Before I get into this I want to say that I enjoyed both books, so I’m definitely out for genuine discussion, not a fight! We can agree to disagree. I compare them with love and genuine interest.
I’m in the minority but I think IWWV was a better book. TSH is far better written- Tartt is an amazing writer, no doubt about that, it’s long as hell with plenty of scenes that don’t directly pull the action one way or the other, yet only once or twice did I find the story dragging. That’s the only reason the book is SO beloved IMO, because as literature, it was shallow. When I’d finished, I felt like I’d read a fun, gripping thriller, but for all the literary merit people had ascribed to it, I had high expectations and was disappointed by the delivery.
I know that a big theme is supposed to be the dark side of an obsession with beauty/aesthetics and academics, but I barely perceived that throughout the book. The first third or half delivered on this, but once murder was a thing out in the open, most of the character’s conversations and actions revolved around calling each other, driving around together, giving each other money and favors, and terse conversations about calling, driving around together, and giving each other money and favors. This was all as a result of their paranoia and bonding over secrecy, so sure, it’s related, but Greek, academia, aesthetics, etc. were hardly a blip on the radar compared to the murder and its aftermath. Which is fine! But that doesn’t exactly scream “students falling into a dark obsession with philosophy and Greek culture/art” to me. Once shit got real they pretty firmly had both feet in the present day real world for the rest of the novel. If anything the themes I’d get from the story sum up to “fuck around and find out”, with the whole thing surrounding the Dionysian ritual being more of a delivery vehicle than maintaining any deeper thematic relevance of its own. Maybe I just don’t know enough about Greek classics and I’m missing connections- if you have more information or simply want to share your perspective on this I’d love to know!
With that in mind, I think it’s interesting that the biggest complaint I see about IWWV is the devotion of the main cast to Shakespeare: they quoted it too much, too accurately, they cared too much about it, they made it their whole personality, etc. For one, I wonder if people who say this have ever hung out with a group of serious theater people who do shows together, because I thought it was pretty damn accurate. If you’re not in the cast with them it can get unbearable.
But more importantly, that’s exactly what people say they like about TSH, and which I found so lacking in TSH! The characters’ obsession with Shakespeare was deeply entwined with the drama that unfolded. They DID take their academics, their elite group, the philosophy behind their studies, too far. They WERE pretentious where TSH’s cast was simply bourgeois and cold. I think IWWV did a much better job thematically. I’d love to hear y’alls thoughts on this.
I thought the characters in both books were pretty two-dimensional, but that both did unreliable narrators in an engaging enough way that I can blame it on the protagonists, lol. Neither had much in the way of true mystery, but still managed to be tense and thrilling. TSH did a better job fleshing out the world “beyond” the exclusionary group, which made it feel more real and lent to some funny passages, but the lack of that in IWWV supported the isolated and codependent feeling of the main cast. I thought TSH did romance better, by which I mean there was less of it, lol.
Any other thoughts on comparing the books? After reading them both it’s obvious why they always get brought up together, but I like them for such different reasons!
by justhereforbaking
4 Comments
I’m aaalmost finished with TSH – I have another 100 pages or so. I like them both but I think as similar as they are they’re about different things.
IWWV was about the obsession with art and the seductive draw of the aesthetic you mention, and as someone who did theatre a lot in school I thought it picked up on something real about actors and artists. You have to find yourself in the character, or the character in yourself, in order to portray them, and sometimes the lines blur. It’s an intense experience. I’d never seen that articulated before so I enjoyed that aspect.
I don’t think that’s the point TSH is trying to make. I actually think it’s a condemnation of elitism and ivory towers. The characters set up a bacchanal to experience life as the ancient Greeks did – but once it’s over, no consequences, no revelations, back to translation as usual. The characters are self-absorbed, disgusted by emotion, and disturbingly unbothered that they’ve managed to kill two people in six months, because the dead weren’t one of them. The characters of IWWV are closely tied, and a spark from one of them sets a fire in another. But in TSH, no one seems to care about each other all that much (except for maybe Richard, and the twins care about each other). Their problem isn’t an obsession with the aesthetic, but their isolation.
I haven’t read IWWV but read the TSH about a year ago and it left a huge impression on me. I did find the thematic thread running through the entire book, because Henry lives by the ancient values and is basically crushed by what he sees as Julian abandoning everything he preached about. His actions are pretty much always driven by his devotion to those values and at the very end we can see how it has a lasting effect on all of them–just in different ways.
The writing in The Secret History perfectly matched the characters. Pretentious and arrogant. The quality of the writing is everything the characters think they are. For me that was the mastery of the novel.
I totally agree with the post. After I read IWWV, my assessment was that it was the book I wanted TSH to be. Also, for anyone who liked these books, I think you’ll like I Have Some Questions for You by Rebecca Makkai.