Due to the fact that Shakespeare writes plays, and not novels, modern audiences are often confused when reading his works. In Richard III there is no narrator or any passionate inquiries to the background and the setting, because the audience is expected to know the story, and simply enjoy the portrayal of this fragment of history. So, a modern audience has to rely to a great extent on the undertones of the dialogue. This is why the introductory soliloquy of Richard III is so important. Shakespeare generously grants the reader insight into some of the important background information. “Now is the winter of our discontent / Made glorious summer by this son of York” (line 1, scene 1, act 1). These are the very first lines of the play, and already, information is given about the current position and atmosphere in the play.

It entails that there is an air of happiness, of relief, and of glory, caused by “this son of York”. This is referring to the end of the War of Roses, and the victory of the House of York, accompanied by crowning of King Edward IV. There is perhaps a tone of sarcasm found in these lines, as Richard is not really happy, or satisfied with the fact that his brother, instead of himself, is king. Then, Richard goes on to talk about the glory of their victory, and the enormous relief it brings. He bitterly says; “And now, instead of mounting barbèd steeds / To fright the souls of fearful adversaries, / He capers nimbly in a lady's chamber / To the lascivious playing of a lute” (line 10, scene 1, act 1). He is, not surprisingly, unhappy with the way the throne is governed, and refers to King Edward IV, his brother, with disgust. In conclusion, this first part of the soliloquy deals with the history that lead up to the present in the play, and Richard's examination of it.

Great significance lies in this soliloquy because the reader gets a look at the real Richard of Gloucester, and who he really is behind all his masks. After he talks about his brother, he begins to talk about himself. “…I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks / Nor made to court an amorous looking glass…” are the words he uses to describe himself (line 14, scene 1, act 1). He continues his own physical analysis for over 10 lines, with an evident tone of bitterness, anger and disgust. Richard is deformed physically as he is ugly and he has a hump. He cries that nature as well as the whole world is unfair to him. He says that he can never feel the love of a woman because of his deformities, and overall, he wishes to express the fact that he does not belong in this world. The point of Shakespeare inserting Richard's self analysis in the beginning is important, because throughout the play, Richard plays his roles so well, from enemy to lover, that confusion is aroused about the true position of Richard of Gloucester. Very brutally, and at the same time elegantly, does Richard describe himself. This gives the audience insight to how Richard feels about himself. His honesty while he tells about his abnormality is remarkable, because rarely does he show that kind of honesty anywhere else in the play.

The final aspect of this soliloquy is the foreshadowing it provides. This is found in the conclusion of the monologue, as Richard prepares to set motion to his plans. After his brief description of himself, Richard begins to talk about what he is going to do to win the throne. Richard's lines of self-portrayal are placed before his plans, because Shakespeare would have presumably liked his audience to feel sorry for Richard, and see just causes in all the evil he does. “And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover…I am determined to prove a villain” (line 28, scene 1, act 1). This is his reasoning and justification for his numerous wrongdoings that are to follow. Very calmly and without feeling, except that of passion, does Richard pronounce how he is going to set his brothers against one another, and take the throne for himself. He plots lure the king against his other brother by prophecies and dreams, which he is sure his brothers will take seriously. This part of the soliloquy proves important because it shows the audience what Richard is planning to do, and gives the audience a sense of anticipation and excitement.

Evidently, the initial soliloquy by Richard is very important, as well as brilliant. Shakespeare is able to flawlessly reveal the character of Richard III to its full depth within the very first monologue. Also, the audience can be familiar to Richard's character early on, which is rare in a complicated and sometimes confusing plot like this one. Shakespeare's use of impeccable descriptions and a beautiful structure makes this soliloquy perfect.

"Anyone who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments of the eye are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from coming out of the light or from going into the light, which is true of the mind's eye, quite as much as the bodily eye..."

          - (Plato, the Republic)

Too true are the words of the Greek philosopher, and too deadly are they for one who's pride blocks the “common sense” that enables him to accept this truth. No other example illustrates this paradoxical notion of blindness in sight and sight in blindness better that the Sophoclean play of “Oedipus the King”. The tragic story of the Theban king, who is unable to escape the curse of the Gods, reveals a blind man can possibly see more clearly than the man with the presumed vision of the eye. Although Oedipus was visually healthy, his blatant disregard for the will of the Gods and his inability to see what was around him proved him blind, and it was only when he lost his physical vision that he gained sight of his fate, and the masked world around him.

The fate assigned to Oedipus from his birth was arguably an inevitable one, and could've only been made reality if some tragic flaw in Oedipus was to cancel his vision, setting the stage to the bloody finale. Hubris was this flaw in Oedipus that lead him to believe that he could outsmart the Gods, and escape killing his father and marrying his mother. In the unwritten prologue to the play, Oedipus runs away from where he thought he was born, and he confesses this to Jocasta later on: “I was running to a place where I would never see that shameful prophecy come true.” (Sophocles, 56). He was unable to see that if the Gods he believed in really existed, then he was nothing more that a pawn in their game of chess. It was his pride that had led him to believe that he was great enough to escape the prophecy. This is a huge part in his blindness in sight, because he still had his eyes when he was plotting to overcome his fate, and he was blind to the fact that he was a mere man.

The second part of Oedipus' blindness in sight had overcome him when he was on the throne and when the investigation of king Laius' murder had began. Himself being the killer, Oedipus never once thought to himself that it could be him until all the truth was revealed. Only a blind fool could not make the connection between the events that led him to the throne of Thebes, and the murder of Laius. And a blind fool he was, as he cursed the murderer of Laius; “... I call down a curse on him, whether that unknown figure be one man or one among many. May he drag out an evil death-in-life misery...” (Sophocles, 15), placing curses upon himself that were the worst a man could utter. This manner of thinking, including his quick, un-thought-out decision making, and his unending confidence in himself are all aspects of his blindness that is so overwhelming, that stabbing his eyes into darkness was most probably the only way he could begin to see what was really around him.

And after engulfing himself into the darkness that accompanies blindness, he began to see the world he lived in. Of course, he had began to understand what had happened before he blinded himself, and some might argue that he could've kept his vision and lost his hubris and mental blindness, but that is not the case. There was no way that the already emotional Oedipus could keep the sense that had tricked him the most; the vision that had caused him so much pain. When one or more of a man's senses are dulled, the others are driven to extremes. The case of Oedipus was no different, because after losing vision, his mental understanding of things changed, and the hubris that was always tying the hands of his mind was driven out. When Oedipus said “It was Apollo friends, Apollo who brought to fulfillment all my sufferings.” (Sophocles, 96), he had just come out of the palace and was experiencing physical blindness for the first time. At first, he describes blindness as “...dark cloud all around me, enclosing me in unspeakable darkness...” (Sophocles, 95), but his new-found understanding of the will and greatness of the Gods proved he had gained the vision that the lack of destroyed him in the first place. He was also able to relate what had happened in his life to the prophecy, and saw his wife Jocasta as his mother, and the man that he killed so many years ago as his father. This brought him clear mindedness, and it was his sight in blindness.

The short-lived life of Oedipus the King (short-lived because the life he lives after blinding himself is not really life) can be paired with the phrase “blindness in sight, and sight in blindness”. The meaning of this term is that even though a man is visually healthy, he may be mentally blind, and even though another or that same man is blind, he may have more vision than the rest. Tiresias, the blind prophet, was a fine example of living life in clarity, a clarity that came to Oedipus too late to save his life. Vision was always his problem, from his birth, to his destruction, and it was hubris that impaired it.

The main character of the novel is Richard, and he is the first to admit that he has a fatal flaw. In the beginning of the novel, when Richard is introducing himself, he talks about the existence of the presumed literary illusion. "I used to think it didn't. Now I think it does. And mine is this: a morbid longing for the picturesque at all costs." (Tartt, 7) Although this flaw may not be physically fatal for Richard, it is undoubtedly the reason he makes stupid decisions, leading him to the state of confusion, depression and regret that he is left in at the end of the story. Because he is so immersed and taken in by the classics, Richard is also influenced by the ideas and possibilities of its literature. One of the characteristic things about ancient Greek literature is that in tragedies, the hero would have a personal flaw which would lead to their demise. It never occurred to Richard that could be true in modern life. In order to analyse this flaw, firstly, the character itself must be examined. Richard is generally a bystander through most of the story. It is through his eyes that everything is seen, and rarely does he do anything himself throughout the various events in the novel.

He also does not have a definite personality, as at one point, he can be seen doing drugs and having casual sex like many in his age group. But at another point, he is immersed totally in the world of the classics and unable to see anyone else. These polar characteristics of Richard make it hard for the reader to create an accurate mental picture of the character. However, what can be seen steadily in Richard's character is his flaw. That flaw that seems to bring Richard all his troubles cannot be easily defined; "...a morbid longing for the picturesque..." (Tartt, 7). This means that Richard is obsessed with having the perfect picture of things around him, driving him to a state of mental disease. He wants everything to fit into a picture frame, no matter what the cost is. This can be seen through his numerous descriptions as he narrated, especially those of people. The way he describes Camilla is so passionate, it is frightening on some occasions.

Bunny's death is where his flaw is best seen. Beginning from when Bunny started acting different near the end of his life, and when he approached Richard to tell him about the murder, Richard fails to act logically, acting in a way that he thought would have made the picture perfect. As he aided Bunny's murder, and as the group was trying to cope with what they had done, Richard was trying to see the poetry in Bunny's murder. Another example is when Henry kills himself, and he is shot. The pain he is in is due more to the imperfection of the situation, rather than the physical pain. So evidently, the thing blinding Richard is his perfectionism, and the only thing that saves him in the end is his realization of this. Even in the end, however, he is not saved from all emotional damage he endured.

Henry is another character that displays a fatal flaw. Out of Julian's six students, Henry is undoubtedly the one most interested in what he is studying. The classics for him are a way of life, an escape from the "boredom" of modern society. As Richard points out, "Henry is the type of person who would translate a whole book into Latin just for fun..." (Tartt, 244) His fascination with this field of literature is so strong, that it leads him to think about whether the myths he reads about really existed; specifically the idea of Bacchanalia. It is his curiosity here that leads the whole group into a nightmare. However, his fatal flaw is not this. Henry's flaw can be seen when he is trying to fix what happened the night of Bacchanal. He tries to escape the situation until Bunny finds out. His resolve is to kill him in a way that is least dangerous for them. He mercilessly tests his mushroom poison on his neighbour's dogs, killing one of them.

He researches poisons and weapons and methods of death, until finally resolving to "...make it seem natural." (Tartt, 294) These are all examples of the cold and relentless heart that Henry has. Because he is so overly intellectual, he fails to use his heart and his conscience, doing only what is logically right for him. He is not selfish, of course, but being taught by the ambiguous Julian Morrow, his heart is like stone, and he is able to do anything that would land him in a good position. He believes that the end justifies the means, and it is here that he fails to see that through evil actions, the end itself cannot be good. That is why in the end, after realizing this too late, he kills himself because all his treasured relationships are destroyed, mainly with Julian. Henry is a fine example of how ignorance to the fatal flaw is truly deadly.

The final character, perhaps the one who displays the flaw the most, is Julian. Julian is one of the static characters, as he is blind throughout the whole story. His teaching methods are unorthodox, as he likes to have only a few students in his class, hand picking each one. He believes that having many teachers can be harmful to the young mind, yet it is perhaps this teaching method that gets everyone into trouble. This is why, in a way, Julian is the antagonist. Where he "saves" the young mind of confusion, he fills it up with an eccentric outlook of life. As he teaches them, he continually draws away from the notion of morality, and conscience. He unconsciously teaches them that the end justifies the means, through the many literary analyses that they do.

In the end, when he understands that what he has taught can be misleading, it is too late. "George Orwell - a keen observer of what lay behind the glitter of constructed facades, social and otherwise - had met Julian on several occasions, and had not liked him. To a friend he wrote: ‘Upon meeting Julian Morrow, one has the impression that he is a man of extraordinary sympathy and warmth. But what you call his ‘Asiatic serenity' is, I think, a mask for great coldness.'" (Tartt, 511) This is a perfect examination of Julian, and it is here that one can see Julian's flaw. His warmness is actually so cold and inhuman that he cannot be more misleading. "One of Julian's most attractive qualities is his inability to see anyone or anything in its true light." (Tartt, 510) was Richard's description of Julian. But years later, he regrets thinking that way, because as attractive as it may have been, it was fatal.

As these very human examples from Donna Tartt's The Secret History show, the fatal flaw is existent. Some, for example Richard's, may be less severe than others, because he is able to admit it. But for others like Henry and Julian, the flaw is fatal. Tartt's convincing story leads the reader to see that it is possible for people to be flawed fatally, just like the in works of classic literature. In conclusion, it can be said that the fatal flaw exists without question, but whether this flaw is truly fatal relies on the acknowledgement of it.

As you know, this is the final book of the series. Even though I have read the book, I don't want to spoil the contents for you all, so I will give you a lot of hints about it.

The book begins with Harry going to the Dursley's for the last time. After his Birthday, he will become of age and he no longer has to stay with the Dursley's during holidays.

After this, Harry visits his parents' house with Ron and Hermione, and finds out a lot of interesting things about them in this house. (I found this part to be most interesting).

Also, Wormtail, the traitor, starts sucking up to Harry and wants to return him the favour of being set free.

Finally, the last hint that I am going to give, and this is really a big one, is that Harry is going to fight Snape, and kill him before his final match with Voldermort.

(For you Quidditch lover, sorry, there will be none of it in this book.)