first of all, i would argue that critisizing TSH because it's not dark academia enough is redundant because TSH was published in 1992 and the term for the dark academia aesthetic became popular some thirty years later. to say that TSH is not academic because you didn't learn anything seems uncalled for, since the book is fiction, not a textbook. yes, the 'dark academia' in part describes the setting of the book, but, most importantly, dark academia literature critizes academia by showing the dark parts of it. you might not like Tartt's writing style as it might not be profound enough for you, and that's totally valid, but i think more importantly, as you've mentioned yourself, it is not that profound because it is written from Richard's perspective, as in he'd just started his academic journey and he might not be the smartest at the time that the events take place. i would argue that the puffy-ness and fanciness of the writing is also there to critique academia - which is what this book does by basically telling the reader: look, all those fancy words, and still nothing to show for them. i love Henry as a character because he's such a cliche of a humanities student, and his characterization is so over-the-top. as for Richard, yes, he is constantly trying to prove himself to others because he craves for their approval. why? because he thinks these rich pseudo-intelectuals are so cool and he wants to be like them. now, i don't really understand why do you think that a book has to "teach" you something on the meaning of life, but if that's what constitutes good literature for you, then of course, TSH doesn't give you answers to the the mystery that is the universe. but i think that the best literature is one that is makes you think about the world and even questions it, rather than grants you easy answers. why is Bunny the worst character of all? so we don't feel sorry for him when he gets murder and so we feel like we want the main characters to get away with it. here comes the dark academia again - we find ourselves justifying even such a terrible act as murder of a person who was annoying and stupid and didn't fit with the other academics. as for the lack of agency on Richard's part, i think that the whole "main characters need to have agency otherwise they're poorly written!" rhethoric sounds like one of those BookTok catchphrases that i've been hearing a lot of lately. no, characters don't need to be good or perfect to be well-written. no, they don't need to always be right. no, they don't need to always have agency. it doesn't make for interesting characters. i understand that you found the book boring, though. to each their own
this response is really thought out! I appreciate it a lot. I do want to point out one thing you said about the BookTok thing, though. I have never been really involved in BookTok, and I haven’t had TikTok since Christmas. Sure, I hear about BookTok books, and the Secret History is a popular book in those circles. It was highly recommended, but I was surprised at how much I didn’t like it. I went in to the book knowing nothing about it and wanting to like it. I took a more tone for the Substack, but I’m truly glad so many people enjoy this book! We can’t all be expected to like or dislike the same things. you feel very strongly about this book, and I admire that! if you don’t mind me asking, what’s your number one favorite book?
well, i do have strong opinions because i like the book but mostly because i was also someone who found it boring the first time i read it, so i totally get it. i don’t have a one singular favorite book, but top three would look something like this: “Beloved” by Toni Morrison, “Blood Meridian by Cormac McCarthy and “Vilnius Poker” by Ricardas Gavelis
Thanks for sticking with me through the chaos of finishing this book 😅 And I loved your article, it was so well put together.✨✨
This was my first BookTok-influenced pick. The hype reeled me in, but more than that, it was this quote that hooked me:
“Beauty is terror. Whatever we call beautiful, we quiver before it.”
I naively assumed the book would take us on a wild, spiraling journey — not just leading up to Bunny’s death, but unraveling all the chaos that followed. Instead, all of that was postponed to Book 2, which turned out to be an excruciating slog. And even then, it failed to deliver on the promise of its own setup.
Like you, I was massively disappointed with Julian's character. I thought he’d be the devil in a velvet coat — wickedly charismatic — but instead, he was conspicuously absent for most of the story. Every character felt flat and formulaic. No surprises, no spark. Nothing made me want to lean in and wonder, What will they do next?
Henry, in particular — I expected more depth. Instead, he came across like a classic Greek tragic hero: sacrificing himself for the so-called "greater good" and ultimately undone by his hubris.
I’m usually quite intrigued by the Classics — Greek, Latin — so I expected some kind of thematic build-up, some intellectual weight encircling the mythology. One positive takeaway, though: the characters all believed they were living in some aesthetic, fascinating Greek tragedy. And maybe, to an extent, all of this — the elitism, the incest, the moral detachment — was meant to serve one major purpose: to show Richard (and therefore us, the audience) that these people were never worth romanticizing the way he initially did. (But really, that’s just me trying to salvage something redeeming out of the whole thing.
And then there’s Richard. The choice to have him narrate the story just didn’t work for me. He was a bystander in his own life, wrapped in his victim complex, and added little to the narrative beyond his passive gaze.
As for Bunny — yeah, it was painfully clear why anyone would want him dead. He was insufferably dumb, offensively crass, and completely lacking any moral backbone.
That said, I will give Donna props: some of the writing was genuinely beautiful. Sure, it veered into verbose, flowery territory at times, but the craft was there. Still, the plot stagnated. I didn’t need to waste precious pages on fruitless police interrogations, and Bunny’s funeral — with his shallow parents and their emotioanlly hollow reactions — definitely didn’t deserve the long-winded attention it got.
If The Secret History did one thing for me, it's this: it got me out of a reading slump — because now I desperately need to read a real murder mystery.
Areyah!! Thank you so much for taking the time to reply to my article. The beautiful thing about books is that there is something for everyone, and this one was not for me!! I really enjoyed reading your comment. If you want a real mystery, I highly recommend taking a crack at the original Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes stories if you haven’t had a chance to read them. The Speckled Band and the Hound of the Baskervilles are particular favorites of mine. 🥰 If you want another really good read, I also recommend Circe by Madeline Miller, but I wouldn’t be surprised if you haven’t read that already. I hope you continue to read my content!! There’s more to come. 🤍
Everything, huh? There’s lots more things I don’t enjoy, but let me walk you through those in particular:
1. I didn’t enjoy Katniss, but I respect the impact of the Hunger Games books and I enjoyed the movies. The world and fan edits are interesting.
2. I adore the Ella Enchanted book, and at the time I thought movies should be exactly like the book. I have not rewatched the movie, but I should probably give it another go. My seven year old self hated that movie with her whole heart!
3. I DNF the book but I’ve seen both movies and truly disliked both. It’s just not my thing. The music and visual effects are really cool, but sci-fi isn’t really my thing.
I’m sure if we kept talking, we’d find things we both liked! I was trying to think of very popular media that I didn’t care for when I consumed those, and they stuck out in my mind. :)
I've seen some really thought provoking critiques and praise of this book. I won't outright dismiss someone for having a different opinion than me, especially about a piece of media. Thinking it about it as satire doesn't really help - I think it falls flat even then.
The most concerning character I see people defending is Henry. Henry is at best a misled disturbed boy, and at worst a murderous psychopath. I don't see any good in glorifying him - he's deeply troubled and needed help. Maybe the message of the book should be to be careful on the road to Greek Enlightenment.
first of all, i would argue that critisizing TSH because it's not dark academia enough is redundant because TSH was published in 1992 and the term for the dark academia aesthetic became popular some thirty years later. to say that TSH is not academic because you didn't learn anything seems uncalled for, since the book is fiction, not a textbook. yes, the 'dark academia' in part describes the setting of the book, but, most importantly, dark academia literature critizes academia by showing the dark parts of it. you might not like Tartt's writing style as it might not be profound enough for you, and that's totally valid, but i think more importantly, as you've mentioned yourself, it is not that profound because it is written from Richard's perspective, as in he'd just started his academic journey and he might not be the smartest at the time that the events take place. i would argue that the puffy-ness and fanciness of the writing is also there to critique academia - which is what this book does by basically telling the reader: look, all those fancy words, and still nothing to show for them. i love Henry as a character because he's such a cliche of a humanities student, and his characterization is so over-the-top. as for Richard, yes, he is constantly trying to prove himself to others because he craves for their approval. why? because he thinks these rich pseudo-intelectuals are so cool and he wants to be like them. now, i don't really understand why do you think that a book has to "teach" you something on the meaning of life, but if that's what constitutes good literature for you, then of course, TSH doesn't give you answers to the the mystery that is the universe. but i think that the best literature is one that is makes you think about the world and even questions it, rather than grants you easy answers. why is Bunny the worst character of all? so we don't feel sorry for him when he gets murder and so we feel like we want the main characters to get away with it. here comes the dark academia again - we find ourselves justifying even such a terrible act as murder of a person who was annoying and stupid and didn't fit with the other academics. as for the lack of agency on Richard's part, i think that the whole "main characters need to have agency otherwise they're poorly written!" rhethoric sounds like one of those BookTok catchphrases that i've been hearing a lot of lately. no, characters don't need to be good or perfect to be well-written. no, they don't need to always be right. no, they don't need to always have agency. it doesn't make for interesting characters. i understand that you found the book boring, though. to each their own
this response is really thought out! I appreciate it a lot. I do want to point out one thing you said about the BookTok thing, though. I have never been really involved in BookTok, and I haven’t had TikTok since Christmas. Sure, I hear about BookTok books, and the Secret History is a popular book in those circles. It was highly recommended, but I was surprised at how much I didn’t like it. I went in to the book knowing nothing about it and wanting to like it. I took a more tone for the Substack, but I’m truly glad so many people enjoy this book! We can’t all be expected to like or dislike the same things. you feel very strongly about this book, and I admire that! if you don’t mind me asking, what’s your number one favorite book?
well, i do have strong opinions because i like the book but mostly because i was also someone who found it boring the first time i read it, so i totally get it. i don’t have a one singular favorite book, but top three would look something like this: “Beloved” by Toni Morrison, “Blood Meridian by Cormac McCarthy and “Vilnius Poker” by Ricardas Gavelis
I really like these choices!! I’m reading Circe for the second time this month, so you can look forward to that review being much more positive 😂
i’ve read Circe and I liked it too 🫶🏻
I am really looking forward to Madeline's next book. Did you also read Song of Achilles?
yes, i did, i enjoyed it too
Do you have a preference for Circe or Achilles?
😆😆😆😆
Thanks for sticking with me through the chaos of finishing this book 😅 And I loved your article, it was so well put together.✨✨
This was my first BookTok-influenced pick. The hype reeled me in, but more than that, it was this quote that hooked me:
“Beauty is terror. Whatever we call beautiful, we quiver before it.”
I naively assumed the book would take us on a wild, spiraling journey — not just leading up to Bunny’s death, but unraveling all the chaos that followed. Instead, all of that was postponed to Book 2, which turned out to be an excruciating slog. And even then, it failed to deliver on the promise of its own setup.
Like you, I was massively disappointed with Julian's character. I thought he’d be the devil in a velvet coat — wickedly charismatic — but instead, he was conspicuously absent for most of the story. Every character felt flat and formulaic. No surprises, no spark. Nothing made me want to lean in and wonder, What will they do next?
Henry, in particular — I expected more depth. Instead, he came across like a classic Greek tragic hero: sacrificing himself for the so-called "greater good" and ultimately undone by his hubris.
I’m usually quite intrigued by the Classics — Greek, Latin — so I expected some kind of thematic build-up, some intellectual weight encircling the mythology. One positive takeaway, though: the characters all believed they were living in some aesthetic, fascinating Greek tragedy. And maybe, to an extent, all of this — the elitism, the incest, the moral detachment — was meant to serve one major purpose: to show Richard (and therefore us, the audience) that these people were never worth romanticizing the way he initially did. (But really, that’s just me trying to salvage something redeeming out of the whole thing.
And then there’s Richard. The choice to have him narrate the story just didn’t work for me. He was a bystander in his own life, wrapped in his victim complex, and added little to the narrative beyond his passive gaze.
As for Bunny — yeah, it was painfully clear why anyone would want him dead. He was insufferably dumb, offensively crass, and completely lacking any moral backbone.
That said, I will give Donna props: some of the writing was genuinely beautiful. Sure, it veered into verbose, flowery territory at times, but the craft was there. Still, the plot stagnated. I didn’t need to waste precious pages on fruitless police interrogations, and Bunny’s funeral — with his shallow parents and their emotioanlly hollow reactions — definitely didn’t deserve the long-winded attention it got.
If The Secret History did one thing for me, it's this: it got me out of a reading slump — because now I desperately need to read a real murder mystery.
Areyah!! Thank you so much for taking the time to reply to my article. The beautiful thing about books is that there is something for everyone, and this one was not for me!! I really enjoyed reading your comment. If you want a real mystery, I highly recommend taking a crack at the original Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes stories if you haven’t had a chance to read them. The Speckled Band and the Hound of the Baskervilles are particular favorites of mine. 🥰 If you want another really good read, I also recommend Circe by Madeline Miller, but I wouldn’t be surprised if you haven’t read that already. I hope you continue to read my content!! There’s more to come. 🤍
the fact that you don't like not only the secret history, but the hunger games, ella enchanted, and dune, too, tells me everything i need to know.
Everything, huh? There’s lots more things I don’t enjoy, but let me walk you through those in particular:
1. I didn’t enjoy Katniss, but I respect the impact of the Hunger Games books and I enjoyed the movies. The world and fan edits are interesting.
2. I adore the Ella Enchanted book, and at the time I thought movies should be exactly like the book. I have not rewatched the movie, but I should probably give it another go. My seven year old self hated that movie with her whole heart!
3. I DNF the book but I’ve seen both movies and truly disliked both. It’s just not my thing. The music and visual effects are really cool, but sci-fi isn’t really my thing.
I’m sure if we kept talking, we’d find things we both liked! I was trying to think of very popular media that I didn’t care for when I consumed those, and they stuck out in my mind. :)
I've seen some really thought provoking critiques and praise of this book. I won't outright dismiss someone for having a different opinion than me, especially about a piece of media. Thinking it about it as satire doesn't really help - I think it falls flat even then.
The most concerning character I see people defending is Henry. Henry is at best a misled disturbed boy, and at worst a murderous psychopath. I don't see any good in glorifying him - he's deeply troubled and needed help. Maybe the message of the book should be to be careful on the road to Greek Enlightenment.