In 1992, Donna Tartt's The Secret History was published to modest fanfare and then promptly forgotten by the literary establishment. Despite some initial positive reviews, it never won major awards, rarely appeared on academic syllabi, and was conspicuously absent from critics' "best of" lists. For nearly three decades, it languished in obscurity a critically-ignored novel that the gatekeepers had essentially decided wasn't worthy of canonical status.
Then came 2020, and everything changed. A viral TikTok campaign catapulted this forgotten book back into the spotlight, turning it into an international bestseller overnight. Sales exploded by over 500%. But here's where it gets interesting: this resurrection didn't just revive a book it ignited a fierce debate that has split the literary world in two.
On one side stand traditional critics and academics, dismissing the BookTok phenomenon as a superficial trend-chasing. On the other side are millions of young readers insisting that The Secret History is a masterpiece that the literary establishment wrongly overlooked. This isn't just about one book. It's a battle over a fundamental question: Who gets to decide what makes a classic?
A Novel the Critics Left Behind
Let's be clear about The Secret History's pre-TikTok status: the literary establishment never embraced it as significant literature. It won no major prizes. Academic journals barely mentioned it. University professors didn't assign it.
The novel tells a dark tale of six classics students at an elite Vermont college whose obsession with ancient Greek culture and Dionysian rituals leads them to commit murder. It's atmospheric, morally complex, and psychologically intense. But the literary critics of the 1990s and 2000s largely shrugged. It became what you might call a "quiet cult favorite" some readers loved it, but it existed entirely outside the recognized literary canon.
For 28 years, the critical establishment's verdict stood: interesting but not important, readable but not remarkable.
The Viral Campaign That Changed Everything
Then BookTok happened. Starting around 2020, young TikTok users began posting videos about The Secret History with evangelical intensity. These weren't careful literary analyses, they were raw, emotional testimonials.
"This book destroyed me in the best way," one user captioned her tearful reaction video, which got 2.3 million views. Videos featuring the book's iconic opening line went viral repeatedly. The campaign was entirely organic, fueled by the Dark Academia aesthetic exploding on TikTok—moody Gothic architecture, candlelit libraries, vintage tweed, and an atmosphere of intellectual elitism mixed with moral decay.
Within six months, the results were staggering. The book re-entered bestseller lists in multiple countries. Penguin Random House rushed out new editions. Independent bookstores reported young customers buying it in quantities they'd never seen for a 30-year-old novel. A book the critics had forgotten became one of the most-discussed novels of 2020–2021 solely because of TikTok.
The Critical Backlash: “Viral Doesn’t Mean Good”
The literary establishment's response was swift and skeptical. Traditional critics watched this resurrection with alarm.
Literary critics argued that the BookTok phenomenon represents "the triumph of aesthetic consumption over literary appreciation." They claimed The Secret History gained popularity not for its literary qualities but because it photographs well and fits a trending visual aesthetic.
Academic critics were harsher. One literature professor dismissed the revival bluntly: "A book going viral on TikTok tells us nothing about its literary merit. The Secret History was rightly overlooked because it prioritizes plot mechanics over genuine thematic depth. The fact that teenagers find it 'aesthetic' doesn't make it canonical."
The criticism focused on key points: viral popularity doesn't equal literary quality, BookTok reduces literature to aesthetics, trend-driven attention is temporary, and the literary canon exists for a reason. Without expert curation, they argued, literary culture descends into pure populism.
The message was clear: BookTok readers might be buying it, but that doesn't make it literature that matters.
The Reader Rebellion: “Critics Missed a Masterpiece”
Young readers fired back with equal passion, and their counterargument was surprisingly sophisticated.
"The critics had 30 years to recognize this book's brilliance, and they failed," wrote one BookTok creator in a viral thread. "Maybe the problem isn't us, maybe the problem is a literary establishment so out of touch they can't recognize great literature when they see it."
BookTok readers rejected the idea that emotional response is less legitimate than academic analysis. They argued that a book's ability to profoundly affect millions of readers across generations is proof of its literary significance. Many pointed out that the traditional canon has historically excluded diverse voices, and democratizing literary taste through social media corrects decades of gatekeeping bias.
Perhaps most damning to critics, readers argued that The Secret History's literary qualities, its complex moral psychology, sophisticated narrative structure, and rich intertextuality with Greek tragedy—were always there. Critics simply failed to recognize them. The book didn't change; the critics were wrong.
The message from young readers was equally clear: We don't need critics' permission to recognize literary greatness.
Two Irreconcilable Definitions of a “Classic”
This debate reveals something profound: traditional critics and BookTok readers are using fundamentally different definitions of what makes a classic.
For traditional critics, a classic must have:
- technical literary excellence
- historical influence on subsequent writers
- sustained scholarly attention over decades
- recognition by literary institutions
- the ability to withstand changing fashions
For BookTok readers, a classic must-have:
- profound emotional impact
- passionate community discussion
- relevance to contemporary lived experiences
- wide accessibility
- staying power evidenced by rediscovery
These aren't just different priorities, they're different philosophies. Critics see literature as an art form requiring expert interpretation. BookTok readers see literature as an experience owned by those who read it, not those who judge it.
Neither side compromises because doing so would undermine their worldview.
What This Means for the Future
The battle over The Secret History is really a battle over who controls literary culture. And that battle is already over, traditional gatekeepers have lost their monopoly.
Algorithms now have real power to shape the literary canon. A single viral video can resurrect forgotten books or launch unknown authors. The canon is being rewritten from the bottom up. But this democratization brings risks. If literary value becomes purely algorithmic, we might lose challenging works that don't trigger instant emotional reactions.
The question isn't whether algorithms should influence literary taste, they already do. The question is whether we can build a literary culture that blends the rigor of criticism with the inclusivity of digital communities.
The Secret History now sits at the center of an unresolved tension. To traditional critics, it's proof that viral popularity corrupts literary standards. To BookTok readers, it's proof that gatekeepers fail to recognize greatness.
Perhaps both are true. Perhaps this book was always better than critics acknowledged, while also benefiting from viral dynamics unrelated to literary merit. Maybe it's a genuine classic that was wrongly overlooked, and also a trendy sensation that may fade.
What's certain is this: the power to define “classic” has shifted. Literary value is no longer determined solely by institutions and experts. It's influenced by communities, algorithms, and viral culture.
The war over who defines a classic has only begun, and The Secret History a book forgotten for 30 years until TikTok resurrected it stands as the first major battleground shaping the future of literature.
References:
Hans Magazine:
- Hans (1930-present). Hindi literary magazine. New Delhi: Hans Prakashan.
- Sahay, S. (2019). Editorial statements and circulation data. Hans magazine internal documents.
- Yadav, R. (1986-2013). Editorial philosophy and mission statements. Hans magazine archives.
- Yadav, R. (2020-2024). Management transition reports and digital strategy documents. Hans Prakashan.
Comparative Publications:
- Desh (1933-present). Bengali literary magazine. Kolkata: Anandabazar Patrika Limited.
- Vangmayshobha (1939-1992). Marathi literary magazine archives. Pune: Maharashtra State Archives.
Secondary Sources
Industry Reports and Data:
- Indian Readership Survey (IRS). (2023-2024). Magazine circulation and readership trends report. Mumbai: Media Research Users Council (MRUC).
- Dentsu Aegis Network. (2024). India digital advertising report 2024. Mumbai: Dentsu India.
- GroupM. (2024). This year, next year: India media and advertising predictions. Mumbai: GroupM India.
- FICCI-EY. (2024). Media and entertainment industry report: The era of consumer A.R.T. Mumbai: Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry.
Academic Literature:
- Dalmia, V. and Sadana, R. (Eds.). (2012). The Cambridge companion to modern Indian culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Gopal, P. (2009). Literary radicalism in India: Gender, nation and the transition to independence. London: Routledge.
- Orsini, F. (2002). The Hindi public sphere 1920-1940: Language and literature in the age of nationalism. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
- Orsini, F. (Ed.). (2004). The history of the book in South Asia. London: Ashgate Publishing.
News and Feature Articles:
- Goswami, U. (2019, August 12). How Hans magazine is keeping Hindi literature alive. The Wire.
- Joshi, P. (2020, June 18). Regional magazines struggle to survive pandemic disruption. The Hindu.
- Krishnan, M. (2023, March 5). Death of the literary magazine: Can Indian regional publications survive digital disruption? Scroll.in.
- Pandey, G. (2021, April 22). Hans magazine: 90 years of Hindi literary activism. Live Mint.
- Sadana, R. (2018, November 10). The little magazine movement and regional literature in India. Economic and Political Weekly, 53(45), 45-52.
Digital Platform Data:
- Magzter Inc. (2024). Digital magazine subscription analytics: South Asia report. New York: Magzter Digital Publishing.
- Press Gazette. (2023). Global magazine circulation trends 2020-2023. London: Press Gazette Media.
Interviews and Statements:
- Hans Editorial Board. (2020). COVID-19 response and digital transition: Internal assessment report. New Delhi: Hans Prakashan.
- Kelkar, N.G. (1964-1992). Editorial notes and correspondence. Vangmayshobha archives, Maharashtra Sahitya Parishad.
Additional Resources
Historical Context:
- Premchand, M. (1930). Hans founding editorial statement. Hans, 1(1), 1-3.
- Sahitya Akademi. (2022). Hindi literary magazines: A historical survey. New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi Publications.
Comparative International Studies:
- Association of American Publishers. (2023). Literary magazine sustainability report. New York: AAP.
- Council of Literary Magazines and Presses. (2024). State of literary publishing. New York: CLMP.