#but then again i didn't take any of tsh seriously

[an-architect-of-words]

the thing with once upon a time at bennington is that... it paints itself as trying to paint a picture of "all" bennington, but all it does is spread misinformation and cut up interviews with people who loosely knew donna tartt and bret ellis. if you want any more proof of that anolik is like... really reaching and unethical, look no farther than her insistence that michelle maitland (costume designer on succession) is the inspiration behind judy poovey. she said numerous times that she didn't know donna, and maybe her car was the basis for judy's corvette, but THERE WASNT A COSTUME DESIGN MAJOR AT BENNINGTON, and she was a theater major, and she seriously doubts donna has a third eye and could know what industry she'd go into like 10 years after TSH was published. anolik published the interview and said maitland is surely judy anyway.

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2021/12/succession-secret-history-judy-poovey-connection

Geeeeeez 🤦🏻‍♀️. Yeah this was the stuff I was skeptical about. There seemed to be things that could be such crazy interesting details, but that we can’t know the full context of. And they’re just being stated as truths. I hate to talk about this podcast only having read articles about it; these are just my takes from stuff analyzing sections— but I have thoughts on Matt Jacobsen and Todd O’Neal as well. They probably did give Tartt inspiration for Bunny and Henry. Certain quotes and details seem very taken from them. And Claude Fredricks totally inspired parts of Julian and the Greek class.

That said, it seems fallacious to assume there’s a 1-to-1 comparison between these people and the characters. Just because aspects of Matt Jacobsen were seen in Bunny does not mean that everything Tartt had Bunny do was with Jacobsen in mind. Bunny is still a fictional character. She also stated here that Julian was based on her mind running wild and creating a character based on rumors about Claude Fredricks. He wasn’t literally just Claude Fredricks. Tartt also has given a huge list of books that inspired writing choices in TSH and it really checks out for certain characters. Did Donna Tartt use the fact she transferred colleges and perhaps felt like the odd man out in a Greek class when she wrote Richard? Sure. But does that mean Richard is literally her avatar and that they share every thought, and that he came from zero other inspirations— or that she never departed from herself while writing him? That’s such a stretch.

And there’s another part of this narrative that just doesn’t make much sense to me. If TSH is really a revenge story about how Donna Tartt hated her Greek class and wanted to get back at them, and Richard is her stand in to do so… why is Richard so bad? Do self indulgent revenge fantasies typically make the supposed author stand-in just as wicked as everyone else? And he ends up miserable and alone and coming to terms with that he’s not special and that he’s got California in his blood (being from Cali is a huge part of Richard and Tartt isn’t from California).

Again, I can level with the assertion that authors/artists I like are flawed (some of my favorite authors are severely flawed). But my issue here is that some of this immediately jumps out as wildly intrusive (it reminds me of a different interview where the person asks Donna Tartt a really personal question, and it really shocked me that the person didn’t feel intrusive in asking it. It’s like Tartt’s emphasis on her own privacy makes people weirdly bold.). And it definitely seems like many people in the podcast have a story they want to tell and have decided to tell, despite the discrepancies and lack of clarity. Ultimately, these people are like “please be aware we aren’t claiming this is as fact” but they’re still inserting a scandal into the world.

Finally… another thing that’s weird to me is that Tartt’s peers paint this bitter picture of her for using true happenings and facts about them in the context of her fiction, and they view it as a scummy thing. But I mean, she never addressed anyone by name, claimed a character was them, or portrayed TSH as truth about Bennington. Nobody would even know these people now or about their lives if they hadn’t revealed this stuff on the podcast. But then they go on to say stuff about Tartt that is painted as biographical and they use her real name for profit. I guess I just don’t understand how that’s not very clearly doing what they’re upset she may have done. It’s very hypocritical.

#the secret history #donna tartt #tsh

[half-lights]

i always end up focusing on the wrong things when reading a book

#from the secret history all i can think is richard getting his ass beat at a party + doing cocaine in the burger king parking lot #but then again i didn't take any of tsh seriously #📓