This contains SPOILERS. 
 First, let me say I think Tartt is really a brilliant writer and storyteller. There were times during the book when I just had to stop and admire her language and observation. I also decided that she is writing what she knows, and has known those characters, and that college environment and undergrad behavior. 
 I think Richard is written as an "unreliable narrator." Here's a wiki description of this method: 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreliab... 
 Richard engages us with his particular brand of charm, which is his California normalness and abandonment issues. His language is typical, his trains of thought seem logical and self-effacing as well as self-examining. His role as "outcast" in school is a role every teen and young adult has ever played -- what's not to relate to and identify with? 
 We get dragged along, nodding and agreeing with Richard, and so we become co-conspirators and accessories to murder. The first thing I remember being appalled at was the poisoning of the dogs. Who the hell does that?! And yet, we skim along past the horror in order to justify the existence of this friendship with Henry. 
 Richard will do anything to belong. Isn't that the message? Isn't that what perpetuates a world of greed and fear and war? And Henry is loathesome and cold and manipulative from the outset, but we reader/Richard see him as some sort of intellectual divinity. 
 There were no characters to like in this book, except perhaps poor Francis, poor Charles, and finally, Bunny. 
 I had a friend who was just like Bunny, and when given his head, he had no compunction when it came to pointing out the hypocrisies of others, and pushed people's buttons mercilessly. 
 I always thought of my friend as my Reality-Checker. If I knew I was going to run into him, you better believe I would carefully check for whatever little frauds I was perpetuating... I would search carefully for those things the ego likes to protect, because I knew for a fact that my friend would rip the mask off with a flick of his finger. And that is why I thought of him as my friend -- because he saw the truth of me, and wasn't afraid to say so. 
 I think Bunny, after death, became their conscience, their truth, haunting the corners of their broken psyches. 
 I was always under the impression the story took place in the 80's, when money and privilege and entitlement became The American Dream. There were references of hippies as anachronisms, and the college environment was certainly not that of the 70's, nor were the drugs -- meth and cocaine and alcohol emerged as drugs of choice in the early 80's. Drinking drinking drinking indeed. 
 The ending was painfully perfect, in my opinion. Henry pulled a Henry, just as Julian did what Julian does, at the end. Henry copped out and left them all to face the consequences of their consciences and choices. His face was shining with victory -- he beat them all -- he bolted. 
 And everyone else, without Henry, this Bacchus of Ego, to lead them, fell into their meaningless little lives of nothingness, good for nothing and nobody. They just disappear into misery... a life sentence. Perfect karma. Perfect ending. 
 I won't read this again. I'm not even sure I will recommend it, even tho' it is absolutely brilliant. 
 I'm not surprised no one has been able to make it into a movie yet. For one thing, all that drinking and drunkenness would not play well on-screen, and there are too many critical scenes where being drunk and/or stoned is a criteria. Acting drunk is usually saved for bad B comedies. 
 Another reason might be what I mentioned at the beginning of this -- Richard is unreliable. A successful movie needs successful characterizations, and all of these characters could look ridiculous to the extreme on film... and it's hard to depict an unreliable character on film without losing the audience. It takes a brilliant script, brilliant actors, and a brilliant director. Good luck with that.