Reading Envy Readers discussion

The intent is to finish week 2 having finished "Book I" of The Secret History.

I'll be back when I get there! I know some of you are flying through so feel free.

Marchpane wrote: "" Ha, ha! Funniest meme in the history of Goodreads.

This book just keeps getting stranger and stranger.

Jeff wrote: "Marchpane wrote: "" Ha, ha! Funniest meme in the history of Goodreads.

This book just keeps getting stranger and stranger."

The characters are all SO messed up! Honestly I thought that Julian would play a larger role - maybe he'll do more in the second half?

That meme! lolsob

I thought it was interesting how in Chap 4 Richard describes Bunny this way: "a repugnant miasma of sour-smelling shirts and muscles gone to fat and dirty socks". Coincidentally in the intro to Antigone that I'm reading now, the translator describes miasma as "pollution, a kind of implied curse that spreads over a land".

Repugnant as Bunny is (the antisemitism, the homophobia), it's possible that the rest of them saw him as a kind of pollutant that sullied the "purity" of their group, which is incredibly disturbing. I never thought about it that way before, but now, yikes.

Bunny was never really one of them. So, in a way, a kind of foreshadowing of Bunny as a kind of sacrifice too, maybe. Like Laura Beth said in the previous discussion of the early chapters: "Almost as if these characters' view of thinking hasn't evolved past what the Greeks thought." That's the underlying darkness of the book, to me. Not just their elitism but this warped ancient mode of engagement with the modern world.

Love the meme Marchpane!

I agree with you that I wish Julian played a larger role in book 1. He was so fantastic in chapter one, and now it's all these crazy, self-involved college brats.

But I can't put it down. In fact, I'm in chapter 8, so I'm trying not to spoil things. I love flawed characters, I love to hate characters, so this is perfect.

I will admit to being incredibly annoyed by Bunny, not even in a love-to-hate way. It's really hard for me to mourn him because he was so fundamentally unlikable.

Meg wrote: "Love the meme Marchpane!

I agree with you that I wish Julian played a larger role in book 1. He was so fantastic in chapter one, and now it's all these crazy, self-involved college brats.

But I c..."

The way Bunny is described, he is quite despicable, it's true. But we only ever get a picture of Bunny from Richard's POV. I don't think Richard is an unreliable narrator as such (I mean, I don't think he ever deliberately lies to the reader) but his perspective is a heavily biased and compromised one. It's possible that he is emphasizing Bunny's bad qualities to - consciously or unconsciously - alleviate his own guilt.

Totally agree with Subashini that Bunny was never one of them. I love the idea that he represented some kind of impurity to be cleansed. That getting rid of him would restore order.

So much of the book is about repression. The others are all repressed in one way or another, hiding something or adopting some kind of mask. Bunny is not at all self-conscious, he has a girlfriend (hence a presumably normal sex life), indulges his appetites, and yes, this unfortunately also means he feels free to say every vile thing that comes into his head.

Richard goes to great pains to hide his financial situation from his friends; Bunny happily sponges off them. The reason Bunny wasn't at the bacchanal where the farmer died was because he was too undisciplined to fast. He's less intelligent, less civilised than them.

Bunny doesn't need to hide who he is and he doesn't bottle up emotions or deny his impulses, so the others see him as vulgar. Probably they envy his freedom a little bit too and resent him for it.

Marchpane wrote: The way Bunny is described, he is quite despicable, it's true. But we only ever get a picture of Bunny from Richard's POV. I don't think Richard is an unreliable narrator as such (I mean, I don't think he ever deliberately lies to the reader) but his perspective is a heavily biased and compromised one. It's possible that he is emphasizing Bunny's bad qualities to - consciously or unconsciously - alleviate his own guilt.


It's true that we're seeing Bunny (and everyone) through Richard's perspective, but he does mention a few times how much he liked Bunny, that he misses him, etc.

I wondered if my (our) feelings about Bunny are different now than they would have when the book was originally released - certainly society has changed; maybe at the time the reader would have viewed him as mildly embarrassing, instead of rife with homophobia, racism and misogyny.

Rachel wrote: "I wondered if my (our) feelings about Bunny are different now than they would have when the book was originally released - certainly society has changed; maybe at the time the reader would have viewed him as mildly embarrassing, instead of rife with homophobia, racism and misogyny. "
I think you might be right... but how embarrassing for us!

Jenny (Reading Envy) wrote: "I think you might be right... but how embarrassing for us!"

So true.

I'm laughing at a line from a conversation between Richard and Julian about Bunny: "But I shall be very disappointed indeed if we lose him to the Presbyterians."

Bunny is such a loathsome person that I just can't understand why the others associate with him and tolerate him. I am intimidated to say this, but help! What did I miss?

What struck me strongly throughout these chapters is their general insouciance about having killed somebody. Henry and Francis seem more bothered by the fact that Bunny ruined an antique rug and chair than they do about the man's death. Then Francis says: "It's a terrible thing what we did....I mean this man was not Voltaire we killed. But still. It's a shame. I feel bad about it." The callousness and of that remark is staggering. Then at the end of this conversation, Henry casually suggests a game of cards to Richard. Their concern seems to be centred around whether or not they will get caught, not over what they have done.

Strangely, I found myself wanting them to succeed as they plotted Bunny's murder. I say strangely, as they are all such dreadful characters. Again, perhaps this is because we see things only from Richard's perspective and he is willing them to get away with the first death.

Fiona, that's what I was thinking about Francis' remark re: Voltaire. Their sense of perspective is really warped and you have to wonder about Julian's influence and the pursuit of knowledge and beauty and etc. Certain lives are not valued because it's not a life devoted to the pursuit of beauty and esoteric knowledge. And I guess it reveals quite blatantly their classism/elitism, as well. "Who cares if some not well-to-do farmer dies somewhere when we rich kids are in search of Dionysian ecstasy?" seems to be the general stance.

It says something about Tartt's skill in building momentum in her narrative and fleshing out her characters that despite acknowledging that they're all unlikeable, I also found myself in the uncomfortable position of rooting for them as they plotted...

This disassociation they all seem to have mastered... it seems like it would be a warning flag in the next section when the FBI and police and neighborhood are all out looking for Bunny. They have to try to figure out how a normal innocent person would act and imitate it. I should really make this comment with chapter 6 but it seems so directly related to this discussion, I am putting it here anyway.

Carol Ann wrote: "Bunny is such a loathsome person that I just can't understand why the others associate with him and tolerate him. I am intimidated to say this, but help! What did I miss?"

Carol Ann, I'm wondering this too ???
In chapter 6,
(view spoiler)[In fact Julian thinks he is "timid" and thinks he knows him really well. (Ch.6) (hide spoiler)], so I'm a bit baffled.