for answers, it was Henry's idea to experiment with the Bacchanal, and it was he who decided that murdering Bunny was
the only thing that they could do. Despite the fact that Henry devises Bunny's murder, he does not disclose his logic. How
he came to the idea of poison mushrooms, and of his secretive book buying and covertly meeting with Julian building up a
cover story if this plan was to work, and also trying to make it fool proof. He goes to Richard supposedly to check some
of his maths, but it can be argued that this is a device used to draw Richard in and to flatter him, making sure that the
whole group will stay united in the idea of the murder. It is clear from this display that Henry has been planning the
murder of Bunny for a while, and has come up with many plans to complete the murder and has eventually decided one
that is infallible, unless they are caught. The clique seem to comply and although they question the plan none of them
oppose the idea, Henry has worked out what they are going to do to the last intricate detail including timing and where the
best place to hide the car is. Henry has worked out the murder to the last detail and his determination has made the group
believe that this is possible and the only way. The reader doesn't sympathise with Bunny, and are therefore not sorry
when he dies. This is because we have to rely on Richard's view and agree with it, hence, he is sometimes a fallible and
unreliable narrator.
The reader knows that Henry and Julian have a good friendship, but like Richard we do not discover the true
nature of what all of their conversations are about, or much about why and how they became such good friends. We
know of certain events, and yet their manner is kept from us, although this frustrates the reader it does add an essence of
mystery and leaves this open to interpretation compelling the reader to continue. This may be partly due to the lack of
dramatic irony, this removes some of the tension, as Hitchcock said,
"The best way to create tension is wen you have two characters sitting at a table,
there is a bomb ticking away underneath the table, and only the
audience know about it"
Julian is a mysterious character throughout the novel, similarly to Richard seems to be at a distance, and although a
crucial member of the group, and an instrumental character in the events leading up to the bacchanal, he doesn't play a
role of importance in the story told from Richard's perspective. We also discover very little about the interviews held by
the FBI and toward the end of the novel it becomes apparent that there's far more to the story than Richard knew. We
discover more about the interest from the FBI and also how close they were to discovering what had happened, "you have
no idea how close they were to finding us out." Consequently, with Charles's breakdown comes much that Richard
doesn't know, concluding the novel, and also making the reader realise that Henry's calculating mind was something to be
hated not admired, and accordingly his suicide is accepted far more easily.
Another aspect lost through the first person narrative, is that Richard often reiterates something that he has heard
or has been told. This often makes the story seem less believable as the reader would like to hear the original account
from the person to make it more plausible, "I told them what Judy told me." . This makes the story seem vague, but does
add to the reader's reliance on Richard for information, therefore intensifying the idea that there is more to be told. A
sense of reality is also introduced to the novel, as in life we hear things through word of mouth. The reader does gain from
the first person narrative the idea of being involved in the story, and discovering the information at the same pace as
Richard, gives the reader an idea of what it would be like to be in his situation. This personalisation gives the reader the
idea of a private look into a dark world, and a confidential insight into these peoples lives,
"Whenever I read about murders in the news I am struck by the dogged,
almost touching assurance with which... fail to recognise the evil in themselves;"
The title, "The Secret History" give the reader the idea from the start that this is a story that would have
stayed buried if it wasn't for the book and is an interesting and intriguing insight into a private past.
Having written intentionally in the first person narrative, Tartt achieves detective like characteristics in the novel.
We see that Richard stumbles upon many clues during the early part of the novel and all these things don't really add up to
anything, but it is soon clear that there was a different story continuing without the knowledge of the reader, when Henry
explains to Richard, "You don't know how many times you almost stumbled upon us." Later on in the play when Charles
is arrested for drunk driving, the reader also gets the sense that not everything is out in the open, as Henry is very
secretive and makes Richard goes to the Police station. The reader soon finds out from Charles that there was far more
interest from the FBI than the rest of the group knew, and that they were very close to being discovered.
"The people from the FBI. There was a lot towards the end we didn't tell you.
Henry made me swear not to tell."
As the truth comes out toward the end of the novel, it is clear that things are starting to breakdown, especially the bond
between the group. We find out much more about the twins incestuous relationship and about Francis's homosexuality.
The closeness of the clique is clearly disintegrating, and they all know that there is no way to regain the relationship; the
bacchanal and in particular, the murder of Bunny, has affected them all more subconsciously than any of them would have
ever anticipated.
Murder is morally wrong and the reader knows this, but we are drawn in as much as the rest of the group are,
and are persuaded by Henry that it is an acceptable solution and the only, one available to the group. This is due to the
biased view created through the first person narrative, and the reader is consequently convinced as are the clique. Richard
agrees with this and although we may be slightly troubled with the idea of murder when it is first introduced, we are
brought round through Richard's narrative and reasoning, "Just for the record, I do not consider myself to be an evil
person" . His reasoning with the reader and his thoughts throughout the novel build a trust with the reader and allows him
to have influence over us and our ideas. This reasoning and casual aside style comments to the reader allow us to feel
involved in the novel and gives a more realistic view of the characters. We trust Richard as a narrator because of the
honesty with which the story is told, the brutality doesn't seem to be glossed over, and he seems to be genuinely troubled
by the events. Richard's influence over the reader is also clear by his shifting opinions of the peripheral characters and
therefore our view of them also changes.
If Tartt had decided to write in a third person narrative, the book would be far less intimate and the reader would
miss many of the features that are key to making this novel compelling. Third person narrative can provide insight into the
plot having a prominent affect, but because people confide in Richard the novel seems far more personal. The reader
would be able to access the character's minds therefore making the novel far less dramatic, the reader would have the
advantage of the dramatic irony that would be created. Receiving the story from Richard's point of view allows us to
react with him and to get far more involved in the story. Hence making events such as that bacchanal far more plausible
in the novel. Having an all seeing, all knowing view would mean that there was little tension therefore removing much of
the excitement from the novel. The way Richard expresses events, the pain we see that the murder has caused is clear in
his language, in his description of the events, and of attitudes to other characters; his analysis of events, and the way he
leads us through the story allows us to see how they change toward the end let the reader know that there is an
irrevocable divide between the group.
Being told the story from someone who knew these people, and is able to analyse how it has changed them, adds
to the narrative structure, and makes it more valid. We hear of his experiences and emotions and this makes us feel
sympathetic towards them. Similarly we hear Henry talk about the Bacchanal and seeing it from his point of view we
believe it. The Bacchanal is something that had to be told from Henry's point of view otherwise it would seem fabricated,
as it is such an inconceivable event that the reader would have doubted its truth had it come from Richard as he had not
experienced it first hand. What we gain from the first person narrative is an insight into the lives of what seem to be a
normal, if not insular group of people who commit two murders, and how it has affected them. This is achieved with great
success, because of the detailed analysis of the characters and the way we have grown to know and believe in them. We
see that they are affected, due to having Richard as our agent, giving us this insight into his life and a bias view the plot, as
some spectacular event in his life that he will never be able to forget. We don't get to know the other characters as
intimately, especially Henry as we only get to see an insight and a taste of his character. Told from his point of view The
Secret History would have been a very complex and far difficult to accept, because of Henrys calculated coldness.
There would have been less intrigue as Henry is far more instrumental in initiating the bacchanal and the murder of
Bunny, thus removing the viewers connection with the narrator.
The first person narrative makes the novel seem autobiographical and a kind of therapy for Richard, a
confessional novel, as they all know that they can't tell anyone about their pasts, hence, 'The Secret History'. The events
have affected them all, and the idea of this being an autobiography showing Richard's life is an idea that I believe. I think
that the perspective makes this novel seem very much an autobiography this is made clear by Richard on many occasions
from the start of the novel,
"I suppose at one time in my life I might have had any number of stories,
but know there is no other. This is the only story I will ever be able to tell."
The idea of this being true, is made even more prominent because of this style and I think that it is used to great effect
and makes the story very believable and far more compelling. At the end of the book the reader is left with the idea that
murdering Bunny was not the best solution, and although it solved their problem short term, they are affected for the long
term and haunted by these events.
There are many events and themes that relate to Tartt's life and this is shown throughout the novel through the
characters, this adds to the sense of reality and to the idea that these are real people and real events. Tartt was ill as a
child and as a result of this she was often absent from school leaving her much time to read novels mirrored by Henry's
similar actions at the beginning of the novel. Henry is also supposedly based on one of Tartt's close friends whom she met
at Bennington College in Vermont, where Tartt began writing The Secret History, and is occasionally mentioned in the
novel. At Bennington Tartt was part of a small clique of friends who were attached to one tutor in particular, who also
taught Greek, similar to Camilla Tartt was the only girl in this clique. It is speculated that Henry is based on Paul Edward
McGloin, who the book is also dedicated to, and who was a particularly close friend of Tartt's. Tartt is also reputed to
have had similar characteristics to many of the characters, described as,
"A well tailored, chain smoking, heavy drinking, insomniac,"
In many ways the novel mirrors Tartt's experience at college, and there are many elements that are said to be drawn from
her own life. Not only is the novel an indirect autobiography of Tartt's life but it is written as that of Richard's. Drawing
from her own experiences makes this novel feel far more vivid than if it was purely fictitious. Hence making it seem like
Richard's autobiography inducing the reader to feel involved this also makes the reader believe in the characters and the
plot are real. These two techniques combined make the novel work on many levels, as the feelings expressed by Richard
have been felt by the author makes the piece seem far more realistic, also giving the reader an insight into the author
subconsciously. Thus the involvement of the authors own life in the novel makes it more credible. This adds a sense of
personal involvement in the novel; because it is written in part from Donna Tartt's personal experience it makes the novel
seem far more grounded and real, making it far more believable and compelling, due to the reader considering it to be a
true story.
2989 Words (excluding Footnotes and Bibliography)
The Secret History
www.booksilove.com
www.brainyquote.com
www.johnshepler.com
The Secret History, Continuum contemporary, Donna Tartt's The Secret History, by Tracy Hargreaves, A readers Guide.
Louise Colman
1 The Secret History, Page 0
2 The Secret History, Page
3 The Secret History... A readers guid
4 The Secret History, Page 30
5 The Secret History, Page 50
6 The Secret History, Page 40
7 Alfred Hitchcoc
8 The Secret History, Page 50
9 The Secret History, Page 40
10 The Secret History, Page 30
11 The Secret History, Page 18
12 The Secret History, Page 50
13 The Secret History, Page 30
14 The Secret History, Page
15 The Secret History... A readers guide
