The Little Friend

I was so sorry when I turned to the last page. I loved, loved this book, as I have loved, loved Tartt's other novels. Her writing is so vivid, so visual that it almost feels like you're immersed in a great film. Interesting characters, plots, twists, and some of the best writing around. How long do I have to wait for her next book?

I love a good mystery novel, and reading the description on the jacket, it seemed like it might be like a mystery novel, so I delved into it. I read The Secret History a long time ago, and remember liking it, but don't remember that much about it. I chomped my way through this one chapter by chapter, even after it became clear it was not going to be a mystery. But after all that effort and time, I expected at least SOME resolution of a FEW of the story's threads, but nothing, NOTHING. I guess her deadline hit and she just had to publish what she had on hand. My anger and dissappointment negated any postive feelings I had about the story and characters developed in it. After reading a lot of other reviews here, at least I don't feel alone. Plus, I can save my husband from a time sink.

I read the Goldfinch and while it was long and very descriptive I found it to be excellent and fascinating and was sad when it ended. Tartt's writing style and use of language wowed me.... so I thought I would try another Tartt novel.... I could not finish it... It promised to be a mystery - but beyond the early pages it never followed up on this... just was too long, too much of a slog, too depressing, not sure of the point.... Really did nto enjoy and do not recommend. This is one of the few books I have picked up that I did not finish and when I read how it ended in a summary online - really glad I did not invest the additional time.
At least in Goldfinch - there is a great story and plot lines to follow - not so here.

Donna Tartt's writing defies categorization; those looking for a traditional murder mystery, or a traditional Coming of Age story, will be disappointed. The way to enjoy a Tartt novel is to immerse yourself in the prose, which is so evocative that the reader feels the same emotions as the characters; to suspend disbelief (yes, some twelve year olds would be as serious, as focused as Harriet, the human race being amazingly diverse) and to enjoy the ride.

It's Southern Gothic at its best; one can imagine Flannery O'Connor enjoying the grotesques that inhabit Alexandria, Mississippi. Personally, I liked this book much better than the Secret History. My only regret was that the book was over before I was ready to leave Tartt's fictional town.

I find it perplexing that many reader's of "The Little Friend" seem to have missed the point - which is that Life (yes, in capitals) does not answer all questions, no matter how convincingly we delude ourselves into thinking we have all the pieces of the puzzle. Little Harriett, the main character in this novel, frightened the bejeebers out of me! Far from being a cliche (or a reincarnation from other novels), she is an original, and quite a disturbing one at that. She seems innocent, but the blind tenacity that propels her to seek out her brother's murderer causes death, despair, mayhem and chaos. When everything has gone much too far to be undone, she discovers (as does the reader with a shiver of horror) that she was wrong, the person she has persued throughout the novel turns out not to be her brother's killer. It really matters very little, after that jolt, who the actual killer was; it has become too late to undo, to unravel, to go back and mend what her destructive forces have unleashed. She must live her whole life, now, with two burdens instead of one: she will never know by whose hand her brother died and she will always know that she, herself, caused wrongful death. The Little Friend is not a mystery yarn that begs a neat and tidy solution. It is, rather, a gripping examination of intractable stubbornness gone haywire and the irreversible destruction it causes.

The scene at the water tower, by the way, crackles with tension and suspense, leaving one almost breathless.

The Little Friend is the type of book that could get nominated for the National Book Award and yet will not please many of the readers who enjoyed The Secret History. Tartt is a gifted writer, breathing life into an engaging twelve-year-old protagonist who sets out to solve a murder in the midst of two different families in the South. Local media (e.g. the San Francisco Chronicle) has been dying to give away the ending and finally did last week, probably with the blessing of Tartt herself, in town for an interview. But the ending is beside the point, as is the plot for the most part.
This book is driven by its characters, their language and rich inner lives hidden from the adults in the household, and their often outrageous actions - children hauling guns and poisonous snakes around town, outwitting a family of drug dealers. Harriet is a bit of Huck Finn and Scout Finch in a modern world, but in a much heavier epic which I found too tedious to enjoy completely despite many exquisite passages.

Okay, it's been said before, but bears mentioning again: The Secret History this ain't. The languor of childhood in general, and Deep South rural childhood in particular, are brilliantly drawn. But that's all that's brilliantly done here, and a careful mapping out of stasis is awfully little to get out of a long, long book. The stabs at real plotting peter out again and again, and a fair amount of the writing is filler, distraction to get from one set piece to the next. I still can't wait to read what she writes next, but after The Little Friend, my anticipation is mixed with a little trepidation.

After reading the other reviews I don't feel too bad for taking an unusually long time to get through this book. I was quite enchanted with the beginning, the story of Robin and our introduction to Harriet and her world.

Unfortunately, I hit a very busy period in my life and didn't have a chance to pick up the book for a week or two or three. When I returned to it, I thought maybe it was just me and my disjointed reading that made it feel like the book's tone had changed. Suddenly there seemed to be a lot of extra details and a lot of "action sequences," so to speak, which I've never personally cared for in a novel. It just didn't feel like the same story I left.

Although I didn't enjoy the middle as much as the beginning, many of the characters are simply unforgettable, such as Edie, Charlotte, Allison, Curtis, Hely, Ida and of course, Harriet.

And it did make a very good point at the end, which to me was don't jump to conclusions and don't let your mind be manipulated by gossip. It's too bad that we never find out who killed Robin but sometimes life is like that. What could be really great would be if Ms. Tartt did a follow-up novel in (almost) present day with Harriet solving the mystery, or trying, while dealing with her family's past in a constructive way.

Unlike most of the other reviewers, I've not yet read The Secret History and am now quite enthused to do so!

I don't know how this book is not more popular.
I loved the way the story line almost replicates the innocence of the child protagonist. There are subtle nuances that are easily missed and I must admit that there were times where I had to reread passages because I knew there was something I was missing. The fact that I wanted to know as the story evolved is what I love about Tartt's writing.

With this book Donna Tartt simply throws down the gauntlet on character development. This, her second, book was a long time coming and you can see why...these characters have been simmered and cooked down to the kind of flavor meld of a spaghetti sauce that has been on the stove all day.

As a voracious reader I am so happily suprised when a book like this falls into my hands. It's long, the story is compelling, I adore the characters, and I lose DAYS to reading.

Harriet easily makes it to the top of my alltime favorite hot 100 characters. I highly recommend this book.

Be forewarned if you have a small child that the first part of the book is definately a punch to the gut. But don't let it deter you -- it's fiction, and it's a fantastic book.

Something that you have to realize when going into this book is that not a whole lot "happens". If you're looking for an action-packed book with some clear-cut twists and turns, I wouldn't buy this. The beauty of this book is being captivated by the writing, and the investment in the main character. Not all good books need to be focused on "what happens next" or a defining end. This book isn't just about one thing, it's about everything, which I think is where other readers get thrown off, or disappointed with the plot. I think that if you go in knowing this, you will enjoy the book a lot more than if you expect it to be a classic murder-mystery.

The reader is led to expect a murder mystery being solved, instead we find that the murder of Robin has devastated his family and Harriet, his little sister, is going to avenge his murder and thus be the hero of her family, saving it from absolute destruction. Unfortunately, she builds her case against Danny Ratcliff on unreliable evidence and thus begins the tale of revenge gone awry.
I thought this book was a wonderfully written tale. There were no easy answers in this story and certainly no heroes, just flawed humans.
I read The Secret History and liked this book just as much as the first. Tartt's prose is rich, descriptive, evocative.
I recommend it highly.

This book was beyond weird and overall a total waste of time. I listened to it on CDs - all 20 of them - and stuck it out, cringing through much of it, because I was determined finally to see how everything turned out. The "ending" however was even more bizarre than the alternately laborious and downright creepy tale leading up to it. It was as if the author fell asleep (or passed out) one day while writing, and then her head accidentally hit the "send" and, unbeknownst to her, off it went to the publisher. Nothing was resolved; nothing was answered; there were as many loose ends left hanging as there were snakes throughout the book (If you have any discomfort about snakes, that's reason alone to avoid this book altogether.) It's literally crawling with them, and the graphic detail is disgusting!) Am glad when I read the Goldfinch I had no knowledge of this book or nothing could have convinced me to read anything by her.

FOR SERIOUS INSOMNIACS ONLY, this book clocks in at 555 dull, slow-paced, un-evenly written pages. These pages contain lifeless characters of no redeeming qualities whatsoever, entrapped in a story so long and boring, the reader could only hope there would be illustrations to wake oneself up.
What's most disappointing is the writing style. How many times (in a single paragraph - never mind the whole book!)can an author begin a sentence with, "Then suddenly..." There's no surprise or anticipation for the reader, since everything 'suddenly' happens. Along with this, the author uses such words as "whoosh! went the car driving by"..."clang! went the bell"..."zoom! went the bikes". The only thing she didn't use was 'kapow!' and 'shazaammm!' from a good comic book (and that's too bad - it would have been the only source of excitement if she did).
"THUMP!" went the book cover to this book when I finished it - never to be opened again!

Very few 600+ page books without much of a plot can be described as page turners, but Little Friend manages to be just that. However, part of what makes the book a page turner is what makes it so frustrating--you keep waiting for the mystery to be solved but, as in real life, not all mysteries are. So, I think readers will feel somewhat cheated at the end of the book. We may not get all the answers in real life, but can't we have them in a book?

However, Tartt's description of characters and atmosphere is very good, and the novel definitely creates a (largely melancholy) mood. The novel is very poignant. The author really conveys what the tragic loss of a loved one can do to people, how many people never recover from it.

It was annoying how sometimes clues were given or part of a storyline was begun, such as some of the characters' bizarre dreams, only to go nowhere.

I also don't think the character Danny would have been quite so deep if it were real life--he's a redneck male who sounds more like an introspective, intellectual female at times.

And how many girls were named Harriet after, like, 1940?--Although this old-fashioned name suits the heroine somehow.

But all in all, a well-written, descriptive, and poignant story that is as sad and frustrating as real life can be.

Harriet, the 12yo protagonist, is born and bred in the tradition of Harper Lee's Scout Finch and Carson McCuller's Frankie Adams (but instead of a benevolent father or a wise housekeeper, Harriet has a tyrannical grandmother with a soft heart).
The Little Friend (insipid title that doesn't do justice to the depth of the story) is everything you could want in a book: stellar writing, nail-biting tension, hilarity, coming-of-age, atmosphere, loss of innocence, love, sorrow, and marvelous characters of all social classes without a cliche or stick figure among them.
The scene where Harriet and her cohort sneak into the upstairs of a flat where the bad guys live and find themselves literally in a next of poisonous snakes - well, those pages alone are worth the price of the book.
Superb and well worth the loooooong wait.

Other reveiws have expressed my thoughts eloquently so I'll just caution anyone who is considering purchasing this book... it really stinks.
The more I read, the more frustrated I became... numerous characters and plot lines introduced early on that go nowhere... pages and pages of uninteresting description of peripheral incidents (dreams, snake hunting, bla bla bla) that do nothing to propel the plot forward and only challenge the reader's endurance... and most fatally, a main character who is completely unlikable: a snotty, know-it-all, uppity little brat. So, if the reader doesn't care about (loathes, in my case) the main character, then why suffer 480 pages of her musings and very slight adventures?
I confess, I stopped reading it about 1/3 of the way through. By then I couldn't stand Harriet, the over-written emptiness of the plot, Donna Tartt- for this excruciatingly self-conscious effort to be literary, and myself- for not doing my homework and finding out this book was a dud before spending big bucks.
Like many others, I waited 10 years for this after loving The Secret History, but my disgust with it has nothing to do with unfulfilled expectations or disappointment in Ms. Tartt. It is just a really lousy, boring, plotless, obnoxious piece of work, no matter who the author. That it was Donna Tartt only makes it tragic. One can only guess the pressure of creating another great novel distracted her from what she did so well the first time: engage the reader with a well-paced, tightly-written, compelling story. Hopefully a dose of humility from reading so many sour reviews will bring her back down to earth, so she can write again for us mortals.
In the meantime, if you really must read The Little Friend, get thee to a library!

I happened upon this book at the library. I'd never heard of Donna Tart but the freakish cover and compelling plot summary led me to whip out my library card.

I typically read books without reading reviews first and charged ahead. I was immediately gripped by it. I felt like I was going on a journey with Harriet. Donna is a talented writer. The imagery--simple things (the ratty girl "skulking along," the battle on top of the water tower, Harrriet being pursued in the hospital, the amazing aunts)--still stick in my head and will for the longest.

So after reading I came to the store to see the other rave reviews and was stunned. I'm guessing the reason for the poor reviews is people expecting "The Secret History 2" and feeling disappointed (don't get me wrong--I read Secret History after and it is wonderful). Meanwhile ridiculous books get 5 stars. Insane!

I remember when "The Secret History" was published. The novel attracted a huge amount of press, not least because of a bidding war which had developed between publishing houses and movie producers for the respective rights. I seem to remember that, when the dust cleared, Donna Tartt found herself richer by about 8 Million bucks! I went and bought a copy and found it, well ....okay. A pretty good story, but not a lot of fun to read and devoid of likeable characters.

Now I have ploughed two thirds of the way through "The Little Friend" and, oh dear, it's hard work. The book starts off with so much promise, commencing with the inexplicable murder of nine year old Robin, his family's favourite. We then move to a point in time 12 years later and learn of the many sad, strange effects that Robin's unsolved murder has had on his family. We meet Harriet, Robin's baby sister and the protagonist of the story, and learn of her decision to find out who killed her brother and avenge his death. Everything looks good. We're getting ready for a good read.

However, once the stage is set, the "plot" just wanders listlessly through page after page of hot Mississippi summer days. The characters are well drawn and the dialogue is genuine and believable, but the story just doesn't move. It's not that nothing happens, it's that nothing much happens, and the action is always utterly secondary to long descriptions of the thoughts and feelings of the central characters.

Like another reviewer, I don't see anything wrong with resolving plot lines. It wouldn't have lowered the tone of this book at all to answer its two main questions, i.e. who killed Robin and why? And don't tell me I am missing the point and that those questions are secondary. The book is built around those questions!

Lastly, a comment on the edition of this book that I bought. I purchased the standard paperback at a national chain. The print is too fine and the margins are so narrow that the last two words of each line on the left-hand page dissappear down into the inner crease of the spine. I am constantly bending the book backwards trying to read the end of each line. The frustrating format has further lowered the enjoyment factor of a book that can little stand it.

I had the impression, judging from the sinister looking doll on the book's cover and the description of the story as dealing with a twelve-year old girl searching for her brother's killer, that this was going to be some type of horror-suspense novel. What it really is is the story of a most unusual girl growing up in an atmosphere of dysfunction, whether it be within her own family or that of the white trash neighbors. Tartt's prose is mesmerizing, and I love her use of themes (dreams, sleeping, water and rain, etc.) that keep the narrative tied together. Most interesting is the author's refusal to give many of her characters a cut-and-dried type of morality. And yes, in a tongue-in-cheek way, Harriet is a genius.

I bought this book off the strength of its excellent review in TIME. I'm glad I didn't check out the store's reviews first - I probably would have passed on this book and missed a novel that I'm really, really glad I read. I just finished and I'd like to add my 2 cents' worth, to counter all the negative reviews here.
This is a well-above-average book. I'd like to echo the reader from Detroit who points out that this is literature, not a mystery novel. Boring? I've hardly been able to put it down for the past three days. I grew up in a small Southern town in the seventies, and I found the description of the time and place dead-on. The characters are complex, but that didn't stop me from liking them. The ending may not be the pat ending everyone expected, but that is to Tartt's credit. Maybe this is just one of those books you either "get" or you "don't get", without much middle ground.
I have not read The Secret History, but thanks to The Little Friend, it's next on my list.

Like most readers, I looked forward to Tartt's second book, but I made myself wait until I could find a used copy. I'm sure glad I didn't pay full price! The Little Friend is a book that makes you want to skim pages to see if it eventually gets to the point. There are rambling descriptions of people, places and points of view that seem to have absolutly nothing to do with the story or character development. While these descriptions are often well written, in the end, I felt like they were a waste of time. I often found myself wondering if Tartt was trying to fill a book with a prescribed number of pages, to satisfy a publishing contract.

I picked up The Little Friend on a suggestion from a co-worker at my bookstore. I have not read her first book but I intend to.

First off, the book doesn't give you an answer - the mystery will remain as such. However, it was a great read. I cared about little Harriet and how her whole world was falling apart. I liked her. I liked Hely, her friend. Harriet was a strong character - intelligent and a trouble-maker. At least she was not a mindless airhead like every other 12 year old depicted now-a-days.

The book is worth your time. Remember the book is set back in the days where racism was still rampant. Tartt is not a racist, so I would prefer all idiots spouting that crap to stop.

Enjoy the book and relax... not every mystery is solved.

This was a very disappointing book from such a wonderful author. It was way to long and could have been shortened by more than half. I did enjoy the story and it will not stop me from reading anything else that Donna Tartt publishes. This was one of her first books and she has proven what a great writer she is from her last two books "The Secret History" and "The Goldfinch".

I was totally enthralled by "The Secret History" and 5 years later read it a second time and still could not put it down. Before reading "The Little Friend" I had seen some of the critical reviews but did not agree with them during the first half of the book. Then about midway, the writing style almost seems to have changed. The book became over-wordy, over-moody and just plain boring in parts. A great shame as I think Donna Tartt is a very, very talented writer. Most of the other reviews restated the plot so I will not do that here. Suffice it to say that a.) I hope it does not take Ms. Tartt so many years to write her next book and, b.) Hope she finds a totally different subject.

I thought this was going to be a really enthralling read from the beginning as I just loved the descriptions and the characters of Harriet, Ida and Heley. I think it was a little bit too long though.

Tartt has a wonderful talent for description, whether it be a character or a street and that continued throughout the novel.

The book should definitely have been shorter. I'm almost certain my struggle to read more than a couple of pages at a time during a chunk near the middle was because the story line was too drawn out. I did however get over that and found the rest of the book riveting.

I was desperate to communicate with Harriet where I felt she was making mistakes, which has to be a strong clue at how real I felt her character was.

She reminded me a little of myself as a child in some ways and I was sad how some of her relationships panned out. The ending was a bit of a non entity and I wish I could have been happier with it, not necessarily have questions answered but just the satisfaction of closing the book knowing things were as they should be. I felt something was missing.

I suppose, like many other readers, I had hoped that all of Tartt's novels would be as absorbing as her terrific debut. The Little Friend (significance of the title?) is rather disappointing, especially when you consider what this writer is capable of. I rather got the impression that she wasn't trying.
The basic premise of TLF is good, but it is not adequately explored to make this a worthwhile read, regardless of how elegant the prose is. She hardly waits 30 pages before abandoning the plot altogether in favour of a sub-standard drug fiasco and murder. Ultimately, I was left wondering why she had introduced the plot of her brother's murder when she had no intention of following it up. Basically, do not believe what it says on the dust jacket - the book does not explore the hanging of the main character's brother.
Such an odd disregard for plotting would have been more bearable had Ms Tartt stuck to her elegant prose style instead of the childish nattering and grating metaphors she employed for TLF. Occasionally there are moments of great writing; the speed-fuelled paranoia of the Radcliff brothers is terrific, as are the few descriptions of Alexandria. Unfortunately the bulk of the prose is limp, condescending and sometimes just plain bad.
I know Ms Tartt can do better than this. It might take fifty years and four more misplaced novels, but she'll get back on form. For now, though, The Little Friend is just average fiction. A shame.

This book is way too long with unnecessary discriptions and events. I borrowed it from the library and it took me the entire three weeks to finish it. I probably would've gave up if I didn't have a lending time limit. The one thing that bothered me was it never clearly stated what year the present story is taking place in. The cultural references are all over the place and the dates don't match up. That's just sloppy. Don't be fooled into thinking it is a murder mystery because it is not. It's more a character study of the different people. I'm giving it three stars because some of it was interesting and it does pick up a little in the last 40 percent of the book especially towards the end.

Donna Tartt's second novel is every bit as good as her first in my opinion, despite negative reviews from many fans of The Secret History. I believe the negativity is more the result of disappointment that The Little Friend is so different from The Secret History, rather than due to any weakness in the story or writing. I loved both novels equally! The Little Friend is a gripping story filled with dense, rich characters. Give it a chance and let go of the craving for a repeat of The Secret History and you will be well satisfied.

If you're looking for a thriller which ties everything together neatly at the end, this book is not for you. If you're interested in a moody, Southern setting and powerful character development, then you will love this book. I cared for the main character Harriet and found her very sympathetic. I loved many of the other characters that Tartt developed-the maid, the mother, the grandmother, the best friend-and I enjoyed the emphasis on a family of strong women (with the exception of Harriet's mother).
As another reviewer said, Tartt is aiming for Faulkner territory not Grisham. You meet some riveting individuals in this book. No everything is not resolved at the end. Then again, it isn't resolved in real life most of the time either.

After glancing at the other reviews and at the fact that this is now a BARGAIN book (??!!), I felt I had a duty to give some recommendation. I noticed one reviewer said that the characters were 'one-dimensional;' he clearly did not read the book. If there is one criticism you can absolutely not make about this book, it's that the characters are 1D. Or even 2D. They are fantastically believable, achingly beautiful--in fact, I think that's the best reason to read this book.

Except, perhaps, for the great storyline. And I daresay that, even though the ending is not exactly resolved, you probably won't care. By that point, it's clear that it's not the issue at hand--this isn't really a mystery novel. It's about the people.

And yes, I think this book is scores better than her first one, which I thought fell rather flat. But that's just me.

Though this book is long and detailed, that is almost its reason for being. Those readers interested in a simple, solvable mystery will be disappointed, because the book is not about solutions but rather the nature of mysteries, secrets and the desire to know more. It's also primarily about character. Reading this book was like watching a movie --- all the characters, as well as the atmosphere and events contained therein --- were described with such an unbelievable immediacy and tactile sense of detail. Writing this way is HARD --- Donna Tartt really takes you on a slow, moving journey through these characters' lives. She really gets into their heads: especially Harriett, her friend Hely and her Aunt Edie. All characters skirt stereotype but, in the end, transcend it. They are all incredibly real, vital, and vibrant --- lending the tale a relate-able , first-person richness. You feel immediately like you know these people, and rarer still, you care about them. When Harriett and Hely are in jeopardy, you fear for them personally in a way you would not in a typical mystery, where you remain convinced that you're reading a book about "characters". With Tartt's book, that distance disappears. These people become your relatives. There is throughout the novel a respect for the gravity and subjectivity of individual, lived experience. Even the drug-addled "bad guys" are so well understood and depicted by Tartt that they become sympathetic. That is really the point of the novel: that "truth" is subjective, and nothing is black or white --- and that some things about human nature will always remain a mystery to us. Harriett learns this hard life lesson early (despite the strenuous efforts of her family to quell her curiosity --- a transparent attempt to distract themselves from unpleasant thoughts) --- and some people never learn it at all.
With that said, I acknowledge that the ending was a little anti-climactic compared to all that had gone on before. But I honestly can't imagine any other way the story could have ended while still remaining true to the tone of all that came before. I thoroughly enjoyed the read and, despite it being 600-pages long, did not want it to end.

I adored The Secret History. It's one of my best loved novels ever, for its pacing, its eccentric yet believable characters, and its relentless stride to the unhappy yet inevitable conclusion. I don't generally buy books; I get them from my library or borrow them from people, but as soon as I saw that Donna Tartt had a new book out, I ran as fast as I could to the nearest bookstore and bought it in hardcover!
Alas, I was disappointed with this novel. The writing is brilliant, and the characters impeccable, but the plot meandered far to much, and the ending was inconclusive. There were a number of extremely suspenseful scenes, but for me, the suspense ended in frustration as none of the haunting questions posed in the beginning of the novel were answered.
The Secret History was a perfect novel, in my opinion, and Donna Tartt is obviously a superior writer. I suppose that I was disillusioned by The Little Friend only because it had such an amazing precedent.

I will add my voice to those who are shocked at the many poor reviews given to this outstanding novel. I agree that the plot is somewhat weak, and I admit it took me over 100 pages before I developed a true interest in the story and the characters. However, what I found captivating is Ms Tartt's incredible gift for describing the tiniest detail - the most mundane occurences - in a way that makes them seem profound and significant. She does an excellent job of humanizing the most unsavory characters, and helps us to understand the complex circumstances that create human character and personality.

As someone who grew up in a small, nothing-of-a-town in the south during the 70s, I was was stung by the accuracy of her descriptions of racism and classism in that society. Tartt understands and delineates the essence of the old south without cliches and stereotypes.

Overall, a great book. If you can make it through the bit, it's smooth sailing after that.

But if you were too smart for your own good as a child, then you'll likely fall in love with Harriett. The plot is not always terribly realistic, but the characters definitely are, and I think that's what makes the book so fascinating. I was particularly drawn to the way Harriett displays mature thinking muddled by a severe lack of life experience, how she is constantly frustrated and bored with the limited world available to her, and how she sometimes behaves childishly but is simultaneously self-aware enough to feel guilty about it.

When I was little I read about precocious children who would cheerfully run around solving mysteries and saving the day, and I was frustrated I couldn't accomplish anything like that, since everyone was always telling me how I was supposedly so smart. This is the first thing I've ever read that truly reminded me of my own childhood experience, even though the setting is totally foreign to me and the plot, as I mentioned, can get pretty wild. But these elements are what make it an interesting novel and not a simple character study. I just graduated college, and reading this book made me so very relieved and grateful to finally be out on my own!

While The Little Friend was a incredibly well written book it lacked some of the wow factor that has come with Donna Tartt's other books. Her style was in dept and captivating but lacked a character narrative that captured the reader to the point of wanting to befriend the characters. In recommending Donna Tartt to friends I would more likely refer them to The Secret History or The Goldfinch.

Imagine "To Kill a Mockingbird".
Now, take away Atticus.
Then, take away a social conscience.
Finally, remove any sort of satisfying conclusion to the story.
Add 100 or so pages of very dense narrative about very vague characters.
Stir in lots of critical hype.
You've got "The Little Friend."
There are a few bright spots. Harriet, like Scout, is an engaging character. The snake hunt has some suspense. The Sunday school and Bible camp passages are fun, as well. However, most of the story seems as unfocused and annoying as Harriet's sister and mother.

I could NOT put this book down! I think Donna Tartt is no doubt the best living author. This Southern Gothic mystery is reminiscent of Flannery O'Connor, particularly her story, "A Good Man is Hard to Find."
I felt like I was really "there" with, the main character, Harriet, whose 12 year old interior life is brilliantly portrayed by Tartt.
The story is set in a small Mississippi town, not unlike Tartt's own childhood town. The names of the characters are captivating and hilarious, for instance, Tattycornum, Loyal, Dolphus, Farish, Gum, Pemberton, et al.
Similar to Frank McCourt's memoir, ANGELA'S ASHES, we are treated with a great deal of humor in the midst of tragedy. I laughed until I cried during Tartt's description, through Harriet's eyes, of Sunday School. In another short scene, I was reduced to tears of laughter as well when Hely's humiliating science fair project is revealed during a dialog Harriet and Hely's brother, Pem.
THE GOLDFINCH also contained great humor (which people in my book club didn't get) in Tartt's descriptions of characters ("air kisses")
I felt like I was with the characters in THE LITTLE FRIEND as they moved through their daily lives. I could see the weeds, the rusted tower, and feel the sizzling heat and the scorching sun.
I still don't understand the meaning of the title and I'm disappointed at the inconclusive ending. I wish Tartt would write a sequel, as I had a hard time saying goodbye to Harriet. We also never do find out how or why Harriet's brother died.
I really felt that I could understand through reading THE LITTLE FRIEND the class and race issues that we face. The author brilliantly draws the innermost feelings and emotions of her characters so that we actually enter their minds.
To me, that makes a novel great.
I believe the best paragraphs of this novel come when Harriet compares her summer experiences with Captain Scott's notebook. On page 614 (paperback edition), Tartt writes, through Harriet: "Captain Scott had written with numbed fingers in a small notebook of his failure. Yes, he'd struck out bravely for the impossible, reached the dead untraveled center of the world--but for nothing......." "She'd learned things she never knew, things she had no idea of knowing, and yet in a strange way it was the hidden message of Captain Scott: that victory and collapse were sometimes the same thing."
Even though there may be "flaws" in the story line, the writing is what makes this novel great. Donna Tartt's writing is unbelievably excellent.
I have marked up this book (I refuse to read an e-book) a great deal and will enjoy going back and reading what I've marked.

I love Donna Tartt's writing style-----she really evokes a mood and characters are richly drawn. However, perhaps the characters are too well drawn in this novel, as I found some sections hard to read. Unusual protagonist made this novel harder to get hooked than usual. Also was disappointed in the ending, which left a lot hanging. Therefore, 4 rather than 5 stars.

I'm sure there's a good book hiding somewhere in Donna Tartt's The Little Friend. Weighing in at over six hundred pages, I'm not quite sure how "little" this Friend actually is. What I am sure of is that I'm completely confident that there's an engaging story, whether or not it's the one described on the book jacket. However, after reading the novel, I'm honestly not sure if I could pick out an actual story from the sheer excess of meandering, pointless prose that seems to dominate the book. Where's an editor when you need one?
The general premise of the book is about a young girl named Harriet searching for the murderer of her brother, who died when she was only a baby. Whether or not she ever locates the killer becomes more or less subplot to the bigger story, a coming of age novel combined with a portrait of a small southern town. As Harriet encounters puberty, her quest for information about her brother becomes a quest for information about who she is as a person. By meeting the people around Harriet who shape her life, we see who allows her to develop which traits.
Harriet one of the most fully developed characters that I've ever read. I wish that there was something to put that character towards because she is fascinating. There's never a moment that I felt she did not behave in a true and honest manner indicative of her character. Furthermore, I found myself actually caring for this character and getting firm opinions regarding her decisions and situations. Her relationship with Hely, a young man of the same age (around twelve years old), seemed to be a very honest situation that anyone who has gone through puberty can attest to relating to.
The problem is that Tartt never seems to make up her mind regarding this story. Is it a murder mystery, as the summary would suggest? Is it a coming of age story for a young girl? Is it a descriptive narrative of a small, southern town for our consideration? Plot lines are introduced sporadically and often with little to no purpose to the greater story, whatever it maybe be. Where then would a random methamphetamine lab surface in any of the above plot lines? The novel reads like a writer's notebook of ideas, none fully connected and most sprawling in some sort of verbose stream of consciousness that takes us over six hundred pages to whimper out in a mediocre conclusion.
There are several highlights of the book, namely, the quirky and darkly entertaining Ratliff family who arrive somewhere around the middle of the story. The passages about Danny or Eugene are some of the most enjoyable in the book. It feels as if Tartt has really hit her stride in creating these characters. In a lesser work they would be one dimensional or worse, treated as comic or underdeveloped characters. Tartt really shows them the respect demanded to make the characters work with the novel.
All told, this is not a bad book. It's a beautifully described and fully developed world. Unfortunately, no matter how pretty it is, there's just nothing really going on for the majority of the time spent reading it. And that's the real shame.

Having read this book and read the negative reviews, it's rather annoying that some of those readers just don't get it: Donna Tartt writes her novels in the tradition of Faulkner and Harper Lee, even Cormac McCarthy, not Stephen King or John Grisham; novels of complex psychological and emotional commentary, and the uncontrollability of life's events. They are not meant to be clean, straight forward plots with tidy endings. Those kinds of stories evoke the old Miller Lite Beer commercials of "Taste Great, Less Filling". I want "Filling"; character development, metaphoric descriptions that allow one to see, feel, even taste the experience of the characters, empathy, redemption, indifference and guilt.
The premise of loss of innocence is clearly laid out as Harriet embarks on a childish game of Sherlock Holmes, only to end up on a runaway train of tragedy and death, vortexing several hapless, unsuspecting victims with her (some sympathetic and some not). Along the way, Harriet shows a single minded, obsessive vision that she refuses to loses focus on, precisely because she IS innocent and unexperienced with how life and the people in her world are all intertwined and victimized. There's no escaping that reality. THAT is life.
All the character, environmental, social and cultural prose interweave beautifully into an elaborate tapestry that is at once gripping and emotionally exhausting. The book left me feeling spent and satisfied. NOT a waste of time.
I couldn't give the story the maximum score only on the minor point that a 12 year old couldn't possibly be THAT precocious as to handle king cobras and handle and shoot guns in such a calm manner.
Donna - thanks for a great read. I look forward to your next opus.

It may be impossible for me to convey to you in words how much I hated this book (were you here, I would explain with an array of unpleasant facial expressions). In fact, I've never written an on-line review, but this book has provoked me to review-writing.
Yes, I read The Secret History, but, to be honest, I remember very little of it, so I'm not one of those who is comparing the two. However, I will say that this book struck me as the work of a self-involved grad student badly in need of an editor, not the product of an accomplished author.
The biggest problem? The dozen or so plot lines DROPPED with absolutely no resolution, or even any meaning. It would be one thing if it were simply that we never found out who killed Harriet's brother Robin. But, in addition, characters are introduced and set up to appear important, or at least to have pending story lines (Allison's mysterious dreams, allusions to Pemberton's possibly Knowing Something about Robin's death, LaSharon Odum's library habit and possible sexual abuse), but then disappear (or wander through inconsequentially)!
Of course NOTHING to do with Harriet's future is resolved by the book's end. Will Harriet be tied to the Ratliffs? Will her family manage to repair itself in any way? Will Harriet find any reasons to rise from the depths of despair into which every circumstance of her life seems to have plunged her? That said, I would've cared more if not for the fact that, like every other character in the book, Harriet is completely unlikable. A more irritating collection of fictional characters, I have never come across. I kept waiting for someone to exhibit SOME redeeming quality, but, alas, it was not to be. No one shows any real love for anyone else. No one demonstrates any continuing loyalty to another human being. There is not a single character with whom I could imagine having any sort of pleasant interaction.
Further, the trials and tribulations (ah, what an AMUSING name for the old family homestead) heaped upon Harriet, who is apparently a modern day(ish -- as many reviewers have asked, when the hell is the action in this book taking place?) Job, extend to a point where her situation would almost be comical, if it weren't so depressing --Maybe Tartt has written a black comedy, and the joke is on all of us for having failed to get it!. Hmmm...Let's make the little girl's family incapable of showing any affection, or even functioning. OK, that's not bad enough. Now, let's take away her mother figure, a maid who's been with the family for the girl's entire life, for some random reason. Wait, that's not dark enough! Now let's kill her favorite aunt, in a move that does nothing to further the (nominal) plot. Now let's make her best friend abandon her! Then let's make her think she has killed a man, then discover he was not the evildoer she believed him to be! And, finally, let's just abandon the entire story, leaving the girl hanging in the twilight terror of possibly being tied to a crime, of facing a return to her disfunctional and borderline abusive family...
blah, blah, blah...
Pretentious southern gothic mood music with absolutely no substance. Awful.

I thought this book would be a real treat to read. WRONG!!Like others who have reviewed it, I kept on and on and on....thinking it was going to pick up soon. Not so. I even approached it for a while as a "self-discipline exercise"..all the while eyeing other books waiting to be read. After about 150 pages, although I hardly ever admit defeat, I gave up. I think I will investigate her first novel as from what I've heard, it's much better reading. ...that is...after I've read some other authors for a change.

I really enjoyed The Secret History and was excited Donna Tartt had finally published another novel. Unlike the other reviewers here, who baffle me, I find this one engrossing and very interesting -- less humorous but more frightening and thrilling than TSH -- and certainly not a disappointment. I have been enjoying this book immensely and recommending it to everyone.
Harriet and her friend Hely are whiling away the tedium of summer when they get involved in a dark mission: find and exact revenge on the person who murdured Harriet's brother, who died in mysterious circumstances many years ago.
The result is a narrative that twines realism with classic children's novels like Treasure Island and The Jungle Book (the kind of books Harriet reads). Harriet's immediate (dysfunctional) family are realistically depicted, but as the narrative expands to include the foils for her heroine's adventure, they become more Dickension, though Dickension in a Southern Gothic style. As Hely and Harriet wander from her house to his, they bicker, play chess, and generally suffer from the same ennui all children on summer vacation suffer... but then find themselves in and out of trouble, depending on their resources and luck, like the heroes in adventure stories. Subtly, the literary scope so shifts back and forth between the tragically mundane and the fantastic. The result is a pleasurable and fascinating read.
I think some readers miss the point. The "long" sections that evoke boredom are supposed to -- but they evoke boredom without being boring. These passages are about boredom. The "cliched" characters are supposed to be familiar -- they recall the broadly drawn villains in the books kids love. Most of all, this is a book about reading. If you have read the books Harriet reads, and spent boring summer days immersed in Doyle and Kipling, then this book will be a pleasure.

It's sad so many people thought this book was slow and didn't go anywhere. Did they ever take a Literature class? This book is amazing! So rich in detail it makes you feel like you are watching a movie rather than reading a book. It doesn't go on and on with too much detail though. It's written from the little girl's point of view and Ms. Tartt does such a good job that you can remember with clarity being that age. I couldn't put this book down. I read this book first and then "The Secret History". They are both amazing, but in different ways. Too bad so many people have to compare them. Read these books! You won't regret it if you love deep books that you are still thinking about long after you are done.

Donna Taart is, without a doubt one of the most talented writers working today. Her ability to create, real, believable, original characters is wonderful. The atmosphere of the American south in the 1970's was spot on and the atmosphere of impending doom as Harriet and Hely searched for answers was, at times, almost more than I could stand.

I loved "The Secret History" and looked forward to this. It is well worth all the time it took Miss Taart to write and us to read.

I'd anticipated this book for a long time - like the other reviewers, I loved "The Secret History". But this novel is quite a disappointment. The story of Robin's murder is left unchallenged, and what's supposed to be the pivotal point of the story turns out to be unimportant. I'd agree that Harriet's experience of good and evil is portrayed with vivid characters, but the settings and plot line seems wandering and almost pointless. But - maybe that *is* the point - wallowing in southern summertime heat clouds everyone's judgement. I found myself skipping chunks of text in an effort to find out simply what *happens*, and never getting there.
The book isn't horrible, and Tartt does have a beautiful way of describing people. But I found it all to be much more about the depth of the setting, rather than anything else.

After the success of her first book, Donna Tartt did something I rather admire. She rested on her laurels, travelled, lived in London and Paris, bought a farm. . . so many writers follow up impressive debuts with rushed, second rate novels (Irvine Walsh, Zadie Smith et al) that it's nice to see someone taking their time.
But in her second book, Tartt gives us too much of a good thing. The novel is brimming with breathtaking prose which effortlessly evokes the joys and terrors of childhood and life in the deep South. The characters are more realistic than the venal classics students of the Secret History, but less romantic and less defined - the aunts personalities seem to swim into each other. And although every scene is a small masterpiece, many of them are redundant, adding to the mood of the book, but not the plot.
Tartt has made fun of authors who write about 'trouble with the housekeeper', but the black maid moving to Florida is, sadly, one of the major plot points of 'The Little Friend.' The family cat dying is another. As the saying goes, a good writer has to kill their darlings, and there are literally hundreds of pages of incidental incidents in the Little Friend which only exist for the sake of themselves.
There is, happily, no feel good ending, but in many respects, there is no ending at all, merely a climax and exposition.
Tartt finishes the book but not the story. The final pages, I suspect, were rewritten hundreds of times, until she finally gave up and published the ending she found the least disappointing.
Still, Donna Tartt has done something new and different, and from any other author the Little Friend would be an incredible achievement - although if any other author had presented this to a publisher they would have been told to trim twenty percent and rewrite the ending again.

I was quite disappointed after reading this book. Like many other reviewers I was a fan of The Secret History and was excited to check out Donna Tartt's next novel. For me, this book was very self-conscious in its attempts to come off as a "serious literary" type novel. Gone are the natural flow, excitement, and compulsive readability of The Secret History. This new novel just seems to be trying too hard. Harriet, for example - so many dimensions are added to her character that she reads more like a creative writing class exercise in character study than as a realistic child. Donna Tartt has already shown us what a fabulous writer she is, in The Secret History and in parts of this book. Hopefully for her next effort she will relax a bit and just let the story flow.

As far as the lack of an ending...I am just speculating, but I believe this was in an effort to mirror real life, in which such a neat resolution would be unlikely. However, as someone else pointed out, this is not really a slice of life type book anyhow - far too many other extremely unlikely events and wildly convenient coincidences take place for it to be that. With those types of events in mind, it wouldn't have been out of context for Harriet to 'magically' discover the killer at the end.

Donna Tartt's The Little Friend is an unconventional mystery novel. From looking at the book jacket you could easily draw the conclusion that this book will be like so many others in the mystery genre; instead Tartt neglects the murder mystery plot for a much tougher mystery, self-realization. Tartt's `heroine' Harriet is a complex character who had me flip-flopping thought the novel between sympathy and dislike. Harriet is flawed yet has a passion that is admirable. The novel uses heavy description to create a world that is very realistic and does not offer up any easy answers.
The Little Friend gets off to a slow start in the equally slow town of Alexandria, Mississippi. It is summertime and our heroine, Harriet Cleve Durfesnes, has decided to occupy her time by solving a twelve-year-old murder. It was twelve years ago, when she was only an infant, that her brother Robin was found hanging from a tree in the back yard. If Harriet's family was not eccentric and self-pitying enough before the murder they certain are after. The novel provides ample background on the Celves and the Dufresnes. Harriet's family is an interesting cast of characters but I found myself tiring of hearing about them, perhaps because they are so pathetic. Her mother and sister are asleep most of the novel, her father lives in another city with another woman, and then there are the Cleve sisters.
Harriet's Grandmother and three Great-Aunts are a large part of the novel and Harriet's life. Since Harriet's mother has been more or less catatonic with grief since Robin's death the old Cleve sisters have had an active role in raising Harriet. I have never read a novel where a thirteen-year-old girl spends so much time with people over 60. Tartt makes it believable through the depressing description of Harriet's home life. Her mother is totally out of touch and Allison, Harriet's sister, seems equally flighty. The old Cleve sisters are also out of touch, but in a different way. Libby, Tat, Edith, and Adelaide would like to believe that they are still a part of southern high society. Though they are depicted as educated women they have chosen to overlook the fact that the old south is, as the saying goes, gone with the wind. Libby, Tat, and Adelaide cling onto relics of their long destroyed southern mansion and lifestyle. They all worship their long deceased father who appears to me to have been, for lack of a better word, a wacko. However Edith, Harriet's grandmother, does not portray the helpless southern bell. Does this make her more likeable? Not really. She holds the power in the family and is in some ways reminiscent of Scarlet O'Hara; she is bull-headed, not particularly emotional, and the one the family turns to when trouble strikes. Despite their flaws there were moments when I could sympathize with the family. The old aunts always act lovingly to Harriet and Allison; there is almost always an open door for the girls. In the end the family is flawed yet believable. The attention Tartt pays on the life of this family, though sometimes boring, pays off. By the end it seems almost the necessary background.
As Harriet delves into her search for Robin's killer a number of other characters enter and the plot picks up, sort of. If you are waiting for the typical sleuth novel to get rolling on a series of clues you are going to be disappointed. Harriet's mission is based on a sole clue given to her by the family maid, Ida Rhew. Ida tells Harriet that the day of the murder a no-good boy named Danny Ratliff was hanging around the house. From the moment she learns of Danny's presence the day of the murder Harriet is consumed with revenging Robin's murder. While Harriet is certainly premature in her conclusion the conviction with which she goes after the `killer' is admirable. Less admirable is the way Harriet takes Ida for granted until it is too late and her haughty attitude towards the unfortunate Lasharon.
The novel greatly improves when Danny Ratliff and the rest of the Ratliff clan enter the picture. Just when I thought I could take no more of reading about old southern ladies enter the Ratliff brothers: the ex-con turned preacher, the ex-con/ex-mental patient/ex-Vietnam Vet turned meth addict and conspiracy theorist, and (my favorite) Danny. Call me a complete sucker for the bad boy with (what I see as) a hidden heart of gold but I felt more empathy towards Danny than Harriet ever inspired in me. The novel was worth reading for his story alone. This is not to dismiss Harriet's story. While reading about Harriet's apparent blindness to the racism and class-ism of her world annoyed me she seemed to begin to realize something wasn't right. Harriet is more confused about the flaws both she and her world posses but at least she is aware they exist. I hope she does but in this novel, as in life, there are no easy answers and we can't be quit sure how it will turn out.

In an extraordinary twist of the coming-of-age story, Donna Tartt shows the many sides of a single character and of life in the South in her book, "The Little Friend." In what seems to just be an average story of mystery, readers are also taken into another world in which an individual finds out who she really is. At first glance, the novel is a long-winded portrayal of the South and how it affects the actions and thoughts of a family; delving deeper into the pages, however, I found myself wondering whether my feelings should be sympathetic or outraged due to the unfolding of incidents and events.

The novel begins slowly, but is informative in its way of setting the entire plot. The main character, Harriet Dufresnes, is about to leave her childhood at the age of twelve and while spending time with her family, finds that life was much better before her brother was murdered when she a mere infant. In the summer before becoming a teenager, she sets out on a mission to find the person to whom she can blame her brother's death on and in hopes of causing her family happiness once again. In her journey through the darker streets of Mississippi and aided only by one possible piece of evidence from a maid at her family's house, Harriet finds herself in a tornado of uncertainty, adventure, and self-searching. Her determination is great and never-ending throughout the novel; despite the fact that her only piece of evidence is a simple thought process that cannot really be proven, she still goes out into a world unknown to herself to try and avenge her brother's death.
Following the introduction of the setting and the characters, the novel turns into a mixture of fascinating events and superfluous descriptions, causing me to wonder where exactly I stand on whether or not I enjoyed Tartt's latest writing. The events Harriet goes through and all that she has to endure holds attention and makes the novel a page-turner, a book that I couldn't put down for the mere reason of wanting to know what happens next. On the other hand, Tartt's descriptions tend to be excessive in its wording, bringing to mind the question of "Is more always better?" Personally, I feel as if I could do without the unnecessary extra sentences that seemed to repeat previous thoughts and ideas, but it leaves me wondering whether the length should even be noticed in a book that chronicles a time in a young girl's life that readers can most definitely relate to.
All in all, Donna Tartt has delivered a book that reached into the soul and into the mind; she has presented a tale of innocence wrapped around the everyday evils of the world. Despite my doubts of Tartt's overuse of words, I believe this book to be a wonderful rendition of mystery, love, determination, and growing up. Tartt's writing is captivating in the sense that in spite of the many closures she brings forth in the closing pages, "The Little Friend" leaves me with the need and want for more pieces from the author and also motivates me to read other works by her. The novel left me with the question "Why is nothing easy in this world?" lingering in my mind, yet at the same time, it reminds me of the work that is involved with living and being an individual. It is a reminder that readers can relate to; and this novel is a solid indication of that without being too much of a preacher.

I loved The Secret History, so when I heard that Donna Tartt had a new book out I decided to check it out.
I liked the beginning of the novel. About 200 pages in it was a struggle to force myself to read more of it...the end gets a little better but offers little in the way of resolution. I just expected more. The parts of the book about the Ratliff family are especially mindnumbing.
I will say that Tartt is an excellent writer, and the only reason that I gave the book even 2 stars. She creates such beautiful sentences and paragraphs, but fails to make much of a story. By the time I finished the book I didn't even like Harriet, let alone any of the other characters in the novel.
Also, I REALLY wanted to find out what happened to Robin but his murder is barely talked about past the prologue.

I'm amazed by how many people didn't like this book. This is one of my favorite novels, I've read it about three times. This book has so much emotion and pathos. I love how mysterious it is. I also love the class distinction, I wouldn't call Tart a racist, it's an honest depiction of the south in the time period the book is set in. The Cleves and the Ratliffs are written both incredibly. From descriptions of Tribulation with gilded mantle pieces and stuffed black bears to the contrast of the Ratliffs' dump of a houshold with connecting mobile homes, and thin curtains with a meth lab in back. For those who said this book is too descriptive are insane, what's the point in reading if the author doesn't put you in the moment and create a character that you can actually imamgine. These aren't wasted pages of description of every character and their homes. What kind of attention span do you have if you say this book is to long-winded, it's not like a Bret Easton Ellis novel, it's not like American Psycho where entire chapters are dedicated to a musicians career, like I really cared about where Heuy Lewis' "Sports" landed on the charts, or What how successful Phil Collins was after he left Genesis. The similarities of To Kill a Mockingbird are prevelant but this novel takes it to the dark gloomy side, as dark as the filthy water Harriet drowns Danny Ratliff in. The relationship between her and Ida Rhew is so bittersweet, she was the only parental figure in her life not even her grandmother had the firm kindness she did, and it's so touching and sad when Ida leaves and Harriet is the one to blame, and when she realizes her selfishness, she has no way to contact Ida. My only criticism would be the ending, it does kind of leave you hanging, and when I first read it I was a little annoyed by it. But as I read again I liked how it was left open where you can imagine your own conclusion.

Well dang! I just finished this book a couple of days ago and I'm still irked. As a long time reader I have never finished a book (if you call it a finish) that was more frustrating. The publisher is responsible for approving this read. In addition, to the non-ending, it was just too long.
The start of the story was intriguing and grabbed my interest. There was no build-up from there but I kept thinking a great ending was ahead right up to the last few pages. In retrospect Ida Rhew knew when to get out.
If it was rewritten to about 350 pages with an actual ending it could be entertaining but I would never know because I'm done.

This book is so beautifully written----then such a letdown-----I have read about ten reviews and see that most of us feel this book had no ending. Absolutely. No ending. But I would like to emphasize that not only do we not find out who killed Robin---and it would be nice to have some idea who killed Robin----but there are approximately another 143 questions left unanswered as well. i write this because I don't want Tartt or her editor or her publisher to be able to say, oh, those idiot readers thought this was an Agatha Christie novel, it never was supposed to be that.....So here I am to say that that's not the only loose thread here. What about the plan to move to Memphis (or is it Nashville)? What about Hely, did he find the gun? What happens with Pem and Alison? Does Eugene ever corner Harriet? What were Edie and Charlotte going to see lawyers about? Are there ever any connections drawn between Danny and Harriet having the same bacterological illness? HELLOOOO, IS ANYBODY THERE?????

Having adored her first novel (having read it at least three times and still look things up in it every now and then) it was with great excitement that I reserved an entire day to read THE LITTLE FRIEND. I was so surpremely disappointed by it: by weak characterization, the bevy of cliches, the listless, pointless plot (combersome as a beached whale,) and then that overall cheesy message in the end: all children learn that life is unsolveable, without conclusion, and so is the novel THE LITTLE FRIEND). But instead of just tossing it aside as another "Great American novel unfulfilled," I'm left with feelings of confusion. What Happened?
I had the pleasure of hearing Donna Tartt speak in London. I enjoyed her; she talked a great deal about style, how important a good plot is to her, how, on this novel she really made sure that she "did the math" (constructing floorplans and blueprints for all the action, knowing the town's complete layout), how she woke in the middle of the night struck with a brilliant idea, how she refused to move on until she is "supremely happy" with a given section.
Excuse me??? What????? How could THE LITTLE FRIEND be what this obviously talented writer is "supremely happy" with? The richness of the characterization of SECRET HIST is not to be found here; not a hint of that meticulous prose that transports you to another world - or, OK, if she's working with multiple POV - there isn't a single, immediate, enticing voice, not even with Harriet, who, as a child remains pretty "stock," not to mention all of the supporting characters. (One little aside: I DID like Gum; her passive-aggressive nature I find to be true, having grown up in the South myself. But she was the only jewel in a pile of coal.) Unfortunately, these criticisms can be applied to the entire novel with the exception of "The Prologue," which is the best writing of the book. It's all downhill from there.
After hearing about the intense way she works (8 hours a day, every day) I find this outcome to be inexplicable. I'm stumped. (And what about that abrupt, totally off-putting ending, not even ending with the main character's POV. "She sure is...compared to you." Come on!!! You're kidding right? Where are the missing pages?)
All I can say is, I'm starting to believe that old rumor. Maybe the first draft, entitled Tribulation, WAS in fact lost on the computer and she raced though this second copy disinterested, panicked, pained.
Who knows. But this reader is left stumped and (because I still have pipe dreams of a better third novel) saddened indeed.

Harriet, a twelve-year old girl, is in vengeful pursuit of Danny Ratcliffe, a delinquent and drug-addicted young man who, she is convinced, murdered her brother ten years earlier. The first half of the 555 page long novel is very slow and inconsequential, but contains some terrific and sharp descriptions of people: Harriet herself, her mother, her grandmother and the grandmother's sisters; also of Danny and his scary brothers. The atmosphere in buildings and of landscapes is also marvellously conveyed. The second half is a real page-turner and a rather terrifying thriller.

Yes,I was hoping that this book would be as good as "Secret History". Sadly it is not. It does have some good writing in it and the story is has great potential. It's just that the "O" word(overwritten) makes the book collapse on itself like a house with a shaky foundation. Harriet,the young protagnist,was annoying as well and the family she acccuses of murdering her brother years ago,are a sad,rather boring lot for the most part and way too much time was spent on them. Strangely enough,the grandmother was the most sympathetic charactor in the book. I really liked her no-nonsense attitude. If you are going to read this book,have lowered expectations and plenty of patience..

Very slow plot development. The characters were numerous and difficult to keep track of. I had to give up before finishing this very boring book. None of the characters seemed likeable or interesting. Reading it is like watching paint dry. Things move at an excruciatingly s-l-o-w pace, and much of it is an overabundance of detail that is useless to the plot, repetitive and/or uninteresting. SPOILER ALERT do not read further if you have not already read the book, but intend to. The worst thing about the book, is that after all the effort of slogging through the reading, the central mystery is never solved. Once realizing the plot was not going to pick up, skimming ahead, and not finding closure, I looked to reviews online, in hopes that I could find out how the mystery was resolved and justify the time I had invested in soldiering on with this novel beyond the point of boredom. What I found was a lot of other readers with experiences similar to mine, who went on to finish the book, only to learn that the mystery is never solved. Most readers had the same complaints about the book as I did, and were very disappointed to find no closure at the end. I am an avid reader and usually can find something to like in almost any book, but with regard to this book only feel as if I wasted time and money. I am glad I stopped reading it part-way through and did not waste more time than I did on it. If it were possible to give it zero stars, I would.

I stayed up until 5:30 this morning reading this book-- literally could not put it down. Like many readers, when I finally turned that last page and saw the acknowledgments, I was stunned at all the loose ends left all over. But that was it, so I turned off the light to finally get some sleep. Only I couldn't, because I was as disturbed by the story as my schedule was disrupted by it. I couldn't stop thinking about the characters, about the good and the bad in them, about the ways they got their relationships so wrong, between relative, races, employers & employees, parents and children . . . . This book sure got my attention and got me thinking.

...
I had already read about 2/3 of the book at that point, and was more than eager to finish it. Her character development was superb, as she created a bit of Harriet into each of her readers. While a certain level of dramatic irony keeps us from completely embracing this characters, we see where she's coming from. Every other member of her family, her friends, her town all share this seemingly clouded view of reality. It is only Harriet that can see through all of this.
Tartt's readers do the same thing, presuming they can see through Tartt's plot, her plans, her characters. They make themselves out to be smarter than that brown-haired young woman with the soft voice. Just like Harriet is, though, we are all mistaken. Harriet has no idea what she is getting herself in to. And neither do we.
We see the juxtaposition of the two families, the Cleves and the Ratliffs, as strange, yet they are both very similar. The comparison of the destruction of the maternal figures on each side is striking. Danny and Harriet aren't so different from each other. They each want to solve certain familial mysteries that have plagued them for years. It coincidentally happens that they try to solve them at the same time, thus generating a great storyline.
Most reviewers are dispappointed by the ending, claiming there was no resolution, yet clearly that was Ms. Tarrt's whole point. When you really step back and look at the story, Harriet still is a 12-year old girl, and her naivete is just like all of ours. We sit back and criticize her for thinking that she will be able to solve this mystery, but then we blame the author when we feel unsatisfied.
The book's power is in its ability to draw its audience to its main character. The lack of a "resolution" makes it even more powerful because we finally see how devastating this event actually was. Reread the times when Tartt refers to Harriet in the distant future to see how impactful it actually was. The book likens itself more to the end of "Stand by Me," where it's less about the end result as it is the journey.
The only possible criticisms I have for the book are a few writing inconsistencies. 1) the scene in the pool hall is inaccurate as the shots that are made do not follow any billiards rules; and 2) the description of the trains from New Orleans to Chicago contradict each other. For this I can't blame the author but the editor.
For those who ridicule the book for not having an ending they expected, embrace the fact that Ms. Tartt has captured her audience again, just in a more uncomfortable way this time.

In Guetamala, people have diarrhea. And I, Clifford Artez, am from Guetamala.
So, this morning, I had such an attack that caused me to unbuckle my pants while running to the washroom to relieve the demon in the pit of my stomach. In between bouts of explosion, I noticed one perfect solid log floating amidst the turbid soup I've created. Dear reader, if you were I, would you not have felt the loneliness that log must have felt? A stranger, amidst all that liquid, with no friends to share the feelings it must have felt. I cried for that log, or maybe it was from the pain.
Diarrhea hurts. With each discharge comes the characteristic stinging, burning, and overall pain that is both satisfying and excruciating. To distract myself, I reached for "My Little Friend" and started reading. "My Little Friend" did not relieve my discomfort, nor cure me of my diarrhea. I was so disappointed that I immediately cleaned myself and proceeded to write this review.
I don't know about you, but if a book, any book, does not offer relief from diarrhea, it does not deserve more than a one star rating. I felt disappointed and alone -- alone to face my diarrhea plight.

I am one of the many lovers of "The Secret History" and have, like most of you, waited for Donna Tartt's new book for 10 years. To say I'm disappointed is almost an understatement. "The Little Friend" is a boring book with dull characters, filled with stereotype after stereotype. The story goes nowhere, and as the reader it is hard to stay interested or concerned about any of the characters, especially Harriet! I have to force myself to read it everyday and I'm not sure if I can even finish it. I've tried to give it chance. I wanted to love this book. What happened Donna Tartt??

Hands down, no doubt about it, this is the best novel I have read in a while. It was dangerous to pick it up at night, because I would keep on reading, and reading, and would bargain with myself, "only to the next paragraph", only to get deeper in the story. All along, I thought of Dickens. This is a complex novel, with a huge cast of characters and plenty of subplots and background commentary.

In a nutshell: Harriet's nine-year-old brother was murdered in his own backyard, when Harriet was just a baby. This event destroyed the family: the mother never recovered and the father accepted a job promotion in a different state. Harriet is an odd, very unconventional 12-year-old with a vivid imagination, who admires Houdini and Captain Scott. She sets on a quest to discover who killed her brother, and enlists her best friend Hely, a boy who is as scatter-brained as Harriet is sharp. This quest, which starts innocently enough, gets them entangled with a scary family of methamphetamine dealers, at great risk for their lives.

Harriet's extended family, her grandmother and her three sisters, along with the black housekeeper, make for a rich cast that enhances the story. Some of my favorite passages had to do with Harriet's thoughts about Ida, the black maid. The description of the relationship between Harriet and her aunt Libby has to be one of the most satisfying pieces of writing I have ever read.

And then there is the sociological landscape of the novel! Black-white relations in Mississippi in the early 70s, the class divide between whites, the stigma of being born on the wrong side of the tracks, the religious zeal that pervades everything, the world seen from the eyes of a smart girl, who is hardly ever taken seriously by her family:

"Quietly, Libby turned to Harriet for a long moment, and her watery old eyes were steady and compassionate.

It's awful being a child," she said, simply, "at the mercy of other people."

I can't believe the poor ratings! If you get dismayed at 600+ pages, this is not for you. If you are looking for a murder mystery, this is not for you. If you want tons of action and dialog, stay away. This novel is, for me, the essence of pure literature. What am I supposed to read after this? I am once again reaffirmed on my belief that the best fiction in this country comes out of Southern women. Amen!

I'm a fast reader, usually. This book took me three months to slog through, though I put it down and read five other novels in between attempts at reading it. I found myself alternating between extreme delight and utter disgust. Though Tartt uses language in a beautiful and moving way, there's just a lot to read here. Her characters are mostly believable, though the main character Hely is destined to grow up into a frigid, untouachable, unlovable, unlikable and untrusting adult. I find it odd to read a book when the main character is so unengaging. My main sympathies reached out to Danny,the truly tragic figure in this story and a member of a stereotyped white trash family, who could have been so much more than he was if he had been born into different circumstances. This book is probably uncomfortable for some because there is no resolution to the most basic questions raised. It's not pat and simple like so much trash we're getting these days. I think this book is destined to be a great American Classic. It's a book meant to be savored, not devoured.

After waiting 10 years for Donna Tartt to write another book, I alternate between being sorely disappointed in this, and vastly impressed by her beautiful prose. Though the writing is splendid, the imagery vivid, and the characters are sublimely developed, the plot plods along at an interminably slow pace, and the ending is atrocious. By the 555th page, the reader would appreciate having an ending, but Tartt refuses, merely ending the book wherever she saw fit, with absolutely no point whatsoever. This doesn't hold a candle to her debut novel, "The Secret History."

I did not enjoy this book because it was too drawn out and the story itself was not interesting. There was a good opportunity for this to be a great story based on the premise - solving the murder of the main character's older brother who died when he was only 6 and when she was still very young - a subject that is taboo with her family. But much of this story focuses on the purported murderers who are crystal meth addicts - and the disgusting habit and how it is the focus of their lives. Frankly I am not interested in drawn out descriptions of addiction, hallucinations, paranoia, and the disgusting resulting bodily functions that make up too much of this story while adding very little to the plot.

Additionally, many questions in this novel remain unanswered at its conclusion - which is frustrating enough on its own, but even more so when you can't wait for it to end and hope we simply get to the point soon.

Without giving too much away, a final issue is that some aspects in the ending are a little unbelievable - such as survival against all odds and the way the little girl manages to escape questioning by guardians and others when she ends up in the hospital as a result of her antics.

This is one of those books that makes me question whether I am really serving the greater good in donating it to the library. Probably not.

i picked up this book after it was recommended to be by a friend of mine at the library. It initially took a little bit of focus to get into it, but once i did i was quite pleased. many people complain that it is unnecessarily verbose, but isn't that the point? harriet is twelve years old - the deviations tartt makes from the children's plot are the natural deviations harriet's mind makes. the story then becomes not so much about robin's murder as a potrait of society as harriet's ultimate frustration. there is so much that harriet wants to change, but as a twelve year old, she is absolutely powerless. the characters of ida and the aunts are both beautiful and heartbreaking, while the sympathy tartt makes us feel for danny and his unresolved misunderstanding with harriet is a painful reminder that life is merciless. yes, the book was long, but it had to be. tartt writes well, and you will find yourself engorssed in this book, yearning for resolve between these frustrated characters. pick it up, give it a chance, it is one of the most heartbreaking and cathartic works i have ever read.

I can see why this book might not appeal to some devotees of The Secret History, personally though, I found it very entertaining throughout, although I have to admit it does have a tendency towards narrative drift in places. There is also a clear dichotomy between male and female character development, with the some superbly skilfull female characterisation, but little of the same amongst the men. Overall the book lacks the absolute clarity and vividness of TSH, and I would hazard a guess is not as close to Ms Tartt's heart. It is however, consistently entertaining and enlightening, generally well written, very humurous in places, and like life, ultimately unresolved. Another reviewer commented that Carl Hiassen does better books of this type, total nonsense IMO, Mr Hiassen writes entertaining but quickly forgettable novels, Donna Tartt's linger in the mind for weeks or months afterward.

The Little Friend has a similarity to Secret History in the underlying sense of dread that builds as the plot progresses. I got right away that this book was not going to be about solving mysteries or revealing secrets..it's more of a coming of age story. Although I was a little disappointed in the ending at first, after thinking about it, I realized that the ending fit better with the overall tone of the story. The satisfaction of this book must come from an appreciation of Tartt's language. I found myself re-reading passages just for the pleasure of it. Her ability to draw character is such that I really felt like I got to know real people, living in a real place. I look forward to more from Donna Tartt, she is a major talent.

I too was very excited about "The Little Friend". Tartt's first book, "The Secret History" is one of my favorites. I knew better than to expect another book just like "History" but thought for sure, "Friend" would be just as relentlessly fascinating and I would spend many enjoyable hours buried in it. Well, I did spend many hours buried in "Friend" but they were not at all enjoyable. I realized about 1/3 of the way through that the mystery presented on the first few pages would never be solved and I resigned myself to that but I expected some sort of ending. All the characters she introduced from the Cleves to the Dufresnes to the Ratliffs were beautifully written but not much happened to them and some of the things that did happen were too preposterous to believe. Come on, a snake through the sunroof of a Trans Am? A (looooong, drawn out) struggle in an old water tower? That long, long, detailed part with the snakes and Harriet and Hely in Farish's apartment? Where does this stuff happen?
And what about the little girl from the library with the two younger siblings to care for? What was her name? I just finished the book and already most of the details are fading, thankfully. Why did she and her siblings keep popping up? What happened to them? Why bother with them?
Why didn't Harriet's grandmother do something to help Alison and Harriet? How could she not know their mother was off her rocker and the house was a sty and the girls had no adult guidance whatsoever? Why keep bringing up Alison and the Hely's older brother dating? That too went nowhere. Now that I think about it, the only thing that made any sense or hung together in the book was Harriet practicing to hold her breath in the country club pool and then when she actually had to call upon that practice in the water tower. That practicing sure came in handy!
It was a very unsatisfying novel and regardless of all the themes it introduced, it should have had a more conclusive ending. Something should have been resolved. After all, we suffered through and slogged though 500 plus pages for NOTHING.

"The Little Friend" by Donna Tartt is a book that took me a long time to read. In fact, I read two other books while reading this one, because I simply didn't care that much to continue reading. Donna Tartt is a genius when it comes to character development, though, and that part of the novel is what kept me turning the pages. Harriett, her best friend Hely, her angst-ridden teenage sister Allison, her pathetic and perpetually sad mother, her domineering grandmother Edie, the old great aunts, and even her dead brother Robin, are all characters that become family to the reader. Even the "villains" and their idiosyncracies are fascinating. I actually ached for Harriett when her mother fired Ida, the black housekeeper who had been there since she was a baby, cooking her favorite meals, keeping the house immaculate and orderly, hanging her sheets on the line to make her bed crisp and clean smelling, listening to her problems. I, too, felt Harriett's pain that she had taken Ida for granted and not appreciated her enough. Especially when Charlotte, her mother, just let everything go after Ida left. Harriett and Allison were just left to their own devices by a mother who was unable and unwilling to deal with them. But these fine characters were not enough to make a satisfying novel. The answers to important questions were never given. The story just went on and on, and I found myself actually skipping paragraphs just to get on with it, and that's not how I like to read a book.

When I finally put down "The Little Friend", I immediately decided to put it in the garage sale, something I never do. I hold on to my favorite books, loaning them only to certain people, keeping track of where they are, but always wanting them back. This book was a major disappointment. I don't recommend it at all.

Long awaited and heavily anticipated second novel of Donna Tartt, The Little Friend is an utter disappointment.
Having thoroughly enjoyed The Secret History, I, like many other Tartt fans, anxiously awaited her second novel, The Little Friend.
Despite reviews waxing rhapsodic by such venerable and respected periodicals as Newsweek, the New York Times Book Review, and The New Yorker, this novel simply does not live up to the hype.
In a word, this novel is overrated.
In composing this neo-Southern Goth story, Tartt exposes herself as a wannabe Harper Lee-meets-Shirley Jackson-meets-William Faulkner. Character development is at once brilliant and pointless, and at multiple and varying points, the reader has to wonder why Tartt went to all the trouble. Is this a coming-of-age story, or is it a murder/mystery? Upon completing the final pages of this book, I began to think the whole thing was an exercise in futility, both on Tartt's and my own part. Honestly, why in the world did I spend so much time with this book, only to come up with a completely unsatisfying conclusion, if one can call it that? There is something to be said for the "left hanging" style of literature that works so well for a short story and is so popular among modern authors, but really, why must I slog through over 600 densely-worded pages only to be left feeling cheated and like I would really like to get those hours of my life back?
The prologue of this book pulls in the reader with the premise of a good old-fashioned mystery set in Smalltown, Mississippi in the 1970s. The reader quickly learns that the dysfunctional family Dufresnes, around whom this story is spun, had been shattered twelve years earlier by the as-yet-unsolved murder of eldest child Robin. Robin's youngest sister, Harriett, who was but an infant at the time his death, sets about solving and avenging Robin's murder in an attempt to heal her broken, secretive family. Along the way, she and her friend Hely simultaneously bait and stalk the Ratliffs, a family of down on their luck have-nots, one of whom they suspect, on the weakest of circumstantial evidence, had something to do with Robin's demise.
The main problem with this premise is it is a misleading one. And the main problem with this novel is it leaves far too many questions unanswered.
For starters, who exactly is "The Little Friend"? Harriett's friend Hely? Or is it ex-con Danny Ratliff, Harriett's number one suspect, who was coincidentally one of Robin's friends?
Why was Harriett so keenly interested in Allison's dreams? Why did we not learn more about that connection, if any, with Robin's death?
Why was Harriett's seizure disorder disclosed only in the last few pages of the story?
Is Harriett Tartt's alter-ego? Tartt, with her Hawthorne-esque descriptions, and then in some instances repeated, paraphrased descriptions in the very next paragraph, displays a tendency toward hypergraphia, a common idiosyncracy among epileptics. To Tartt's credit, her mile-long descriptions had me almost smelling the mustiness of the Dufresnes' house wafting up from the pages of the book.
Too many questions unanswered, not least of which is just who was Robin's murderer?
Are we to believe that Harriett's illness and subsequent generalized grand mal seizure brought about a kind of "Wizard of Oz" bump-on-the-head, dreamlike experience to which we should attribute the preceeding plotline? Did any of it happen at all? Was this all just a dissociative, febral, hallucinatory experience on Harriett's part?
At the end of the story, I kept picking up and re-examining the book to make sure I hadn't missed a few pages -- at least that would have explained the unsatisfactory ending.
Is this a coming of age story, or is it a story about a sullen, uncooperative, self-centered child who is desperately seeking attention? One could play this tale as a girl in search of self and trying to "fix" her family, when in fact it seems that it is a sad parable of a paternalistic family that comes completely undone over the death of the eldest boy child. And like many So-Goth novels, this one contains some not-so-subtle homosexual undercurrents. Weaving the threads of family ties, is Tartt trying to point out to us that Harriett and her grandmother Edie are alike in more ways than appearance and stubborn determination?
Like The Secret History, The Little Friend sags in the middle and makes the reader wonder if wading through all the text is really worth it in the end. At least in TSH, the ending gave some answers, even if they were partial answers. TLF tends to rattle along in fits and starts, then picks up momentum toward the end, making the reader feel that surely it was all worth it, that we'll come to the end and piece it all together. Unfortunately, that is just not the case.
Yes, I'll admit it, I wanted a nice clean finale, tying up all the loose ends. Tartt really disappointed me with this bizarre, surreal ending.

I have been eagerly awaiting the arrival of a new novel by Donna Tartt for ten years. I bought the Secret History the first week it was out and have since worn out three subsequent copies. I reread the book at least 4-6 times yearly and never fail to be entranced and drawn in by the intensity of the story and luminosity of the characters. It is therefore not surprising that anything less in a follow up book would be a dissapointment. The sad truth is that The Little Friend is mediocre at best. While not poorly written, it feels that Tartt is stetching to fill page after page with endless discription and her action scenes lack any vibrancy at all. The characters are dull, shallow portraits of people with little substance behind them, and it is difficult to maintain interest in them. Throughout the book I kept feeling like she was trying to lead up to a main point, but by the end of the book we still hadn't reached it. The ending was particularly dissapointing, because after reading 555 pages of overblown prose I expected at least some sort of closure. I actually thought perhaps someone had removed the last few pages of the book, as it ended so abruptly and leaving the story (to my mind at least) unfinished. The Little Friend felt contrived, and artifical, and I am dissapointed. I am glad I read it but I will not be rereading it. If nothing else, at least it reminded me of what a gem Tartt's first work truly was.

I consider this book one of my all time favorites. The author captures the sense of helplessness that Harriet feels when she realizes that as a child, she has very little power.

Some people feel that her character(Harriet) is unrealistic but I disagree. There are plenty of us who remember how difficult it can be when you are a perceptive, intelligent child and the adults in your life just don't understand you, because you don't fit the mold. Kids know more than we give them credit for.

Tartt also has a talent for characterization, to the point where you are convinced that these are not just fictional characters. Her portrayal of grief and tradgedy and the destructiveness it can bring to a family is spot on.

I also love The Secret History, but I think The Little Friend is an amazing novel. Can't wait for her next one.

The Little Friend is a novel that gnaws at the underpinnings of life and understanding. Speaking directly to the developments of adolescence and the symbolic stages that every person endures, this novel questions the ways in which adulthood is achieved and encountered rather than just witnessed. Not a mere mystery novel where plot constructions and suspense determine the final outcome and society as well as the reader is returned to a state of grace, Donna Tartt addresses the reality of the world as a subjective search for conclusion that often leaves us alone in the dark. Set against the backdrop of the Deep South, where tradition, family names, and social "agreements" hold life in a delicate balance between antiquity and modernity, honor and shame, acceptance and subversion, The Little Friend chronicles a young girl's most important summer as she more consciously discovers herself and the community that shapes her existence.
Harriet DuFresnes' journey of self-discovery does not begin as such, but rather as an investigation into the unsolved, untimely, and mysterious murder of her older brother, an event for which she was present as a toddler. Surrounding this historical family event exists only pieces of information because her family, perhaps the greatest local historians of Alexandria, Mississippi, withholds through convention and proper Southern etiquette the details of this harrowing event. Donna Tartt establishes an insoluble mystery, much to the chagrin of many readers expecting a logical and revealing conclusion to this investigation as if Harriet were Nancy Drew and her sidekick Hely was one of the Hardy boys, through which an even greater truth concerning Harriet and Alexandria can be revealed. The Little Friend does not therefore offer a conclusion that allows order to be returned to society, but it does grant the reader a chance to truly observe the struggle surrounding familial history and personal discovery through eloquent prose and breathtaking suspense.
Adding to the vast expanse of Southern literature, Donna Tartt paints the town of Alexandria as complex and bewildering for a young girl like Harriet, as is Faulkner's Yoknapatawpha County for Quentin Compson. Creating such a town, which is clearly not as convoluted as Faulkner's but intricate nonetheless, complete with class differentiations, alternating stylistic dialogues, and social histories, Tartt demonstrates her literary prowess through magnificent style and command. The Little Friend is not meant for the mystery novel enthusiast, but rather calls to those in search of contemporary literature that engages the reader in a discussion on the trappings of familial history and misconception. Watching Harriet's world unravel throughout this novel endears her character, as well as frustrates the reader, while simultaneously developing the theme of self-discovery, which fascinated this reader and catalyzed introspection.
After reading Donna Tartt's The Little Friend, I am inspired and excited to read her earlier novel The Secret History, and although unfair comparisons have been made between these two I am sure that Tartt's stylistic prose will once again capture my imagination. On a whole this novel is highly recommended for all those seeking a story of considerable import and consistent entertainment.

I enjoyed reading this book originally but it became very tiresome. The characters didn't engage me and the stereotypical degradation was overdone. Even though I was anxious to be done reading the book, I,like other reviewers, was stunned with the unfinished ending. I feel snookered by all the hype that went with the "long awaited" publication of this book.
This review is actually of the book, not the abridged audio CD. Guess I entered it in the wrong place, sorry.

"The Little Friend" is a 250 page story in a 550 page book and
the publishers should be sued for leading us to believe that this is a mystery, which is not. Look, I loved "The Secret History" and a lot of Tartt's shorter work. Her ode to Willie Morris is one of the most touching things that I've ever read.
But, this latest thing is horrible.
About the only thing that I can appreciate about the book is her
dead on sense of Southern dialect and dialogue. Other than that, nothing. I hate the characters and I suspect that she's not really crazy about them herself, ambivalent at best.
Sorry. Maybe in a another ten years she'll come with something that will be worthy of her time and ours because "The Little Friend" is certainly not.

I certainly enjoyed Secret History and waited months to get my hands on The Little Friend--boy, am I glad I got it from the library instead of paying for it! I've been reading it non-stop for the past few days and now, exactly halfway through it, it's boring the hell out of me. What's with the snake obsession? I understand that fondling them is a big deal in some religious rites, but are they supposed to be a metaphor for the evil Ratliff family? If so, I get it already! The excruciating--and nearly senseless--detail of the Odums and Ratliffs was so inundating, I felt it really took away from the momentum. I even skipped to the end of the book, which I hate doing, just for a reason to keep going. But even then, it was so convoluted that I fell asleep. I'll try to to finish it, but it's going to be difficult. If you need a sedative, feel free to wade through this tar pit. Otherwise, I wouldn't bother.

I, like everyone else, waited 10 years for this book and while doing so I reread The Secret History several times. Was reading The Little Friend like the experience of reading The Secret History all over again? No, nor could it be. What could be that? But was it a worthwhile use of time and money? Aboslutely it was. I did not like the story as much as The Secret History nor did I think that the writing had the flow of the first novel. Only one passage did I find particularly wonderful--when she compared the serpents in Kipling's works to kings in the Old Testament. (What is it with her and snakes by the way?) But apart from that, once again Donna Tartt took me to a an unfamiliar world and made it seem that I knew the people who populated it. The characters were rich and varied, naive and sophisticated, educated and ignorant often at the same time. Tartt gives insight into the characters by placing them in situations and circumstances which are beyond their control but which they have brought about themselves and then she lets the characters act and react to each other. Once again she lets us know that incomplete knowledge (of the past or present) is a dangerous thing when we use it to go about changing the lives of others and even our own. Once again she makes us realize that no matter how hard we try, we cannot change the past and how it has affected us and the people around us. Once again she lets us know that when we try to do that, our futures will be forever altered and makes us ask ourselves if that risk is worth what we are doing with our present. If you want some food for thought served up southern style, then you may find it on the menu by reading The Little Friend.

When I finished this book I threw it across the room. I even lost sleep over it, I was so angry. Such a waste of time, energy and money! After enduring nearly 500 tedious pages of the idolized black maid's departure and a great-aunt's fatal stroke, I felt cheated by the ending. The book bifurcated into two incomplete stories -- the halfhearted family saga and a confusing, lame adventure tale -- never fusing into a cohesive novel. While I admire many "unclassifiable" works, "The Little Friend" bills itself from the start as a "whodunit" or at least a mystery-type story. This is misleading because the author never resolves the central question as to who the hell killed Robin!!! The writing never rises to the level of "The Secret History". Much of the writing feels unfinished, embryonic. The plot is just a run-on mess, crawling to the end where you're just about to say, "Enough already!!!!" Very little suspense permeates the work, as every event is telegraphed by thunderstorms or fluttering birds. For the most part, the characters are detestable. I burst out laughing when a carful of the great-aunts and the grandmother suffered an automobile collision. If only the whole cast of "The Little Friend" had been on board.

Donna Tartt is a good writer, not a great writer. Yet, the editors at Adolf Knopf’s Borzoi Books due her great injustice by not editing enough. In The Little Friend, Tartt takes a dramatic departure from The Secret History and moves south. Her characters are well crafted and take on distinctive voices and personalities. As before, she again takes on a dark and twisted subject. But, unlike the Secret History, the plot is not filled with complex character motives and certainly does not require 555 pages to unfold. So many pages are filled with Tartt’s thinking and fleshing out of scenes and characters that are completely unnecessary to the story line and of no value to the reader. The only thing this excess accomplishes is to slow any momentum and leave the reader wondering, “Why do I need to know this?” Other than character building, this novel displays very little craft. For Ms. Tartt’s sake, let us hope that she does not spend another wasted decade, but instead matures in her technique and learns economy of words.

After reading The Secret History, Donna Tartt's amazing debut novel that I remember devouring in nearly one sitting, I was thrilled to find that after a decade, the author had published a second novel, The Little Friend. I bought The Little Friend shortly after its publication, but before reading it, I ended up loaning the book out to a good friend. After the book came back to me, it continued to sit on my bookshelf unread for a few more years. In the meantime, I read reviews of The Little Friend on (...) and was sad to read a number of reviewers panned the novel, and ripped Ms. Tartt a new colon because they felt the book had a weak ending and was light on plot. In contrast, somewhere along the way I recall reading, perhaps in Entertainment Weekly, that Stephen King thought that The Little Friend was even better written than the author's first novel.

Anyway, I finally got around to reading The Little Friend at the beginning of this year. I found the novel to be very dense with description, causing the action scenes to move rather slowly and to lose some suspensefulness, making this a slow read for me (it took me over a month to finish the 555-page novel). I was, however, BLOWN AWAY by Ms. Tartt's writing style! She really is a gifted writer! Her development of her characters, as well as the setting descriptions were nothing short of CINEMATIC in their intensity. I LOVED this novel! I think with a little tweaking, The Little Friend could make a fantastic screenplay for a movie. I look forward to Ms. Tartt's next novel, and I fervently hope that it will not be much longer of a wait.

P.S. I did not dislike the ending at all! This was a character-driven literary-styled Southern Gothic novel. To be honest with you, I thought this book was much better written than The DaVinci Code, which I thought was a boring read with two-dimensional characters. But that's just me. Obviously I'm in the minority on that one.

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.

The Goldfinch is in the running for my favorite book of all-time but The Little Friend is not in the same league as Tartt's masterpiece.

The Little Friend is an unnecessarily long murder mystery set in circa 70's Mississippi. I think this book would've greatly benefited from being as raw as its topicality. Perhaps I hold Tartt to an impossibly high standard in having read the Goldfinch first and then circling back to her other stuff.

If you expect fast paced mystery novel - this book is not for you, you will be disappointed and like some of the previous reviewers noted "...This book was incredibly long without needing the long drawn-out pages upon pages of description..." But this is exactly what makes this book a Good Read! English is my second language and it wasn't the easiest read for me but I really enjoyed every word in this book. Characters were coming to life, you can see them, feel them and sometimes even smell them. Beautiful descriptive language, multi-dimensional characters, real historical excurse into the recent racist past of this country - all of this makes this book one of the best.

When I read what this book was about, I was very anxious to read it...just the type of book I normally enjoy. After plowing through the book (and, unfortunately, it WAS a chore through many parts), my main feeling was frustration. Donna Tartt's sense of time and place, her beautiful descriptions of various scenes, are vivid and well written (as in "The Secret History"). But - really! - if you are going to write a 500+ page book, don't you have to tie it together better? Resolve different storylines? I had way too many questions at the end to make this a satisfying endeavor:
When did the story take place? (I decided "late sixties")
WHY didn't anyone talk about Robin's murder--for 12 (!) years??
"Edie" - unlikeable as she was - is supposed to be intelligent ("I was a nurse" she keeps telling everyone, haughtily)--how can her daughter's (Charlotte) home and children be so thoroughly and heartbreakingly neglected under her very nose, and she is not the slightest bit aware of it?
I wanted to shake/slap/shout at Edie, the "aunts," and especially Charlotte. Good grief! How much inaction, vagueness, inattention, etc. can we take? Let's blame the maid for our childrens' lack of dinner while we take yet another nap. That got old real fast.
Much was discussed about Allison's "dreams" - but what about them? No tie-in, no further discussion--just dropped when convenient.
Why on earth would Harriet assume Danny Ratliff was Robin's killer--Danny was the same age as Robin! I would think even a 12 year old - especially one as "precocious" as Harriet - would know that a 9 year old could never hoist another 9 year old over a tree branch and hang him!!!
Poor little Lasharon Odum....we were getting to know her (the most sympathetic and pathetic character in the book) and root for her somehow, when - whoops! - she, too, vanishes from the plot. Why the scene in the bar with her no-good father hinting at an incestual relationship? We will never know.
Did I miss what happened with Libby's estate? Much was made about lawyer's, reddened eyes, hints of trouble---again, dropped.
Ida Rhew? Gee, she only lived with Harriet since birth and acted as a surrogate mother every day of Harriet's life--yet Harriet just can't bring herself to hug her?? or even say what she feels? This rang extremely false to me.
Although the main theme of the book was Robin's horrible death and it's impact on the lives of his family, it was not even considered significant at the end. I did not mind that it wasn't resolved--but it, too, just "went away." Danny Ratliff turned out to be Robin's "little friend" and is headed to prison, Harriet went home again to her useless mother (did the poor overworked frail Southern flower even call or visit her daughter while in the hospital?), and life goes on. YAWWWWWN.
Please do NOT compare this book to "To Kill a Mockingbird." Every character in that book are absolutely perfect (the good AND the bad) and every scene evokes feeling and involvement. This book, as good as the setting and atmosphere is, left me pretty cold inside.

I think the summary on this book's jacket is the problem. It sells it as a literate mystery thriller when it is not. I have to say I could not finish it. I was almost 1/4 of the way through and we still had not gotten anywhere past character development and some beautifully descriptive 'non occurrences' that seem to play no role in moving the plot along. Yes we get Harriet is precocious and her sister is wistful. We are made aware through the overdone descriptions to such a point that when I read one more plot line to this effect only to find it going nowhere I just closed the book for good. Darn it.

I admit that I fought off a mild case of literary whiplash while reading the opening chapter of Tartt's second novel. I kept waiting for what I expected to see (more on the unsolved death of the protagonist's brother), and not seeing it was mildly upsetting. I'm glad I overcame this frustration, because this is an immensely enthralling and satisfying book. You have to be willing to let it go where it wants to go. (There is a slow, fetid darkness at the heart of this book that I found fascinating and inspired, but I can see how readers looking for a fast-paced thriller would be disappointed. This is youth and innocence thrown face-first into some of the more monstrous aspects of humanity.) I'm surprised and disappointed at customers who express dismay at a "lack of plot" (I've seen more than a few of these). Nothing could be further from the truth. I think this is a beautifully written southern gothic novel with gorgeous descriptions, fascinating characters, and a breathless conclusion. This is no Secret History, but don't be afraid to try something different. Tartt wasn't.

This book isn't quite the disaster other readers have made it out to be. At the very least it's readable, it's just the first one hundred pages promise much... and the next four-hundred and fifty deliver little. It's NOT a whodunnit as the jacket sleeve would have you believe. And this was the biggest hurdle for me, getting to about halfway and coming to the sinking realisation that NOTHING WAS GOING TO HAPPEN! And didn't! But for all of that, this reader continued to dutifully turn the pages. Miss Tartt's prose, lovely as it is, sinks into pretension pretty early on. Do we really need endless, flowery passages about the weather and the surroundings? Not really. Okay, the Mississipi is loving realised on the pages, but a whole book filled with it...this isn't a travelogue! And for a twelve year old, our heroine sure does know a lot of big words! In fact, what with her basin haircut and sucking-a-lemon expression, it's pretty obvious that Harriet is supposed to be Miss Tartt herself! Don't be too put off. Like beach-combers, you may be able to find good things amongst the grit and sand here. It's just a 500 plus pages, big and clever, literary book that has all the critics oohing and aahing into their Martinis, that would have worked much, much better a quarter of it's length. But hey, take a few Mogadon beforehand and you might have the read of your life. It's NOT bad, just...well, let's be honest here, it's DULL!

If you liked Mattie in True Grit and Jim Hawkins of Treasure Island, you'll like Harriet Cleve Dufresnes, twelve years old, of Alexandria, Mississippi. Steeped in Stevenson and the journals of Captain Scott's doomed Antarctic expedition, she takes on a family of tweaking, redneck habitual criminals, who prove remarkably hard to kill. Harriet, on the strength of a comment from her family's black housekeeper who dislikes all poor whites on principle, decides that Danny Ratliffe, twenty-four and recently released from prison, is her older brother's murderer and vows to be revenged. With the help of her best friend, Hely, she stalks the young ex-con, in between visits with her upper caste grandmother and great aunts, and epic bouts of moping. What makes this book so enjoyable is the magical way Miz Tartt enters the states of mind of Harriet, Hely, and Danny Ratliffe. They are true to life because their weaknesses are the products of their strengths. Danny, as scary and evil as he is, shares some of the charisma of Long John Silver and Harriet's intelligence and grit make her a true heroine, one to remember always. The climactic scene at the water tower is reminiscent of the "Israel Hand" colorplate in the "Treasure Island" edition illustrated by N. C. Wyeth (which the author tacitly acknowledges) and like that book, I would give a lot for the pleasure of reading this one again for the first time. Never have I wished more strongly for a sequel.

Laborious. Labored. Lightweight. Whodunnit indeed.Donna Tartt apparently didn't. The Donna Tartt I knew and admired was not in the room when this brick was written.Knopf should be ashamed. Stock characters in tired settings, cliches abounding, trite slapstick scenarios and not one (not one) iota of real emotions. Tin-earred, awkward and embarassing fake Southern dialogue and not one character (again, not one) to like or who stimulated anything other than a big fat yawn. Whoddunit? Why do any of these characters do what they do? Why doesn't anyone like anyone else or act human or even sensibly, even once? So many loose ends..but who really even cared at the end. Whodunnit? I'm afraid I'm guilty...I didn't use this to prop open the door instead.

There is bound to be disappointment if this story is read with the expectation of it being a thriller/horror story. The hype about Harriet meeting up with true evil is just that - hype. Still, this is a good yarn. There are several very well written heart pounding scenes and I was drawn into the southern gothic mood. I will always be more conscious of the possibility of snakes when outdoors. Stories about neglected children of this age are not uncommon. Martha Grimes book Paradise Hotel was also about a young girl unloved at home trying to solve a murder from the past. It was more believable to me because there was at least some kindness shown to that girl by likeable characters outside her family in the book. There is very little of it in The Little Friend. There was so much loss, indifference and meanness is this story it was very hard to connect with. We have all had times of darkness in our lives but poor Harriet has nothing but.
It will be hard to recommend this book to friends and family because they will race through it to find out who the killer was and then complain when it's not clearly resolved...

A truly tedious read. Have loved her other two novels. This one baffles me. Don't know what she was thinking when she wrote it. Think even she was baffled by the end, because the book doesn't end, it just stops.

Never have I been so irritated or disappointed in a book. 550 pages of rambling. First pages introduce a murder that's the hook. And then we read nothing about it for the next 400 pages. To say the ending was disappointing would be putting it mildly.

The Secret History was a massive success for Donna Tartt, and deservedly so, I think. Plus it had a great ending, the area where so many thrillers and de facto mysteries crap right out. So those who were looking for another Secret History are those that seem to be disappointed, from what I've seen. I couldn't disagree more. (And I've got Henry Louis Gates on my side, too, if I can just gratuitously throw that in there.) This is a MUCH better book in so many ways. Better written, gorgeously evocative, beautifully paced, and rich with the kinds of characters we've come to expect from the South. This was a book worth waiting ... 10 years was i?t ... for, and Donna Tartt shouldn't listen to any of those people looking for another Secret History. Ironically, those are the people who are going to cry "crap out ending!" on this one, I'll wager, when in fact Tartt isn't really writing a mystery at all. This is a great coming-of-age in a time when it isn't easy to write those kinds of novels any longer without smart-ass, self-referential leading characters. I'm something of a harsh critic, and this completely passed muster for me.

I will say this for Ms. Tartt -- I haven't had this strong a reaction to a book in a long time. Part of it is the hype. I really enjoyed The Secret History and thought of it as a sure bet for friends looking for a recommendation, so I had a fair amount of anticipation built up for a second Donna Tartt novel. Apparently, too much anticipation can lead to bitter disappointment.
1. This is not "To Kill a Mockingbird" (although it tries like hell). Although there is a young female protagonist spending a bored summer in the South and a mysterious man who becomes the subject of her 'investigation', the similarities end there. There are no great moral lessons, no though-provoking revelations on coming of age, (unless the fact that sometimes people are wrong is your idea of a grand "ah-ha!"), no heart-warming heroes. Speaking of which...
2. Even though the author piles on numerous and unnecessary tragedies to gain our sympathies, Harriet is not very likeable. But it's not really Harriet's fault - she and the people who populate her world tend to be one dimensional and inconsistent. Their actions and motives aren't true to themselves or true to their circumstances.
3. Of course, had there been actual character development, I'm sure this would have detracted from Ms. Tartt's lovely use of prose. Here's the thing, the writing would be a whole lot better if the author weren't so darn impressed with her own ability to structure a sentence.
4. On the other hand, there's no lack of action. It takes forever to communicate the story's events (mustn't interfere with the lovely sentences for the sake of writing), but there's seemingly no end to the ludicrous new developments that slowly unfold.
5. Finally, while others complain of the ending, I rejoiced that the pain was over. Sure, it's not the type of ending that the book jacket - or even the beginning of the story - leads you to expect - and really, that is fine, perfectly OK. But the reader is clearly meant to be impressed (again) by the author's cleverness - and that attitude - which is pervasive throughout - is what ultimately makes The Little Friend so very obnoxious and unpleasant.

I thoroughly enjoyed Tartt's keen descriptions of life in this Mississippi town. The precocious heroine Harriett was an amazing character whose brightness shown through her neglectful upbringing. With each new slight Harriett suffered at the hands of the adult world, her cunning became more charming. I laughed at the right-on descriptions of the neurotic, self-obsessed mother, the grandmother who could have been my own, and the Ratliffs from Hell. The last half of the book revealed a nail-bitting plot describing absolute evil. I thought the ending was perfect: Harriett has dealt with the reality of evil and loss throughout her life. How could such a character deserve a Polyanna ending? I am amazed at other readers who have not liked this book. I'm recommending it to all my book-loving friends!

I loved the Goldfinch and the writing in this is beautiful, but you name it--looming wrecked houses, dead children and animals, twisted adults--it's all there and more. I found myself skipping large chunks of text in the middle. I'm glad I read it vs audiobook, because it would have been too dark to finish.

I've read all of Donna Tartt's books and this is my favorite. She is an exceptional writer. I really enjoyed the dynamic between Harriet and Healy. Their adventures and Healy's adoration of Harriet made me chuckle. My favorite scene is when they are trying to catch a poisonous snake.

Reading the reviews posted by other readers, I have noticed that most people who disliked this book incessantly compare it to "The Secret History", Tartt's first novel. I think that it is important to remember that "The Little Friend" was not written as a sequel to "The Secret History". I read both books back to back, starting with "The Secret History", and can honestly say that I enjoyed both of them. I found "The Little Friend" to be highly enjoyable, with interesting and well drawn characters. I was especially drawn to the relationships between Ida Rhew and Harriet, and Harriet and Hely. I do agree that the abrupt ending was a bit frustrating since it did not give me any clue about what might happen with these characters, hence the four stars out of five. I think that readers would be well advised to take "The Little Friend" as a separate book in it's own right, and not compare it to "The Secret History".

After reading Dona's first book and third best seller goldfinch, I was excited to read this second novel. The book started off great with plenty of action and a great story to follow. The ending was ridiculous and I was so disappointed to not put closure to this great story!! I would definitely pass up on this particular novel.

The characterizations are superb. I will read it again and enjoy how well the author drew these differing portraits. I would have been delighted if there had been no story at all. The plot was preposterous--what I would expect in the juvenile adventure section of a library. However, that did not spoil the richness of the characters. Any writer would gain immeasurably by reading how Donna Tartt drew, painted in, shaded, highlighted, etc. these unforgettable southern people. A Reality Show between book covers. Adult plotlines and development will come--once she puts her mind to it. Read the book, ignore the plot. Enjoy the fantastic people.

I had really enjoyed Donna Tartt's other books, and assumed that once I had gotten into this I'd be equally absorbed. Well, I was about halfway through when I realized I wasn't enjoying this one at all. It seemed to get stuck in circles and not know how to make any progress. Before I put it down, I flipped to the end to find out who had murdered the brother, which had appeared to be the point of the exercise. Surprise ending - we don't know who killed him! We've spent a long time in a depressed and depressing little backwater, with no resolution.

One is often let down with writers' second novels. This is especially so with Ms. Tartt, whose The Secret History was wonderful in both the artistic and commercial sense. The Little Friend is completely different to the first novel and it is better.
If one reads this one slowly you will really enjoy it. The Little Friend has it all - plot, mystery, character and most of all Tartt's terrific prose. In short it's a great southern novel and you'll be glad the editors weren't let loose. Donna Tartt really makes you feel a part of small town Mississippi in the 70's.

After reading this novel, I now appreciate the old cliché: "Don't judge a book by its cover," because The Little Friend is neither little nor friendly. From the very beginning, the novel looks to be a promising, suspenseful murder mystery, but as the reader will soon find out, that is not even close to the truth.
For the length of the novel, the main character, Harriet, is involved in the attempt to find the murderer of her older brother, Robin, who died when she was only a young baby. Even though Harriet is only twelve years old, it is still reasonable that she would want to find the murderer in the hopes of restoring some type of order to her dysfunctional family. But this is where the plausibility of the story ends. Following this initial premise, a series of one extraordinary event after the other ensues until the final pages of the book. Any of these events in and of themselves would still maintain an element of believability, but it seems that such a string of possible but improbable events and coincidences seems highly unlikely. The author stretches the limits of the concept of "suspension of disbelief" and takes it to a whole new level. Although this novel is a work of fiction, there needs to be some elements of reality in order to maintain the readers' attention in such an outlandish tale.
In addition, her writing style is so long and laboriously clumsy, full of every miniscule detail possibly imaginable, that one could assimilate it to the death grip of a boa constrictor- once it has its prey in its grip, it slowly, patiently waits for it to exhale and gradually increases the pressure until its victim can no longer take in any of the sweet oxygen once enjoyed- eventually, as if effortlessly it kills and brings with it sweet death-the end of suffering. By the time I was done reading 624 pages of long rambling sentences like that, I wished for death. Every detail was mentioned every single time; I was explained what shrubbery was, how the Trans Am looked in the sun, and the past as well as current conditions of the water tower (just to mention a few) on so many occasions that it began to get monotonous.
As if all of this was not enough to discourage any sane purveyor of quality literature, the plot was explained with such jumps, hops, and skips that many elements did not seem relevant in the end (good editors must be hard to find). At the time, it seemed that every element could be important in the process of all the outlandish interaction of an entire town in Harriet's rambling search for Robin's murderer. I felt that almost as much attention was given to each and every support character that ever dared to stick his or her head out of the window of his or her own house as Harriet casually walked down the street, regardless to how pertinent to the main plot these characters were. This book should not have been an exercise in memory to see if the reader could recall every detail about too many characters. But for all of her attention to long, winding, intricately-woven events and character interventions, the ending was terrible. It was like a bad movie where the viewer arrives at the ending too quickly with ridiculous twists of plot in the last minute to arrive a totally unreasonable conclusion. More action occurred in the last 100 pages than in all of the first 524.
One last note to mention was the terrible handling of race and class issues. Although these are important issues to deal with, they were stereotyped so badly that the characters seemed too comical to take serious and therefore invoke any kind of sympathy for the exaggerated victims of prejudice. Instead of the maid calling the mother Charlotte, I was all the while expecting her to say: " Yeees mizz Daizy. Anthin else I's can do fo' ya."
In short, unless you want a long, drawn-out analysis of more characters than you ever wanted to meet, with no plot to sufficiently hold your interest for any extended period of time, and every painstaking detail of everything and every event that ever occurred in the small town of Alexandria, don't bother to read this book.

Almost a horror story. Kept me awake, gave me strange dreams.

The contrast between the daily life of this seemingly "traditional" family and the undercurrent of MURDER is chilling.

It only took a few pages before you start to realize that the crime that took place in the past, is still working evil in the present.

Little Harriet is the hero. She shows the intelligence and bravery I always felt was justified in girls of twelve. So tired of being told, "a child of that age couldn't understand" whatever. If they can read, they can understand a lot. She understands more than the adults around her.

What she lacks in experience, she makes up for in sheer raw nerve.

I am hoping for a sequel. This could be a series as Harriet grows up. Please let's have another.

I usually don't fall for the hype which surrounded "The Little Friend" and I did not read Donna Tartt's previous book. The cover really intrigued me and it sounded so great on the jacket. I heard so much about it I just couldn't wait for it to be released in paperback so I bought it. I really enjoyed Harriet and that's the one good thing I can say about it. It was too long, too boring and there were too many things left undone. Too much time was wasted on the Ratliff brothers, etc. when I would like to have known more about Allison, since she was there when Robin was murdered - the readers were left hanging. And what about Lasharon Odum? I thought she was brought into the story for a reason but apparently not. What really drives me crazy is that I just don't get the cover - what's with the creepy doll. I kept reading because I thought it would tie up towards the end and would have been worth sifting through all the other junk. I hate wasting my money on duds like this one was.

I tried so hard to like this book and decided to give it a try despite all the reviews. Wow, was this book slow. Endless descriptions of meaningless things, and Harriet was a very unlikeable character. After about a hundred pages of nonsense I just skimmed through to find out what happens. And it is the worst ending in any book I have ever read. There is no ending, the book just ceases to be, and it does not clear anything up. Not worth the time. I will read her other books though because they seem to get great reviews. This one not so much

I started reading Tartt with this book. So, I am just going by what I felt with this one experience. I was intrigued to read the book because of the gist on the jacket, and please do not make the same mistake. They are trying to sell a story that does not exist within its 555 pages. Extremely disappointing!! It clearly starts off with a little boy's death by hanging. But, then the novel is just about the people in the family. I usually enjoy when the characters are dealt with in great detail and get immense satisfaction when everything about the setting, and the place is explained to the last dot. But, unfortunately, though so many pages and words have gone into this novel, there is no satisfaction at the end.
I would have been happy to accept that the little boy's mystery death is never solved in the novel, had I gotten the pleasure of reading about everything else. But, that is not the case. Neither is the mystery present (which the jacket claims), nor is there substance to quench my laborious read. I very patiently read through more than 300 pages, and was very disappointed, and then to reach the end started to skim through. I read a lot, and never have I done that before.
I am really curious now to see what she had to offer in 'Secret History'. I am going to read that next.
Donna Tartt is not a storyteller, because 'The Little Friend' is not a story. I guess with the 10 years that went into making this novel, Donna Tartt completely lost track of what she wanted to tell her audience.

Highly atmospheric, this story captures the losses of childhood, growing up in a matriarchal Southern white family. It also depicts the loving but ambiguous relationship with the family's black maid.
I will be keeping this book to reread in the future.
The unabridged audio book version is great too.

I have an inkling those who are giving "The Little Friend" bad reviews are those that have read and loved "The Secret History" and were looking for the same exact book rewritten. However, with "The Little Friend", Donna Tartt has proven she can take on another style and succeed. Those that were looking for a mystery or some other brain candy will be disappointed, but those who are looking for a good story about human nature will be interested. I am confused by those who say there is no plot to this story. It seemed very clear to me. This book is not about solving a murder but rather about the summer of one little girl, her surroundings and her broken down and broken hearted family. And besides all this, the normal ups and downs of being a little girl - the excitement of summer, the boy 'next door' who has the secret crush, the imagination, the dread of summer camp, the comfort of relatives homes, etc.. Donna Tartt has done a wonderful job in bringing us in the mind of Harriet and at the same time has brought us back to when we were growing up. Donna Tartt also touches upon heavier subjects, racism, death, grieving etc.. All in all, I enjoyed this book - I felt caught up in the world of Harriet and her small town. However, I took away one star because I did feel as though I was reading a "young adult" novel rather than a book intended for an adult.

Oh, dear. What happened to Donna Tartt? Apparently, writing one masterful novel (The Secret History) gave her the lofty ambition to tackle this 600+ page sprawling, aimless novel of adolescence in the south. Her writing, not surprisingly, is both vivid and glaringly beautiful, drawing attention away from the bland, pointless story. In fact, the plot (or lack thereof) is my only real complaint about this novel, but what a complaint it is. Overall, the writing is magnificent, the setting is real, and the characters shine through the page like they were standing right in front of you. If only I could have cared about what happened to them.

Southern gothic gone awry. This novel had a very promising start which kept me reading long after I should have called it quits. If you have a high tolerance for endless digressions about varieties of snakes, meth-heads, kudzu and southern ladies with the vapors - and the absence of any likable characters whatsoever - this may be the book for you. The author's next effort won her the Pulitzer Prize, another reason I stuck it out to the end. Wish I hadn't!

I was shocked at the low ratings given this beautifully written novel. This is one of the best books I have read, especially for it's lyrical writing and putting you there in the moment. It is not the typical thriller / murder mystery. Thank God. This book is enjoyable on a level far above the typical. I don't mind that the story unfolds slowly, I savor every page. The characters come alive and it is as though you are there watching them. The author finely crafted this book, the writing is magical. By the way, this is the first time I've been moved to add my two cents to the reviews of a book. That's how strongly I feel about The Little Friend.

I slowly fell for this book. After wadding through the first hundred pages of prose I rather enjoyed Tartt's rich voice and detail. However, suddenly the book becomes high paced and action filled and after all of the build up it just does not fit. (Not to mention that the action in the climax borders on ridiculous). After what is supposed to be an exciting climax the novel slips back into its deep and heavy march....it's like giving sugar to a five year old and then telling them to sit perfectly still. And the ending...I was not at all bothered by the fact that you never explicitly find out who killed Robin. I think there are things peppered through the novel that guide the reader to make their own assesment. And I also get the juxtaposition between Hely and Harriet in the end. It just seemed that whatever Tartt was getting at with the ending fell a little flat. To me, Harriet never seemed so one dimentional as she did in the last twenty pages, even when her realization about Danny occurs. My initial shock at the ending has mellowed a bit but I still feel let down.

Seven months ago I put The Little Friend on my Christmas wish list and was thrilled when I received it as a gift. Seven months later I finally finished it and I think I owe my gift giver [$$$]! If this book was brilliant, I sure missed it.
Everything about this story was long and torturous. The sun-baked Mississippi landscape, the bible thumping, quasi-racist, emotionally clueless characters, the crazy-...premise and the anti-climactic climax which was no climax at all since that would imply a building of tension and action that begs for a resolution. Suffice it to say that 20 pages from the end, I was able to put the book down for the night and not pick it up again for two days, that's how much I didn't care about Harriet and the fate of her family.
I can say a lot more, but like The Little Friend, what's the point. Less is more. Read the first chapter, the last, and that's all you'll need. Everything in between is boring, long winded, depressing, and completely unnecessary.

I never read the Secret History, but was eager to read the Little Friend after all the publicity about the author. I am 200 pages into the book and am having a hard time getting through it. While the writing in places is eloquent, I can't help but feel the book could have used a good editor. I'm not of the MTV generation with a short attention span and like to read long books that hold my interest. The Little Friend seems to have too much extraneous material. It's a little like watching paint dry, waiting for something to happen.

I enjoyed this book to the fullest - I drank up every page. Even if, however, one isn't satisifed with the action in the book - i.e., the ending - Ms. Tartt is such a gifted, dedicated writer, especially in comparison to her peers, that "The LIttle Friend" really shouldn't recieve any criticism whatsoever.
For example, this book is much more well written than Gao Xinjang's "Soul Mountain," which just won the Nobel Prize.
Readers should be grateful, I think, that there is an author like Ms. Tartt, who cares enough about her work to spend ten years trying to do the best job she can.
Those who purchased "The LIttle Friend" thinking it was going to be a mystery or crime story in the vein of a "Mike Hammer," Stephen King or Anne Rice novel should have realized early on that this book is of a different ilk than those novels - "The Little Friend" is a work of literature. And it is irresponsible, I feel, to criticize "The Little Friend" simply for not being something it was never intended to be; and something that, in fact, would have made it a lesser thing than what it is.
As someone who loves to read and write, I found both "The Little Friend" and "The Secret History" to be more rewarding, by far, than any other recently published novel I've come across.

Louise Fitzhugh, take note as your character Harriet has been resurrected in a "national bestseller", complete with bobbed haircut, notebook, enabling friend, dysfunctional parents, emotionally-connected housekeeper, willful risk-taking nature, and talent for sneaking and finding herself in places she doesn't belong. The main character of this book even shares the name and approximate birthdate of the original Harriet. Like Fitzhugh's Harriet, this child wants to solve a mystery and prejudges people (wrongly) in order to make her worldview fit together. Sadly, this is where the similarities end because if you need a mystery in which the pieces fit together at the end, this isn't it. The characterizations are charming but the book needs 50-100 pages of editing, particularly in overly detailed descriptions of Mississippi topography. Sometimes it's enough just to have lots and lots of detailed prose, but this isn't one of those times. After 624 pages, the author owes the reader more and her inability to answer the questions posed by the first chapter is inexcusable.

This novel was gorgeously written. Harriet, the protagonist, is a fiercely intelligent and intriguing character, and the writing is lush and evocative. The book is hard to put down.
BUT! This is a whodunit with no 'who' reveal at the end, a murder mystery that is never solved. WHO killed Robin? Was it a suicide, or is there a dark hint lurking in the pages that I somehow missed? If someone has the answer, can you please, please let me know? Reading this book was like partaking of a sumptuous feast that left me utterly unsatisfied.

I usually don't write reviews, but I almost did not buy this book because of the bad reviews. After reading the book, I have to say that this is not a book one reads at the beach or that you can read lightly. Much like Faulkner, Ms. Tartt creates very deep characters and also like Faulkner makes the environment one of the main characters of her novel. She breathes life into all of her characters and creates a place such that as a reader you become a part of that place. It is an environment, that like a character in a book, you must interact and one that you must react. This book is not one that you can stand blithely on the periphery, but one that you must delve into and actually live. The subject matter is disturbing and often the characters are disturbing, mundane, and infuriating, but that is to make the reader think and live the book. So....reader beware. If you want a novel to make you think and feel then you will like this one. If you are looking for a quick, feel good escape then keep searching.

I am very conflicted about this book. The Little Friend is an excellent book. Donna Tartt did an outstanding job inventing characters, fleshing them out, and developing the relationships between them. I finished the book feeling as though I had actually spent time living with the characters. I give Donna Tartt high marks for her writing ability.

The big "but" is really a matter of opinion. Though it may be of little relevance to some, the most frequent complaint I hear about this book is that the case is never solved. I would imagine that many of the book's defenders would argue that the lack of a captured killer is integral to the effect the author intended. For me, though, it felt like the story was unfinished.

The book begins with a baffling mystery, the killing of young Robin. My mind shifted into "detective novel mode" at that point, and I felt fully confident that the mysterious murder would be resolved. It never is.

I can appreciate that there are many mysteries in our lives that never will be resolved, despite the fact that they will never cease to gnaw at us. But the book's anti-climax and abrupt end left me feeling like the final two chapters had been torn out of a great mystery, leaving those of us who need closure to invent our own ending.

(P.S.: Not that I think anyone cares terribly much about what I think, for the few who do: I think Robin's father killed his son. The family is quite clearly run by a group of strong women. Even the most understanding men I know have grave concerns about their sons' upbringing, especially in regards to female influences turning them "soft." His father was absent from the party during which Robin was killed. He was "off hunting." Other than that his whereabouts were never confirmed. We are told that Robin had formed a close bond with his grandmother Edy. An exceptional bond considering how cantankerous she is with everyone else. This bond was distressing to the father, whom I have no doubt hated the woman. Seeing no way for his son to ever escape the family's feminine influences, he killed his son. Knowing that he would never have his own son, he vowed that "they" would never get him either. It would be easier to endure living the rest of his life knowing he killed his son, than to be tortured for innumerable years helplessly watching Robin be "corrupted.")

Donna Tartt's "The Little Friend" was something of a letdown. But how could it not be after waiting so long for it. And that it had to follow "The Secret History" one of the best books I've ever read?

Let me put it this way: "The Secret History" is a great book that would make an okay movie (there is just no way to capture the complexity and richness of that sublime work. It must be read.) "The Little Friend", however, is an okay book that could make an incredible film. Something akin to "To Kill A Mockingbird".

Movies aside, "The Little Friend" is still a very enjoyable read. There are some amazing passages (the "snake" scene)and I can't help but feel the little girl is Donna Tartt when she was that age. This book has a lot more warmth than "The Secret History" but it's somewhat lacking in the formers complexity. It's impossible not to compare the two books. Ms. Tartt needs to break the slump with something new. She has too slow an output. That's not a criticism. That just means I want more of her work to read, because even a lesser effort from her is ten times as good as anyone else.

Tartt's a master at elegant prose and characterization, but I am hard pressed to understand why she felt the book should be so long-winded. I finally read this novel even after hearing of some reader's complaints about the resolution because she truly is a magnificent writer and I loved her first book. The opening chapter is stunning and there isn't a person you encounter that you don't fully believe. Not a great novel, but it's still unforgettable and haunting.

I've waited 10 years for a follow-up to The Secret History... I couldn't be more disappointed.

After spending hundreds of pages discussing the murder of a young boy, Donna Tartt rambles on and on about surrounding characters, then never gets back to who actually committed the murder. The problem with this is that one of the characters actually knows what happened- she was there- but she's somehow lost in the shuffle of other activities that take over Tartt's attention. Although Tartt endlessly details the most intimate thoughts and actions of her other characters, apparently the murder witness's mind was too dull to delve into- so she doesn't. Give us something, please, even a short paragraph at the very end, to shed some insight into what happened on that fateful day that was supposedly the centerpiece of the entire book.

Also disappointing to any avid reader is the number of grammatical mistakes and just plain bad writing- Tartt apparently had the worst copy editor of all time. Details are repeated over and over again- I'm all for a good, long read, but I don't want to read the same information five times. Tighten it up, why don't you?

There are some truly great moments in this book, but you have to wade through so much detritus to get to them that it's hardly worth it.

The Secret History is one of my absolute favorite books. I'd recommend it to anyone. This book, on the other hand, makes me suspect that it took so long to write because Tartt used up all her creative energy on the first go-round.

Look for my copy of The Little Friend in a used bookstore near you.

Subtle, powerful, and full of the languid and long moments of childhood, this southern mystery is not for the reader who wants a cheap thrill, Each character is drawn carefully and completely with the plot woven around them until there is no escape, no possible place to withdraw or hide. The reader plummits forward holding hands with elderly Southern women, snake driving drug dealers and the small children who know the secrets that connect them. It is not a book that can be put down in the dark. I hadn't read the author's first book, but I will stampede backwards to find it. She is a genius. Her last page here is a masterful one. She can stand up with Harper Lee and Ray Bradbury in my bookcase any day.

What have ten years done to Donna Tartt? As one reviewer put it, in recent photos she looks uptight like she's just sucked on a lemon, and now she has written this lemon of a book! She seems to take herself VERY seriously. And it has taken a toll on her writing. Is she suffering an identity crisis? She seems to be torn between art and entertainment. If she really wants to write poetry like Eliot then she shouldn't be writing novels for the common folk. The Little Friend is, to be kind about it, not the most exciting read. Tartt may be in love with the sound of her own voice, but it's presumptuous of her to think anyone else will love it. In ten years, she has become more academic than she was before. The Secret History was one of my favorite books. I sincerely hope she gets down off her high horse and writes something enjoyable again.

I absolutely loved The Secret History and looked forward --for 10 years -- to reading Ms.Tartt's new novel. I live in Holland -where the book was first published, in Dutch, before the first English version was released. No wonder it was published here --the Dutch made her a super celebrity and there were lines and lines of people buying The Little Friend, and hoping for an autographed copy. So much HYPE ---over what??!!! I was so thoroughly disappointed in this book! Indeed a good editor could have cut it down by at least 60%. Beautiful prose to fill pages without going anywhere can be fine -- provided it IS indeed 'beautiful prose'. But Ms. Tartt's descriptions were endless, and pointless - irrelevant to the story, and having no added value - giving the read no food for thought, nothing poetic or lovely to take away. So irrelevant in fact that I found myself skipping along, not wanting to waste more time on this book. I stuck with it though, right to the very end and when i got there at long, long last and read those final words I yelled out loud "IS THAT IT?! THAT'S IT???!"

Donna Tartt seems to have a very high opinion of herself based on the glory of her last book which lasted ten years. In interviews, she talks of other novelists such as Hemingway and Faulkner, as if they are her peers. Dream on. The Little Friend surely doesn't justify that sort of comparison. Far from it. TLF offers the occasionally clever gyrations of an intelligent wordsmith, huff-puffing to come up with a masterpiece. Alas, a masterpiece TLF is not - though it is a masterpiece of grinding effort - and an effortless exercise in condescension. Tartt's hodgepodge of ingredients - childhood imagination, murder, poverty-driven drug addiction, eccentric Southern Gothic old women, whodunnit - is a nice idea that simply doesn't convince, and ultimately bores. It's all very busy, but never finds its heart. Tartt has tried to cover all the bases, outsmart everyone, and maybe even herself. Who does she think she is fooling?

This book is an insult to its readers. I want my money back!!!Donna Tart is wonderful with words, but there's no plot here, no message, and even no ending that I could see. I loved her first book but this book has a rambling, go-nowhere style that is shocking for an author of her abilities. I am a published writer myself and I think if this had not been Donna Tart's book it would have seen one rejection letter after another. And HOLY COW where was the editor!!!??? Was she locked in a closet until after the book was printed? This isn't even a passable first draft of a book. Shame on you Donna for not applying your considerable talent to make this the book it could have been.

Just as with The Goldfinch, the author drags a determined reader through endless graphic details of violence & twisted psychopathic suffering & abuse. Her strength in capturing a family's grief over a child's death & of Theo's loss of his mother is moving. But i didnt need 200 plus pages of violence & drugs in GF & torture of helpless creatures in the Little Friend. This is the last book I will
read by this Tartt.

After 'The Secret History', which made Tartt a near cult figure in literary circles, she took 10 years to come up with her sophomore novel. Well, so much for the long wait... To be fair, the writing is good, with a clear portrayal of a small Mississippi town and an extended family living in the aftermath of a grisly unsolved murder of a 9 year old.

Harriet, the baby sister of the murder victim, picks up the thread of the mystery 12 years later, and opens up a pandora's box of secrets... However, Tartt lingers over too many characters and their side stories to get to where she is going, and the climax is, alas, a letdown, and the reader feels frustrated that the key characters don't seem any closer to achieving redemption and/or catharsis in the end.

Having read some of the rave reviews this book got in the press, I was inspired to buy it and hunker down for a great read. Having never read Miss Tartt's Secret History, I had no basis for comparison. But the disparate elements described in the reviews I read made it sound just wonderful. Sadly, I am grieved to report that while Tartt can most certainly write, she cannot tell a story, nor can she compose what is clearly intended to be a great novel in the vein of Stevenson, Faulkner, Dickens and Melville. I'm afraid Tartt has a lot to learn before she can expect to become part of that literary constellation. The poor girl seems positively overwhelmed by the task at hand, completely unable to tie the wildly separate threads of her flimsy plot together. She has aimed too high, favoring social commentary over character development, and as a result the novel is sorely deficient. Unlike many of the reviewers here on the store, I did finish the book, though I admit it wasn't always easy, and wasn't even necessary as it adds up to very little.

Well, I have never read her first book, which everyone else seems to be comparing this one. Therefore, I had no preconceived expectations. However, after reading this one, I don't want to read anything else by this author. This was one of the biggest wastes of time I have ever read. The only reason I finished it was to find out "who did it." Well, guess what? She (Tartt) didn't even give me that satisfaction.
The first couple of (long) chapters were good and interesting. It was downhill from there. Tartt bogged us down in detailed descriptions of things that had nothing to do with the plot. I literally skimmed and skipped through entire pages!
Do NOT waste your money on this book!

Like everyone else I looked forward to this book with great expectations. "The Secret History" is one of the best books I have ever read and I expected this book to be of the same calliber. I was dead wrong
I thought the plot was thrilling, the characters well developed, I understood Harriet's pain and obsession and I even undersood why the book wasn't a "happy" one. What I did not understand was the ridiculous ending. Like others I asked myself "What in the world was the point of all of that?" Just a little bit of resolution would've been nice. I am thourougly dissapointed.

Donna Tartt begins her second novel by introducing us to a character, Robin Cleve Dufresnes, who we never get to meet. His body is found hanging from a tree in his backyard, on Mother's Day, with only his two sisters, 4 year old Allison and baby Harriet as witnesses. The story then jumps forward, where the cloud of his untimely (and unsolved) death fuels the motivation for his sister, Harriet, now twelve, to find and seek revenge on whom she believes to be Robin's true killer.
This is a great novel on so many levels. First, it is beautifully written; Ms. Tartt carefully describes the setting of Alexandria, Mississippi, and the various characters so eloquently, you feel as if you live among them. She expertly captures the sometimes subtle, but important differences in Southern accents in her dialogue, which reveal differences among both racial and class lines. Twelve year old Harriet, who is described as "neither pretty nor sweet", but "smart" is an incredibly interesting character. She is not particularly nice or even likable, but I loved reading a story where the female protagonist gets to keep all of her unpleasantness and not be punished for it. In the end, you root for her. This novel is ambitious and quite long (624 paperback pages), but it never feels drawn out or overdone. You eagerly await the next page, and I promise you, you'll stay up late reading that last chapter. Enjoy!

I have never read Tartt's first book - so I have no basis for comparison. However, I was extremely disappointed in this book. I found the story interesting, and I fell in love with Harriett. However - the main premise of the book is based on her brother's hanging. Little Harriett decides to find the killer. 550 pages later - we have no conclusion to our mystery, and the book ends without any kind of real *ending*. I'm either missing the last chapter, or there's a part 2 I don't know about. I doubt I'll read another Tartt novel after this. Never been so disappointed with an ending before.

The `blurb' on the back of this book leads you to believe this will be a murder mystery about the horrific death of a young child. When you read the first few pages you are gripped by the tragedy and mystery of it. You are primed for a satisfying tale that will ultimately answer the question the book asks in it first pages. Who murdered Robin?
Well, I wish I had checked in with the store before investing my time into 600 plus pages. If I had done so I would have known that we NEVER find out who killed Robin. Sure, we read about the damage and long-term effects of his murder upon his family but if that's the story you are looking for Alice Sebold will much better serve you with The Lovely Bones.
The Little Friend offers no mystery, no compelling tale; it simply meanders aimlessly with stock characters who have no great insight and ultimately give you the feeling of having wasted your weekend.

Donna Tartt has become an author that I will look for from now on. "The Little Friend" had the flavor that I look for when I want to read something interesting, exciting and engrossing! This story felt comfy-cozy. It's not like so much junk that is being published these days. This piece of work is real literature, but you don't have to go back one hundred years to get it. I totally fell in love with Harriet's aunts. They were people I know. Ida, the maid, was so well depicted that I could actually see her. Gum was igenious. I didn't just read this story, I appreciated every piece of sweat and research that Ms. Tartt put into this piece of art. This story took me back, it took me forward. There was nothing that I wanted to delete or add. Here is a book that I actually would want to read again.

This is a well written novel, but is very long and left me unsatisfied. I had to plod along several times and force mself to continue reading. The characters were well developed. The descriptions and imagry painted great pictures of the settings. The story went nowhere. I was left hanging in the end with no satisfying conclusion after all that reading.

I stayed up well past midnight the last few nights to read this book, and while the story itself was fairly intriguing, what kept me going was the beauty of the writing. I just wanted to applaud at some of her incredible sentences and descriptions. I didn't find any of it boring, although I was much more interested in Harriet's story than the Ratcliffs'.
I don't give it a five star because I was so dissatisfied with the ending I threw the book down (seems to be a common occurrence with this book) but it was an engrossing, entrancing read, and I really identified with Harriet and her love of books. I haven't read The Secret History but I will definitely read it now.
I would recomend it, but only to people with patience, time on their hands, and a love for detail and description that draws you right down into the story.
I am left very curious as to what happens to Harriet when she grows up. And what, by the way, was wrong with Allison? Did she see the murder?

Donna Tartt can write, but can she tell a story? This book contains fascinating details of southern living, but it does so at the expense of what could have been a riveting tale. The story of a young girl searching for her brother's killer. That is the marketing for this book. Intriguing, right? Sadly, it felt more to me like a children's book. The story of a young girl struggling to understand life. Surrounded by her elderly aunts and her dysfunctional mother the little girl fights to come to terms with a world that is changing all around her. Ms. Tartt's descriptive prose has a keen edge. But her ability to weave this story together fails. She allows herself to go deeply into the details of people's lives that do nothing to move forward the story of the little girl's search for her brother's killer. The countless paragraphs of description of the Aunts and the speed addicts gave me the feeling that I was sinking. I was sinking in attractive verbage but I was sinking nonetheless.
In the end, when Ms. Tartt unsuccessfully attempts to tie the story together, I still don't know what the young girl truly realized from her journey. This was a VERY unsatisfying read.

Sorry about all the readers who wanted a more conventional ending, in which we find out for sure who killed Robin. The author hints that, yes, it might have been Danny (consider what his nightmares are about), then leads us to believe that, no, maybe Danny was innocent. Either way, what's important is that Harriet (and Hely) decide to try and kill him based on a hunch (and on class prejudice?) not on any real evidence. And yet...he is an evil man, who tries to kill Harriet. And yet...he survives.
And the story ends, and yet...it's not over. Will Harriet move to Nashville? And why would the father give up his mistress? And will Eugene decide to leave Harriet alone? Will Harriet challenge Edie's genteel racism? Will Pem and Allison get it on?
The tale continues to resonate.

Donna Tartt's style drew me in quickly and I had high hopes for The Little Friend. Having now ploughed through its 500-some pages I'm certain 300 of them could have been edited.
Is Ms Tartt unable to leave any detail undescribed? Must everything be "like" something else? I cringed at certain synonyms (a rolled-up carpet like a log... an Aunt helps Harriet and Hely over it like a scout leader helping them across... surprise, a log). And why "shrubbery (privet, holly)"? In case readers ignore what shrubbery is? Towards the end I glossed over certain sections, confident they had no bearing on plot or characterization.
Stereotypes abound too, in particular the black maids and housekeepers. It would not have surprised me to hear one of them utter "Mam'zelle Edith".
Suffice to say that as I dutifully read the closing pages, I couldn't have cared less what became of Harriet or Danny and only the urge to be done with the story took me through to its end.

I think that because The Secret History had a more conventional stucture, people are disappointed when the unconventional rears its head in this novel. I'm amazed that so many people are willing to forego the art on every page in a futile search for plot resolution.
If you're the type of person that can skip whole sections of a book and still feel that you've read it, this book isn't for you - it's safe to say that you'll miss the point. If you'd rather have a nice, tidy plot than deep characterization (completely believable if you haven't been living under a rock) wherein people's actions have understandable and sometimes heartbreaking motivation, then this book isn't for you. If you're the type of person that expects the conventional and gets pissy when you don't get it, this book isn't for you. If you made it this far in this review, give this book a chance - I don't think you'll regret it.

If you're looking for a murder mysery or a replay of The Secret Histoy, this isn't it. But if you're looking for something deeper and more insightful, don't miss this great new novel. Tartt's characters are as real as anything in literature, and her understanding of their world is absolutely masterful. All great novels are ultimately about character, and this book has character to burn. Read it and be amazed.

I really enjoyed this book! The main character and supporting cast were fascinating. I feel that the reviewers who criticized it as boring, or because it didn't come to a conventional conclusion are off base. Its full of wry humor that at times made me laugh out loud, and insights about childhood that are a bit like Stephen King (IT) on a good day, with a bit of Faulkner thrown in. The way the two families were woven together was worth the price of admission even if the book had no other virtues. I also liked that Little Friend doesn't fit easily into any genre or category. It is very different from " A Secret History" but can stand on its own.

I cannot believe so many readers hated The Little Friend. I loved every minute of it, including the rather weak ending. It was so sad in that the main star, Harriet, dear, smart, darling Harriet, made such a big mistake in who killed her brother. I loved The Secret History, too and I admire Tartt for not being like some of our other prolific American writers who turn out drivel every year or so. Tartt: Please don't wait another ten years to produce another gem like this?????

After what seemed like months of hype in magazines, book reviews and NPR, I was chomping at the bit to read The Little Friend. About half way through the book I began to wonder if all those critics had been given a different edition to read. The story idea is interesting, but the characters are wooden and the prose is awkward--a fine literary vocabulary, but decidedly lacking in finesse. I'd recommend Swan by Frances Mayes as an alternate read.

Although this book has received an amazing amount of publicity, wade through it and read the novel on its own terms. I haven't read The Secret History, so have no comparison to make between the two, but judging from the quality of Tartt's writing, we are in the presence of a REAL WRITER, someone with the skill to make readers sit up an take notice. The novel centres on the fading glory of the old South, with its dilapidated mansions and isssues of class and hierarchy still central to the characters. Tarrt's writing is a refreshing change to the precious plots that are often sold as modern literature. The writing is imaculate and although it is a "long" novel, it is not long-winded. By the end of the novel I was completely drawn in and my university texts sat unread as I eagerly read to the end. I found it utterly convincing and satisfying without the traces of sentimentality that often cloud books about the South. It was well worth the ten year wait!

It's not that Donna Tartt can't write; it's that she can't STOP writing. What the editors did, I cannot guess -- there are no typos but this book would benefit by some paring down. The story of a downward spiraling family, it offers no resolution, just a long, long read but not a satisfying one. While I admired and enjoyed reading her debut novel, this one disappoints. Three-quarters of the way through this sad story, I realized I didn't like any of the characters nor did I care very much about them. Ms. Tartt's writing is curt -- and full of asides, like so -- and I felt as though I were reading a first draft that, yes, was 10 years in the making.

I finished The Little Friend, but didn't like it. I was hoping to find out more about Robin and that was the reason I finished the book. I did like the great aunts and the grandmother. Her friend Hely was interesting. I can't recommend this book.

Although this book has received an amazing amount of publicity, wade through it and read the novel on its own terms. I haven't read The Secret History, so have no comparison to make between the two, but judging from the quality of Tartt's writing, we are in the presence of a REAL WRITER, someone with the skill to make readers sit up an take notice. The novel centres on the fading glory of the old South, with its dilapidated mansions and isssues of class and hierarchy still central to the characters. Tarrt's writing is a refreshing change to the precious plots that are often sold as modern literature. The writing is imaculate and although it is a "long" novel, it is not long-winded. By the end of the novel I was completely drawn in and my university texts sat unread as I eagerly read to the end. I found it utterly convincing and satisfying without the traces of sentimentality that often cloud books about the South. It was well worth the ten year wait!

It's not that Donna Tartt can't write; it's that she can't STOP writing. What the editors did, I cannot guess -- there are no typos but this book would benefit by some paring down. The story of a downward spiraling family, it offers no resolution, just a long, long read but not a satisfying one. While I admired and enjoyed reading her debut novel, this one disappoints. Three-quarters of the way through this sad story, I realized I didn't like any of the characters nor did I care very much about them. Ms. Tartt's writing is curt -- and full of asides, like so -- and I felt as though I were reading a first draft that, yes, was 10 years in the making.

I finished The Little Friend, but didn't like it. I was hoping to find out more about Robin and that was the reason I finished the book. I did like the great aunts and the grandmother. Her friend Hely was interesting. I can't recommend this book.

I do not understand all of the negative reviews that appear on this forum regarding The Little Friend. They are obviously from people who normally feed their minds with fluff from Stephen King or John Grisham. And while it is fun to enjoy the occasional fright from Mr. King and the courtroom twists of Mr. Grisham, it is an amazing thing to have your mind bent and expanded with a great peice of work such as The Little Friend. Bravo to Ms. Tartt for not bowing to the lows that many modern literary novels do. I come from the South that Ms. Tartt writes about in her book. No author that I have read has been so on target with capturing the feeling of growing up in the long, hot and hazy Mississippi summers.

No, the plotlines in this book are not all wraped up in a nice package at the end of the novel. But with a novel of this magnitude that keeps the uneasyness and suspense going right up until the last page it would have been cheating the reader to hand them everything on a platter. In the novel our heroine has a pretty intense summer, and as her summer is ending and school is begining she still isn't quite sure that everything is going to be ok. And as the reader lays The Little Friend on the bedside table and turns off the light neither are we.

Reviewers note: I do recommend this book, but not if you are expecting a light,airy read. This book has some heavy themes and situations. Definately not a beach read!

I am astounded at the incredible range of reviews for this book...either people loved it, as I did, or hated it. Do not read this book if you expect a plotted mystery thriller, a didactic or moral exquisition about life, or if you need to see yourself reflected in the characters in order to feel resonance with their situations (although how one cannot admire and love Harriet is beyond me). If you like language that evokes a period and an atmosphere with power that is only too rare in contemporary novel-writing, if you appreciate undecidability and tentative conclusions; in short, if you think art should imitate real life (why do we demand neat and tidy endings from stories when neat and tidy endings don't exist in reality?)...then sink into a comfy chair on a lazy summer's day with this book and just try to put it down.

Sometimes I wonder what planet I'm on when I read a book so highly recommended, that turns out to be so highly overrated.
This book is beautifully written. Prose is layered upon prose, beautifully descriptive of a small southern town: Harriet reminds me of Scout in "To Kill a Mockingbird," and the aunts are typical characters of early Truman Capote. You can smell the moss, and hear the drawl. You have uppity "nigras," white trailor trash, ladies who have lost the mansion, mothers who have lost their minds, abusive fathers, preachers with snakes: even Houdini!! I believe the only charactor not thrown in for extra interest is a nun on a roller coaster.
There are so many disfunctional characters in this book who are never explained that it made my head spin. This book has a lot of beginning, a ton of boring middle, and a real lack of ending.
Never did figure out who the little friend was. Frankly, didn't care.

What a waste of talent!
How can someone with the ability to write The Secret History spend ten years writing this monstrosity as a follow up. The book is numbingly boring. The first twenty pages or so are tolerable but the remaining 500+ are sleep inducing.
Where is the story? Where is the development of characters? Where is the insight?
I read one hundred and seventy pages before giving up - and I was looking forward to reading the book !
A major dissapointment.

I wish I had read the 65+ reviews before I bought this book and read it! I was really disappointed with the way this novel ended up. One of the most frustrating endings ever. I almost felt as though the author just got so sick of writing the book (and who can blame her, it's so darned long!) that she just stopped one day and mailed it to her publisher.
There are so many things in this book that could have been really, really good - and they are left by the way side. None of the characters have any real motivation. The death of a child just doesn't seem enough for all of them - Harriet, her mother, sister, father, aunts and the maid - to be so flat and mean and devoid of real feelings all of the time. This is one of the most loveless, joyless books I have ever read. Is having some compassion anti-literary? By the time that Harriet's sister tries to show some love for the maid, it's too late in the game. Notice how I can't remember anyone's name? That's because the characters are so forgettable. Harriet's sister is like a blank page.
I think all the people who gave this book a good review must be friends of the author or working for the publisher - including the person who wrote the review for Publisher's Weekly. There is no way that anyone could give this book a rave! I hope Ms. Tartt gives us a better book on her next try. Something with a plot and some characters we actually care about. And honestly, I did not think the writing was that good. I think she could have used a little editing. She breaks some cardinal rules, like having the same word in the same sentence and paragraph, and unlike Hemingway, I don't think she's doing it on purpose. I think this book overwhelmed her and she just couldn't pull it off.

After a decade of anticipation, I was very disappointed. This book was very difficult to read. Some of the passages rambled for pages. After reading some of the flashback or dream passages, I had to go back several pages to see where the main story line left off. This book could have been a couple of hundred pages shorter with all the drivel cut out, and still been just as good (or bad). I think this is the only book (in 30+ years of reading) I have ever fell asleep trying to read. Save yourself the money, and reread The Secret History again. Ms Tartts sophmore effort fails.

I think this is one of the most bizarre books I've ever read. The whole tone is dark, and I don't find much redemption. Maybe that's how the world is, but the overriding themes of death and doom created a world that I'm very sorry that I visited. I can't think of a single person I would want to read this book.

Do NOT get sucked in by this book! Do NOT give in the pages and pages of lush prose and evocative characters and locales! Do NOT let "The Little Friend" get the better of you! Why not? Because the absolute LEAST a 600-page novel about a girl searching for her brother's murderer should do is tell you whodunit! And it does not! What a big, beautiful, sprawling waste of time this is. What a disappointment.

If you're a fan of Tartt's earlier book The Secret History (synopsis: several pretentious philosophy-majors participate in a Dionysian revelry leading to murder, betrayal, Byron quotations, languid speeches by pale-faced heroines, etc., etc.), than you probably had your nose pressed up against the bookstore window in anticipation of her newest novel, The Little Friend. And while the book shares the same gothic sensibility as The Secret History, the story line lacks the imagination and intensity of its predecessor.
Eleven years after the murder of her older brother, twelve year old Harriet decides to solve the mystery of his death. In the process, she unearths not just circumstantial details about his hanging, but also what's concealed in her family history. Works well for the first 100 pages, but then you begin to fear that you've somehow blanked out while reading or accidentally skipped a few chapters. Otherwise, you might wonder why Tartt decided to take an intriguing idea and turn it into an increasingly dull narrative that becomes The Little Summer Where Nothing Much Happened Until the Very End if You Even Get That Far.
The characters are likable enough, especially Harriet, who loves reading The Jungle Book, catching poisonous snakes, and hanging outside bars frequented by speed freaks and murderers. However, Harriet adventures slowly begin to resemble a Disney movie in the making. And while the prose is engaging, and the other characters lively, the Southern slow pace might make you droopy, frustrated, and ultimately uninterested.

I didn't like the Gold Finch and I sure didn't like this. It had great potential but then fizzled. Gold Finch was just a drag and repetitive. This was an attempt T something which ended up as nothing. How do people get books like these even published?

This is a mystery novel which is really not. The story of a girl looking for and avenging the long ago murder of her older brother is really submerged within the rich details of her everyday life. Which is really the way things play out in real life, and very unlike the regular mystery novel.

If you only want the tense and linear mystery story then perhaps this novel is not for you. But if you are interested in the why as well as the what, then take up this book.

I so looked forward to reading this book. I had read a review of it in our local paper, kept the review and then finally bought it used on the store. It sounded like a wonderful story - a great mystery - good characters. Boy was I wrong. IT WAS AWFUL. I am so disappointed in the book I am writing my first review on the store. After the first couple of chapters you could have thrown the rest of it away - but I stuck with thinking "Something's got to start happening pretty soon" - but all there was was all this silly and boring business about snakes and drugs and unbelievable characters. Especially, Harriet, whom I learned to detest. I found her extremely unbelievable - plotting and scheming the way she did. And she had to have some kind of a screw loose, the way she was so fixated on revenge and snakes. I wanted to know what happened to poor Robin. His death seems absolutely meaningless, especially to the author. I have her earlier book too and maybe I'll read it someday, when the bad taste goes out of my mouth. Extremely disappointing and poorly written.

TSH is my favorite novel, so naturally I snapped up The Little Friend. Now I wish I'd saved my [X]. Some reviewer said it 'wisely' eschewed a feel-good resolution. That's OK, but how about any resolution whatsoever? The book just ends; it's like the last chapter fell out between the bookstore and my house. A lot of the book was good and classic Tartt - brilliant descriptions of mood, place, and feelings - but the ending was such a let-down that it ruined the whole thing for me. It's as if Miss Tartt was as drugged as most of her characters were while she was writing this book. Setting up a murder mystery (while TLF may not be wholly a mystery, that element is certainly important and present) and not having some resolution is a cop-out and a failure of imagination on the part of the author. If I wanted a story without a plot that goes nowhere and makes no sense, I don't need a book - real life is just like that. So what's the point of the book? Let me repeat - TLF is a crashing disappointment. Avoid, or at least don't shell out [X} for it.

I am very disappointed in reading this book. The Secret History is one of my favorite books. Then finally Donnas new book came out. Very good reviews. Promising to be better then her debute. But I could not reach page 50. The book starts very slow, with a lot of loops going back to the same fact of the family's silence about the boys death. Several times I thought the story was really starting, but ten pages later I felt that I was at page 1 again. It also seems to me that she tried to write in a more literate manner, choosing words that are not used commonly. This only resulted in slowing down the story. Please just write the story like you did ten years ago. That was great, this sucks.

Though I was initially drawn to this book because it seemed to promise an American South-based exploration of murder and mystery through the precoucious persepective of a twelve-year old female proatagonist, I was pleased to discover that it is nothing shy of a fantastic multi-faceted American novel full of remarkable character development and plot formation. Tartt tinkers with both character and plot chliches to produce rich and surprising depictions of people and events, consistently twisting our expectations. It's refreshing to encounter a novel that alights on the fundamental presuppostions of the reader, but yet makes no promises, and doesn't obligingly satisfy our need for unreal heroism and reconcilliation.

This was a very long read filled with pointless imagery and non-stop chatter. It leads one to believe that the mystery can be solved by the end. However, after muddling through it, one is left unsatisfied. There was so much left unexplained, so many threads left hanging... It seems as though the author just got bored, left several characters undeveloped, and ended it without any thought. Disappointing!

Complex and engaging novel about a different kind of Southern girl. It has suspense and great characters. Wonderful author who won a Pulitzer Prize for another good book, The Goldfinch. Read all three of her books and they are all excellent with different subject matter.

The Secret History is one of the best books I have ever read, so after waiting for many years for a new book from Donna Tartt, I was very eager to get my hands on it. When the book arrived I immediately put all other things aside and started reading.
However, already during the first 100 pages of The Little Friend I had the feeling this book was not going to be as good as her first one. The story was moving very slowly, with long descriptions and characters I could not relate to at all. After 200 pages I found the book actually boring, but as I had loved The Secret History so much I decided to continue. I just hoped the plot would become more interesting, but that did not happen. There were some interesting parts, but they were few and far apart.
All in all I am very disappointed with this book. I am actually not sure if I would ever buy another book from Donna Tartt. The time it took me to read the book was an absolute waste of time, and I would not recommend anybody else to start reading the book.

As the mother of a toddler, spending what little free time I have reading a good book is definitely a luxury. After careful selection and much anticipation, though, this book was nothing but a huge disappointment and a major waste of time! It started out fine enough...suspenseful and quite interesting. However, it didn't take long before I forgot all about the murdered brother entirely, and found myself lost in the monotonous details of completely insignificant things (why DO we need to know the entire history of one cup?). Oh, and the end? Forget it! I found myself flipping the pages, certain that there had to be something else that I missed. Was it too "deep" for me? Did I somehow miss the meaning entirely? I doubt it. I honestly think Ms. Tartt simply bored herself into some kind of writer's block and decided to call it done. Ridiculous!

Donna Tartt has written a very tightly-woven plot of revenge and self-discovery. Harriet Cleve Dufresnes is so much richer and more complex than most child characters-it's obvious that Tartt remembers the pains of being a twelve-year-old, misfit Southern girl (and so do I). The characterization of Harriet is never wasted, for she has to call upon all her talents (breath holding, patience, keen observation) to survive the terrible ordeal at the finish. Highly recommended.

We all bought the book because we all loved The Secret History. At the tender age of 29 I'm suspicious of anything contemporary, but Tartt wrote a wonderful book once; if nothing else, I was curious of the follow-up.
It wasn't apparent from the start. It was only after a hundred pages or so, that I realised that before Tartt began to write The Little Friend, she had swallowed in large quantity, then digested, and then regurgitated most of rather well known books by William Faulkner. It doesn't matter that her style resembles nothing of The Snopes saga (no, of course it doesn't - her style is flat, listless; Faulkner's was brilliant, bold, poetic) it is the characters that sound strangely familiar. Did Tartt really think no-one would notice? But apparently no-one had.
Finally - did I really suffer over 500 pages for this?

"The Secret History" was one of the best novels I have ever read.

And I was not disappointed when I started reading "The Little Friend". The disappointment came crashing down upon me when I finsihed reading it.

Reminded me a lot of another favorite, "To Kill a Mockingbird". To my delight Tartt was one of those rare authors who writes a stunning debut novel and, unlike Harper lee, follows it up with an even better second novel...or so I though until I got to the end.

Call me old-fashioned and picky but I hate it when a story simply comes to a screeching halt without a satisfying wrapping up of all the various threads of the story, as if the author got tired or ran out of paper or ink or something.

I enjoyed many parts of "The Little Friend". Ms. Tartt obviously has lots of talent but this book needed to be edited. The book roamed from one character to another. Characters were introduced and then forgotten. Why the long descriptions if the character is only peripheral? The story is about Harriet's search for her brother's killer. That main theme is never resolved but is left open at the end of the book. The question of the whole family's future is brought up and never resolved. What happened after the car accident. Was the family destitute? It seems that the last part of the book was left unfinished. I was very disappointed. This book has be compared to "To Kill a Mockingbird". I don't think so. Somewhere in this mess there was a great book but as published it is not. Somehow the final chapter was lost.

I concur with what the other 2-3 star-giving reviewers have written (ie. this book was beautifully written but an ultimate let down). I am suprised by two criticisms however. First, many complain of it's length and detail. The loving attention to flushing out her characters and setting mood and tone through description is what we expect from Ms Tartt. It may not be your cup of tea, but that's what you signed on for when you cracked this book. I, for one, would read 2000 pages of Ms Tartt's writing, but feel that I should have been given an ending with resolution (and I'm not talking about solving the murder).

The second comment I am surprised by is more minor but given the adamant reviews it has been mentioned in I'm baffled. Namely, some reviewers posit that there is no "little friend" or wonder what that term alludes to. Ms Tartt tells us expressly that Danny Ratliffe was Robin's "little friend". But, of course the term is also very nicely mirrored in the relationship of Hely to Harriet and Harriet to Ida (among many other friendships in the novel).

It is the story of a 12 year old lost in a world of depressed and nonsensical adults caused by the unsolved murder of her brother years before that drones on and on with descriptions and commas and semi colons and colons and paragraphs composed of one sentence!!Please! The story, in and of itself is gripping but one must find it in the wordiness of the writer. This book reads like someone chatting on and on in your ear with you waiting desparatly to find out what is it all about??? And the ending leaves a lot to be desired! You finally get to the meat of the story and "BAM" it is over with loose ends flailing every which way. My advice - leave it unless you have nothing better to do and enjoy long winded talkers.

I enjoyed The Secret History and The Little Friend, but they share the same weaknesses. The story-telling is rich with emotional detail, but it takes a large part of the book, which is an exceedingly long book, to get to any real action. And the ends of both books are a bit of a let-down. It seems the author didn't quite know where to go, so she just stopped.
Two breaking points for me. 1) The death toll of abused animals-can anyone write a "serious" novel without a pile of road kill anymore? 2)Editing-there is a reason that good editors exist. They make art better for curbing the author's often irresistable need to fill up pages with words. Telling a well-written tale includes a healthy sense of self-restraint. An author that can edit themself is truly a gift to readers everywhere.

I know the pitfalls associated with comparing an author's second work to their first, especially since the public abhors change and wants the artist to keep producing the same art that made them so initially famous.
However, Tartt's second novel fails alone -- even if TSH had never been written, TLF still fails on several levels. It lacks focus, is in need of much editing, and the central plot isn't a strong enough thread to keep the reader interested. The characters are predictable, and there is no resolution at the end (which is fine, in some cases. Tartt is no Hitchcock, and didn't provide us with enough mini-resolutions to make up for the gaping hole at the end).
Between her first novel and her second, Ms. Tartt seems to have become seduced by her own hype. This book comes across as egotistical, and ultimately, selfish. It wasn't written for us, it seems. Only for members of the court eager to get a glimpse of the Emperor's new clothes.

I bought this book having loved The Secret History, and I have to say I was disappointed. The reviews on the back were very good, but the story just wasn't as captivating and the characters were much more transparent.
That said, however, it did keep me entertained. The setting is dark and sticky, the characters are beautifully described, even though they are mostly not so beautiful. And the character of Harriet is fascinating. However, I did not, as one reviewer assured me I would, 'fall in love with Harriet.' She was just a little too odd.
If you want an interesting read, and don't mind that the book ends a little diappointingly..in that, it doesn't properly end, this is a good story. However, don't expect another 'The Secret History.'

You don't read a Donna Tartt book as much as you open it and are sucked into the pages, like a fly in a Venus flytrap. I have to say I really enjoyed this book, but I have to agree with many of the reviewers about the off-putting ending and subplots that apparently signified nothing. I guess when you're a famous novelist you can just finish up a book any way you want.

Ms Tartt is an extremely gifted writer. I lived the book along with Harriet and to a lesser degree with Danny, who broke my heart. Truthfully, they all broke my heart. Did I love the way the story went or how it ended? No, but then I didn't write it, I just had the privilege of living it along with the characters she created. Wow! I miss them.

I kept skipping over pages by the dozen. I just couldn't stomach the terrible story line about the delinquent Ratliff family, and I am sure I did not miss a thing.
Since The Secret History was such a magnificent, spellbinding story that kept me up at night because I just couldn't put it down, I was very excited about Donna Tartt's new creation. The moment I read about it in the paper, I put in a request at my library. While the story line did not quite appeal to me, I had faith in Tartt that she would deliver another masterpiece, and after reading the first few pages, I thought she had pulled it off. But the story quickly disintegrated into a pathetic mess. The characters are all unbelievable - literally - and I quickly began to thoroughly dislike every single one of them, including the very unrealistic Harriet. Honestly now, has anyone EVER known such a child? Tartt's prose is wonderful in places, but too many times, it is just overblown. The stereotypes are ridiculous, and I just couldn't believe that I slogged through more than 500 pages just to find out that there is NO ENDING!!!

I am just glad I had done what one reviewer suggested - checked it out at the library. I wouldn't even want to pay the paperback price for it. What a great disappointment.

First of all, I absolutely LOVED "The Secret History." So, I'm quite saddened to dislike this novel as much as I do, because it really does start off really promisingly. (As promisingly as it can, considering it starts with a murder of a little boy.) Yes, it's really well written. Yes, it's quite moody and the characters are all very fleshed out. But Ms. Tartt has her work cut out for her because she expects to keep the reader's interest while unfolding a virtually plotless storyline through the eyes of a twelve-year-old girl: not an easy task for over 600 pages. Do not be fooled by the jacket cover: this is NOT a murder mystery and there will be no big moment of "AH-HAH!" in the end of it. Just more moody, broody, albeit lovely, writing.

I love Donna Tartt. I just do. She writes so beautifully that I could just read and read and read without any hope of a plot or point. Luckily for everyone else, she has both. I know that most people prefer The Secret History, and to be sure there are passages that I have highlighted, devoured, reread....but I prefer The Little Friend. The tenderness and care with which she created Harriet is a miracle to behold

[ sort of spoiler alert ]

Great writing but it just stops.. the central protagonist and antagonist are both on an apparent collision course, some important lessons have been learned, some great twists and developments.. then it just stops. WTF?

Her other two books are awesome.

I kept skipping over pages by the dozen. I just couldn't stomach the terrible story line about the delinquent Ratliff family, and I am sure I did not miss a thing.
Since The Secret History was such a magnificent, spellbinding story that kept me up at night because I just couldn't put it down, I was very excited about Donna Tartt's new creation. The moment I read about it in the paper, I put in a request at my library. While the story line did not quite appeal to me, I had faith in Tartt that she would deliver another masterpiece, and after reading the first few pages, I thought she had pulled it off. But the story quickly disintegrated into a pathetic mess. The characters are all unbelievable - literally - and I quickly began to thoroughly dislike every single one of them, including the very unrealistic Harriet. Honestly now, has anyone EVER known such a child? Tartt's prose is wonderful in places, but too many times, it is just overblown. The stereotypes are ridiculous, and I just couldn't believe that I slogged through more than 500 pages just to find out that there is NO ENDING!!!

I am just glad I had done what one reviewer suggested - checked it out at the library. I wouldn't even want to pay the paperback price for it. What a great disappointment.

First of all, I absolutely LOVED "The Secret History." So, I'm quite saddened to dislike this novel as much as I do, because it really does start off really promisingly. (As promisingly as it can, considering it starts with a murder of a little boy.) Yes, it's really well written. Yes, it's quite moody and the characters are all very fleshed out. But Ms. Tartt has her work cut out for her because she expects to keep the reader's interest while unfolding a virtually plotless storyline through the eyes of a twelve-year-old girl: not an easy task for over 600 pages. Do not be fooled by the jacket cover: this is NOT a murder mystery and there will be no big moment of "AH-HAH!" in the end of it. Just more moody, broody, albeit lovely, writing.

I love Donna Tartt. I just do. She writes so beautifully that I could just read and read and read without any hope of a plot or point. Luckily for everyone else, she has both. I know that most people prefer The Secret History, and to be sure there are passages that I have highlighted, devoured, reread....but I prefer The Little Friend. The tenderness and care with which she created Harriet is a miracle to behold

[ sort of spoiler alert ]

Great writing but it just stops.. the central protagonist and antagonist are both on an apparent collision course, some important lessons have been learned, some great twists and developments.. then it just stops. WTF?

Her other two books are awesome.

Magnificent novel. I've read all three finally now ("TLF" last, for whatever reason), and I do believe it's my favorite. Was just reading the NYT piece on the new critical treatment of "Huck Finn", and it prompted me to go write this review, matter of fact; I was frequently reminded of "Huck" while reading this novel, all in a very good and useful way. I'm a 57 yr old white Southerner myself with more than a little bit of rural/tiny-town commonality with the main character, and I thought Tartt hit it all dead-on, the good and the bad. She's now written three truly superb novels, but this one, --wow.

While I can see why some readers enjoyed this book, I did not. One could say it was "rich in detail" but another (me) would say it was just too wordy; the detail was wasted on pointless descriptions. After reading two pages that described a mantle and the trinkets displayed on it, I expected something on that mantle to mean something later in the story.....it all meant nothing.

I struggled through this book because I hate to put a book down without finishing it, but it took me a long time to read and I read three other books in the meantime.

Read THE SECRET HISTORY. That is a book worth reading.

Geez, did I miss something here? One of the many mysteries of this novel was trying to figure out what time frame it was working in, not that I'm complaining. A mystery is a mystery after all, but where do some come up with 1970? (Star Wars didn't come out until 1976.)

That aside, I loved this book! I found myself mesmerized, so much so that when I attempted to read Tartt's first novel immediately afterward, I gave up halfway through--- still too immersed in thoughts of The Little Friend. The characters are believable, diverse, and many were refreshingly eccentric. The plot turns constantly in unpredictable ways-a rarity in most modern novels. Tartt brings this story from cool to a boil so surely and slowly that it remains in the psyche for a long time. Ah, the true test of a great read!

As for the length of the novel, you know you're in for a long one when you pick it up, so why the concern? No read is too long if it's a good one.

I found the story interesting, but reading it was peppered with grumbling and laughter at the sheer ridiculousness of her characters. It is hard to believe that Donna Tartt is from Mississippi, because she writes like a European who romanticizes the South. Her characters are constructed through her own classist lens so that they are not believable small town Mississippi people. For example, she has a poor white woman who lives in a trailer and thinks driving a truck is beneath her grandson. Moreover, this truck driving is a 9-5 job. No truck driving job that you need classes to do is a 9-5 job! These jobs are several days on the road then off time at home and pay good money. This is a dream job for a poor white person in the South. The book is riddled with so many factual and logistical inaccuracies that it can sometimes be difficult to make it through a page. Her spelling of Southern speech is also very difficult to read, as it does not follow any well-known way to spell things like 'y'all', 'Imma', etc. That being said, the story is good, and the characters are explored in depth despite the many unrealistic aspects to them. She is able to pull off a more or less third person omniscient voice well, which is more than I can say for most who attempt it.

This book was very good. I was quite taken aback by the ending, thus the 4 stars instead of 5. Is she planning on writing a sequel? It so open-ended that it makes me hope so. I want to know what happens.

Lord, when the South falls, it falls HARD! This overblown experiment in Southern Gothic, written by a Mississippi native, reads like it was written by someone who's never even been to the South! Tartt's last novel took place in a high-class New England town. This one seems to take place in Fantasyland. I didn't believe even a single word of her prose here, much to my chagrin. Tartt seems cowed by the Southern Gothic genre. But you have to give the girl an A for effort. She tries her damnedest to make this book work! But all the words in the world - and believe me, it feels like she uses them all (including some I've never even heard before!)- can't help her pull it off. Frankly, I'm not sure what she's trying to pull off in The Little Friend. But as a mystery, it flops. And as a coming-of-age-in-the-Deep-South mood piece, it's stupefyingly dull. Too much heat and moss, not nearly enough emotion. Or not the right kind of emotion, anyway. Not much action either. I can't quite put my finger on what's wrong with this novel. It's a puzzlement. But I can say, with no hesitation, WAIT TIL YOUR LOCAL LIBRARY GETS IT!