The Secret History Essay Example

The Secret History Paper When it was published in 1992 The Secret History was acclaimed as the most hyped novel of all time. It sold in vast numbers and despite being marketed as The Thinking Persons Thriller it included elements of many other genres. It has been stated by some critics that much of its success comes from the depth provided by the first person narrative along with the autobiographical detail from Tartt herself. The narrative in The Secret History is provided by Richard Papen, who fulfils the role of an outsider; looking in upon the classics group and gradually becoming assimilated within them. Through the use of the first person narrative the reader only sees Richards perception of events, along with the inaccuracy of his observations; an example of this is his reference to the heavy sweet smell of apples rotting on the ground being both the thing he hated about Plano and one of the things that made Hampden so appealing to him. Richard also states that one of his skills is lying on my feet, something which hardly lends reliability to the narration. This effect is furthered by the separation of Richard the narrator and Richard the leading character. The narrative switches between the recall of events in the past tense and his feelings about these events in the present tense; through this use of a first person retrospective narrative the progression from the focaliser and past self to the narrator represented by the present self can be seen: I suppose at one time in my life I might have had any number of stories, but now there is no other. This is the only story I will ever be able to tell (Prologue) This creates a drama in which the protagonist attempts to make sense of his own self and place within society as the novel progresses. We will write a custom essay sample on The Secret History specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on The Secret History specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on The Secret History specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer The narration is intra-diegetic and the expression of thought and feeling that this entails draws the reader into the plot very effectively; it has been said by some that it almost implicates the reader in the action themselves. Richard as a narrator drew a mixed response from the critical press; Lee Lescaze in the Wall Street Journal review accused Tartt of using this first person narration as a way of masking her substandard abilities of characterisation, whilst James Wood in the London Review of Books found Richard a fascinating invention and colluded to the fact that he drew the reader into the action. When Bunny is murdered the reader is sympathetic to the actions of the group because they see it only from the perspective of Richard, who by this stage perceives himself to be an integral member of the group. Later in the text he acknowledges his less important position in the whole thing: And it made me feel better in some obscure way: imagining myself a hero, rushing for the gun, instead of merely loitering in its path like the bystander I so essentially am. (Epilogue) In a similar vein, as the group begins to fall apart, and the realisation of the full implications of their actions sinks in, then the reader shares to a certain extent the revulsion and the shame experienced by Richard. As a result of the narration coming from an outsider, who himself is drawn into a group; the sense of involvement felt by the reader is heightened. As Richards is the only perspective provided on events the reader shares his surprise and dismay as initial preconceptions about other characters such as Charles and Camillas incestuous relationship are removed. Through the use of the first person narrative Tartt gains the ability to legitimately provide a biased view on events, as well as to give a much deeper insight into the workings of Richard as a character. His influences become clearer; his cultural reference points are revealed to be very different to those of the group whilst his suburban, west-coast, childhood is evident in his phrasing and language. This difference is one of the things picked on by Bunny; he chastises Richard for his use of the phrase totally weird. Richards thought process is that of the modern mind it bears many similarities with that of Judy Poovey and his tendency to digress at the critical moment leads him to remain an outsider and not fully comprehend the magnitude of events. An example of this is when he fails to understand that it was more than mere coincidence finding the flight details in Henrys flat; his ability to live without thinking something which Henry later admits to be jealous of means that he takes the most logical course of action and does not attempt to understand the background to events. His lack of understanding of the motives and actions of the group is undoubtedly a result of his inability to think in Greek and it is this separation that he never overcomes, something that adds intrigue and suspense to the narrative. These elements combine to create a more thrilling plot which it can be argued led to the commercial success of the novel. The narrative technique also gives Tartt scope to purge her own emotions through the feelings expressed by Richard himself in the novel; the potential for exploring autobiographical detail is vastly increased. This adds intrigue to the plot and is also of direct benefit to Tartt herself. It has been suggested by the critic Amanda Vaill of the Washington Post in particular that Tartt uses the novel to avenge her beloved T. S. Eliot; a critic of Eliot (Edmund Wilson) also went by the name of Bunny and it was implied that her vilification of Bunny was in a way a vengeful lash against him. The use of intra-diegetic narration does however limit Tartt in her exploration of other characters, something that has led to criticism of the novel for weak characterisation. Indeed, James Kaplan (writing in Vanity Fair) went as far as to say that he found it necessary to return to Richards initial description of the characters to even tell them apart. The style of the narration is fixed and does not vary; this can be somewhat tiresome in a novel of such length. The final limitation comes from the appeal of the book; readers like protagonists that they can identify with on a personal level and therefore to increase the potential readership of the book Tartt was required to use an everyman character as a narrator. This prevented her from making the book totally autobiographical. Tartts success in creating an everyman narrator is illustrated by Richards lack of outstanding characteristics that would vary the narrative; the two goals are irreconcilable for it is impossible to have an everyman narrator who has enough character traits and variations to be in themselves a point of interest throughout a novel as long as this. It is widely accepted that Tartt did succeed in creating an everyman narrator, something illustrated by the wide variety of critics who claimed that they could identify with Richard and indeed his lack of distinguishing characteristics. Tartts narrative technique bears a strong resemblance to that used by F. Scott Fitzgerald in The Great Gatsby, a novel that is made explicit reference to in the text. A split narrator/focaliser is used to a great and similar effect, something that is especially apparent in the opening passages; Chapter One of The Great Gatsby and the Prologue of The Secret History. The pervading sense is that of the experience having changed the narrator permanently; an experience that transcends all others within each of their lives. Richard says that This is the only story I will ever be able to tell and Nick Carraway describes the sense of hope he found within Gatsby as being something I have never found in any other person and which it is not likely I shall ever find again. This flatters the reader into believing they are to be told something of great magnitude and encourages them to read on. A feature of both novels is the jaded perception that the narrator has of other characters in the book, much of the plot being subsequently derived from watching their preconceptions fall apart. Tartt uses an interesting twist on this in relation to Richards perception of Charles and Camilla, his initial view of them as a couple is broken down, only to be reaffirmed much later: I thought they were boyfriend and girlfriend, until one day I saw them up close and realized they ad to be siblings. Later I learned they were twins. (Chapter 1) This tendency to is true of Richards views on almost of all of the characters and Nicks view of Gatsby and Jordan Baker in particular. When compared with other first person narratives, Tartt does not exploit the medium to its full potential; for example when compared to Brontes Wuthering Heights which employs a far more sophisticated narrative technique. The Secret History uses a diachronic narrative structure whereas Wuthering Heights begins the narrative in medias res and the plot is then built up in a synchronic manner. This adds a far greater level of depth, intrigue and suspense to the plot and launches the reader in the centre of the action in the opening chapter; in contrast in The Secret History the reader has to wade through a lengthy preamble that builds up the character of Richard before the action begins. It can however be argued that without this period of characterization first then the subsequent events would lose much of their resonance and the factors that make the narrative appealing such as the inaccuracy of the narration itself would be far less apparent. Whilst it cannot be argued that The Secret History begins in medias res the prologue does however provide an initial retrospective view of events and it is from this that much of the suspense in the first book is generated. The split between the narrator and focaliser is introduced, explaining the time gap between Richards description of events and his subsequent commentary on them: through once I thought that I had left that ravine forever on an April afternoon long ago, now I am not so sure. (Prologue) When interviewed by Kirsty Wark for the BBC, Tartt explained that she believed she was experimenting with the technique of in medias res by beginning her narrative after the conclusion of events and then using a diachronic narrative structure to build back up to that point once again. Her technique could perhaps be therefore described as in finis res. One way in which Tartt varies the narrative is through the limited use of letters, something that is also evident in Wuthering Heights. In Francis suicide letter to Richard the cultural reference points that Francis employs are evident as being different from those of Richard and this adds depth to his character. This is similar to the way in which Bronte uses the letter from Isabella to Ellen Dean to provide a different perspective on events. Henry is used to a limited extent in the narration as well; when Richard finds out about the events of the bacchanal it is Henry who describes them to him. Henrys aloof manner and detachment from society is emphasized in this passage. It can be said that the losses inherent with first person narration can be excused because of the benefits that vastly outweigh them. The commercial success of the book indeed points to that fact whilst in a literary sphere the intra-diegetic narrative technique gives the reader a much deeper insight into Richards emotions. The reader feels almost implicated in the actions of the group themselves as a result of this. However in contrast to this, the appeal of the book is limited by the need for readers to identify with the protagonist, Richard, and this in turn reduced Tartts scope for exploring in greater depth the psyche of other characters. As such it appears that first person narration gave the book much of its success and the author indeed gained more than she lost. It has been argued by many critics that The Secret History is largely autobiographical. When the content of the novel is compared to Donna Tartts life then there are indeed a number of similarities, but they are spread amongst the main characters rather than being embodied entirely by one. No one character follows the pattern of her life; therefore the novel cannot be strictly regarded as being autobiographical. Despite this, the way in which elements of her life are evident amongst most of the main characters does lend the novel certain autobiographical qualities; Tartt is relating experiences that actually happened to her, although it can be argued that by including elements of her own experiences within all the major characters she limits her scope for deeper characterization and more varied personalities. When Tartts life is compared to that of Richard then a number of similarities become apparent. She moved from Mississippi University to Bennington, a move that is replicated in Richards own from a small college in my home town to Hampden College. Although strenuously denied by Tartt in interviews, there are a vast number of similarities between Bennington and Hampden and it is accepted by many critics that Bennington was in fact used as a model for the setting of The Secret History. At Bennington Tartt was a member of a similar Classics clique around a tutor called Claude Fredericks who, in remarkable similarity to Julian, taught Greek and admitted very few students to his classes. A good friend of Tartts at Bennington was Paul McGloin who bears resemblance to Henry intellectually, sartorially and physically. In another similarity to Richard, Tartt used her own past as a disposable resource, creating a new existence for herself at college. Tartt makes this trait of Richards very clear to the reader: My years [in Plano] created for me an expendable past, disposable as a plastic cup. Which I suppose was a very great gift, in a way. (Chapter 1) Beyond these bare facts the similarities with Richard end and any further details emerge from analysis of the other leading characters and events. Tartt was the only female in the clique, drawing similarities with Camilla, and the eccentric and incongruous figure she cut at Mississippi is reminiscent of Richards impression of Henry. In her childhood Tartt spent much of her time bed-bound through illness, a time in which she claims to have increased her literary awareness through reading, again in much the same manner as Henry does. Events that replicate themselves in the narrative are evident in her past too, the drugged experience at the funeral may be in reference to her own long, drugged afternoons in bed whilst her family background of abnormal relationship structures as a result of absent parents is evident in the past of Charles and Camilla. Her sense of being left behind by her aloof mother is replicated by Henry and Francis. The use of a first person narrative does not lend credibility to the autobiographical nature of the novel because if this was the case then her life would be embodied by the experiences of Richard. Whilst there may be passing similarities it would be difficult to say that Richard is representative of her path through college, and as already discussed her experiences also manifest themselves in the other characters. The autobiographical elements are also evident in the setting of the novel. It would have been as easy for Tartt to explore these issues using a third person narrative and it can be argued that this would have enabled her to explore aspects of her past, such as being the only female in the clique as Camilla is, with greater ease. What Tartt gains in emotional detail with relation to Richards character could be autobiographical but due to her secretive nature and reluctance to reveal details about her own past then this cannot be proven. Indeed, her own Secret History is what makes the book so interesting because of the tantalizing glimpses into her past which the reader flatters themselves into believing that they are seeing. Autobiographies are in their very essence first person narratives and Tartts use of this technique does lend that implication to the plot but her previously stated reticence to divulge information on how her life related to The Secret History makes further discussion on the point little more than fatuitous speculation. In conclusion The Secret History is a modern literary classic at least in part as a result of the depth and intensity that comes as a result of the first person narrative. Tartt employs this technique to such an effect as to draw the reader into the text to such an extent that they themselves feel implicated in the crimes that occur. It is true that this intra-diegetic narrative limits the scope for characterization and leads to a lack of variety in the novel, something which drew criticism from some parties, but the losses incurred as a result of this do not outweigh the aforementioned gains. It is difficult to say that the use of a first person narrative lends much credibility to the autobiographical argument because of the manner in which such details are distributed amongst the main characters as opposed to being embodied in Richard. Whilst certain aspects of her life that bear similarity to Richards could have given her a deeper insight into his emotional state, not only are the instances too diverse to represent such a trend, but the lack of information divulged by Tartt makes further investigation almost impossible. The Secret History Essay Example The Secret History Essay The Secret History is a unique mystery novel in which the mystery is solved in the prologue (Bunny had been dead for several weeks, we hadnt intended to hide the body). It exudes confessional qualities, whereby our narrator Richard appears to be searching for closure; for him, its function is to cleanse and provide a catharsis (this is the only story I will ever be able to tell). For Donna Tartt herself, it is evident that her sources and influences (e.g. The Great Gatsby) are a vehicle for a display of her own literacy. As a result, it can be suggested that The Secret History is a showpiece; that is, an outlet for Donna Tartt to showcase her talents in order to create a commercial blockbuster. The enigmatic, elusive nature of the novel allows for a range of different ideas to be explored, including obvious Greek sources [Dim shrieks, and joy, and triumph-cries of death. And here was borne a severed arm, and there a hunters hooted foot Euripides, 485-406 BC The Bacchae: lines 1381-1 383, The Harvard Classics (1909-1914)].Primarily, Donna Tartts narrative methods are reinforced through her own personality: she presents herself as similarly enigmatic and elusive [porcelain exterior and sardonic asides Mick Brown]. Moreover, her writing appears to be influenced by her background to a great extent; for example, her upbringing resembles that of her student characters (she grew up in an old family mansion in Grenada, Mississippi) and at university, she studied alongside an elite group of bright, literary talents with picturesque and fictive qualities (outlandish clique Independent, May 2002).Tartts main Greek influence is The Bacchae: in Richards narration, Henry is the one who outlines the bacchanal, and the language used mirrors that of Euripides. The principles are extremely similar, and the language is a combination of joy and horror (all the air was loud with groans/ carnal element to the proceedings). The impression is given that Henry killed the farmer becau se of an apparent superhuman strength (I do not know how that happened). Yet, we are still well aware that Henry is capable of great strength because he was strong enough to break the rough Spike Romneys collar bone (broke Spikes collarbone and two of his ribs). Arguably, then, the ritual exaggerates normality, but it does not alter it.The prologue is a strong example exhibiting Tartts narrative methods. Uniquely, drama is imposed upon the reader in the first instant (Hed been dead for 10 days), and mystery is created at the same time as a mystery appears to be solved (Henrys modest plan). As a consequence, we find out tantalising details that there has been a murder; information is provided, whilst creating suspense at the same time. Furthermore, Richards repetitions (It is difficult to believe, though I remember) provide a chanting rhythm an incantation whereby patterns become inescapable, adding notably to his guilt. He also uses the lexis of fiction (now there is no other), so that we question, from the start, the reliability of our narrator: how truthful is he?In a similar fashion, the epilogue portrays narrative methods that serve the purpose of pulling together strands of the plot (Henry died, of course). Its second function is to blur the boundaries between fiction and reality once again (a dream I had a couple of weeks ago), thereby disrupting the readers expectations; the narrative really opens up imaginative play for a reader because it is deliberately open-ended. Henry is the main character within the dream, and he seems to be given the air of a mythical, sacrificial martyr (gaze was steady and impassive). While Richard watches Henrys back, he remains isolated and luminal, somewhere between a secret, private, subterranean ancient world and the modern world, which is in the process of being rebuilt, and where his status as outsider is confirmed (Tracey Hargreaves). It is therefore an ideal end to the narrative.Charles too ends up hiding in alcohol (working at the bar), attempting to distance himself from reality and effectively create an artificial world. Even our own [oikish parvenu Tracy Hargreaves] of a narrator Richard cannot resist placing himself within yet another fiction (using a mythical simile: like poor Orpheus turning for a last backwards glance), as if he wants to adopt another persona all the time. From this theme, it is clear that Tartt admires Thomas de Quincey (Confessions of an English Opium Eater), which focuses on a bizarre combination of stark reality and drug-induced hallucinations (i.e. a dream world).A connection can also be made between Donna Tartt exploring this concept, and her mentor, Willie Morris [I wish I could escape forever]. In addition, it is frustrating for the reader when we learn of the other characters views (do you mind if we could change the subject?); here, Camillas abrupt response is tantalising, because her words are masked by what could be numerous hidden meanings. Supremely, R ichard is not in control as a narrator (quite unlike an omniscient narrator): he only has one perspective to offer. Even within his dream, he has his limitations because it is restricted by Henry: that information is classified, Im afraid.The Great Gatsby provides a significant influence on Donna Tartts writing and her narrative methods: even Richard mentions it (I read The Great Gatsby. It is one of my favourite books). The Great Gatsby is a novel of selective incident. This approach to structure was first seen in Madame Bovary by Gustave Flaubert and later developed by Joseph Conrad and Henry James amongst others. Conrad believed that there should be no word or phrase used unless it contributes to the overall meaning of the work. This careful arranging of the structure of a novel included both intricate patterning of language and of narrative events. The narrator Nick Carraway is as unreliable as Richard in The Secret History: Nick reinforces through his language a contrast betwee n how Jay Gatsby wants to present himself, and how he really is (quality of eternal reassurance) much like Richards portrayal of his classmates like figures from an allegory and the way in which he puts Henry on a pedestal (deliberate and distinct). Even Julian can be seen as a Gatsby-type figure in both Richard and Henrys eyes (saying something of the gravest importance). At the same time, he fail[s] to see anything exceptcertain tragic similarities between Gatsby and [him]self.Furthermore, the character of Judy Poovey parallels Jordan Baker in The Great Gatsby (every one knew her name). Judy is used to provide another narrative perspective from outside the Greek elite (he was scarier than the other one). However, the major flaw is that she is so often on drugs (really drunk, and sort of slam-dancing), therefore a distorted perspective is given and we never really get to the truth.The first person narrative form has certain qualities and constraints which an author must successfull y balance in order to achieve a convincing narration that fulfils all the writers aims. Firstly, the need for the novel to be convincing means that the narrator must be both credible and trustworthy; without both of these qualities every aspect of the text could be doubted. The character of Richard as a narrator is therefore vital to Tartts narrative approach. The method through which Richard establishes his narrative voice is interesting; he admits he has a fault, a morbid longing for the picturesque at all costs, but it is as though he wants to transfer this quality onto somebody else throughout the novel. He attempts to distance himself and separate both reality and illusion a trait also found in Henry (Im only having a bit of trouble with my passport). Moreover, upon being introduced to Richard, he establishes himself as a tragic hero (fatal flaw): this admission places him alongside figures such as Macbeth, and Satan. A reader is immediately made aware that Richard is a self-i ndulgent and somewhat mechanical narrator, desperate to strike a deliberate pose.In addition, Richard makes numerous references to his childhood (disposable as a plastic cup), giving the impression that he never cared much for it. Significantly, the description of the floodlit castles of Disneyland again provides a fake, alternative way of living. By comparing his childhood to those of his Hampden counterparts (was said to be wealthy) and only stressing the positive elements of theirs Richard attempts to evoke sympathy from the reader by using this cheap narrative trick.The way in which Richard presents Camilla, in particular, can be questioned: he insists on likening her to a beautiful, tragic heroine (one hand shading her light-dazzled eyes), but she could also be seen as a grand manipulator (Camilla caught my arm and hastily pulled me back). Another interesting point to consider is that Henry isnt mentioned at all: except for the fact that he was a linguistic genius. As a resul t, it can be inferred that Henry was not allowed the innocence of childhood, thereby adding to the unreal (I watched his back receding down the long, gleaming hall) and mythical feeling evoked by his presence throughout the novel.Richards descriptions of the murder provide an interesting insight into his thoughts through the style of his narrative. For example, as his narrative progresses in a usual fashion, he interrupts it with a commentary (I would like to say I was driven to what I did by some overwhelming, tragic motive), almost in an attempt to justify the murder. Although the reader hasnt reached the murder in the novel yet, Richard still feels the need to take time out from the narrative, suggesting that what he has done is constantly playing on his mind. Furthermore, the word elusive is used to describe reasons for killing Bunny, which is interesting considering both the novel itself and Donna Tartt can be described as elusive. It is this passage in particular where we get the closest to the truth from Richard; for example, it is here we find out that trivial things led to the killing of Bunny (little things. Insults, innuendos, petty cruelties.) Ironically, the moment where Richard tells the truth, he is also highly unpleasant we lose our connection with him, thereby contradicting his desired effect. More profoundly, he then slips back into fictive mode when describing Bunnys death (silent-movie comedian slipping on a banana peel); however, choosing such an image is cruel because it makes Bunny a farce.The scene directly preceding the murder reads like a screen-play (there was a long pause), as though Tartt is imagining it happening in a scene from a film: regular dialogue is often interrupted by surroundings, described in gothic and dramatic language (there was a rustle, there was a gloomy silence). Henry appears to be unreal: he is presented as a stereotypical villain in a horror movie (step out of the shadows), and the effect of the last line in Book I is extremely clichà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½d (took a step towards him.) As a result, the narrative again distances us from Richard, because his descriptions make the murder seem unreal. After the murder, the idea of fiction is stressed because the group is forced to adopt different characters, which they are constantly in danger of revealing. Additionally, the murder happens in the blank pages between the books, leaving the event itself to the imagination of the reader.To conclude, Tartts narrative method is unique in that we never really get to the truth as far as Richard is concerned. Moreover, he is restricted to having purely one story to tell, which adds to the concept that he is searching for an end. Tartt also glorifies her enigmatic and elusive nature through adding such elements to the narrative; she uses The Secret History in order to investigate different ideas by means of a range of sources. Interestingly, Richards narrative is sometimes flawed (I am unable to recall; Even tod ay I do not fully understand). Owing to the fact that the failures are iterated frequently in the novel, an authenticity is added to the narrative because it exposes his imperfection. However, it also highlights human limitation, and the inability (discussed by Julian) to ever really know ourselves. The Secret History is therefore a useful tool in terms of revealing, through its narrative, what self-awareness is really about; that we are truly alone in our suffering.