The Goldfinch: SPOILERS

[spotty_dog]

Okay, so my first question is, what do you think the book is about? On a fairly superficial level, I mean. Is it about Theo and Pippa? Is it about Theo's fall and redemption? Or about Theo and Boris? What do you think?

[MrsK]

Interesting question. It's a hard book to sum up neatly. I wouldn't say it was about any particular pairing. Plot wise, it's about a kid who sorta kinda accidentally stole a priceless work of art and the aftermath of that. On a larger scale, I think it tries to address the redemption theme that you mentioned but also tries to weave together a lot regarding the human condition. How the incidental can cause ripples lasting hundreds of years. How a caged bird can connect to a terrorist attack, the Russian mafia, a drug ring in Miami, murders in Amsterdam hundreds of years later. The book is as much about Pippa, Welty, Hobie, Boris, etc as it is about Theo. All the unlikely connections.

Some observations: the characters can be broken down into the 4 elements. Kitsy, Andy, the Barbours are water/ice. The women are described as cold/icy/snowflakes throughout. Then Andy and Mr. Barbour drown. Pippa, Hobie, Welty are fire -- the warmest characters and those who elicit the most passion from Theo. Pippa especially with her red hair, red wine, warm clothes. Boris is earth -- and surprisingly, among the most stable and reliable of the group. He is often described as rolling in the dirt, looking dusty even when he's clean, etc. Theo and his parents are wind; fleeting, unreliable, unteathered.

There are parts of the novel that are devastatingly sad. Theo's suicide attempt in Amsterdam was absolutely painful to read. Then the crazy thing is then he casually mentions that he'd attempted suicide before. It made me want to re-read because I felt like my first impression couldn't have been right.

Also, it was interesting to me that in the end he felt it necessary to repeatedly tell the reader that the novel was (1) composed by a compilation of journals kept contemporaneous with the events described, (2) that the journal entries were letters to his deceased mother, and (3) no one was supposed to have read it, ever. It seems as if these things are said to boost the narrator's credibility. Notwithstanding that the story he told was outrageous, I didn't doubt it in it's entirety. But then, his need to puff up his credibility made me reconsider. Not that he was the most trustworthy guy to begin with. It seemed as if he was trying to buy back his credibility along with the counterfeit furniture.

[spotty_dog]

Cool observations, I distinctly forbade myself from thinking about deeper meaning stuff on this first read-through but I will definitely watch for that symbolism on the next go-round!

I thought the narrator laid it on thick at the end too. But on the other hand, I was reading it immediately after a negative review that said it was implausible that the Theo who was telling the story would have remembered so much detail -- names on plaques at the museum was one example -- across so many years (and so much drug abuse!) The journals explanation neatly covers that, but I agree that it does seem to be a bit of "protesting too much".

Really, the whole wrap-up/conclusion section, roughly the last 10% (70-80 pages?) of the book, was a little bit uncomfortably meta. Not quite on a "Harry Potter epilogue" level, but still weirdly distinct from the book and weirdly explanatory. It probably doesn't help that I've been reading short stories, which intentionally leave a lot to the imagination, so I was almost offended to be force-fed the "paintings touch people in deep ways and people can love each other without being together" summation.

[MrsK]

Really, the whole wrap-up/conclusion section, roughly the last 10% (70-80 pages?) of the book, was a little bit uncomfortably meta. Not quite on a "Harry Potter epilogue" level, but still weirdly distinct from the book and weirdly explanatory. It probably doesn't help that I've been reading short stories, which intentionally leave a lot to the imagination, so I was almost offended to be force-fed the "paintings touch people in deep ways and people can love each other without being together" summation.

I agree. It seemed like Theo was replaced with a different narrator. One that was pretentious, omnipresent, and even less reliable than Theo. I like my narrators flawed and a little unreliable. It makes them human. I can give them the benefit of the doubt on details because it's human to fill in that which is missing. Theo has a rich narrative voice and it was unsettling to see it diluted.



Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[WolfpackWife]

I 100% agree with the comments about the last section. It struck me as something so much different from the rest of the story, and not like the narrator we'd been acquainted with throughout the story. It felt like a forced summary that I didn't need after Theo's story wrapped up. It doesn't seem plausible that he would have written that into his journals or into letters to his mother. What would the point be?

I was impressed and touched by how emotional Theo stayed throughout the story. He held onto bits and pieces of his morality, even through all the drug use and loss and instability. All of the negative things he encountered didn't rob him of the ability to still want to be good to the people who were important to him, and I think sometimes circumstances like Theo's would completely tap someone of their ability to care about anyone or anything. His struggles were realistic, and the common thread of his conscious throughout - deciding not to do or do things with Mrs. Barbour, Pippa, Hobie, his mother - in mind were touching. I kept worrying that with each pitfall he encountered, he would finally descend into a cataclysmic cycle of ruining everything about his own life, and all of his relationships. And he had so few to begin with, I desperately hoped it wouldn't happen.

I was also surprised by Boris. Very pleasantly surprised. On a surface level obviously his impressive integrity in following through on what he promised Theo (you know, aside from the crime and the murder, etc.) was endearing. The moment that Boris threw the Passport into the desk in the Amsterdam hotel room warmed me so much. I kept thinking that Boris would be yet another important figure in Theo's life that abandoned him or let him down, as the rest managed to (with the exception of Hobie. Even Pippa abandoned him in not being able to love him the way he wanted her to).

[MAPPLEBUM]

This definitely seemed like a redemption story, flawed hero overcoming against expectations. (I personally had no expectation that he'd overcome and become "better"). Other themes being devotion, loss, mortality, and finding meaning in a secular age. Random observations. 1) The characters introduced in childhood continued to show up in adulthood, even if they didn't return they were at least mentioned and "kept up with". Even weirder is how there were very few NEW characters introduced in adulthood. It was like a closed character list, which made for great character development. Highly unrealistic, but endearing. I have been trying to recall another novel that does this and can't. 2) I still maintain that the underlines weaken her text. I don't understand why she did it and at times the strongest prose was either before or after the underlines. Came off as childish. 3) I did not like how she kept mentioning how the "text" would never be read. I read it as author insecurity coming through narration. 4) The philosophical monologue did not surprise me in the least. I don't know any of the author's other works but sheer length of the book proves she was attempting "the big novel" of her lifetime. The turning point work in an author's career. It seems quite common for authors to wax philosophy at the end of their big works. Perhaps more in modern text than classic. Her's directly reminded me of Annie Dillard's philosophical rants, especially in Pilgrim and Holy the Firm. I don't know if there's any connection but it was interesting.

Aside from that I thought the book was beautifully well written. Fabulous character development, unpredictable plot, but clear and highly organized writing. I always enjoy when I can like my characters and have been reading a lot of works recently with very unlikeable characters, so this was a nice change. I also appreciate that she resisted the temptation to go into too much detail on different works of art. I've read a couple art themed novels recently, Banville and Houellerbecq, who both fell into what I consider a trap of snooty, long, overly detailed descriptions of art no one's ever heard of. I liked the accessibility of her writing.


MrsK how did you come up with the earth, wind, fire associations? Was it just from the text, has it been on your mind, or did you use this in a class? I think it's great, and totally did not see that at all!

[MrsK]

It was my observation from the text. I was a literature major. The problem is that while I can spot something like that, I need to delve deeper into it to figure out why the author made that choice. All I can come up with is that the author was ambitious and trying to encompass the whole world in her big novel.

Did you read the text version? There weren't any underlines in the Kindle version. Were they through out the whole book? Now I want to know what was underlined.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 4

[spotty_dog]

Did you read the text version? There weren't any underlines in the Kindle version. Were they through out the whole book? Now I want to know what was underlined.

Yes, this!

[MAPPLEBUM]

It was my observation from the text. I was a literature major. The problem is that while I can spot something like that, I need to delve deeper into it to figure out why the author made that choice. All I can come up with is that the author was ambitious and trying to encompass the whole world in her big novel.

Did you read the text version? There weren't any underlines in the Kindle version. Were they through out the whole book? Now I want to know what was underlined.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 4

Wow, even sharper for being a lit major!

That's totally bizarre. This is the first book I read only Kindle (before this I'd just been using itunes app). There was an underline near the end. I'll find it and copy.

[MAPPLEBUM]

Oh wow, last paragraph:

Whatever teaches us to talk to ourselves is important: whatever teaches us to sing ourselves out of despair. But the painting has also taught me that we can speak to each other across time. And I feel I have something very serious and urgent to say to you, my non-existent reader, and I feel I should say it as urgently as if I were standing in the room with you. That life--whatever else it is-- is short. That fate is cruel but maybe not random. That Nature (meaning Death) always wins but that doesn't mean we have to bow and grovel to it. That maybe even if we're not always so glad to be here, it's our task to immerse ourselves anyway: wade straight through it, right through the cesspool, while keeping eyes and hearts open. And in the midst of our dying, as we rise from the organic and sink back ignominiously into the organic, it is a glory and a privilege to love what Death doesn't touch. For if disaster and oblivion have followed this painting down through time--so too has love. Insofar as it is immortal (and it is) I have a small, bright, immutable part in that immortality...

maybe I'm just unfamiliar with Kindle? it's a dotted line under words that looks underlined.

[spotty_dog]

The dotted line things are usually popular highlights, stuff that other readers have highlighted in their Kindle copies. You can turn that off in the settings somewhere.

[MAPPLEBUM]

ah! it all makes sense, thank you!


so since theres not much discussion going on what do you guys think about starting the next book?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Vanquisher]

I still have about 12% of the book left to go or just over 4 hours of audio. I'm not reading the spoilers, but I will jump in when I do finish - hopefully in the next few days.

[MAPPLEBUM]

how are you enjoying it? length exhausting you?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Vanquisher]

I thought this was probably the most beautiful command of the English written word I have ever read. In the dense writing, however, the plot takes an excruciating amount of time to move forward. The ending seemed too forced, too analytical. I didn't need all that by way of explanation for Theo's ability to recall. It was a narrative that didn't need the justification of his journals. I prefer to think of it as first-person omniscient. Not in that he can convey the thought of everyone else, but in the way that he has the ability to write the book as if he were living it at the moment.

Overall, it was just too slow-moving for me. I liked Theo, Boris, and Hobie less so. I desperately wanted Hobie to be more than he was, a true father to Theo. it's obvious Hobie cared for Theo, but it wasn't enough. Pippa was just there for me. The connection, save their one dinner, was so superficial.