#i mean why ruin such good books with these unnecessary and weird fuckin passages like why

[astrum-aetherium]

I intend to start reading The Secret History soon, when I finish my studies. Could you give me your brief opinion about the book? I'm genuinely curious to hear your opinion

i've read TSH about three times now, front to back, and have to say that it does find its rightful place among my favorite books of all time — despite its occasionally disconcerting, highly questionable contents.

it's the dark academia book, that is no secret. in this way, it's an aesthetic gateway drug to many (me included), which i can only express my gratitude for, because i love the atmosphere and the setting and the mystery of it all. the plot is a captivating and striking one, as are the characters, as is the writing — well fleshed-out and outlined, creatively unwound, concluded on such a sudden, stunning note. masterful, even if with its handful of pretentiously-shaded references (specifically regarding the classics and antique history) that one may need a dictionary or an encyclopaedia to fully comprehend. but then again, it's so in line with the genre, isn't it? it's almost self-aware in that way. once again — masterful.

here comes the big however, however: the amount of extremely unnecessary passages (which are defined by either political incorrectness or simply distasteful matters) is — and i am serious about the term — ridiculous. i, in cold blood, detest some of donna tartt's contentual choices in TSH. some of these passages you simply read and are forced to lean back and think, why? why was that necessary? what does that contribute to the plot?

the absolute same goes for the goldfinch, jesus fuck — that book aggravated me even more in that regard, because the story and the development thereof was set up so carefully and masterfully, and then it all came crashing down by virtue of those unnecessary, plainly disrespectful parts that lack both tact and cultural awareness (and in the year of 2013, too!). but, y'know, i'm getting carried away here.

the point, concisely, reads: tartt writes unlike anyone else, sharply and compellingly, but boy does she know how to ruin a moment. i do not like her; i like the ideas that she once had and consequently developed into her novels, i like the characters she made up and nurtured, i like her eloquence and knowledge in her specific area of expertise. but that is all. that woman is an enigma to me.