LIES

There are many important topics discussed within the novel, but the concept of telling the truth is continuously repeated throughout. Richard is a guy who comes from the other side of the country, and for that he can make up anything he wants about himself. He fibs about how much money he has, what type of Greek books he's read, and everything else. When Bunny notes that he admires Richard's jacket, he says that it was his grandfather's, when in reality he had just received it a few moments earlier by a random girl. He also lies about what his father does in the oil industry.

Bunny lies a lot in the story also. He attempted to scam Richard into paying for the $200 bill they racked up from buying drinks. Unfortunately it does not work, and Henry ends up having to pay for them. This is the first glimpse into the lying way of Bunny.

The rest of the students do not have individual lying qualities, but they do lie as a group-whether to themselves or to Richard. All 6 students lie to themselves whenever they have the dinner with Julian. They get so excited that he is coming, and they make a whole parade of buying luxurious food and dressing way too nicely. They are completely exhausted and often sit around half-heartily. But when Julian knocks on the door they instantly sit up straight and slap a smile on their faces. Even though they seem peppy, they all know that exhaustion is threatening to overcome them any second.

Lastly, the students lie to Richard. They do things secretly, and try to be very nonchalant about it, but he knows something is up. Richard expresses his view when he says "I knew, for instance, that the five of them sometimes did things-what exactly, I didn't know- without inviting me, and that if put on the spot they would all stick together and lie about it, in a casual and quite convincing fashion." Why the lies? I'm not exactly sure, but the entire relationship of these students is based on fiction. Even after they've become so close, Richard still doesn't tell them anything about himself. They can only go on what they've witnessed to help define his character. As with the other students, they have a real relationship with each other, but not one with Richard. He is accepted into their clique, but still has secrets kept from him. Their entire relationship being based on lies is not looking very good, and I hope it won't be the reason Bunny dies.

Personal Response to Select Passage

"I suppose there is a certain crucial interval in everyone's life when character is fixed forever; for me, it was that first fall term I spent at Hampden. So many things remain with me from that time, even now: those preferences in clothes and books and even food- acquired then, and largely, I must admit, in adolescent emulation of the rest of the Greek class- have stayed with me through the years. It is easy, even now, for me to remember what their daily routines, which subsequently became my own, were like. Regardless of circumstance they lived like clockwork, with surprisingly little of that chaos which to me had always seemed so inherent a part of college life- irregular diet and work habits, trips to the Laundromat at one a.m...Rather in the way that the Roman Empire continued in a certain fashion to run itself even when there was no one left to run it and the reason behind it was entirely gone, much of this routine remained intact even during the terrible days after Bunny's death. Up until very end there was always, always, a Sunday-night dinner at Charles and Camilla's, except on the evening of the murder itself, when no one felt much like eating and it was postponed until Monday." (Tartt, 84)

This particular passage disturbed me for some strange reason. Though it was true, I felt that Richard's talk about when a person builds character is all wrong. There comes a point when people do find themselves, and that is how they live for the rest of their lives. However, I didn't want it to be during this period of his life that Richard finds himself. These people are fixed on a schedule, but they lead lives that I wouldn't want to lead if I were him. They remind me of stuck-up people who distance themselves from the rest of the world. It is a pity that Richard became addicted to this living style too, and I feel sorrow to know that he was drawn into it.

Most people have a faint remembrance of their daily routines, but they have affected him so much that he follows them and remembers them profoundly. I know that it is a part of Richard's character to envy other people, but to know that they've influenced him so much is bothersome. If people can change the books you read and the clothes that you wear, they have a hold on you that needs to be released. However, instead of keeping his independence and his friends, Richard blends in with them.

I was also bothered by the fact that even after Bunny's death the group maintained their daily routines. I was unsure of the underlying reason for why they did this. Every possible suggestion for their actions was refuted with a logical answer. At first I believed they did this because they didn't want to seem suspicious. Even though they are anti-social, that makes them even more noticeable. For that reason, I thought it critical for them to continue their daily routines and be wary. However, once the body of Bunny was found, why didn't they stop? They wouldn't need to hide anymore and people would expect them to act strangely. If my best friend were murdered I wouldn't continue with my jolly routines because it would affect me. So I concluded that they couldn't possibly be doing it because they wanted to remain inconspicuous.

My second assumption was that they just wanted to pretend like none of that stuff had happend. I thought that they wanted to continue with their daily lives and look past it because it hurt too much. But none of the textual evidence states the sort. My third and final assumption was that they didn't care. DING DING DING. I don't feel like they care or show the slightest bit of remorse to their actions. It is possible that they do feel remorse, and I won't know until later in the novel. Regardless, the text says it all. Richard says that they postponed their Sunday night dinner to Monday only because it was the night of the murder and no one felt like eating. I sense sarcasm in his words, but also a dose of alarming reality. Their daily routines won't get interrupted, even by death? What kind of book am I reading?

Character Interaction

When I first read the Prologue to the story, it seemed pretty obvious that the characters were in on the murder together, and I expected some bond to be shared between them. However, their relationship constantly changes throughout the novel, and it bothers me how fast they go from close friends to mere acquaintances. The main change in relationship occurs between the narrator, Richard, and the other characters. I believe that since he is the newcomer, he is still classified as an outsider and only gets little glimpses of the society that they have created for themselves. These seemingly never-ending volt-faces are frustrating, yet keep the reader engaged as to what will happen next.

In the beginning of the novel, it is supposed that Richard will never be one of them, and that he will never be able to join the Greek class. He is immediately looked at as minuscule, just as the group of students view the rest of the school. Even though he is an outsider, he has natural curiosity for the group-"At close range, though, they were an arresting party- at least to me, who had never seen anything like them, and to whom they suggest a variety of picturesque and fictive qualities." (Tartt, 17) Following this passage, Richard listens in on their conversation in the library because he can't help but fulfill his desire to know them. Here lies the characters' first interaction. Will he play it safe and just simply watch them from afar? Or will he be brave enough to do what no human has done before- interact with the students studying Greek? I'm glad he was able to converse with them, and it made me think that they weren't actually as stuck up as they seemed.

I don't think that Richard ever expected the students to actually engage with him. He is so drawn back by their welcome that he couldn't believe he was connecting with them. Richard says that he was "confused by this sudden glare of attention; it was as if the characters in a favorite painting, absorbed in their own concerns, had looked up out of the canvas and spoken to me." I was happy that the characters started to interact with each other, and I predicted that their bond would be strong. However, Richard thinks so highly of them that this could possibly play out wrong later on in the novel. Knowing Richard's character, he might end up lying about his life story just to be accepted. But enough with my conjectures, back to the relationship between characters.

Right after Richard has his ''glorious moment," he is immediately thrown back into his world and out of the one the students immured themselves in. Henry is the main person to show no curiosity in Richard, and the others then follow his lead. On page 22 of the novel, Henry evaluates Richard, but then waves him away with disinterest. This interaction between the two is very awkward. Richard can feel that he is no longer needed, but for some reason unbeknownst to me, he doesn't leave. Henry takes the initiative of saying that they should leave, which I felt was a sign that he was the most uncomfortable with a new face. That entire scene in the book went very slowly, yet their perception of Richard changed promptly from recognition to exclusion.

After a few weeks Richard is put into their class, so it's awkward between him and the students. No one can forget that at first they didn't care for him at all, yet everyone attempts to be friendly. When Camilla and Charles invited him to their house, I was overcome with joy because I really really wanted him to be accepted. However, the very next day he is treated as if he is nothing. Richard realizes this and is bothered, but not as much as I would have imagined:

"I had certainly plenty to worry about besides the coldness which apparently had infected my classmates once again, their crisp air of solidarity, the cool way their eyes seemed to look right through me. There had been an opening in their ranks, but now it was closed; I was back, it seemed, exactly where I'd begun."

It's almost as if he is used to being mistreated. I think that he values them so much that it really doesn't matter whether or not he is actually accepted. I didn't take his character to be somebody who hangs around people who mistreat him, but obviously I'm wrong.

Even though the main characters have a very testy relationship, I feel that in the end they are all going to get along great for a very long time. This is first seen when Richard goes to the country with them for a weekend. He felt accepted and noticed that they were opening up to him:

" At any rate, this was the weekend that things started to change, that the dark gaps between the street lamps begin to grow smaller and smaller, and farther apart, the first sign that one's train is approaching familiar territory, and will soon be passing through the well-known, well-lighted streets of town. The house was their trump card, their fondest treasure, and that weekend they revealed it to me slyly, by degrees..."

Richard's use of metaphor really helps get the picture that the characters are actually bonding. By showing him their house, he is being invited back into their world. They are opening up to him, which is hopefully the relationship that the main characters will have for the rest of the novel.

To sum up the relationship between characters, they start out with noncommunication. Richard is new to Hampden, and he's not in their clique anyways. However, when he breached the invisible wall between them he opened up their world and increased his chances of getting to know them. Sadly, Henry is rude and disinterested, so Richard is shut back out. When Richard finally has the full access to the world of the Greek scholars, he is still treated as an outcast, but also welcomed at times. The characters are moody, but only towards him.

Julian Morrow: Who is He? What is he?

Today, I came across a passage that I knew I had to write about. Julian talks with the students about human nature but speaks so intimately I felt that the author was trying to talk to me instead of her character...

"He was a marvelous talker, a magical talker, and I wish I were able to give
a better idea what he said, but it is impossible for a mediocre intellect to
render the speech of a superior one-especially after so many years- without
losing a good deal in the translation. The discussion that day was about
loss of self, about Plato's four divine madnesses, about madness of all
sort; he began by talking about what he called the burden of the self, and
why people want to lose the self in the first place. 'Why does that obstinate little voice in our heads torment us so?' he said, looking round the table. 'Could it be because it reminds us that we are alive, of our mortality, of our individual
souls-which, after all, we are too afraid to surrender but yet make us feel
more miserable than any other thing? But isn't it also pain that often makes
us most aware of self? It is a terrible thing to learn as a child that one is a being separate from all the world, that no one and no thing hurts along with one's
burned tongues and skinned knees, that one's aches and pains are all one's own.
Even more terrible, as we grow older, to learn that no person, no matter how beloved, can ever truly understand us. Our own selves make us unhappy, and
that's why we're so anxious to lose them, don't you think?...And how can we lose
this maddening self, lose it entirely? Love? Yes, but as old Cephalus once heard
Sophocles say, the least of us know that love is a cruel and terrible master. One loses oneself for the sake of the other, but in doing so becomes enslaved and miserable to the most capricious of all the gods. War? One can lose oneself in the joy of battle, in fighting for a glorious cause, but there are not a great many glorious causes for which to fight these days.'" (Tartt,36)

After reading this passage I began to wonder immensely about human nature, and about Julian's role in the story. I first believed that he was playing the minor role of the students' teacher, but as the story progresses he is put higher and higher on his pedestal above the rest. In the very beginning of the passage he is characterized as being a "marvelous talker; a magical talker," which immediately made me want to know: What made him so great? Why is this Greek professor worshiped so much, even by the author? Does he play some important role later in the story? WHY? So many questions go unanswered at the moment so I can only speculate:

After reading his words, I realized his intellect and his profound knowledge made him all the greater. I found myself admiring his character just as the characters in the book did. He speculated but used logical examples to back up his reasoning. He is a man who makes a statement and has all of the evidence to prove that it is true. The funny thing about him is that the evidence is there for all of us to see, he is just the only character that helps us find it.

As to question number 2, I began to think that he is admired by the author so much because he expresses some of her own views. I actually don't know this but that level of passion was completely different from the rest of the novel. Even though a character is technically giving the narration, I saw the author come out in this particular passage. The tone wasn't strictly factual and telling the story, but it was with so much emotion and it focused on influencing our minds. This passage talks about human nature and it really made me think because I've never addressed this aspect of my character. It made me question who I was as a person...To go so far as to say that we as humans want to lose ourselves because we make ourselves the most unhappy is so far fetched but the reasoning feels so true. When we love, we give ourselves to that lucky person and put them before us, losing ourselves in the mist of teddy bears and flowers. And when we lose that love, are we depressed because we loved them so much? Or are we depressed because now there is nobody to help us escape from ourselves? But let's not forget about war. War is such a disastrous thing, but when it's done for a "glorious cause" it's not as bad as it seems. People become joyous and often lose themselves in fighting. It stops being about the war and morphs into the need to kill.

I've never in my life explored the depths of human qualities. I think that Donna Tartt created this character and wrote this part specifically to help her audience look into themselves and see what they could find. I found a lot. So why not worship this man who helps us delve into our inner souls?

My third question is based only on guess work, but I believe that he plays a huge role in the story. At this point it is very obvious that his students look to him as if he were God. I think that they will hover on his every word, maybe a little too seriously. I believe that he will tell them something about humans, and they will follow what he says. At this point I can't find any reason for the friends to murder Bunny, so I think that they murder him based on something that Julian says.

Only time will tell...

Donna Tartt Has a Style of Her Own**Rhetoric Study

" And after we stood whispering in the underbrush- one last look at the body and a last look round, no dropped keys, lost glasses, everybody got everything?- and then started single file through the woods, I took one glance back through the saplings that leapt to close the path behind me. Though I remember the walk back and the first lonely flakes of snow that came drifting down through the pines, remember piling gratefully into the car and starting down the road like a family on vacation, with Henry driving clench-jawed through the potholes and the rest of us leaning over the seats and talking like children, though I remember only too well the long terrible night that lay ahead and the long terrible days and nights that followed, I have only to glance over my shoulder for all those years to drop away and I see it behind me again, the ravine, rising all green and black through the saplings, a picture that will never leave me." (page 4)

WHOA. Here, we are first introduced to Donna Tartt's writing style. With a mixture of stylistic and rhetorical elements, she creates a compelling passage and passages just like this that are seen throughout the novel. This passage is a wonderful example of her style that is constantly mirrored within other pieces of her book, yet they aren't too overbearing and repetitive.

The very first sentence in the passage has a very mysterious tone. I instantly wanted to know what happened-Was this a planned murder or a prank gone wrong?-but there isn't enough given details. It is inferred that Bunny's death was sad for all of them, however. The students were "whispering in the underbrush" and left single file- something most non-remorseful people don't do. Even though the tone is mysterious, the actions of the students are ones connected with sadness yet also connected with corruptness. They make sure there is no evidence of them being there yet are also upset. This contrast between the tone and what's actually happening creates a mixture of emotions within because I don't exactly know what is going on, yet I have a general idea. Tartt's style of giving her readers just a little taste of the plot keeps them interested because they crave more.

Rhetoric devices help further add to Tartt's style throughout the passage. One huge simile that I thought important was where the students are being compared to a family on vacation; Henry as the father and the rest as children. It is significant because they just murdered their best friend, yet they are being compared to an innocent family riding down the road. Their appearance is nothing like it seems, and the use of simile/irony brings that out. It contributes to the overall style because it follows the pattern of things appearing one way but being a different way.

Climax is used in the passage that coincides with the tone. When describing how this disastrous experience has affected him, the narrator increases the level of severity. At first there is one terrible night that lies ahead. Then it is followed by long terrible days and nights proceeding, that ultimately lead to the narrator admitting that even years later he will often glance over his shoulder and the scene will appear in front of him. This climactic part in the passage adds emotional appeal to the situation, and the tone changes changes to sentimental. I was most affected by this part in the sentence because it is very sad, and I pitied him, even though he had done something evil. Using climax, the reader connects emotionally with the narrator, forging an unforeseen bond and liking for him.

This entire passage consisted of only 2 sentences. Tartt writes with very long sentences, that have many commas and dashes thrown into them. Though her sentences are long, they are complex and have many different ideas. The sentences are parallel in the sense that they have an independent clause put in the middle of them. The way the sentences were structured, I hardly noticed that they we just two long sentences. Commas add an effect of creating a sense of completeness because all of the ideas flow together. If put together wrong, these sentences could be drawn out and boring, but instead her syntax is clear and flowed.

One main aspect that I admire about her style is that Tartt has a habit of being choosy with which details she gives the reader. It frustrates me at times but also keeps me engaged in the book because I constantly want to know more. She gives select details that could be inferred in any way, and at times I was fearful of interpreting the text wrong, because I didn't want to become completely lost in the storyline. In the passage she gives details about the scenery, but not about the students. She tells of the first snow flakes falling from the sky and the green and black ravine, but we don't know everything about the character's reactions. She says that the students stood whispering in the underbrush, but we don't know what they were whispering about. We then learn lots of information about how they searched for lost items and filed through the snowy woods, but we don't' know how they feel. We know that Henry was clench-jawed, but we don't know if it was because of fear or anger or what. We know that they leaned over the seats and talked like children, but we don't know what words were exchanged. It reminds me of putting together a puzzle. When you put a puzzle together, you have to go piece by piece. In the novel, we only get to see the pieces Tartt throws at us. This impacts the story because throughout the entire novel, we're being detectives trying to piece together everything. It makes me want to keep reading, and I hate it when I have to put the book down.