Some (not all) of these reviews read like joyous opportunities for people to seem "smart" for having chosen and read it, whether they damn the book to hell, or praise it as the finest collection of words ever put together. I'm not up to sounding smart in my analysis of The Secret History. I doubt if I will read it five times, as one fellow says he did. I don't understand Greek. I don't WANT to understand Greek. I loved the novel! Now see, because of all you empty-except-for-the-egg-heads, I am tongue tied. My five stars will have to speak for me. Just do not believe that pretentious review from Publishers Weekly. Right off the bat, the reviewer calls it a "much bruited" novel. What IS that? Yes the plot is TOO plausible, and yes the protagonist (Richard) is TOO accepted into the group believably! YES to everything that review says NO to. The Secret History is suspenseful and thrilling from beginning to end. I couldn't put it down. I'm still thinking about it, and all the characters, wondering things about them, and this partly unknowable story, pondering their motives, and reliving the outcome. So. Does that count? Read more

This is a highly enjoyable read, very well-written , albeit with some flaws (like another reviewer I kept wondering when was the plot taking place, as it seems to occur in timelessness that I found puzzling; some characters are drawn like archetypes). In spite of some dialogue not in English, it does not interfere in the appreciation of the text, and you do not need to be a scholar to enjoy it.. Like "The Little Friend" there is a murder but the book is not about the murder but about guilt, remorse, the irresistible allure of select cliques and the entrapment of the young inexperienced, vulnerable main character by a group of sophisticated (monsters) snobs. The first murder was an accident, the second was a cold-blooded monstrosity worthy of Mr Ripley. Allusions to Dostoievsky are inevitable and are also expressed by the author/main character, but the novelty is in the rendition. You should not expect your regular thriller because it is not paced as one, this is a highly enjoyable psychological slow-burner. Read more

This book was published in 1992. I bought this book then and gave it to someone I loved enjoyed it. Since 1992, I gave my copy to a friend and bought another copy. Now it's 2018. I started rereading this book a few days ago for perhaps the tenth time. It isn't because I totally forgot what it's about; I knew the story well. Every time I pick it up to reread, I come across a scene, a sentence that surprises me. It's almost as though my book has been edited and a new scene has been added. I used to read very quickly, almost just scanning, but now when I'm into a book, perhaps at page 75 and I find that it's absolutely fabulous, I deliberately go back to page one and start again. This is my favorite book. I did teach at a private schools. I wish I had taken ancient Greek but I did study and then taught ancient Latin. I may go back and start Virgil again. This book is a treasure. Read more

Her first novel, been a fan of hers since. Found a first edition couldn’t pass up the offer Read more

This was an excellent novel, only made better by knowing it was Donna Tartt's debut, thus quite a treat….Donna Tartt bestows upon us hungry readers with her first literary work of art. She layers her character development of a few select students at a unique university as viewed through the eyes of her central character, Richard Papen, then expertly challenges us to enter their exclusive club while he thrills at being accepted over a summer connection with these five other students, drawn together by a Greek class and its rather eccentric genius professor. Richard feels honored when these five unique students take him under their collective wing, first as a group, then individually. As the mutual trust emerges, so do the character flaws of each, proving yet again that people, like things, are not always as they appear to be. The mysteries abound and are woven through the plot so expertly that we can hardly put the book down, yet still be completely surprised by the outcome of their actions. As the character retells the narrative years later in hindsight, we are also able to understand why Richard is at first so impressed by this elite group, then joins them in their secrets then ultimately unable to distance himself from any of the actions or of their subsequent consequences. Twenty years after this book was released in 1992, I read Ms Tartt's current bestseller, The Goldfinch, and was so enamored of it, I quickly sought to read anything else she had written, thus just finished this classic, only to want to read more. However, there is so much work and detail put into each of her novels, it appears that she publishes only one book each decade. Truly excellent, intelligent reading, and I would highly recommend anything written by Donna Tartt. Read more

I am almost as enthusiastic as most of the readers who commented here. This book is great fun and not the slightest bit pretentious. Pretentious is when a writer only pretends to know what she's talking about. This writer DOES know. The classical millieu that these characters long to inhabit IS ultimately alien and inaccessible and this writer knows it -- read the epigraphs -- but that's exactly what's wrong with these characters. They know their Greek declensions and they understand more than most about the seduction of antiquity. But they cannot reproduce it, relive it, or even get close. This unfulfillable longing is the heart of this sometimes shockingly amoral tragedy. And how ironic. What culture had a higher moral sense that the Attic culture? That these characters know it, and don't get it is at the center of all that happens in this book. Her writing is never condescending nor does it miss a beat. The plotting is fine and intriguing and it's perfect for the subway. HERE'S MY ONE PROBLEM: The narrator seems gay but he isn't. Which would be fine, except that the plot only hints at any ambiguity in this area, and then sort of pompously drops it. It's almost as if Richard Papen is too sure of himself in this aspect of his psyche while being so otherwised morally confused. The impression I got is not that Richard Papen is "flat" but that he is ultimately an unanswered puzzle. I don't mean to suggest that you'd have to be gay to be interested in Hesiod. I do mean that he seems like a male character created by a female writer who doesn't really get the fine points of being male, gay or straight. The other characters seem more believable in this respect precisely because the reader doesn't live in their heads. This is a point that nags, but only subtracts a half-star from my otherwise unqualified recommendation. Read more