked on the Tartt ever since.

The point isn't whether they are horrid people. The Great Gatsby was full of horrid people. The Return of the Native was wall-to-wall horrid people. Find me a single non-horrid person in The Time of Indifference.

The point is whether they are interesting and believable.

The horrid people in The Secret History are neither.

R16 An interesting and most erudite take on [italic] The Goldfinch [/italic] there. I quite agree, now that you mention it.

Well, if you like that sort of thing...

R31 "Horrid" was a response to R24 saying "by the end you know they are not good people"

Your erudite listing of "all novels have horrid creatures, the question is are they interesting" actually sounds like dialog from The Secret History. That's not necessarily a good thing.

I think they're horrible people and very interesting, but your mileage may vary.

Julian is the most horrible, probably. And weirdly, the intimidating Henry is the one with the most clearly developed sense of morals, though it doesn't become clear until the end.

R21 Fair enough, I'd place it a few rungs up, but props for admitting you enjoyed it. Everything we read doesn't need to be so very highbrow, now does it?

R32, I did not say that all novels have horrid creatures. Just that those that do benefit by their being interesting and (within the context of the novel) believable - by which I mean both consistent and rooted in the context the author has created.

Tartt's characters are throwbacks to a fantasy of WASP culture that was long-gone by the time Miss Tartt finished her orientation week.

They remind me of the characters in Metropolitan, which is set around the same time. The overly articulate and whimsical dialogue, worship of the preppie, etc. These days, that sort of thing is Wes Anderson's bailiwick.

I wonder if he could direct The Secret History film or series? Could he portray the darkness? My director of choice for it would have been the late, lamented Anthony Minghella.

R36, I love Metropolitan, but it was already a visual update of a script set originally in the 1960s, IIRC. Also, it was easier to accept the characters in Metropolitan as satirical because they were also presented in some way as helpless; their anachronistic qualities were their armor.

Lifelong fan of Chris Eigemann BTW. Last Days of Disco, Kicking and Screaming - very good-looking guy as well.

No it certainly doesn't R34 (although i suppose this is a personal call so for me, no, it doesn't). I watched Game of Thrones and enjoyed almost every second of the first 4.5 seasons, but I'm under no illusions as to Game of Thrones being highbrow. Even middlebrow is a push.

R36 I was going to bring up Whit Stillman as a possible director. Or maybe the combination of that book and that director wouldn't work? Are Tartt and Stillman too similar in sensibility?

It's been over a decade since I read The Secret History and the one scene I remember very clearly is the one where Camilla cuts her foot and there is a description of the blood swirling in the water. I don't remember the exact words at all but that description of the cut foot is the one I most recall from the book. Another character carries her somewhere afterwards iirc?

Sometimes I wonder if lower middle class (former) kids like me are more prone to enjoy the book because we totally identify with Richard's class envy. My university experience was similar in some ways.

Sorry for the random thoughts.

Interesting ideas here. I can enjoy novels and films without any sympathy for all the "bad"or otherwise unrelatable, and completely flawed characters without any redeeming qualities. I think there's a term for that, perhaps someone shall help me out here... unsympathetic characters?

Anyhow, Works such as this can indeed succeed very well; as easily as a film or a novel with say, a false protagonist, or no antagonist can succeed. They simply are not conventional or necessarily straightforward techniques. I would this style may even be a more unconventional technique, and therefore requires a bit more skill or finesse in character description and character development.

I loved The Goldfinch, I was sobbing like a baby at the end of the book. The movie did not do it justice. It was an epic novel, spanning years. It should have been an HBO series. I hope Tartt reconsiders.

Regarding TSH, I stopped reading it after one chapter but reread it again years later. I liked it but it didn't have the impact like TG did for me.

R35 I don't really think the characters necessarily need to be believable to be enjoyed. Sometimes as a reader is being transported to a completely made up world, (which fiction is) and as we're eing introduced to their strangeness, our bewilderment of encountering such a character or personality type as we've yet to encounter in our reality can be both thrilling and quite mysterious.

For me, these characters create suspense, as I consider them as a fascinating psychological study of sorts. The more complicated, outlandish, and flawed the better IMHO.

Quite often upon further analysis, after plot resolution, they do seem somewhat unbelievable, but they make the ride rather enjoyable. If the creator goes slowly enough in revealing how complicated and flawed they are, it works; if the veil is too slowly revealed, we lose interest. (as R40 did first time delving in)

^ Meant to type if the veil is too slowly LIFTED.

R38 Glad you quite agree a bit of fluff and trash is good for the soul, and an oft welcome diversion from reality. (like G of T)

I quite agree with you as regards the class envy, but I have an interesting take on it. I suspect you were not as completely out of your element as you may have felt at the time, or perhaps not really so low as lower middle class, only because one has to be "sophisticated enough" to a certain degree to even perceive enough of these class differences in the first place; which may or may not always result in class envy. (was it truly class envy, or perhaps more accurately put, class anxiety?)

I think if you were a student who was completely lower class, or lower-middle, going to university with much more affluent people wouldn't trouble you as much, as you would simply be glad to be there, and experiencing that oppurtunity whilst remaining oblivious to the more subtle differences in class. I suspect you're probably more refined and astute than you give yourself credit for. Remember, class isn't always about how hard one's struggle was, or his lack of money.

Never apologise for random thoughts mate! They engender more random thoughts in all of us, and the more thought the better.

Oh I am all for a bit of fluff, R43.

As for university and my experiences there I think I would say at the time, in my late teens, the process of understanding what an alien world I was actually in took a couple of years. At the end of my education and now, years later, I comprehend differences and nuances I was originally clueless about.

And no, perhaps it wasn't entirely envy, but I do remember first realizing and them coming to resent, in some ways, that some people existed in very different surroundings to my own, and had never known anything different. The Secret History describes something like it with Richard perceiving the beauty (cultural but also simple physical beauty) that is new to him but not his peers. For the first time, at university, I had friends whose parents owned beautiful houses. Who themselves wore beautiful clothing, who understood and had good taste in classical music and footwear and cars. My university was itself beautiful, very similar to the campus described in TSH. It really made a difference to me to be in surroundings like that compared to the dreary suburb where I grew up. TSH really seemed to understand that aspect of it, of how just a change of scene can affect so much of how we think and feel.

Holy fuck I really didn't describe that well.

Anyway you haven't called me a stupid cunt yet so thank you.

Could Sofia Coppola direct this?

Wes Anderson if he weren’t so twee.

Soderbergh?

R44 Quite agree on a change of scenery. I've become somewhat addicted to it after living in a few different countries. What a head trip!

I wouldn't call random posters here stupid without good reason, and on the contrary, you haven't made any daft remarks. I only call mean queens out here for being cunts. (or bigots, trolls, or racists) It's never been my style. When people fall out of line however, the gloves are off as they say.

Who would play Bunny?

Brilliant article about Bennington in the 80s, including heaps about Tartt and the various people around campus who inspired the book.

I thought it was pretty contrived, but I liked the detail of the poor student scraping to get by in an academic environment that couldn't give a shit about his welfare.

DT actually transferred to Bennington from Ole Miss, where she was a student of Barry Hannah. She was also (shocker) a Kappa Kappa Gamma. She's said in interviews that the Kappas had something pukey called the "Sunshine Box," where you put little slips of paper with happy platitudes written on them. She contributed Sartre's "Hell is other people" and got chastised for it.

Miss Tartt doesn't like being edited

Any relation?

I am halfway through it. Also almost all the way through Goldfinch.

There was another thread recently about casting the movie.

R38 Interesting. Tartt herself, going to Bennington, let her friends think she was from an upper crust background in the South, even that she had a debutante ball, with servants sewing her dress. In reality she was from a working class background... her father was a plumber, I think.

The arch and anachronistic dialog of the characters... like the movie Metropolitan. I was trying to think of another NYC movie... four rich kids, upper east 80s, with their own rituals and over-erudite language, one of them the son of a super rich Wall St guy who was under legal jeopardy... the son a drunk that the other three would visit in his mansion, playing games... but the point is the kids talked unlike any kids in the 20th century. Any remember the name of that movie? It's driving me nuts and Google won't help.

Possible SPOILERS.

Richard clearly does have class envy, the entire book is kind of about that, in a strange way. He's the narrator, after all, and it's interesting the way he describes them all. His horrid family speaks for itself, but its less clear why he is drawn to them . Other than wanting to reinvent himself. I felt that Juilian was the shadow man and subtly instilled the idea of murder in their minds - the bacchanal business would certainly be an interesting scene to film. They had an orgy for Godsakes.

Richard has terrible class envy and impostor syndrome, which is why he hates Bunny so much. Bunny knows exactly what Richard is and never ceases to jab him about it.

i also loved this book. but don’t remember the details!

I’d argue you need class envy to write and to fully appreciate this book, because a lot of it is about class signifiers, which stand out most to those trying to traverse classes upwards (Richard) or the “guards” trying to prevent this, who likely are anxious about their own tenuous class position (Bunny). People comfortable with their class status aren’t as interested in these little details of, what do these types of people do, wear, eat, drink and say behind closed doors? One of the delicious aspects of the book is the small details Tartt includes that make many of us think, so THEY really act like that? How would i fit in? What would Bunny catch me out doing, and can I spot Richard doing anything wrong?

It makes sense that Tartt came to Bennington as a bit of a striver seeking to pass as the southern gentry she wasn’t, or else she may not have noticed the wonderful details that fill this book. Bret Easton Ellis is another example, not because of his social class but because his sexuality made him observant of how people passed or didn’t when they tried to fit into a certain mold.

One of my favorite books of all time. Always related a little too much to Richard Papen, and always read him as an obviously closeted homosexual.

Judy Poovey is probably the best side character. I went to a small liberal arts school among many rich (not Bennington, incidentally I got in but my parents didn't let me go because it was too "loose") and the portrayal of the culture is dead on. The line about Bunny's essay about Metahemeralism made me cry of laughter the first time I read it. In fact the entire book is very, very funny.

Tartt nails the feeling of being inexplicably included in a group you think you’re not quite good enough for, anxious that you’ll blow your chance and never be included again, or that one of them will see something wrong with you.

[quote] Did you just learn to read? That book has been out for almost 30 years.

Oh for Christ's sake, take a fucking Midol, Blanche. I'm often reading books myself that were published decades and sometimes even centuries ago.

r55, is it [italic]Kicking and Screaming[/italic]?

R63 Good tip, but no.

It was a movie of a group of four friends - three guys and a girl. One of the guys "the leader" was very rich, lived in an elegant townhome in the upper eastside... but something happened to his father and he (fragile hitler that he was) and he sequestered in the house as the other three came to "nurse him" dressed in white tie, drunken games, and one of the guys was clearly in love with him. And their arch, antiquated wit (think Oscar Wilde) was exactly like the dialog in The Secret History. i.e. no one speaks that arch and convoluted and pithy.

It's driving me nuts, can't remember the title... IMDB, RottenTomatoes, Google no help. i"ve almost decided I invented it.

It's "Those People", 2015. I finally remembered there was a stupid Gilbert and Sullivan bit in it, and that helped me Google-dig to it.

Sorry.

R60 How did you read Richard as being obviously closeted? His crush on Camilla spoke for itself in my view. He fooled around a little but am not sure that qualifies him for being closeted. Confused, perhaps.

Richard didn't seem to have any strong identity of any kind. He seemed like the type of passive person who could fall into a relationship with any partner that had a dominating personality. If Henry had wanted to fuck him, Henry could have.

He initially hero worshiped Henry, that's one of the great strengths of the book as Richard begins to see things in a different light. His passive nature was evident and his need to play follow the leader.

Were the twins in an incestuous relationship? I say yes but want to know what others think.

SPOILERS

Yes, I thought that was made explicit, R69.

If this were to be made into a movie, TPTB would demand diversity. I can see Twitter slamming the movies about pretentious white people. Making the lead protagonist a non-white would emphasize his outsider status.

Richard: Stephan James (he played the lead in Homecoming with Julia Roberts)

Camilla: Anya Taylor-Joy (R22, Maya Hawkes is not beautiful)

Charles: Jack Lowden

Francis: Ezra Miller

Bunny: Freddy Fox sounds good

Henry: Bill Skarsgard

Julian: Colin Firth

R66 It helps if you read the book, like I did, with the lens that Richard is like a modern Nick Carraway and Henry (and Francis early on, remember he was obsessed with him in the beginning) is his Gatsby. Richard is totally unreliable in his narration, evasive and outright lying at times, but little things slip through the cracks, like how he often speculates on the sexuality of EVERY man he encounters. And his crush on Camila is compounded in his narration by constantly remarking how masculine she looks/seems, how much she resembles her brother etc - very much like Jordan Baker in Gatsby, even down to the cool and detached persona.

Maya Hawke is a quirky beauty. I think she's more attractive than Anya Taylor-Joy, who is looking more and more like a praying mantis with every pound she loses.

The BEST

It’s amazing that this plumb little girl

Will grow into this angular elegant creature

as a Latin student in school when i read this is BLEW my fucking mind.

she never really topped it

Actually, it's amazing that such a pleasant, cheerful looking person would turn into a dour Ayn Rand-looking twit wearing jackets that do not fit, but I suppose it's the same thing, really, R76.

[quote]Nobody talks like that

why on earth would all characters in a book need to "talk like that" or any way? you sound like a cretin

[quote]They remind me of the characters in Metropolitan, which is set around the same time.

my impression too

Stylization in speech is fine in a novel or film - it establishes tone. But it helps if it's consistent and played for tone rather than simply as a signifier. "This one drops his 'aitches and that means he's lower class" - is lazy writing.

IMO, Tartt's characters all sound as if she'd heard them in different movies. Bunny is the worst of a bad lot, practically a "pip-pip" old-school-tie twit out of an Ealing comedy. If the narrator had somehow pointed this out it could work. But laid out at face value, it seems an affectation on the part of the author rather than the character.

[quote]Sometimes I wonder if lower middle class (former) kids like me are more prone to enjoy the book because we totally identify with Richard's class envy.

yes, I experienced that. I went to bordering school on a scholarship after a fairly dull working class upbringing. I was wowed by how "other" the strange rich kids were

The funny thing is, at least according to the podcast about Tartt’s time at Bennington, the group of kids she modeled the book on actually did speak in such an artificial, faux-sophisticated way. I’m curious whether they’ve stuck to it as adults…

R72 Very insightful take! I'm going to try rereading it from that angle and see what pops out at me. Certainly he didn't seem to mind (le SPOILERS) Francis' tongue in his mouth .

I think if a movie had been made after the boo first came out Parker Posey would have made a nice little Camilla or Judy. She's unhinged and that would suit this tale perfectly. Seeing her in the House of Yes confirmed that for me (and it contains an eerily similar theme).

Book, even.

Parker Posey would have made a great flipped-gender Richard, who seems to have been modeled on Tartt’s experience.

Agree with the comparison to Metropolitan. The artificial sentence structures in which many of the characters speak is annoying. Distracts from ever feeling like this is “real” as opposed to a “story”. SPOILER: The “bewitching” behavior form the drug is pure sci-fi and eliminates the logic or plausibility of the initial murder - making the rest of the story on which it hinges seem artificial as well.

I thought the drug ‘heist’ at the Corcoran’s house was hysterical, and the bitchy Mrs Corcoran was comedic gold [if it were ever filmed]

The Secret History should probably be read together with The Birth of Tragedy; it would make the Dionysian bit more understandable and more convincing

Parker Posey would have been a fantastic Judy Poovey.

[quote]The funny thing is, at least according to the podcast about Tartt’s time at Bennington, the group of kids she modeled the book on actually did speak in such an artificial, faux-sophisticated way.

And isn't Bennington supposed to be Poseur Central anyway?

[quote] the group of kids she modeled the book on actually did speak in such an artificial, faux-sophisticated way.

Similar affectations: Kardashian-Jenner offspring speak in vocal fry like people trying to sound sophisticated.

It has to be asked, was Donna Tartt a tart?

I decided to reread it today, I'm about a fourth of the way in and am enjoying it, though some of it feels a bit more trite than the first time I read it (thirty years ago!)

No, she was a donna, R94.

I saw Tartt on Charlie Rose ages ago. She came across as very measured, quite interesting, polite.

She seems it from her writing

Is she a lesbian? Inquiring minds want to know.

Donna has a [what used to be called] ‘Masculine Mind’: logical, rational, thorough; emotive without being sentimental

Todd Haynes would be great to direct TSH.

Too Bad

Random sample of gorgeous writing:

[quote] Charles shuffled his papers together, stood up again; Camilla stood beside him and this time she offered me her hand, too. Side by side, they were very much alike, in similarity less of lineament than of manner and bearing, a correspondence of gesture which bounced and echoed between them so that a blink seemed to reverberate, moments later, in a twitch of the other’s eyelid. Their eyes were the same color of gray, intelligent and calm. She, I thought, was very beautiful, in an unsettling, almost medieval way which would not be apparent to the casual observer.

Grace and movement:

[quote] The walls had fallen away and the room was black. Henry’s face, lit starkly by the lamp, was pale against the darkness and stray points of light winked from the rim of his spectacles, glowed in the amber depths of his whiskey glass, shone blue in his eyes.

You lot are so sophisticated. Despite knowing about the book for years, my immediate reaction to the thread title was:

Don-na Tartt do-do-do-do-ta-do

Don-na Tartt do-do-do-do-ta-do

R105 Is this sung to the tune of Baby Shark?

Yes.

R107 So, she vicious and blood thirsty? Or litigious?

she seems mean

I like the stilted style

I’m Enjoying it

[quote] She, I thought, was very beautiful, in an unsettling, almost medieval way

This is why Maya Hawkes would be miscast as Camilla.

Anya Taylor-Joy or Elle Fanning

[quote] She, I thought, was very beautiful, in an unsettling, almost medieval way which would not be apparent to the casual observer.

But the end of that sentence is why Anya Taylor-Joy doesn’t make sense. You need someone more like Dakota Fanning than Elle.

Some years ago, Gwennie Paltrow bought the rights. They started developing it. Gwennie wanted to play Camilla.

Then Bruce died & the project went on permanent hiatus.

Bruce?

Kenny never wanted to use it

A medieval beauty? Me, per chance?

Androgynous

Don't feel bad, R105. I was singing the exact same thing in my head.

[quote] Did you just learn to read?

[quote]That book has been out for almost 30 years.

Hmm, a somewhat flawed inference, I must say.

Because, for example, OP could be a Gen-Z baby - born after 2000! - and he’s just discovering the delights of fin-de-siècle literature.

As long as one can’t rule out such possibilities *completely*, it would be wiser not to jump to such possibly fallacious conclusions

Soylent Green - another Sci-Fi movie with an iconic scene of Charlton Heston's overacting.

Oops! Wrong thread, sorry.

No. It was a great book & i doubt would make a good movie: even the lsd murder was wonky in the book Her writing pulled it through. Then it’s really just people that end up empty. How dull. The person that cast the movie above needs to get a life.

[quote] You need someone more like Dakota Fanning than Elle.

Nope. The audience has to be convinced why Richard finds Camila so compelling and alluring. Dakota is plain and has bad posture. Elle is regal and beautiful. I don't know what a medieval beauty means but it doesn't have to be taken literally when you're making a movie.

Dakota is an attractive blonde.

Was the Soylent Green a crucial plot point in the novel?

Not at all

Camilla has to have a striking, patrician beauty: she needs to be not just pretty but also intelligent and slightly intimidating. I agree Elle Fanning would be a good choice.

Here is what I think she means by medieval beauty. Young Tilda would have been perfect. Elle is too cheerleader-like.

It's not about translating directly what the author said. It's about choosing someone who fits the idea of what the audience thinks a smart, self-possessed beauty would look like. Tilda Swinton looks like an alien and, young or old, would not be anyone's idea of a beauty.

R128, one of my favorite paintings in the National Gallery.

Lil Reinhart definitely could pull it off, though it’s basically her go to on screen persona.

here is medieval beauty

Me too, R130, as well as Miss Ginevra, another medieval beauty:

if camilla looks like that then Richard is weirder than we thought

[quote]The person that cast the movie above needs to get a life.

I mean, we're literally discussing a movie of the book this thread is about.

(and no, that wasn't me casting the movie - the sheer cuntery of your comment just stood out to me)

[quote] Camilla has to have a striking, patrician beauty: she needs to be not just pretty but also intelligent and slightly intimidating

Didn't Richard describe the twins as blonde and tall? The height makes her more intimidating. Elle Fanning and Anya Taylor-Joy are tall women, around 5'8". Richard also describes Camilla as having long blonde hair that falls to the side and I immediately thought of Veronica Lake who starred in a lot of film noirs. IMO, TSH reads like a film noir.

I'd watch The Secret History if Tartt herself were involved in the casting.

Does anyone know her? She's reclusive and enigmatic and I love it.

The only part of The Goldfinch that worked for me was the part that MOST thought was the weakest.

Las Vegas.

It was suspenseful and intriguing. It was dark and it felt REAL to me.

The rest of the book was such a disappointment. Such a long book that I read to the end- and NOTHING happened. Nothing- It was fucked.

Todd Haynes gets too caught up in production design and costuming at the expense of creating compelling drama. MILDRED PEIRCE was so sluggish. CAROL was underwhelming. He would be a disaster doing TSH.

Has anyone here read Tana French's book THE LIKENESS? The main character is investigating a murder and certain aspects of the novel resemble TSH.

Love Tana French (although I hated her most recent book). She has Tartt’s ability to use descriptions of the landscape to impart a spooky, foreboding flavor, but their writing is worlds apart. One of the premium cable channels made the first two French novels into a series.

Is there a role for Froy in the Secret History movie?

Boy George

I really enjoyed this book. I recently listen to it on audio. This however is the only book that she’s written that I like. I try to rather book and couldn’t get past the third chapter.

Froy could be Francis

Fincher could direct, but he’s not good with emotion. He’d get the spooky stuff right, though.

Soderbergh is Southern. I feel like this needs a Southern director.

David Gordon Green? Billy Bob Thornton? Jeff Nichols? Richard Linklater? Barry Jenkins? Craig Brewer?

I like the idea of rereading it every year around Christmas

The person upthread who said Sofia Coppola is right. It's gotta be her. She's does atmosphere like no one else.

Is it about academics? They are so petty and untalented. And uninteresting.

Ang Lee. He does sensitive dramas well..

After Sofia Coppola delivered the comatose version of The Beguiled, she can sit the fuck down.

Yes, another vote for Ang Lee

Ang Coppola

I admit The Beguiled was not great, R151.

That sucked hard

Pre-Hilaria Alec Baldwin as Mr Corcoran.

Meryl circa Devil Wears Prada as Mrs Corcoran

Pre-burnt out James Franco as insecure overachieving Richard

Posh swishy Francis = Youthful Not-yet-alkie Jonathan Rhys Meyer

the book calls him a redhead

R159: nothing a little tasteful dye job couldn’t fix!

Francis sounds SUPER fay.

Jrm has no problem playing famous redheads unconvincely.

R105 Thank you for reliving your toddler years with us. As for sophistication, I'm sure you embody that quality far more succinctly.

Donna Tarth never made it better

Finished the book yesterday. After decades of hearing/seeing comments about the book... boy was I underwhelmed. Seemed a very juvenile effort (and, in fairness, it was... her first book, eh?). But the story was sloppy and facile. How many times was the main action "the was a knock on the door, I went to open, there were the twins!" (That was literally the plot action over 100 times). Or the equally unlikely "I had to walk, I went out at 4:00 am and there was a light in the study room, it was Henry!" Many, many walks in the middle of the night to "surprise!!" come across another key character.

And everyone was in love with Henry. Nothing initially, not through the story, earned this "attractiveness"... he seemed pretty boring, actually. The writing was... turgid?... and only a couple times seemed to have the "narrative beauty" ascribed to her. I really think I don't need to catch up with her Pulitzer Goldfinch...

Almost 600 pages of my life... sitting in a hotel room with lamb chops from room service in the middle of the day. Right.

R165, I lost times of how many times the narrator said "I was a little drunk".

I get it, you drink a lot, it's college.

The characters seem to spend most of the novel drunk. Wouldn't affluent early 80s college kids have been doing a lot more pills and coke?

Is there a part for Froy to play in the movie?

There are a lot of prescription drugs in the book, primarily downers/powerful painkillers/sedatives. That they stole from Mrs Corcoran, who’s a very Valley of the Dolls type.

And coke too, of course, courtesy of Judy Poovey, the Californian Druggie bimbo with a heart of gold [and abs of steel thanks to 80s style Jane Fonda aerobics]

R167, the main character does both

This novel is making a bit of a comeback now as it's being rediscovered by a new generation that's into the so-called "dark academia aesthetic."

I didn't read it so I feel secure in vilifying it and ridiculing the OP for the existence of this thread!

They really ought to make it as a limited series on one of the streamers. There is enough plot to fill out 6 one-hour episodes.

It felt like one of those "limited series" or Netflix documentaries where what could be shown in one episode, is repeated over and over....

... and then Charles was drunk (again!!). And then I went to the door and there was Bunny (again)!! And then we did our Greek homework together (again)!!

This little vignette that involves Richard and Judy and cocaine is quite amusing:

[quote]Perhaps the oddest thing of all, though, I saw one afternoon when I’d hitched a ride into Hampden with Judy Poovey. I wanted to take some clothes to the cleaners and Judy, who was going into town, offered to drive me; we’d done our errands, not to mention an awful lot of cocaine in the parking lot of Burger King, and we were stopped in the Corvette at a red light, listening to terrible music (“Free Bird”) on the Manchester radio station, and Judy rattling on, like the senseless cokehead she was, about these two guys she knew who’d had sex in the Food King (“Right in the store! In the frozen food aisle!”), when she glanced out her window and laughed. “Look,” she said. “Isn’t that your friend Four Eyes over there?”

[quote]Startled, I leaned forward. There was a tiny head shop directly across the street—bongs, tapestries, canisters of Rush, and all sorts of herbs and incense behind the counter. I’d never seen anyone in it before except the sad old hippie in granny glasses, a Hampden graduate, who owned it. But now to my astonishment I saw Henry—black suit, umbrella and all—among the celestial maps and unicorns. He was standing at the counter looking at a sheet of paper. The hippie started to say something but Henry, cutting him short, pointed to something behind the counter. The hippie shrugged and took a little bottle off the shelf. I watched them, half-breathless.

[quote]“What do you think he’s doing in there, trying to harass that poor old Deadhead? That’s a shitty store, by the way. I went in there once for a pair of scales and they didn’t even have any, just a bunch of crystal balls and shit. You know that set of green plastic scales I—Hey, you’re not listening,” she whined when she saw I was still staring out the window. The hippie had leaned down and was rummaging under the counter. “You want me to honk or something?”

[quote]”No,” I shouted, edgy from the cocaine, and pushed her hand away from the horn.

[quote]“Oh, God. Don’t scare me like that.” She pressed her hand to her chest. “Shit. I’m speeding my brains out. That coke was cut with meth or something. Okay, okay,” she said irritably, as the light turned green and the gas truck behind us began to honk.

it's clear the richard character is a bit of a druggie and totally not aware of it

R176 Richard's entire character is built around skirting obvious facts about himself or his situation in the narration. The drugs are one thing - I think he himself knows that he's a druggie, but the unreliable narration won't admit that.

Found it shallow and two-dimensional, like Ayn Rand novels. Don't really get the hype.

R175, thanks for the quote.

I don't get it.

The Great Gatsby, this is not. It's not even The Green Hat. It's barely a Stephen King novel. But people make claims for this prose that I would be hesitant to do so for the collected works of Dylan Thomas.

Not every book needs to be made into a movie. In fact the better the book, the more reason to leave it alone, only to be read.

I like the unreliable narration

There is a lot of good stuff in the novel, but it's hampered by Richard's point of view, which is unreliable and from which the reader never escapes. This works until the latter third of the book, when we really need to know what's going on with the investigation and Richard is wandering around, high and clueless.

The third-person POV which is inevitable when something is filmed would correct that problem.

I like the unreliability - maybe it happened, maybe it didn't. the ambiguity is i believe intentional and i like it

I guess what others perceive as intentional ambiguity I just experienced as sloppy writing, based on all the other clunky writing.

R184 It's absolutely intentional, like in The Great Gatsby. Nick has a very similar kind of narration where he lies or omits things often, but there's a lot more purple prose involved in that book.

Chile, this is not Great Gatsby. It's barely Stephen King.

Ambiguity is fine, but once the murder investigation begins, I really wanted to know what was happening. There were scenes that must have been interesting and dramatic that we never got to see because Richard wasn't there. The most interesting subplot which was only hinted at was Henry's plan to pin the murder on Richard. I'd have liked to see more about that.

such is life

I’m almost finished with rereading this after thirty years and I’m finding it very entertaining and COMIC! Very funny in spots.

Just finished it and really enjoyed it. The writing I find is good, many memorable turns of phrases. As a critic said, it isn’t a good book, but a good read nonetheless.

“ “There are such things as ghosts. People everywhere have always known that. And we believe in them every bit as much as Homer did. Only now, we call them by different names. Memory. The unconscious.”

Excerpt From The Secret History

Tartt is an interesting mystery. She writes a book maybe every ten years and they have all sold well, which is incredible when you think of the time between works, and the lack of PR she does. Does anyone really know anything about her? She almost never does interviews, red carpets, etc.

Don’t listen to the audiobook. Tartt herself reads it and makes Bunny sound like a cartoon charcter. It really affected how I view the book.

This is on my July TBR.

This book is hot again, popular with college kids and the TikTok book scene. I was at Target the other day and saw they had a stack of copies for sale in their book aisle.

R194 It’s riding the wave as the cornerstone of Dark Academia, which is the hot subgenre right now.

Love her writing She just takes forever between books!

Somehow in my mind this book and Kate Bush’s currently ubiquitous ‘Running Up the Hill’ are both of a piece, an 80s moment /artefacts resurfacing as contemporary zeitgeist

Mythic, ornate, darkly academic

Of course, Whit Stillman would be the perfect choice for the director.

I love all the substance bits, so 80s:

[quote] “I had not entirely believed Cloke about the drugs to be found upstairs, but when I went up with him again I saw he had told the truth. There was a tiny dressing room off the master bedroom, and a black lacquer vanity with lots of little compartments and a tiny key, and inside one of the compartments was a ballotin of Godiva chocolates and a neat, well-tended collection of candy-colored pills. The doctor who had prescribed them—E. G. Hart, M.D., and apparently a more reckless character than his prim initials would suggest—was a generous fellow, particularly with the amphetamines. Ladies of Mrs. Corcoran’s age usually went in pretty heavily for the Valium and so forth but she had enough speed to send a gang of Hell’s Angels on a cross-country rampage.I was nervous.

[quote]“I was nervous. The room smelled like new clothes and perfume; big disco mirrors on the wall reproduced our every move in paranoiac multiple-image; there was no way out and no possible excuse for being there should anyone happen in. I kept an eye on the door while Cloke, with admirable efficiency, went swiftly through the bottles.

[quote]Dalmane. Yellow and orange. Darvon. Red and gray. Fiorinal. Nembutal. Miltown. I took two from each of the bottles he gave me.

[quote]“What,” he said, “don’t you want more than that?”

[quote]“I don’t want her to miss anything.”

[quote]“Shit,” he said, opening another bottle and pouring half the contents into his pocket. “Take what you want. She’ll think it was one of her daughters-in-law or something. Here, have some of this speed,” he said, tapping most of the rest of the bottle on my palm. “It’s great stuff. Pharmaceutical. During exams you can get ten or fifteen dollars a hit for this, easy.”

As a couple of posters upthread have touched on (maybe) the story is told entirely from Richard's POV. And with the exception of a couple of scenes at Bunny's house before the funeral, the entire story is "interior." I think it would lose everything on the screen.

R191 No social media either.

loved that book i read it in 80s

Modern fiction is always dire.

The title is dreadful. You know it’s some shitty frau-fare just from that.

I found it a little tedious. I wanted to like it more than I did, because I loved The Goldfinch.

R204. Or you might think it’s an allusion to Procopius—but you’d need more than a high school education for that.

She must be loaded! Saw her read at 92y for goldfinch. She was great. In her character drag. Met her briefly at the book singing. She’s TINY and was sweet. I had her sign my first printing hardcover of each book. My partner shared this was the first book I recommended he read decades ago. She gave us a hug.

R206: that has always been my question: why did she title the book ‘The Secret History’? Care to share more of your thoughts? TIA

Pretty sure that came out in the 90s? I only read it recently and loved it.

What do you mean interior? They in the woods and in the lake, also with a boat at Francis' house. Going for long walks. Constantly bumbling around campus. Bunny dies in the woods while taking his daily walk...

That film would look gorgeous.

It's only now after a couple years that people are looking much more critically at The Goldfinch.

While the first novel is generally well-regarded, The Goldfinch was one of those novels that a few folks didn't feel was nearly as strong, but were shouted down by the rest of the bandwagon.

With the benefit of some distance, many people have reassessed their opinions of The Goldfinch. There is a large group who say the reason the movie is so bad is that it's based on a mediocre novel.

By "interior," I meant that so much is taking place inside Richard's head.

R210, the movie was so bad because it should have been a series, like a 3 or 4 episode limited series. The novel is sort of epic, the protagonist's adventures start from losing his mother at a young age to a grown man in his 20s and it can't be condensed into a 2 hour movie. I hope it gets picked up one day by HBO, Apple tv, etc.

The Goldfinch failed as a film as the creators misunderstood the material. The novel is basically Dickensian in nature (orphaned boy, girl confined to her room, mysterious benefactor etc.). The movie tried to restructure it as a mystery and the material sank.

Is there a good part for Froy in the movie?

I wrote a message to Dorinda saying she was a nasty drunk and she responded to me saying my dog is cute