Hi, hi, how are you? How's school? I feel like we haven't talked in a long time lol, I just saw you're reading The Secret History, what are you thinking? I read some time ago and honestly I liked it but it left me very confused, my friend kind of explained it to me but still, well hope you're doing okay!

Hiii!! Ikr, we haven't talked in so long!!!!!!!!

I'm okay - school is very hard at the moment, I'm always late on studies and there are endless lists of exercises to do😭😭 But honestly I've never understood the subject better, so I think maybe piling us with homework and stress is just their strategy lmao

I'm liking the secret history a lot!!! I just started the second part, but I gotta be honest - I've already looked up how it ends kahskshsk. I just can't handle suspense.

Plus I've seen a lot of discussions on whether Donna Tartt is making satire out of the characters, and I think she kind of is?? Although I would say it's more of a cautionary tale than satire (at least that's what it seems like up until the half of the book, I can't argue for what I haven't yet read). Like, Richard literally says his fatal flaw is always longing for the picturesque above all things. The Greek Class isolated themselves, genuinely thought they were better than everyone else, and lived for the ✨aesthetics✨ and academic elitism. Of course they're bad, and killing people is bad, and etc

So yeah qkhsksh I do believe the book isn't endorsing their lifestyle, I'm just hesitant to say that it's somehow mocking them, since it admits that their perspectives are thrilling and seducing to some level. Again, to me, it's more of a cautionary tale than anything else

And youuu? How are you? What did you think about the book (and what confused you about it)?? How's school?? I hope you're good too❤️❤️❤️❤️💕💕💕💕

You know, one thing that really bothers me about how people view Bunny and the whole point of The Secret History is that they seem to think that because Richard is an unreliable narrator, that makes him a complete liar and everything that he says happened to and with Bunny was completely twisted into portraying him as bad as Richard can to justify Bunny's murder.

Although that's truth to some extent, I refuse to believe everything about their interactions is a lie, because that would be just lazy writing to justify things you don't want to think about very hard instead of really putting an effort into explaining the open ends to your reader. And I don't believe Donna Tartt is this kind of writer.

Anyway, I saw a post here on tumblr where op says that Bunny is the person that connected the rest of the group to ground reality and that's why his death is so tragic. Even agreeing with this person, I have some thoughts I still want to vent to you guys.

The point of TSH is that knowledge just for aesthetics is dangerous, but that's the thing: our characters have so much knowledge and they are still absolute idiots because they don't see their knowledge through the lens of reality. Their knowledge has no material grounds and therefore, it doesn't even occur to them to be aware of the things they are ignorant about because our minds have trouble understanding how much we don't understand.

(Which is ironic, considering Ancient Greece were the very first Occidental civilization to bring the notion of ignorance to the conversation, but anyways...)

But my point is, as much as Bunny is their link to their humanity, it's not like the humanity Bunny shows is anywhere near the kind of humanity they should be craving, sorry not sorry. From their very first interaction, I hated Bunny because although he's human in his rawest form, he's also just as ignorant as the rest of the group, just in a different way. My problem with Bunny as he's portrayed even early on is that he prides himself on his own ignorance and that, in my personal values, is way more worrisome then not understand how much you don't know.

Because the second case still has space to grow, to learn — albeit with mighty hardship, as exemplified by the very story — and the first one (Bunny's ignorance) is just stasis. And humans don't thrive through inaction, it's just not how we're wired. We are our best version when we're acting to be better — you can perceive this in Bell Hook's All About Love (Chapter 4), in psychology (my therapist has almost emphasize the need to act on my emotions instead of just feeling it and be locked up on them), Theodore Roosevelt has a speech about it too (the man in the arena).

So when I look at Bunny's character through the critical thinking of Richard being an unreliable narrator, it's still inconceivable to me to see him as some people do and be sad about his murder like he didn't deserve to die. Now let's be clear: he didn't deserve to die but it's not like the world is a worst place because of his death. Bunny is insufferable, entitled (although not because of the reasons Henry and the other point out later in the story to justify his murder), bigoted and overall just the epitome of a middle-class American white man (which to me is his worst characteristic), and his death is not that tragic in the overall sense.

His death is tragic because it brings the rest of the group back to reality, where what they do has weight and consequences. And don't even get me started on Julian and how much I hate his ass because it was his responsibility to provide these young adults with an education that was at the very least, grounded in reality. And let me be clear, when I say "grounded in reality" I don't mean common sense. He could still reflect upon Beauty and Terror and all of the stuff he wanted. The problem is that there's a why. We don't study things (specially not philosophy) in a vacuum, the things we do study are real, palpable, material. It has grounds in reality because science, Social Science in special, is about the truth of reality and how it's viewer and how it shapes our very foundations as individuals and as society.

But I digress, I'll do a commentary on Julian and his teaching methods later on.

So in a sense, Bunny's death was tragic because he was the anchor, even in death, of a reality none of the characters wanted to face. A reality that isn't pretty, nor it is good. So Bunny is not good, he was never good. He was just real. He was a real human being and he lived in the world the rest of the group avoided in a mistaken sense of arrogance, of being above "all that". And that's charming, but it doesn't mean Bunny represent anything near the kind of reality we should aim to live in.

Bunny, just like the others, was ignorant and arrogant about it. But as I said, he prided himself on his ignorance. He studied because he was killing time until he was ready to do something else, something he thought was the "real" thing. And that's just as dangerous, or even more so in a collective sense, than not being aware of our own ignorance.

To deny knowledge and the importance of it, to deny all there is behind the aesthetic, not because you don't see it but because you don't want to see it, is just as dumb as just seeing the looks and thinking there's nothing more to it. And in a collective sense, it's just as harmful. The reality he represents is a reality without knowledge, it's studying and not absorbing anything, not even the aesthetic. The one thing that makes me hate the rest of the group a bit less than I hate Bunny is that they at the very least allow themselves to be influenced by knowledge, although in a idiotic way. And that's not even completely their fault.

Bunny, on the other hand, is just, stasis. He's the same person throughout it all, and based on his family and his general behaviour? He could've been an okay person (the kind you tolerate in family dinners because it's not worth the drama), but he was very far from being a good person because to be a good person requires action, it requires the very knowledge he despises — because if you act without knowledge, you're just as blind as any ignorant (that's why we study).

So I don't get why people get so invested in defending Bunny because his death was just as meaningless as his life would've been. And I get that that sounds mean, but it's true exactly because Bunny's whole thing is his own brand of ignorance is inaction and no one changes doing nothing.

Hi...... If you don't mind me asking, what are your top 10 favorite books ever (fiction)? And why do you love them? Sorry if you've answered this question before....Thanks...

no i don’t think i have answered that before🤔 

thanks for asking! :D this is in loose most to least favorite order let's goooo

1. the lymond chronicles by dorothy dunnett. let’s get the enfant terrible out of the way. i love historical adventure stories and have a fictional crush on the mc of proportions embarrassing at my respectable old age. a gallant renaissance courtier, a cunning swashbuckler, a brilliant schemer, a queer icon, a tortured soul, a secret agent extraordinaire “whose tongue is as sharp as his rapier”, the Man, the Myth, the Legend - lymond has it all. if only i could condone the narrative tomfoolery of the last two installments, the lemon saga would’ve become my favorite series of all time. still gotta put it in the first spot bc rn i’m biased - i’m re-reading it with my bestie and hell’s own apollo is very much there, inside my mind💖

2. the secret history by donna tartt is the book that established dark academia - a lucrative subgenre of mediocre campus novels trying to imitate tsh written by authors who unfortunately don’t understand what makes it iconic. the secret special ingredient being some substance under the aesthetics and - how do i put it without sounding like a snob - literary value. this is not the main reason why i love it though, not the thing that made me binge it overnight several years ago which was how i found my way back into reading after uni drained me of any desire to do it - those were the characters. i think they’re fun and relatable in terms of qualities which i’m not necessarily proud of but which are nevertheless an integral part of my personality - such as, for example, being a snob.

3. all for the game by nora sakavic is probably the most unique book i have ever read - and that’s saying something bc i read over one hundred per year. do i dare to attempt to explain what it is about in a concise manner? no, i don’t think so. i’ll just say i love it bc it showed me what can be achieved if the author isn’t constrained by arbitrary rules of storytelling or social conventions or judgements of “good taste”, bc it inspired me to actively participate in an online fandom for the first time and to build a community of tumblr mutuals (which tbh was probably the only thing that helped me stay sane throughout 2020), bc it made so many memories and experiences click into place and made me realize i’m aroace and queer. i’m glad i discovered it at the right time in my life and i genuinely believe it’s in its rightful place next to the more “highbrow” books on this list.

4. harry potter. unlike many fans i read hp relatively late in my teens and so i don’t think i could say i’d grown up with it or that it had been an important part of my childhood. nevertheless when i read this series it captured my heart and soul and it never lost its charm on each subsequent re-read. now jkr is being rightfully condemned and the story itself viewed with increasing criticism, but still i can’t agree with people who claim it was never good in the first place. something is very special about hp, something contemporary authors apparently can’t recreate or another middle grade or ya fantasy would’ve overshadowed it by now. i used to think this special thing can’t be tainted by the discourse but to tell the truth now i’m not so certain anymore. maybe i’m just becoming more and more disillusioned with the idea of escaping from real life problems into magical fictional worlds... watch starkid’s a very potter musical on youtube if you haven’t already btw.

5. confusion by stefan zweig is a novella written in the 1920s and it follows a relationship between a young university student and his mysterious english professor who has a dark secret. this is probably (and unfortunately) the least famous book on this list and so i have made it my mission to recommend it to people as often as possible. zweig is a wonderful writer who focuses on deep dives into the characters’ psyche and interpersonal relationships that can’t be easily defined or put into boxes. i can’t really explain why this obscure short story is in my top 5 favorite books of all time without going into spoilers but i will say that i myself fully understood why it’s so important to me only after i realized i’m aroace. it doesn’t have any aroace characters - that would’ve been too galaxybrain for the time period - but the questions the protag grapples with in the story are in my opinion some quintessential aspec questions which i sadly haven’t seen explored in any aspec rep book i’ve read so far. 

6. eugene onegin by alexander pushkin. despite its immense fame and popularity in russia and all the lands it colonized, some western readers might not be familiar with this classic - i assume because it’s written in verse and so even the best translator wouldn’t be able to render this text in all its glory. i have re-read onegin countless times, far more often than any other book on this list, and each time it presented itself from a new angle: as a 12yo i thought it was a failed love story, as a 20yo i thought it was a failed friendship story and now, that i’m the same age as onegin at the end of the book, my conclusion is it’s about how some people just can’t be happy. how very byronic lol

7. a song of ice and fire by george rr martin. i used to believe this is the superior adult fantasy series bc of its complex and compelling characters - but that doesn’t seem right bc many authors offer good character work. what actually sets asoiaf apart imo is what i call “complex morality” - this is basically grey morality except as applied to the world instead of, as it commonly is, to the characters. a “morally grey character” is, especially today, a pretty uninspired narrative tool if they exist in a world where good and evil are real and absolute categories. despite the fact that many readers (but mostly, i think, the show viewers) have divided the asoiaf cast into the “good” ones, the “bad” ones and the “redeemable” ones (ugh), i believe martin succeeded in creating a world where each character will inevitably end up on the crossroads between a bad action and a worse one and their choice will be a juicy insight into the conditio humana. for some reason i like when the fiction i read for escapism reflects my cynical pessimist outlook🤷‍♂️  

8. the three musketeers by alexandre dumas. the og historical swashbuckling adventure story, the first book (series) i was ever obsessed with. can’t say much about this one bc i read it when i was 12 and haven’t re-read it since, my love for it being kept alive throughout the years by the soviet tv adaptation. i really want to re-read it soon but also i’m nervous that it won’t live up to my childhood memories. still had to put it on the list bc in many aspects it was foundational to my tastes in media and fiction.

9. the talented mr ripley by patricia highsmith. before the secret history dethroned it by offering similar themes in a more attractive package, this used to be my favorite book. no one can write a queercoded sociopath like highsmith. i remember finishing the book, then starting it again immediately bc i was just fascinated by ripley’s mind, by how subtle the writing was and how it managed to convey a sense of constant anxiety and tension. i think tom ripley is an important figure in the fictional serial killer canon and deserves more attention from fans of guys like hannibal lecter and joe goldberg. hopefully the upcoming mini-series will do him justice - as in “faithfully depict and popularize his story”. real justice being done to him is the last thing ripley wants lol 

10. a little life by hanya yanagihara. a very important novel whose broad thematic range is overshadowed by the notoriety it gets in the online book community bc of its heavy subject matter. this book wants you to witness the darkest moments of one man’s life, follow him on this tragic journey and see how the society that means to help often ends up harming further bc it fails to acknowledge many uncomfortable truths about individual mental health. honestly i could spend hours talking about all the subversive and taboo topics this book explores and why it’s important and why it’s bad that we don’t engage with them more often, but if i had to pick one it would be the idea that some of us will only get a little life to enjoy and that is okay and our experience is still worth recounting and witnessing, it’s still valuable and liberating even if it doesn’t fit into the common understanding of “happiness” which anyway is nothing but a construct that can seem misleading and oppressive depending on one’s experiences. ngl i couldn’t in good conscience “recommend” this book to anyone, as in “suggest they read it”, but i think i personally will revisit it at different stages in my life bc i’m sure it will reveal new depths. and also bc, as you should’ve gathered from this list, i like pain😅😬

other books i consider my all time favorites that didn’t make the list: the hunchback of notre dame, wuthering heights, phantom by susan kay, perfume: the story of a murderer, gentlemen and players by joanne harris, howl’s moving castle, captive prince, the grandmaster of demonic cultivation (mo dao zu shi), the history boys, crime and punishment

y’all know dark academia can be queer and feminist and radical and accepting right? we can have our poorly lit tweed and herringbone and murder mysteries; they’re not mutually exclusive with good politics. da is not inherently bigoted (and neither is our community).

i was talking to a friend about this, and it could be (probably is) 100% of a reach, but i love how bunny's death can be interpreted in different ways, actually

because, bunny was the most vocal about his prejudices, which isn't the same as saying that he was the only one of them who held those believes. in fact, the only time either of them cared about the offensive things bunny had to say was when it directly impacted them, like camilla with his blatant sexism, and francis with his weirdly-specific homophobia. other than that, they were mostly silent, and their actions would actually prove that they agreed with a lot of bunny's takes, just in a more discreet manner.

i think that, once you start reading tsh as an obvious criticism of wealthy white kids, who use their privilege to run around doing absolutely insane things, and putting lives of people who are socially oppressed by them in danger, bunny's death can be seen in a different light. obviously he had to be murdered for the plot to happen, and it made sense within the story as to why they would go with the murder route. at the same time, murdering bunny was also murdering this part of them who was very vocal about the ugly believes they all agreed in, and actively helped to uplift.

it was almost like trying to hide this part of them, without having to truly get rid of those statements, and systems. which, if you had the displeasure of knowing anyone who's white upper class, you'll know that it's a common practice. those who are ridiculously vocal about their prejudices, are the ones that get pushed to the side, as it looks bad for the group, however it never means the group has ceased to believe those awful things. it only means that they were able to recognize that speaking about it would make them look bad, therefore they become more quiet about it.

I just finished iwwv and i have to say i enjoyed it much more than I initially thought i would.

I had seen some valid criticism about the plot and comparisons to tsh and i agree to some extent but i still think iwwv is not only a fun read but also a quite interesting one? As a former theatre kid I am surprised so many people seem to dislike it?

Specifically I don’t really get why people complain about the characters being “flat” or the ending “predictable” when that is the main goal?

All the characters are supposed to be flat because the structure of the book tries to mimic a play in which each part represents something to the plot which is linked to the archetype they play? Their backgrounds or their personalities are just a device to the archetype not actual characterization?

Like the whole point of the book, the way the dialogue is written and the way the characters interact with each other the fact the book is divided in scenes and acts? All that is trying to copy a theater play.

Spoilers ahead

What gets the plot started is Hamlet, when Richard doesn’t get the part he wanted he becomes violent and starts hurting people. It just happens fast and unexpectedly. When you first read it it might just come as lazy writing, creating conflict, not bothering in crafting an actual issue or in building enough tension to make it flow naturally but the thing is: it is not supposed to make sense, he is just a villain to a story, not even an actual villain but the tyrant, Caesar, the force that dooms the characters to tragedy, his motifs are not as relevant as the part he plays.

And this structure is the same for every character, for James is quite obvious. He used to be the prince, the hero in every play but as soon as he plays Macbeth his arc changed and he becomes Macbeth: he kills Richard and can’t bear his own guilt which is slowly devouring him.

Oliver is always his right-hand man which literally explains the ending. Meredith is the femme fatal and her actions are a double edged sword which lead Oliver to his fate and so on with each character.

For the ending being predictable: in the first 2 chapters of the book you learn: 1 Oliver is in jail 2 their fourth year was “the year of tragedies”. Literally. So when Oliver starts retelling everything that happened you already know how it is going to end: it is a tragedy that is going to send him to jail.

During the course of the novel when Olvier is not retelling the story they speak about what are the rest of characters are doing now, about their careers and their lives and surprisingly there is only one character missing in that scheme: the one who was closer to Oliver, James. Somehow they never talk about him in the present.

The whole point of that for me is letting the reader know he is dead while we slowly discover his past and his relationship with Oliver so we can’t help but wish we are wrong and to hope that perhaps the book will have a different ending only for it to play exactly as we had first guessed and leave us sad but hopeful still when we discover the last note James left for Oliver and the strange circumstances of his death.

Obviously the book is highly influenced by tsh and it is not as great if you ask me but I think it is clever and quite enjoyable specially if you like theater and dark academia tbh

my thoughts on the secret history

Did this book come out in 1992? Yes. Am I still going to talk about it now as if anyone cares? Yes.

I picked this one up because it has been hailed as a dark academia classic. It wasn’t anything like what I expected. I understand why TSH is a dark academia classic, however I definitely agree with others on Tumblr that it is more of a a warning than anything. The closed-off elitism of the Greek club is what causes their reckoning and the characters that Richard (and dark academia fans) idolize at the outset of the novel are slowly stripped bare and revealed as their broken and amoral selves. The writing changes dramatically after the halfway mark as all the buildup of the first half is turned on its head and the reader is brought along on the group’s fall from grace. I’m used to reading to relax and enjoy myself, but parts of this novel made me feel sick to my stomach with guilt and unease. Tartt does an incredible job of making the reader feel every moment of sickening anxiety that Richard experiences. The prose itself is very engaging and packed full of allusions to the classics that make you feel very intelligent when you understand them and as dumb as a brick when you don’t (quite intentionally, I think). The characters are layered and at first seem to be one thing and then turn out to be something else entirely. The Secret History is thoroughly entertaining and thought provoking, endlessly quotable, and a must read for fans of dark academia and critical analysis thereof. 

9/10

Spoilers under the cut

I loved the constant references to the classic and the parts that were in french, latin, and greek. The thing is, I didn’t understand most of these references and after a little while I gave up on searching them up. I think this effect was entirely intentional on Tartt’s part because it makes the reader feel just as alienated and ‘beneath’ Richard and his friends as the others at Hampden must have felt. Every time Richard and the others used Greek, it felt like they were throwing their elite classics education in my face. And I loved it.

I didn’t come away from this liking anyone except for Francis, Richard, and Judy Poovey, and in fact it surprises me that so many fans seem to like Henry when the novel makes it abundantly clear that he is a very manipulative and borderline villainous character, as are Charles and Bunny. Camilla’s characterization is a conundrum because we can only see her from Richard’s perspective. We learn comparatively very little about her because Richard’s narration of her focuses so heavily on his ‘love’ for her. I honestly don’t think that Richard even loves her at all, rather, he’s created an immaculate version of her in his mind that he obsesses over. Richard constantly combines small details about her, like the sweep of her hair or her feet or her eye color, into an approximation of her that would fall apart under close inspection. He can’t reconcile his perfect conception of her with the Camilla that sleeps with her brother and willingly drinks animal blood and runs around naked in the forest, so he doesn’t. I don’t think he ever confronts or accepts Camilla’s flaws, and I think that is an accurate representation of how men view women in real life.  

A book never made me more anxious in my life. When Julian saw the letterhead on the letter that Bunny wrote my stomach dropped and I felt ill. I could barely force myself to turn the page. The latter 250 pages left me constantly uneasy. Tartt did an incredible job of forcing the reader to suffer and wait for the other shoe to drop as the characters did. I don’t even have the words to describe how she did it, but it was amazing. 

I will probably come back to this topic later, but I can’t imagine anyone sat through this much writing as it is. 

finelythreadedsky

seems like the general trend is to conflate the perspective of the main character and tartt's own perspective and pass over any amount of irony that a disconnect between the two would indicate because we don’t /see/ that disconnect. the narration gets treated as if it’s her writing from her own opinions and perspectives.

so richard’s romanticization of whatever the hell is going on in a secret history loses its ironic edge (which is less than sharp) and becomes just the book’s romanticization of all of that. and richard’s one-sided perspective of camilla isn’t really interrogated (he’s the *narrator*, who else is going to interrogate him) so it ends up reading as if it were the book’s one-sided perspective.

partially its that she’s /very/ good at naturalizing the character’s perspectives and biases so the reader sometimes doesn’t realize how skewed or unreliable the account might be (which is risky, because it inevitably results in the kinds of takes you see on this site, both uncritically perpetuating the attitudes she’s satirizing and criticizing of tartt for perpetuating what she’s satirizing).

but then again is it still satire if it’s so easily and often read as uncritical? she does choose, many times, to write from the perspectives of men unable to conceive of women as people. how much should a writer adjust to the public's instinct to take their work at face value and refuse to think critically?

"read a book" takes need to come with a disclaimer that not only does "book" exclude fanfiction but it also excludes donna tartt, you also have to read another book that isn't donna tartt to prove that you can actually read and think critically

anyway that's a lot, but genuinely ""literary""/book culture on this site is so fascinating it might as well have been started as an anthropological experiment

hm. yeah, i mostly agree. to parse this out a bit - 

i definitely take issue with tartt’s portrayal of women (& a lot of other things about her books, which i’ve ranted about repeatedly on here). semi-related, i do strongly disagree with the “donna tartt is a feminist writer” takes i occasionally see on here (less frequent than ‘donna tartt is a misogynist’ but they do come up) - you need to do more than have interesting, complex female characters for your work to count as “feminist”. not being a misogynist does not make your writing “feminist” & vise versa.

but i do think what she did with richard and theo being biased, unreliable narrators in that regard was really quite unsubtle. re: my previous comments about kitsey, I can point to various places in the text where this was said almost point-blank, very little ‘reading between the lines’ required. (same with pippa.) I do think she was subtler about this in TSH, and perhaps attempted to correct that. I guess: “kitsey and pippa are flat one dimensional characters” and “theo decker is heterosexual” are about equivalent in terms of “you really really need to work on your reading comprehension if that was your interpretation.” but does that mean donna tartt is providing great representation of either women or LGBTQ+ relationships? lol no! (quite the opposite, imho.) 

and also: I really and truly don’t think either TSH or the goldfinch are satires. having an unreliable narrator does not make a work a satire. problematizing certain aspects of the narrative does not make the book a satire on said aspect-of-narrative. the reason the irony/satirical nature of richard’s romanticization of wealth/class/academia/etc in TSH is less than sharp is because that’s just not what the book is about imho - the thing is not a satire. (contrary to what is claimed on tumblr dot edu about 500 times a day) (likewise, the fact that richard & theo are unreliable narrators who don’t understand the interiority of women doesn’t make these books a satire on patriarchy.) 

I guess ultimately I think both books are excellent with a lot of interesting complex themes going on in there that elude any kind of simplistic analysis and have to be read with more than three braincells. and I don’t think tartt should be catering to the lowest common demoninator & eliminating subtlety/complexity because many (younger) readers misunderstand it. a lot of great writers get misunderstood. but her works do have problems that need to be addressed.

and, yes, people definitely need to read books that aren’t donna tartt! and if you’re going to read donna tartt, you need to be willing to read it as literature and not, like, YA. (and you need to be willing to acknowledge its flaws.)

obviously reasonable minds can disagree on all of this - that’s just my take. 

i can’t tell if that post about people putting on white shirts and smart trousers (which imo isn’t a dark academia look by itself so i agree Partly with the post) is a slight at not being able to afford more expensive or different clothing — sometimes people gotta make the best of what they’ve got — or a comment on people’s idealisation of morally unjust characters in tsh in this community idk i’m confused you don’t have to answer this hope you’re safe & well and all that jazz

i mean, its not really saying any of these things lmao (though its definitely not about whether or not you can afford expensive clothes?? where would someone even get this unless they already had preconceptions about what people in this strange microcosm are criticised for. and are on high alert for being criscised in the first place. i suppose people thought i was writing as someone... in the .. ugh.. dark academia community and was somehow gate keeping or condemning others for not being good enough? well i am very much not. i should probably clear that up. )  i also saw someone taking it as saying people use the “aesthetic” to seem educated/academic when in fact theyre not which is ??? not at all what that post is about. i couldnt give a shit about other peoples intellectual ability and actually yeah, if that post was making fun of people who still wanted to inhabit the “””””dark academia””” aesthetic without having the means to such an education this ? idk what you call it? fandom? coterie? requires/aspires to/blindly follows without thinking of the wider implications of such adulation... that would be really bloody shit of me. i suppose if you have to have some explanation, it was just literally... an observation. because people really do be doing that. the term ‘dark academia’ and all it seems to “”stand for”” is something i have always been vehemently just against. like... just read the secret history if you want. it doesn’t mean you have to go idolising/romanticising institutions that are the breeding ground for pretty much all the injustices and inequality in the world. and that everything that is lumped under the guise of ... pls dont make me say it again... dark academia... just automatically becomes so 1 dimensional and all the things that might have made a work of literature/film/play etc interesting are just stripped back and drained of substance until they become vapid emulations of the very themes the works set out to criticise but thats just my opinion on that and i dont think the post should really be read as such either, nor did it have that intent behind it. as i said... it was literally just an observation. people really do wear shirts and trousers and call it dark academia. its hardly even a criticism. and even if it was... you do you my friends, if you enjoy it... cool. whooo cares. good day 

dumbledorably replied to your post “there’s some sort of conversation going on about how “dark academia”...”

not familiar with the genre, but i have a couple friends with strong opinions on this, and their thing is that tsh is good but the sort of fandom culture about it is Missing The Point of it critiquing the ideals of white old money & etc - just embracing the aesthetic wholesale without thinking about what the book is actually doing

i haven't read tsh and i don't think aestheticization is inherently bad, but i could see how if what draws you to the genre is the engagement with where these aesthetics come from and what they signify, it would be annoying to find it REDUCED to the aesthetics

I don’t think the two approaches you’re talking about here are mutually exclusive, is the thing. Like, enjoying the aesthetic of TSH doesn’t in itself indicate a lack of awareness as to the “point” of the book. The book is meant to be deconstructive, but it’s also meant to be seductive - the beauty of the prose, the fantasy of the setting, the fact that it’s all filtered through a first person narration that we’re intended to intimately share. Those elements are part of what makes the book a compelling work, and part of what makes it a good deconstruction. And I don’t think it’s realistic to expect people to just stop enjoying that element of the work after coming to an understanding of what it’s trying to do. 

Sort of how someone could theoretically believe that Milton’s Satan is wrong, while also enjoying the beauty and rhetorical power of his speeches. Most of the criticism of the TSH fandom culture that I’ve seen has seemed annoyingly Stanley Fishian to me in its presumption that people enjoying or claiming to be moved by the aesthetic landscape of the novel couldn’t possibly understand and agree with what the book is “actually” doing (because it is still constructing an ideal through representation, even as it deconstructs it). Not to mention the fact that a lot of the aestheticization that I’ve seen has included the violence and dark impulses and interpersonal toxicity in some manner, rather than just being pretty and pristine - amorality is often quite aesthetically compelling in its own right. 

Like, I don’t doubt that there are readers missing the sociological analysis going on in the text, but I don’t think uncritical readers are a good enough reason to condemn an entire literary concept wholesale, or that personal annoyance should be conflated with political imperatives. Like, it’s one thing to dislike something, but it’s another to describe it as “dangerous” (as the thread I’m referring to was doing). Especially when the codifier for that specific concept (TSH was pretty much considered sui generis when it was published) is, in fact, engaging with all the issues it’s being condemned for uncritically supporting. Most of that particular discussion seemed to be hedging too close to moral panic for my comfort, as well as just not recognizing that it can be fun to indulge in portrayals of unrealistic ideals, even as one mocks them or engages seriously with them. 

EDIT: I do think there’s a degree to which “dark academia” as a descriptor is derived from tumblr fandom, rather than the broader literary landscape, which might be where the wires are getting crossed? But this discussion was (as best as I can tell) purporting to be about the premise(s) of the works themselves, rather than simply the way they’re (mis)interpreted. So I don’t think the critique works when applied to the kind of stories and representation being described by the label “dark academia,” even if the people originating the term itself could potentially be engaging in an uncritical manner. Hope that makes sense.  

God I agree with everything except the green tea opinion haha. Matcha sux balls hehe. Here's another one: Donna Tartt is overrated af. Really, really plain stuff. Also wtf is the obsession with studying in cafes??? It's so obnoxious and frankly who gets any studying or work done??? Aight imma head out.

{i} Matcha is meh, not great not terrible were I to make a cup on my own, but the tea served very rarely in an authentic, almost ceremonial manner, as well as matcha flavoured candies is what I hold in high esteem. Of course it’s an overhyped powder with a peculiar aftertaste - I just happen to enjoy it. We’re allowed to enjoy things we ourselves overrate, amirite?

{ii} Re:Donna, a lot of her fans have worship tendencies, and in that lol obviously. Which ties up with the sales numbers. Cos would you rather go for a friend recommendation they like or the one they’re obsessed with? An argument for why just good products are meh and the real hit, the real way to connect is to create obsessions. Feel free to disagree, I do believe you must be doing something v well and something v humane if your art afflicts people this way. Even if it’s a mirror of their foolish escapes and fantasies. Yup, a direct dig at TSH moodboards;) 

Regarding the critical reception of her work, I think she’s more or less appropriately rated? After the Goldfinch’s Pulitzer, there were quite a few dismayed articles to even out the nice ones. (I’m too young to know much about TSH’s or TLF’s reception.) But then, you’re right to say that the pro reviews are not ‘the real tastemakers’, and lol yeah, I started the paragraph saying it’s about critical reception. Which if I attempted, hard as it is, plain just isn’t what I’d call the prose - it’s too decorative to be plain, bruh. 

Regarding the way she’s presented almost as a myth, and let’s be honest a pretentious one at that, Donna herself seems not to distance herself from the mythology, and I can only say: people shape their public narratives all the time, and this is an intriguing manner of doing so. 

{iii} Lol, I do! I often spend my uni breaks at cafes, to read through the material or to sketch up and review assignment drafts, even on off-uni days I head out to cafes to get some work out of the way, I find it much better on my productivity than my home desk. The type of cafe is a factor too, I think. I prefer those you’d see old gentlemen reading their papers at, where most customers are over thirty. The youngster places tend to be louder and have more lousy lighting. 

On the other hand, I don’t get studying/working in a library: I’d be so unnerved, in equal parts by the books and by other people studying - and the quiet of a library makes me shudder!

It’s a personal preference and neither of these study modes is more obnoxious than bashing on what works for others.

Controversial opinions?

You put what I’ve been thinking about IWWV into the perfect words. I think there was quite a few good things in the book, and the author is clearly talented. But it did come off fairly clearly that this was their first novel.

ahh, what I was saying about Meredith in this ask? I totally agree. like, it wasn’t garbage, you know? I found it enjoyable to read, and I found a lot about it to be interesting or appealing. but there were just some major parts that I couldn’t quite skim over. I think my three major criticisms would be how Meredith’s character was treated, the entire ending which just seemed like it was shooting for something much more specific but didn’t… fully commit to itself, and finally all the Shakespeare. 

like. I know that sounds hilarious at first because come on, it’s a book about Shakespearean actors, of course there’s going to be Shakespeare. but IWWV is often compared to The Secret History, and if other people are making those comparisons I’m going to judge accordingly: TSH’s mastery of integrating the classics into the story frame of the book is miles beyond how Shakespeare it dealt with in IWWV. while I know that IWWV was a debut novel… so was TSH. the difference is night and day. I often felt as though the direct quotes from Shakespeare (I did the math… 5% of the book was direct quotes from Shakespeare. five whole per cent) were standing in for actual imagery or metaphor, which would have been so much more effective if it had been woven into the narrative. huge chunks of the book were simply Shakespeare’s plays in written prose form, and while the Halloween production was incredible (I was in love with the aesthetic), it should have only been done once. I skimmed through much of the Romeo & Juliet part, because… I didn’t pick up the book to just read copy-pasted Shakespeare. it just felt a little lazy in parts.

like I said, it’s not a total loss. but I think it’s very unfair that it was compared to TSH, because aside from both of them being set in a prestigious arts school and involving murder, the two are not comparable at all and I feel like the comparison set IWWV up to fail.

@majestysnowbird i’m at the opposite end of the spectrum, idk if it’s because it’s so fresh on my mind but right now i like it above the other two! i also think the negative criticism leveled at the goldfinch is ridiculous and unfounded, because i do love that book, but at least in memory, it still doesn’t capture me the way the little friend does. i never connected to the setting of TG, only superficially to the characters; whereas the languid, southern pace of TLF feels so familiar, and the characters long-lingering in my mind. it is indulgent, it is excessive, it’s donna tartt, you know?

not to mention that TSH and TG both have, in my opinion, surprisingly terrible and poorly written climaxes, compared to the water tower scene in TLF - harriet and danny’s showdown at last was bone-chilling and i think it may be tartt at her strongest (so far......) i understand your perspective, though! one thing i know for sure is that this is a divisive book that seems impossible for anyone to agree on

About the TSH thing: I’m a person who tends towards the more ‘anti-classics group’ approach to the book and while certainly get what you mean and don’t intend to put myself in a pedestal for ‘getting it’ or whatever, I do tend to get inflamed about this issue because I think that at the end of the day, it’s impossible not to see the tendency to worship the classics group (which I have myself) as a reflection of these really ugly classist ideas and prejudices that some (emphasis on SOME) (1/2)

(2/2) parts of academia absolutely reek of and which affect us all?? And it’s hard for me not to have an emotional reaction to that and come off as self-righteous when I talk about it. And I do think this sort of criticism does kind of amount to scratching at the bars of your own prison cell, because at the end of the day we’re all still obsessed with the book and its characters – but you know... Anyway, that was a barely coherent rant and I’m sorry but I had to share that with someone.

no yeah i understand! there’s a particular post in the DA tag that makes me think, “okay wow maybe we need all these takes after all”, and i agree with pretty much all the criticism of the book i’ve seen. i think it’s very interesting that you note that you yourself used to worship the murder squad, because i definitely used to as well, and i’m wondering whether a lot of the criticism comes from almost embarrassment at oneself? it’s emotionally charged because that person used to be you. but no yeah in summary i agree with you, i just suspect that some of this criticism is less “here are my honest thoughts on the issue” and more a) “well everyone else is doing it, let me regurgitate their points” or b) “haha, look how smart i am for Getting It when nobody else does”, you feel?

Salad Boys Interview

Salad Boys

Photo by Brian Feary

Christchurch, New Zealand’s Salad Boys are back with ‘This Is Glue’, the follow up to their critically acclaimed debut album ‘Metalmania’. Recorded once again by bandleader/guitarist Joe Sampson, the record’s twelve songs dig deeper, with sharper hooks embedded deep within a more mature musicality. ‘This Is Glue’ hones Sampson’s songwriting chops to a razor edge, with many of the album’s songs sounding utterly timeless. The riffs and melodies resonate infectiously, all the while Sampson has a voice all his own and the album’s tunes tread upon a singular path of measured melancholy. The themes are darker, the lyrics more claustrophobic and yearning with Sampson confronting anxiety, mortality, and fear through his abstract lyrical lens… We talk to Joe about patience, The Killers and maintaining relevancy…

TSH: Is there a notable shift in sound coming into play with your forthcoming record ‘This is Glue’?

Joe: Well, I’d say the production and engineering is different, as well as the overall sound being more raw and not so polished. It’s hard for me to analyse it at this stage because I’m so close to it, having spent the last year working on it. For me, most of the differences will become apparent as time goes on, but I do think the record is more heavier. Also, I felt like taking more risks this time around and not being so worried about what others will think.

TSH: Was the patience factor one you had to embrace?

Joe: Both of the albums took a long time to make, but that’s definitely how I wanted to do it. It’s really hard nowadays to make a record in a reasonable amount of time because there’s no money around and no one is getting paid. You have to be more patient - I mean even if you get someone else to record, it’ll only happen in their free time.

TSH: What’s the band dynamic been like with the line-up changes?

Joe: Yeah, there’s a new version of the band right now. Well, the drum tracks were recorded mid-way through last year and the band kind of broke up, and so I just finished it myself. We recorded the drums in my friends lounge and I did the rest of it in my bedroom. Without sounding too negative, the process wasn’t very free-flowing.

TSH: What do you recall about forming ‘Psych Slasher’?

Joe: That one was a breeze really. That song was one of the few songs on the record that came together pretty quickly with the band. It’s a few years old and I wrote it when the first album was released. It was originally considered not very suitable for Salad Boys and was initially resisted, but when we were recording the drums for the album we revisited it and I spent a few months figuring out how to get the layers right.

TSH: Were your intentions with ‘Exaltation’ more song-driven?

Joe: Yeah, what was important for me about that song was just the sound of it rather than the lyrics. I had a very specific idea of how I wanted that song to sound, which was basically to please people. I guess it’s pretty easy to do that when you play C, G and F alongside a manufactured type of feel.

TSH: What’s satisfied you most about your way of working for ‘This is Glue’?

Joe: What pleases me most about this album is that I actually managed to finish it and that I actually managed to have a second album for this band. I’ve had a few bands before and we’ve only ever done one album. For me, doing something twice solidifies it so much more. I guess going and doing something can be a milestone in itself, but I feel it has to be happen twice for me personally in order for it to feel like an achievement...

TSH: Kind of like the consistency that your All Blacks side always seem to display...

Joe: Yeah, I know the All Blacks are always making headlines for such greatness, but to be honest I’ve always resisted sports, ha! I guess the closest thing I like to sports is trekking and hiking. Also, I like cars but not car racing.

TSH: However, you do like ‘Sam’s Town’ by The Killers...

Joe: Ah mate, that album is so good. There are so many things I love about that record. I mean just the vocals are fantastic. The sound of the band is simply 4 individuals loving what they’re doing and the songs turn out great. The thing I like about it the most is how brave it is. I like how they’ve made what they wanted without caring if others might think that it’s over the top. To me, ‘Sam’s Town’ is a timeless album.

TSH: Does the touring leave you jaded at all?

Joe: I’ve only really done a few tours that have left me feeling like I need to attain a positive headspace for survival. Touring is very much a learning curve. Our last tour in Australia which lasted two weeks was my best touring experience to date. I feel it’s like any situation when you’re working with other people - it’s about respecting one another and giving each other space.

TSH: Do you still opt to venture into local gardens, rivers and beaches to obtain a positive frame of mind?

Joe: Absolutely. I find visiting each of those so inspiring and peaceful. I guess visiting each is sort of an implicit kind of thing and unconscious. It’s not like I go into nature, see a tree and then the tree translates into a guitar riff. It’s just nice to get out there to find some clarity. I can tap into certain feelings when I’m out in nature, which mainly turn out to be positive vibes.

TSH: What lead to the band being situated in a library for your press pics?

Joe: Ah, that was off the cuff. I don’t really like photoshoots. I think that going to the library was one thing that we all agreed on that was alright, since our other suggestions were ignored. We thought the library would be a good look because it would make us look potentially sophisticated.

TSH: What’s the Salad Boys ethos as you look ahead?

Joe: To me, the most important thing is to keep it sounding like we are still searching for something. I don’t think it’s a good idea to feel too content, which is why I like to compare my past music to now, so I can look for ways to improve. Also, it’s stupid to think that one person can explore every musical avenue - everyone has their unique fingerprint when it comes to music and their own personal style. My philosophy is to keep making my music honest and hope that it can maintain relevancy for years to come.

Salad Boys - “Dream Date”

This Is Glue

this is all true but also basing an aesthetic identity off books like tsh which are incredibly satirical and self critical is silly if it's completely unironic. like you can enjoy all that stuff but you need to have an acceptable lack of seriousness (which i think you do quite well)

oh, i agree completely! people who take it seriously definitely make me roll my eyes at the very least. you definitely need a sense of detachment from this kind of thing. (and thank you! i do try)