The Little Friend

Rating:
Summary: How can something so long, go.... well... nowhere?
Review: While Donna Tartt is undoubtedly a magnificent writer, "The Little Friend" went from beginning to end with little direction and absolutely no continuity. From the get-go the plot seemed simple: a child (a very, very, very intelligent child, mind you) wanted to solve the mystery of her brother's murder which occurred years earlier. The vagaries and wanderings of the plot, however, turned it into something wholly different and somewhat uncategorizable. Not only did the ending lack any insightful connections, but the initially exciting climax ended up hitting the fan with a resounding splatter as well. I finished asking myself two questions: What was the point of the novel... and who was the little friend ANYWAY?

Rating:
Summary: A Lush Journey
Review: Being a slow reader, "The Secret History" promised to take up a good chunk of my time if I decided to tackle it. The hype (I had not even heard of "The Secret History" beforehand) and the description of the story sucked me in and I took the plunge. Donna Tartt loves words. This is not a bad thing but in the wrong hands it can be painful. Have you ever read amateur writing where you can tell the author received advice to add more description to every single sentence? Ouch. Donna is no amateur. The result is writing that I can best describe as "lush". Definitely not spare and, surprisingly, not too heavy. Her words provide an atmosphere to the story, rather than just a structure.


As someone who has discovered books only in the last several years (I'm a 40-year-old late bloomer, what can I say?), I find that much "literature" (quote-unquote) leaves me cold. Either I don't get it or it comes off as precious or pretentious. I did not find that to be the case with "The Little Friend". Donna comes close to going overboard plenty of times but just as she reaches the edge she pulls back; just when you think you can skip over things, you find out that you've just missed something important and have to go back. Boring? Never. I had to stay up until 2am to finish the book--I was not going to go to sleep so close (?) to the end. I was tired but very happy when I finished it--and I would not have changed a thing about the ending.


When I learned of Donna Tartt and "The Secret History", I did not have any interest in the subject matter. However, the thought of enjoying the trip through that as much as I did through "The Little Friend" keeps eating at me. That and having to wait another ten years for her next book. Ouch.

Rating:
Summary: The Masses and the Ph.Ds agree
Review: Those bored with this novel aren't necessarily mass-market readers or instant gratification junkies--I'm getting my Ph.D in English Lit, so I have pretty high tolerance for dense material, but I'm finding this an interminable, excruciatingly dull read. Every time Harriet bumps her knee or rides her bike, we have to hear about it for ten pages. The longer I stick it out with this novel, the more it seems like a parody of itself. Speaking of boring, has anyone else noticed Tartt's self-satisfied views on race? She constantly beats us over the head with them.

Rating:
Summary: I Gave Up Too
Review: Loved Secret History (as did many readers) but just couldn't get up the steam to get through this one. Importantly, SOMEONE (another reviewer) took it upon themselves to give away the ending (don't worry, I won't) so that definitely took the wind out of my sails as well. Shame on you! C'mon, fellow readers, you know better than to do that to those of us looking for some words of wisdom!

Personally, I think the book is not worth the time investment. But go read Secret History ...

Rating:
Summary: I Was Robbed!!
Review: Well, I have to admit that when a friend at the library recommended this book, I approached it with an eager attitiude. However, since I finished reading it, I have to ask myself what, if any, was the point of this novel. Sure, all the critics say brilliant this and brilliant that. Blah, blah, blah. I know better than to trust a critic, but I am very dissapointed in my friend. The characters, while well defined, are boring and rather wooden. The author tried so hard to describe them, I feel she forgot to make the reader like them. I also feel that the ending left a large question mark in my mind. I mean, honestly, why on earth center your plot on such a feeble, glossed over section of the character's history. As I said in the title of my little tirade, I Was Robbed!!...

Rating:
Summary: Breathtaking if you like this type of book..
Review: and I do. Don't waste your time, though, if you're looking for a typical mystery novel or an easy read.
I know that many people also hated The Lovely Bones, which I loved. Maybe people who agreed with me on that book would also like The Little Friend.
We'll never know what uncanny confluence of literary ideas led these two writers to base novels on the most horrific imaginable crimes--the violent deaths of children.
The similarity between the novels ends there, though.
But each book left me thinking about its characters, plot, philosophy and depth for days, weeks even. I read constantly and consider myself lucky to find a book that affects me that way every few years, let alone twice in a three or four month period.
I could add to the criticisms of Tartt's ending and the questions about things she left hanging. Instead, I like to fantasize that the next book, which continues the stories of these oh-so-lifelike characters, is headed for her publisher. She probably is off on something else completely different, but I can hope.
On the positive side, here are just a few of the things I think Tartt portrays in The Little Friend more successfully than almost any other author I've read:
--What it's like to grow up "odd" in a small southern town; what it's like to be from an equally odd family; the casual racism that lurks under many otherwise "friendly" relationships between white folks and their black housekeepers; the destruction that violent death does to families left in its wake; the helplessness of childhood, even when well-meaning family members are nearby.

Rating:
Summary: A family drama with a touch of mystery
Review: Donna Tartt wrote a drama, nothing short of it. If you expect a murder mystery or awho-done-it, than you might be disappointed. I am only half way through. But it is still great and an absorbing read.
It is not about who really killed Harriet's brother. There is no detective or a PI. There is only Harriet, her family, her friend and family and the person Harriet thinks is the real guilty one of the death of her beloved brother. It is in fact a threefold family saga, about Missisipi, about race, rich and poor and about punishing the guilty one who otherwise will get away with murder.
So it is about gettíng even and about revenge.
If you liked Elizabeth George's "A Traitor to Memory", you will like this one too.

Rating:
Summary: Mystery Unsolved!
Review: Why I bothered to finish this book (when I didn't even like any of the characters!) is a mystery to me... as is the ending of Tartt's book. I guess I hoped that Tartt would form some kind of dramatic conclusion or surprise ending. But the only surprise was that there was NO ending and the mystery was never solved! I'm sure not going to hang around for a sequel. As a lover of literature, I usually come away from any book with at least one good thing to say. After "The Little Friend," however, all I could say was, "I just read really bad book!"

Rating:
Summary: sleep aid
Review: yawn. yawn. yawn. Doesn't live up to all the hype. I've tried getting into the story several times and put it down in frustration. save your money, folks. get it from the local library if you are interested.

Rating:
Summary: More evidence that critics don't read the books they review
Review: This is simply a terrible novel. I've read and enjoyed The Secret History for what it is (I could hardly call it a literary masterpiece, but it was an engaging "whydunit"). And I looked forward to this new book after so many years. I had no preconceived notions about the book, and couldn't have cared less whether it in any way resembled The Secret History.

That said, the book is dreadful. It opens with a promising premise but then slows down. Nothing happens. Nothing at all. For about 100 pages this didn't bother me very much. I told friends: "Well, nothing much is happening but I'm still enjoying it. It's mostly well-written, has relatively engaging characters, and I like the atmosphere Tartt is creating."

After 300-400 more pages of the same, I was far less generous. It took effort to open the book and continue reading. I found excuses to do anything BUT read the book. The writing was clean and sometimes quite vivid, but it was also a little too fussy, too consciously and obviously labored over (especially all the parenthetical descriptors). I have the same criticism of Michael Chabon. The writing attempts to be virtuouso, but also comes across that way to the reader--which means it fails to reach its goal. If it were truly virtuouso writing I never would have noticed the attempt.

So the book went on and on, but I kept telling myself, "Something will happen. It's not a thriller, after all, it's more low-key than that." But I was only rationalizing, unable to believe that the book was, indeed, truly awful. As the remaining pages dwindled, I got the sinking feeling that the ending was going to be thrown together and sloppy. If only I'd been that lucky! Instead, there is no ending. It just stops. I, too (like some other readers who've posted here) checked to make sure pages weren't missing. If Tartt was a capable novelist (as opposed to a composer of sentences) she'd have known that you can't drag a reader through 500+ pages of writing and then leave them flat. I don't give a hoot what point she was trying to make (i.e., Life is unresolved, not everything in life can be tied neatly together in the end with a nice little bow, etc.). It's just inexcusible for a novelist to pull a stunt like this, especially with a novel like this one. Had the book been marketed as an experimental/highly "literary" exercise, as opposed to an actual story, then I maybe could have excused the ending. Hell, I'd even have forgiven the ending if *anything* had been resolved. I don't mind (and often even enjoy) ambiguous conclusions to novels and movies. But this atrocity shows just how unskilled Tartt actually is as a story teller. And most galling is the fact that it's not even like she simply feels above action/violence/melodrama--that her artistic/moody/literary/serious novel couldn't *possibly* stoop to such pedestrian tactics. In fact, she writes several extended scene with gunshots, blood, hair-pulling and all sorts of "action" so it's not that she doesn't recognize the need, in a novel like this, to have something *happen*. She might also be interested to learn that in order for something--anything--to happen she need not resort to gunplay and drownings. Readers don't need chase scenes and stuff life that--we just need tension, climax, resolution. The whole novel could have been resolved inside Harriet's head and might still have been satisfying.

I won't go on, but suffice it to say this novel was simply rotten. It can hardly be rightfully called a novel. It sprawls everywhere, with varying degrees of effectiveness, and results in nothing. It should perhaps have been 2 or 3 unrelated short stories/novellas about Southern life in the 70s. Or maybe a 250-page novel with *something* being resolved in the end. Or at least tell us more effectively why things *aren't* being resolved.

Again, this book stinks.