My gerbil-on-a-wheel brain is envisioning a situation where Theodore Decker and Richard Papen exchange their books and read them while sitting across from each other. They would read in riveted silence, sporadically broken by knowing “hmm”s and appalled gasps.

every day i say that dark academia tiktok girlies should go full on romanticism werther craze and have a bacchanal

Dying to know what you thought of the goldfinch. I never read it and am very 👀

thank god you sent this because i was about to make an incredibly long, rambling post about this but now you have prompted this, it feels less unhinged to put it into the form of a solicited answer. @.@

I....have mixed feelings about GF. Like, really mixed feelings. When I was in college, I took a seminar on opera history and we studied the opera, Wozzeck, and my professor described watching it as "an act of endurance." I felt sort of similarly about The Goldfinch. Like I'm glad I read it, and I can't wait to never read it again lmao.

It's a really well-written book--God, I want to write like her--and it is a compelling story with a lot of really great moments, but I found it to be overall less thematically incisive than TSH and, though TSH had some pacing issues, especially towards the end, The Goldfinch felt much, much more uneven. There's a lot of crossover between the two novels--unreliable narrators that are closeted queer men, so much drinking, so much drugs, etc--to the point where I thought a twist would be that they were set in the same universe and that Theo's father was somehow Richard Papen. But TSH felt bolder in a way, more satirically cutting, funnier, wilder, and younger. The Goldfinch is a sadder book, unrelentingly anxious and grief-stricken. And I do think this is sort of the point and I don't criticize it for that. It did make the melodrama of the novel's conclusion feel a little...i don't know...less justified and a little more gimmicky? And anxiety is a monotonous state so I think the GF lacked the emotional texture that made TSH much less....exhausting?

The Goldfinch is DT's ode to Dickens and there a lot of nods to Dickens in both direct references and style (the book is basically like what if uriah heep from david copperfield was psychosexually obsessed with pip from great expectations). There are certainly class dynamics here, episodic adventures, varied characters, and a lot of ruminations on providence but I did keep wondering what about Dickens drew her to tell this particular story which on a surface-level seems to ruminate on the impact of beauty, as opposed to the impact of wealth. In a lot of ways, TSH, with its commentary on class and wealth, even more over-the-top characters, feels like a better fit for Victorian literary structures.

In my wild and quite honestly unfounded speculation, I think the conclusion that I have come to is that it is a really, really personal book. Dickens was an intensely personal writer who used his own experiences, including those with his difficult father and poor upbringing and young infatuations as material, even in sort of unrealistic scenarios. I made a half-joking post about Brett Easton Ellis serving as DT's muse but I think....like...that may be true? I spent a lot of time, while reading this book, googling and reading about BEE and his erratic personality, contradictory and sometimes controversial and nihilistic media statements, and drug addiction. (Something that stood out to me was that BEE said that Patrick Bateman was based on his father, which he later retracted, to say that he felt like he was more like Patrick Bateman and wrote that book from a place of intense depression and isolation and consumption. This third-eying of oneself through the lens of the father is so Theo to me.) It's an examination of a self-destructive person but feels so clearly written from the point of view of someone who loves them--there is a real tenderness in how Theo is rendered that makes me think that it is not directly autobiographical about DT's own life but is the record of someone else who is loved and who is grieved. I have no evidence of this, truly, but this is what I keep thinking.

Some random other thoughts: one thing that @attonitos-gloria and I have talked a lot about is how DT always writes from the point of view of men who desire other men but whose desire is so hidden and buried that it becomes warped and we think that this is fascinating. @.@ The women in both TSH cannot be held as whole people in the eye of the narrator, their wholeness exists but beyond the borders of the male narrators' understanding of them. I also love how DT loves places and loves things. She creates fantasias of real places that feel like they influence the narrative and I think that's really cool.

TL;DR: I thought TSH was better, but GF was more personal and thus more messy. But it won a Pulitzer so literally what do i know.

I intend to start reading The Secret History soon, when I finish my studies. Could you give me your brief opinion about the book? I'm genuinely curious to hear your opinion

i've read TSH about three times now, front to back, and have to say that it does find its rightful place among my favorite books of all time — despite its occasionally disconcerting, highly questionable contents.

it's the dark academia book, that is no secret. in this way, it's an aesthetic gateway drug to many (me included), which i can only express my gratitude for, because i love the atmosphere and the setting and the mystery of it all. the plot is a captivating and striking one, as are the characters, as is the writing — well fleshed-out and outlined, creatively unwound, concluded on such a sudden, stunning note. masterful, even if with its handful of pretentiously-shaded references (specifically regarding the classics and antique history) that one may need a dictionary or an encyclopaedia to fully comprehend. but then again, it's so in line with the genre, isn't it? it's almost self-aware in that way. once again — masterful.

here comes the big however, however: the amount of extremely unnecessary passages (which are defined by either political incorrectness or simply distasteful matters) is — and i am serious about the term — ridiculous. i, in cold blood, detest some of donna tartt's contentual choices in TSH. some of these passages you simply read and are forced to lean back and think, why? why was that necessary? what does that contribute to the plot?

the absolute same goes for the goldfinch, jesus fuck — that book aggravated me even more in that regard, because the story and the development thereof was set up so carefully and masterfully, and then it all came crashing down by virtue of those unnecessary, plainly disrespectful parts that lack both tact and cultural awareness (and in the year of 2013, too!). but, y'know, i'm getting carried away here.

the point, concisely, reads: tartt writes unlike anyone else, sharply and compellingly, but boy does she know how to ruin a moment. i do not like her; i like the ideas that she once had and consequently developed into her novels, i like the characters she made up and nurtured, i like her eloquence and knowledge in her specific area of expertise. but that is all. that woman is an enigma to me.

Currently Reading...

The Goldfinch - Donna Tartt

We noticed when reading The Secret History that Donna Tartt's chapters are ridiculously long. When we were splitting this book up for our buddy read, we had to split it into huge chunks, to make sure we didn't end up stopping part way through a scene.

We left our weekends free, in case one (or both) of us needed the time to catch up. I managed the first week easy, but fell behind during the second week. In the end, I finished on Saturday, two days behind schedule.

Henry and I had quite a debate about the two books - not about which is better - they're both equally well written. But why most people seem to prefer Secret History over Goldfinch.

The subject matter of TSH, I think, appeals more to most people. But Henry said he related more to The Goldfinch, whereas I found TSH far more relatable. I think perhaps the reason Henry related to Goldfinch is because Theo lives a far more everyday, routine life before his mother dies, than Richard lives in TSH. There's also the fact that Goldfinch is set later, close to the time that Henry and I grew up in.

However, I related much more to Richard's state of mind. There's nothing in the world - no amount of dead mothers or drunken fathers or stolen paintings - that would have turned me into a opiate-fuelled drug addict as a teenager. But if a group of cool academics took me under their wing and wanted me to commit a murder (especially a ritualistic one) I'd probably have gone along with it in a heartbeat.

I loved the end of the story, but much like TSH, it sort of trailed off in the last fifteen pages or so, just kind of lost its way a bit. But it was a great read, and I'm definitely going to try The Little Friend once I've had a suitable break.

What is your opinion on a little friend hy Donna tartt? It seems to be the least acclaimed of her three books and was wondering if you agreed with it

you know, i actually haven’t read it yet. i’d like to, because i really enjoy tartt’s writing, but i find it hard to read through one author’s bibliography- there are so many other books by other people i want to get around to too. i’d still like to read it one day if only to see early days tartt- for me goldfinch is clearly superior to tsh in style so it’d be interesting/informative to see her growth through all 3 books. if i ever read it i’ll be sure to talk about it here. have you read it yourself? thoughts?

off-topic, but as quick summer recs, i just finished breezing through giovanni’s room + a room of one’s own and they’re both intensely good and very short, so ideal for sea-side reads.

What's your favorite Donna tarot novel? And fave characters?

omg what an autocorrect spelling

Near obsessive rant under cut

My favourite of her books is The Secret History. I genuinely cannot overemphasise what this book means to me. After uni (where I had to read dry ass political books and papers constantly) I genuinely really struggled to read anything, even fiction. I found it on a table labelled “Modern Classics” and literally after reading the first sentence I was hooked. The setting and characters really spoke to me, and I have never considered myself a fan of lit fic before but I’m definitely a convert now.

If I had to rank her novels I’d probably put them in order of release, I don’t know why but the goldfinch never really grabbed me the way tsh did, but i loved the little friend and i know its somewhat unpopular.

My favourite of her characters are Richard, Bunny and Harriet. I know Bunny is a wild choice but I genuinely find him a bit endearing; he’s such a nasty person but he’s the only member of the clique who doesn’t try to disguise it. He’s a bastard and he knows it, while the others try their best to appear as dignified upper class people. Harriet and Richard are mainly because I relate to them so much, though Richard is as blank a slate as possible so that he can fool us into believing everything in the novel (both motive and action) so I think everyone relates to him really. And I basically was Harriet as a child (even down to the haircut), but I wasn’t at all obsessed with Harry Houdini.

No, they’re both brilliant so fear not. I read the goldfinch first and was like: yeah, she won’t be able to top this and then read the secret history and was like !!!! They’re completely different but equally amazing. I’m pretty sure the secret history was the last book I’ve read that had me HOOKED. It’s been a long while since I felt like that about a book 😔

i'm in the same boat still with TSH. like. i've reread it with heavy annotations recently and i simply can't read anything else again? i tried reading uhhh "if we were villains" which is obviously good but it doesn't hit the same after TSH. definitely think i'll be picking up goldfinch soon as tartt's style is like right up my alley.

anwyay lets meet at a mysterious university n become fond of each other n visit museums n quote shakespeare n drink wine late at night before having a heated make out session n not talk about it the day after

there’s a huge difference between authors problematizing something through writing an obviously biased and unreliable viewpoint and an author inadvertently perpetuating the views of said biased viewpoint by, just, thoughtless sloppy writing. and i think donna tartt’s a perfect example of this, because she does both.

for the first example, we have kitsey and pippa - two white women who theo sees through the male gaze, as the simple one-dimensional people he wants them to be. by the end of the book, both of these characters have been turned inside out and on their heads. we realize that they are not remotely the people theo thought they were. as a reader, this smacks us (and theo) in the face. the revelation is shocking and forms a major point in the narrative & emotional force of the final part of the novel.

for the second example, we have cinzia, theo and his mother’s housekeeper. she doesn’t seem to have any agency whatsoever, aside from adoring theo and his mother. theo’s mother can’t afford to continue to hire her, and what does she do? she offers to “stay and work for free.” this is inexplicable. this might be donna tartt writing theo’s biased perspective. but, unlike pippa and kitsey, we never see a hint of the other side of that. repeating this theme, we also have etta, the barbours’ housekeeper, who “rushes to hug” theo, saying “I had the night off but I wanted to stay, I wanted to see you.” 

in this category, we also have essentially every other character in domestic worker, “lower class” positions - they are characters who seem to exist only to serve theo and the family/friends, they lack interiority to the point of being inexplicable, they are one dimensional caricatures of “the help.” these characters are also, coincidentally, essentially the only PoC to feature in the novel. this could (and perhaps is intended to be) donna tartt writing from the perspective of a privileged white boy. but it ultimately comes off only as sloppy, borderline offensive, writing - it problematizes nothing and propagates only the privileged-white-boy perspective it imitates.

this is an excellent brief article on the second point: https://www.salon.com/2014/06/13/donna_tartts_multicultural_fantasy_how_the_goldfinch_got_away_with_its_disgraceful_racial_politics/

maybe its just bc i consumed both of them in the same weekend but i think tartt and howls moving castle are getting at the same thing re: beauty? beauty and goodness aren't the same thing but can be conflated if you read it backwards like goodness isn't inherent to beauty but beauty is inherent to goodness and an obsession with beauty divorced from meaning and divorced from goodness is dangerous.. hubristic.. icarus and narcissus are the same story if you squint..

Boris is wild and moody and manic and yet. Yet. So so so cheerful about his father. Hes bleeding and bruised and he just grins with a mouthful of blood and holds out a bottle of vodka to theo and I'm just? This aches far more than I thought it would

i started reading the secret history the other day and it’s so good. i’m only on page 89 so please don’t judge my character preferences so far !! but right now i love richard, francis, and henry the most. i also love charles and camilla but they are a bit bland sadly </3 i hate bunny,,, (for obvious reasons) lol, but sometimes he can be sweet... frick donna for making me hate a character so much but also giving him depth and a personality that i would otherwise love if he weren’t a bigoted asshole! but yeah, richard is an angel and gives off big himbo vibes even though he’s quite clearly very intelligent. francis and henry are *chefs kiss* i just love them both. oh yes and judy poovey is quite annoying so far but she doesn’t mean any harm and i can’t blame her for crushing on richard so she’s okay too :) okay i’m done my small tsh rant i’ll update you all once i read more and i will track how my character preferences change throughout the book! :D also i may be posting a bit about both the goldfinch AND the secret history now, but will still mostly be stranger things.

I was tagged by @portiaadams I'm still new to tumblr and I don't have enough followers/don't follow enough people to tag someone else, so sorry about that!

1. Last song: Shpongle - Once Upon a Sea of Blissful Awareness.

2. Last film: The Goldfinch. Boris is amazing. Both actors did a fantastic job portraying him. That roguish charm, my god.

3. Currently reading: The Likeness by Tana French. One of my best friends is currently reading The Secret History, one of my most favourite books ever, and that got me into the mood of reading something similar. Really enjoying it so far, it definitely has those TSH vibes without being derivative. It's an homage in the best sense of the word. Can't get enough of that atmosphere: an old house, subtle decadence, exquisite clutter, mysteries and a close-knit group of friends with a secret.

4. Currently watching: nothing at the moment, but finished Mad Men recently. Loved Peggy and sort of miss Don for some obscure reason.

5. Currently craving: a glass of red wine.

Thanks for the tag!

so i finished the secret history. my life is never going to be the same. i feel like i’ve literally been physically transformed by that book. i want to hug and stab donna tartt at the same time. love that both tsh and the goldfinch have very into drugs but not totally chill with murder very obviously closeted gay with internalized homophobia main characters

I saw that you consider The Goldfinch a better book than TSH, but that you have a soft spot for TSH

What is it about TSH that appeals so much to you? I’m in the process of reading it. I enjoy it for the most part, but whenever I read something like Henry not knowing about the moon landing, I just have to laugh at the sheer pretentiousness of these ppl. Did Donna Tartt intend for that to be funny????

oh, no, that's definitely intended to be funny. like, TSH is intensely satirical. donna tartt extensively based hampden on her actual college, and a lot of the characters bear striking resemblances to literary figures she knew in real life (see: bunny and brett easton ellis). add to that the fact that richard himself tells us that his fatal flaw is romanticising elitism and it becomes even more apparent that his inner monologue/fawning over his absolutely ridiculous classmates is meant to be seen as transparent.

as to what it is about TSH that appeals to me so much... a lot of things! i love murder plots, and i love stories about terrible people being terrible and kind of funny about it. i love the literary references in it, especially because i happen to be in the richard papen target audience where greek/latin/french quotes are ones i can enjoy firsthand. i'm just pretentious enough that i really enjoy the meandering reflexions on humanity, beauty and the nature of good and evil (something i also appreciated when theo and boris were doing them). and, as above, i just find it all very funny- a cast of rich idiots with 0 common sense or practical skills who get into a stupid fake cult and continue to have the absolute worst sense of priorities throughout the entire novel. judy poovey is my favorite character after francis, which will give you a sense of what i choose to focus on when i read. now that i think about it you could say i just zoned in on the people richard judges the most despite them being his not-so-secret besties. richard has questionable taste.

as an aside, i know some people find the narration in tsh really off-putting because richard buys into the schtick so hard, but i just find richard endearingly annoying in the same way i endured theo- they both have their strengths, but they're also so incredibly obtuse and self-destructive you kind of have to laugh off their delusions to get through their narrations.