re-edit: this book was so much dogshittier than i made it out to be. honestly. 2 stars, if not 1/2.
---
this book was SO MUCH FUN to read, but it wouldve been so much MORE FUN if the characters acted like people.
first with my praises: i loved the way this was written. the style made it very easy to gnaw through chapters. and despite not being into shakespeare at all before picking up this book, i found it countlessly interesting to study the plays mentioned and figure out what layer of nuance im missing between the roles these characters play, and the lines they preach to one another. thats... mostly where that ends though, and you could debate the latter. my lesser thoughts now: these characters dont make sense.
the easy-going, sort of passive writing, worked in the favor of this books overall voice, but detracted in that of the characters. i felt that it kept us at such a distance from them, and that we were just expected to care and understand them without giving reason as to why we should. the most egregious of this, of course, is richard. we weren't given any insight into his character, about how he had come to be the way he is, and even how the six thespians he lived with for three years prior had come to love him in the first place, that the decision to leave him bleeding out in the lake seemed so shallow to me. youd think there would be more conflict over the life of this man they once treated as a brother—but no. hes been really fucked up to us these past few show more weeks, so lets just let him bleed out! the only one who showed a semblance of humanity was James, the BEST written character in the book (imo), but even then the ending completely fucked him up and its not a high hurdle to jump.
another is something that i havent seen anyone mention, but its the way this book treats its women. it really did have me looking M.L. Rio up, making sure that i wasnt reading the prose of some 35 year old geezer. merediths character was a MESS. its so incredibly funny how we discuss, literally around 30 pages into the book, how she doesnt want to be seen as an object, only for the narrative to treat her as an object The Entire Time. its not even just to do with how oliver sees her—that wouldve been at least an interesting dynamic between them—no, rio just forgot to give her a character at all. all of them dont, but its more egregious in this case because the girls have to character outside of the MEN they interact with. even more, its like they dont Exist outside of them. i dont think it was rio's intention to come off this way, but this combined with the way their bodies are spoken about and the weird, one off comments that made me raise an eyebrow (at the party, where oliver implies that Filippa was the only human woman for not dressing up) left a bad taste in my mouth. i might have hyperfocused on this too much though, and thus regaled everything following the moment i noticed it in bad taste, but oh well.
and the ending...... god lets not even talk about how oliver made it behind bars in the first place, because thats just a whole mess, but i felt SO. COPPED. OUT. sure, its romantic. the final King Lear moment between James and Oliver was true cinema. in the character of James though, i felt it would have made so much more sense for things to come full circle and end in either James' outright suicide (in favour of this. how can you be a book with heavy shakespearean influence and be scared to make your ending a tragedy?), or James sticking by Oliver through the end. this fuckass "hes dead.... OR IS HE?" bullshit was So Stupid it honestly made me huff madly for a few minutes after reading it. god. just. ok. im done.
also the prologues were stupid. i did not like the prologues, nor the epilogue. dont let rio touch anything with a -logue in it. jeez
anyways thats it. fun read, but 3 stars. yay! my first sign of life on here :) show less
---
this book was SO MUCH FUN to read, but it wouldve been so much MORE FUN if the characters acted like people.
first with my praises: i loved the way this was written. the style made it very easy to gnaw through chapters. and despite not being into shakespeare at all before picking up this book, i found it countlessly interesting to study the plays mentioned and figure out what layer of nuance im missing between the roles these characters play, and the lines they preach to one another. thats... mostly where that ends though, and you could debate the latter. my lesser thoughts now: these characters dont make sense.
the easy-going, sort of passive writing, worked in the favor of this books overall voice, but detracted in that of the characters. i felt that it kept us at such a distance from them, and that we were just expected to care and understand them without giving reason as to why we should. the most egregious of this, of course, is richard. we weren't given any insight into his character, about how he had come to be the way he is, and even how the six thespians he lived with for three years prior had come to love him in the first place, that the decision to leave him bleeding out in the lake seemed so shallow to me. youd think there would be more conflict over the life of this man they once treated as a brother—but no. hes been really fucked up to us these past few show more weeks, so lets just let him bleed out! the only one who showed a semblance of humanity was James, the BEST written character in the book (imo), but even then the ending completely fucked him up and its not a high hurdle to jump.
another is something that i havent seen anyone mention, but its the way this book treats its women. it really did have me looking M.L. Rio up, making sure that i wasnt reading the prose of some 35 year old geezer. merediths character was a MESS. its so incredibly funny how we discuss, literally around 30 pages into the book, how she doesnt want to be seen as an object, only for the narrative to treat her as an object The Entire Time. its not even just to do with how oliver sees her—that wouldve been at least an interesting dynamic between them—no, rio just forgot to give her a character at all. all of them dont, but its more egregious in this case because the girls have to character outside of the MEN they interact with. even more, its like they dont Exist outside of them. i dont think it was rio's intention to come off this way, but this combined with the way their bodies are spoken about and the weird, one off comments that made me raise an eyebrow (at the party, where oliver implies that Filippa was the only human woman for not dressing up) left a bad taste in my mouth. i might have hyperfocused on this too much though, and thus regaled everything following the moment i noticed it in bad taste, but oh well.
and the ending...... god lets not even talk about how oliver made it behind bars in the first place, because thats just a whole mess, but i felt SO. COPPED. OUT. sure, its romantic. the final King Lear moment between James and Oliver was true cinema. in the character of James though, i felt it would have made so much more sense for things to come full circle and end in either James' outright suicide (in favour of this. how can you be a book with heavy shakespearean influence and be scared to make your ending a tragedy?), or James sticking by Oliver through the end. this fuckass "hes dead.... OR IS HE?" bullshit was So Stupid it honestly made me huff madly for a few minutes after reading it. god. just. ok. im done.
also the prologues were stupid. i did not like the prologues, nor the epilogue. dont let rio touch anything with a -logue in it. jeez
anyways thats it. fun read, but 3 stars. yay! my first sign of life on here :) show less
Does such a thing as “the fatal flaw" exist outside literature? I used to think it doesn't. Now I think it does. I think that mine is this: a morbid longing for the picturesque at all costs.
This was insane. honestly i Really wish i could write a beautiful review of this book, but i dont have the words nor the memory for that (note to self: annotate more comprehensively someday). the crux of what i want to say is this: if you are richard papen, this book will mean more to you than those who are not. a lot of reviews have said it more eloquently than me, but i just want to strengthen this. thats it for my actual review. now i will not so beautifully list out things i did and did not like:
- book two was amazing. i dont know if i was just too enamoured at this point, but the characters unravelling as we meandered on felt like the pages ripping apart and yet still kept me reading. i dont know if its as good as i remembered it being. i dont want to know either.
- the ritual plot and how it was revealed to us was stupid. i can barely believe that tartt got away with that and how most people dont seem to mention it at all? i thought it was so tactless. she spends all this time showing us, showing us everything, only to basically drop 10 pages of relentless exposition at the crux of the most jaw clenching moment. horrible.
- the characters in the first half were weak. they were truly So weak. i believe tartt spent so much of her brain power focusing on bunny and bunny only, show more that she forgot to make francis more than a shell with gay lining, and the twins more than little russian nesting dolls. it put me off from getting immersed in the friend"group" aspect of everything. looking back at it while writing though, i dont know if this was meant to be another aspect of richards flaw.
- on the other hand, book one was overall Great. the tensions were high, the mystery was gripping—which was why i found the ritual shenanigans all the more disappointing. after that i felt that it was a steady decline up until the last 20% of the novel, where all the characters fall to dust and start burning themselves up.
- the environment. the writing. the immersion. thats it, really. theres a review under here that mentions how its funny; the secret history relies on the reader becoming richard papen, and i agree so bad that i stole it for my opening line. just like richard, we cant help but be enamoured by the scenery that he describes. caught up in the small-town affairs of Hampden—stuck in the snowy expanses of vermont. this is tartts main draw for me. her ability to paint a picture (that one winter richard spends in the snow will never cease to amaze me).
- i still dont understand why henry was friends with bunny though. nor why any of them were. this actually seems like a huge problem, if you just heard this without picking up the book, and it is, it really is and its seeming bigger to me the more i write about it. i cant think of one good reason any of them wanted bunny around, as i want really convinced of his magnetism that much. i like bunny. and i hated him! i guess i do understand, but i cant fathom how they could. whatever. im done with this
- lastly, i genuinely dont see how the second half was ever interpreted as tartt trying to make us sympathetic to the greek class. its the complete opposite. she deconstructs her characters to the very bone; letting us see all the ugliness that resides within them much like how the scum from boiling fat rises to the top. then its skimmed off, and tossed to the side. they got away with it, and deal much like pretentious kids with nothing to lose with deal with it.
overall a nice book. im not going to lie and say i found deeper meaning in it; i dont think so. i did enjoy it, i do miss it, but now that i think of it, i think the stars i give this will overall go down the more i read it. anyways. thats all i guess show less
This was insane. honestly i Really wish i could write a beautiful review of this book, but i dont have the words nor the memory for that (note to self: annotate more comprehensively someday). the crux of what i want to say is this: if you are richard papen, this book will mean more to you than those who are not. a lot of reviews have said it more eloquently than me, but i just want to strengthen this. thats it for my actual review. now i will not so beautifully list out things i did and did not like:
- book two was amazing. i dont know if i was just too enamoured at this point, but the characters unravelling as we meandered on felt like the pages ripping apart and yet still kept me reading. i dont know if its as good as i remembered it being. i dont want to know either.
- the ritual plot and how it was revealed to us was stupid. i can barely believe that tartt got away with that and how most people dont seem to mention it at all? i thought it was so tactless. she spends all this time showing us, showing us everything, only to basically drop 10 pages of relentless exposition at the crux of the most jaw clenching moment. horrible.
- the characters in the first half were weak. they were truly So weak. i believe tartt spent so much of her brain power focusing on bunny and bunny only, show more that she forgot to make francis more than a shell with gay lining, and the twins more than little russian nesting dolls. it put me off from getting immersed in the friend"group" aspect of everything. looking back at it while writing though, i dont know if this was meant to be another aspect of richards flaw.
- on the other hand, book one was overall Great. the tensions were high, the mystery was gripping—which was why i found the ritual shenanigans all the more disappointing. after that i felt that it was a steady decline up until the last 20% of the novel, where all the characters fall to dust and start burning themselves up.
- the environment. the writing. the immersion. thats it, really. theres a review under here that mentions how its funny; the secret history relies on the reader becoming richard papen, and i agree so bad that i stole it for my opening line. just like richard, we cant help but be enamoured by the scenery that he describes. caught up in the small-town affairs of Hampden—stuck in the snowy expanses of vermont. this is tartts main draw for me. her ability to paint a picture (that one winter richard spends in the snow will never cease to amaze me).
- i still dont understand why henry was friends with bunny though. nor why any of them were. this actually seems like a huge problem, if you just heard this without picking up the book, and it is, it really is and its seeming bigger to me the more i write about it. i cant think of one good reason any of them wanted bunny around, as i want really convinced of his magnetism that much. i like bunny. and i hated him! i guess i do understand, but i cant fathom how they could. whatever. im done with this
- lastly, i genuinely dont see how the second half was ever interpreted as tartt trying to make us sympathetic to the greek class. its the complete opposite. she deconstructs her characters to the very bone; letting us see all the ugliness that resides within them much like how the scum from boiling fat rises to the top. then its skimmed off, and tossed to the side. they got away with it, and deal much like pretentious kids with nothing to lose with deal with it.
overall a nice book. im not going to lie and say i found deeper meaning in it; i dont think so. i did enjoy it, i do miss it, but now that i think of it, i think the stars i give this will overall go down the more i read it. anyways. thats all i guess show less