Wednesday, June 18, 2003
Book Review: The Secret History by Donna Tartt
In literature, there are showmen (show-women) who have built careers on one great, knock-em dead performance and then, like David Copperfield (the magician, not the Dickens character) disappear in a puff of smoke, leaving the audience clamoring for more. Would J D Salinger have been as successful as a cultural icon if he had written one groundbreaking book and then spent the next fifty years turning out sequels, a la John Updike? Not to demean Updike, but lets face it, he has nowhere near the street cred as Salinger, who's reclusive life piques the reader's imagination more than any fiction. Then take Harper Lee. After To Kill a Mockingbird, she never wrote another novel, and her subsequent literary output was limited to a few McCalls articles. In a recent class discussion, I witnessed copious confusion about her one hit wonder status: some people thought that she had died shortly after publishing Mockingbird (she is, in fact, still alive... I wonder if she attended Gregory Peck's funeral, or at least sent a wreath), others offered the theory that Truman Capote was the real author (he must have been shy). The idea that she only had one story to tell, and that story JUST HAPPENED to be one of the greatest novels of the 20th century, simply does not satisfy.
In the first few sentences, reviewers of Donna Tartt's second novel The Little Friend point out two things: that it was eagerly anticipated and that it took her ten years to write. Ten years is a long time to wait for a second novel, especially when the author was so highly praised for her first. Clearly the literary establishment was standing by with the laurels, waiting for Tartt's next amazing project to declare her Intellectualism's Stephen King. But they waited ten years, and eventually people got bored of waiting and re-read The Secret History instead and found that it really wasn't as good as they had remembered.
Donna Tartt is in an awkward position now. If she had only published Secret History, she might have cultivated a mystery. People would have wondered, "Whatever happened to that highly intelligent and promising new author who wrote about elitism, murder and debauchery?" Bacchic cults would have arisen in the Northeast, recreating the rites alluded to in the book, speaking greek and having sex with thier twin sisters. The Secret History could have become a niche classic, not because it was particularly well written (it's not... many hundreds of pages of plodding narrative do not make for a compelling page turner) and not because it's very original (the characters play with the idea of breaking out of thier snotty-rich-kids mold, but fail to develop any depth before circumstances rip them to shreds); but because it speaks to a specific subset of the intelligencia who publicly decry elitism and yet long for it in thier very bones. Above all, Tartt's characters are seductive, thier lives even more so. The murders that drive the plot are merely a Maguffin, the stick that nudges the characters into the full blown insanity to which thier copious neurosis make them prone to: that is the heart of the Poe-like justice that punishes the spoiled brats; but at the same time, the narrator, Richard, by stepping into the world of riches and self indulgence, comes out the other side reeking of the benefits: good taste, refinement, career and an extraordinary college experience to share at dinner parties. So the reader gets the satisfaction of seeing the evil rich get thier cummupance, while getting a taste of fine wine and cigars served on the backs of the poor.
My biggest quibble with The Secret History is the narrator, Richard. He should have been erased from the novel entirely. He served no purpose in the plot as he was a tangential figure at best, he does not effect any change in the other characters, nor does he change, beyond a heafty burden of guilt. His narration goes on for pages and pages, telling us about events and never showing them unfold... much of the novel reads like a lengthy police statement; and the worst sin of all, the narration omited key clues, and then introduced them later in exposition, when Richard 'remembered' the incidents ipso facto. No, no, no! Bad author... no biscuit for you!
A successful rewrite of the novel would have removed Richard and then told the story from multiple points of view, staying within the core group of students: Charles, Camilla, Henry, etc. The scene where Bunny is murdered at the ravine would have been particularly powerful if told from Bunny's POV (ending just before he landed at the bottom of course). Seeing five characters descend into madness, each in thier own unique ways would have been priceless.
So Donna Tartt wrote a strong first novel with some problems. She then took ten years to write a second in which time expectations rose to impossible heights. Had she never published a second novel, expectations would have plateaued and been replaced by mystique. Instead, she has released a second book which most reviewers agree, is sub par. Now Donna Tartt has two options if she wishes to maintain her lustre: either become more prolific and bury the disappointing sophmore work beneath new material, or take 20 years to write the next one, and let it be a true masterpiece (here's a hint... hire a content editor). I can't say which she'll do or which one will be more difficult. I know which one I'd like to see her accomplish.
