It's Been Said A Lot Of Times Before But I'll Say It Again Because It's True: The Country House Section

It's been said a lot of times before but I'll say it again because it's true: the country house section is one of the best, if not THE best section of the book.

It's weird to say considering how "useless" it is in terms of plot (there's the Bacchanal happening in the background but of course we know nothing about it yet), and there are many parts that are way more interesting in which actual things happen. Plus, it is quite long, so a lot of pages of basically nothing.

And yet in retrospect, that's the part that stuck with me the most in the end, and it still is one of the first things that come to mind when I think back on TSH.

It was just that vivid. Maybe it's because I've experienced something similar myself so I could sympathize with how Richard was feeling too. I just remember I was totally immersed in it the first time I read it. I really felt like I was there. And even if it did last longer than I expected and I wanted to go on with the story already, I didn't feel bored.

Apart from simply ✨the atmosphere✨ and ✨the aesthetic✨ being on point, I think the main reason for this is that it really fed the illusion, and it made you FEEL like Richard. We knew from the very first page (lines!) that this book was probably not going to be a joyful one. But while they were in that country house, everything seemed fine. Richard was finally making his way into the group, they were starting to be more open towards him, they were all having a great time together, we got to see their little stupid shenanigans which made us know all of them better and me inevitably attached to all of them (Bunny throwing Henry and Francis in the water will never not be funny to be) and they even started daydreaming about the possibility of living together in that house without anything changing in the future.

It was clear even while I was reading it that all those things would have never become true, and that the illusion would have shattered soon. But still a little part of me kept on believing that maybe that could last, because the way it was narrated by Richard was... weirdly hopeful, which isn't something I can say about any other part of the book I believe. It was hopeful, and yet there was that unsettling sense of dread creeping through the lines, because you KNEW the murder was coming soon and everything would end. But just like Richard, I just... didn't care in the moment.

The country house section to me was somehow a snippet into what could have been if they never murdered Bunny- or even before, if they never had the Bacchanal at all. Could things have gone wrong at some point still, for whatever other reason? Probably yes. Maybe they weren't meant to last anyways, maybe they weren't even friends in the first place, everyone has their own thoughts about this. But it's sweet to think about. Now knowing the whole story and how terrible the situation actually got makes those pages even more painful. Those really were their happiest times.

Also I could talk about Camilla cutting her foot too but that's maybe another post for another day before this becomes way too long lol.

Also also the cherry on top for me was definitely that last couple of lines which got to me HARD and make my heart ache still:

There was a ragged burst of laughter; faint, but clear, it floated back across the evening air. That laughter haunts me still.

If The Secret History ever does become a movie or tv series, I ask that Francis be wearing a different outfit in every scene he is in.

Today I discovered that a couple of TSH characters were based on actual people Donna Tartt knew at Bennington College- amongst them were students Todd O'Neal and Matt Jacobsen, who were the inspiration for Henry and Bunny respectively.

AND JUST—

There's even their own comments about it and it's so funny wait:

Here's the source

I’m going to be real. Is there anyone who actually doesn’t realize that The Secret History is criticizing the romanticizing of things? I periodically see posts like “So many people misread this book and don’t get that it’s really saying we shouldn’t romanticize—” Like come on, people get it. But the book has some intentionally pretty, vivid imagery. And the author clearly enjoys classics. And its very possible to be in awe of the style this book has without being oblivious to the message.

Besides, I think it’s a jump to say this novel is saying “academia bad.” It’s not the classics that are bad. What’s bad is trying to view what you love without any regard for morality so that you can bury yourself in it. I think knowledge and ambition and wanting to look nice are good things. And it’s very obvious to me that suit-wearing, classics-studying author Donna Tartt thinks so too. Beauty is a good thing. It’s pretentiousness, elitism, cultishness, and “the picturesque at all costs” which are bad.

Mood: a morbid longing for the picturesque at all costs

Charles is both an abuser and a victim, and I think this is important for reading the other characters.

I think sometimes when I talk about Francis and Charles as characters it comes across like I think Francis was the worst one and that Charles did nothing wrong, and that’s really not the case. It’s more that I feel that fandom tendencies make the discussions about them just inaccurate? And my thoughts here are not about memes and silly posts purposely woobifying characters. It’s like based on… legit theories and fanfics that weirdly depict the characters.

I think my issue with the Charles discourse is how much Charles is seemingly held up as a scapegoat so people can safely adore other characters in the book. And it’s all just inaccurate to what happened. For example, the concept that Henry was benevolently trying to swoop in to rescue Camilla from Charles is something I see framed a lot. And that phrasing of it seems more intended to be ship fodder than anything because that’s honestly a really watered concept of what happened, in my reading. Charles did wrong, but that doesn’t mean Henry was just the good guy in the situation. He definitely had selfish motives; he wanted Camilla, and it wasn’t pure saviorhood. If it were, he wouldn’t have antagonized/pressured Charles into insanity and kept him drunk on purpose. Camilla wanted Charles to get better— she said so. But Henry convinced Francis and Richard to keep Charles intoxicated. And he didn’t tell Camilla that Charles was still drinking.

(Side thing, this also indicates Francis could be wrong that Charles is faking memory loss— either by genuine mistake or because he’s wants Richard to feel sorry for him. I guess we can’t know for sure, but we have it presented as valid by Camilla and not by Francis).

Anyway, this isn’t exactly honest, helpful behavior on Henry’s part. And Camilla definitely wasn’t ok with everything he was doing. He lied, at least by omission, to her.

It’s very likely Henry intimidated Francis when he visited Camilla (Francis seemed rattled and said Henry wouldn’t leave the room), and I suspect he said things to Francis when they were alone before Richard called about finding Charles in the snail. This is why Francis echoed Henry’s bullshittery about detoxing being bad. I do think Camilla wanted to date Henry and that she asked him for help— their relationship had been going on the whole book— but it’s also highly implied she was wary of some of his behaviors and that she wouldn’t have wanted her brother to get murdered. I think Henry did help Camilla. But I also think his manipulative actions show that his motives were self-serving and that, by the end of the book, he’s using violence as his modus operandi. Henry is a pretty horrible guy. He has a sort of joking coldness about Bunny’s death as well as the death of the dog he killed, and he openly admits to not caring much for others. He’s a super incredible character, and I do find him charming and fascinating. But I feel like I’ve seen this whole situation with Charles become about how Henry just adored Camilla so much and was willing to protect her from evil. I’ve even seen it insinuated that everything Henry did from the start of the novel was really just to liberate Camilla. As if he isn’t a selfish bastard who did the bacchanal as means to rid himself of his conscience so he can do what he wants (again, from his own mouth).

Henry himself was clearly— and by his own intention, I argue— a factor in Charles’s insanity and using Charles’s sins to his advantage. Just because Charles was rotten doesn’t mean he’s at fault for the entirety of what happened. It doesn’t mean that he wasn’t used too. He was bad but also really sick. Henry and Francis both knew this and manipulated it. Again, it’s not that he’s innocent, it’s more that the conversation around him often becomes about acquitting other, more beloved characters by invoking the name of Charles for everything. But Henry’s motives for the bacchanal were selfish and Francis was a spineless manipulator at points.

(Hopefully I’m not strawmanning people here!!! I think it’s easy to find fake groups of people to argue with in posts like these. And I admit fault if I’ve been taking theories and posts I see too seriously, but this is my issue with a few specific theories I have seen that seem to depict Francis as too inculpable and Henry as too selflessly in love)