The Goldfinch question

What. About. POPPER???

The philosophical rant was poetic justice for me and made Theo's meandering, off track, sad life meaningful for me. I thought the ending was the best part of the book.

After mostly enjoying the book I found the ending deeply disappointing and a rambling abandonment of any trajectory the story had up to that point. In 20/20 hindsight I wonder if I should have seen it coming since Tartt, throughout the book, often veered into showy, bloated passages for no apparently good reason. In short - I guess the real piss off here was that I was asked to carry that damned painting around for nearly 800 pages and in the end got a b-minus undergrad philosophy paper that was largely divorced from the rest of the book.

I agree this book was too too long, I think 200 pages at least could have been cut. So much off topic rambling and I really struggled to get through it. Loved Pippa and Hobie, and can't see why he was still engaged to Kitsey. So much drug and alcohol use which also got old, and I'm hoping he at least got clean. Very depressing, but very well written. I'm reading The Secret History now because she really is a talented writer, and I really love this one so far. :-)

I agree... I barely hung on after Amsterdam. It did get 4 stars from me, as I really enjoyed most of it. The rant at the end was over the top silliness, and it felt like it went on far too long.

Alyssa, you couldn't have said it any better. I did finish it but the last 20 pages or so were brutal. It was if the author didn't think I understood symbolism and had to explain it to me. I'm not talking about the conclusion of the "story". I was fine with that. It's the part where Theo is apparently writing in his journal. It should have ended 20 pages earlier. That said, I loved this book and could not put it down. However, the ending prevented me from giving it 5 stars.

I loved the ending. Usually I would not have liked this kind of thing, but it worked for me in this particular context as the novel was a reflection on his chaotic life and it made sense that he would wrap it all up like that. Doesn't art do that too? Makes some meaning out of what appears chaotic? I would like to keep a copy of that ending to re-read!

I loved the book, every page, and the ending did seem right. However I was a little disappointed because right from Theo seeing Pippa in the museum I wanted them to end up together

Loved the book up until he just drops the party and leaves with Boris for Amsterdam. Really? From then on she was close to losing me as a reader. Although, there was that part of me that had already invested so much time into the story; emotionally and literally. I hated the Amsterdam section. All of it. Boris could've easily done ALL of that without Theo's help.

After he returns to New York, it got boring for me. He had his say with Hobie (a character I love). But the philosophical soliloquy began and there were pages that I just had to read twice to keep on track of where I thought she was going....which was nowhere where I thought she would go- she didn't resolve the Pippa relationship. She didn't really resolve the sleazy blackmailer in NY. She didn't go into his assumed ending of his engagement. In fact, when he found out he was being cheated on I felt he totally wimped out.

It's a confusing novel. So emotionally charged in the beginning, through his time in Las Vegas and eventual return to NY. And then "Fantasyland" ensues.....Amsterdam espionage, psychosis, wandering, rambling....and now let's get deep!

I loved it. But I wanted more of an ending for these characters than I got in the end.

I loved the ending and was sorry to reach the end. I didn't really like some of the nihilistic conclusions Theo comes to, but I enjoyed the discussion. Of course I have a special interest in both brushstrokes and philosophy. I can understand how this sort of thing may to not to everyone's taste, but I'm glad it is to the taste of Donna Tartt and I'm glad she had the chance to write it. She is an incredibly clear and beautiful writer and if you do like philosophy but find most philosophical writings dry, reading it in the context of a great story is a great way get your philosophy fix.

Yep, the last chapter could have been omitted easily. I was distressed that the author felt she had to tell me what I had already discerned. I didn't mind Amsterdam, but rather hated all that vomiting in the hotel room...actually, Vomitus could have been the title of the book, I thought sometimes.

The rest of the story was engaging, well wrought.

It makes me sad that philosophy is to be skimmed. It really needs to read and paid attention to so that we can get the most out of her thoughts and her book.

Alyssa wrote: "I really, really liked this book. I respected the writing so much, loved the character development...it was definitely long and sometimes long-winded, but I was happily along for the ride. The whol..."
my thoughts entirely!

I say this in my review also, but the author wrote a bad high school essay about HER OWN DAMN BOOK and then included it as the last chapter. It was... intolerable to read.

I have to agree. I found so many parts of the book absolutely enchanting - particularly Theo's time in Las Vegas (I would have happily read 800 pages on his time here alone). I definitely felt the storyline from Amsterdam onwards became suddenly convenient to the author, and in some respects ended too happily. Whilst I understood Tartt's philosophical conclusion, I felt it was a tad long. Thus just like you, what was a 5 star ranking fell to 4 after the final 200 pages.

The author does a beautiful job showing us Theo's life between the time The Goldfinch painting was stolen away from its home, nicely linking the symbolism and state of the painting to Theo's own life every step of the way. Even the climax in Amsterdam was fine and in keeping with the novel; when it comes to despair, there is no climbing out of an abyss before descending into it.

But then the author decides to tell us what exactly the book was about. The philosophy-laden personal essay at the end might have been interesting on its own, but at the end of a 700+ page novel it seemed out of place. It felt like she was unsatisfied with how she felt she related the painting to the work as a whole, and so tacked on the end instead of spreading it out throughout the text. I get that she was using the letter as a framing device, but tacked on a TL;DR at the end for his imaginary reader(which itself was too long). In my opinion the novel should've ended when Boris told Theo that the painting was returned and Boris chastised Theo about his outlook on life, completing the circle. The editors should've removed the letter as framing device all together.

I didn't mind that the book was 700+ pages long and really enjoyed the book overall. The Amsterdam part didn't even bother me and i really like how it all played out (The painting returned to the police, they got the reward money etc...). Also, I personally think that Donna developed the characters really well, so well that she was able to make me fall in love with them, especially Theo and Boris. Sure, some of the parts were unnecessarily long (Theo's life in Las Vegas) but that didn't even bother me since it allowed me to take all the details of that part of Theo's life in.

But the last few pages.. my god. It was really philosophical (not that i mind philosophical things, sometimes i even like them). But the problem was that I couldn't understand a single thing that Donna or the character was trying to say at the end. I thought that maybe I was too stupid to understand all those deep messages. I tried my best to focus, and even read almost every paragraph at least twice. But the more i read them, and the closer i get to the ending, the less coherent and comprehensible it became. Please tell me that i'm not the only one because this honestly makes me feel like an incompetent reader.

With that being said, the ending didn't ruin the book for me, at all. I liked the rest of the book so much that a few pages at the end just couldn't kill it for me.

I wouldn't say I hated the ending although I did think it left you hanging.
Those last handful of pages, I found intensely heavy, dark and philosophical.
But back to my initial point. Did Theo ever over come his mother's death? Was he able to move forward and find a sense of happiness within himself? What was he going to do with his life after he'd purchased all the faux antique furniture back? And was he still existing as a functioning drug addict..?
What happened to the irrepressible Boris? Did he open up the bar which he briefly alluded to? Are he and Theo still friends? Do they still see each other?
But the fact that the author creates all these questions is surely the sign of a good writer? It leaves you wanting more...
And yes I agree with previous posts; I loved Popper! Popper should live forever!!

Wow! So glad I am not alone in my assessment of this book! I gave it 4 stars because I enjoyed it - until the last 50 pages. I was very disappointed with the ending of the book and felt cheated. It almost seemed like the author was tired of actually writing and just finished with a long drawn out rant. I won't be wanting to read another book from this author now.

Really enjoyed the first half, after that it pretty much lost me. Finished it, but didn't really like it.

Here is my two cents. For such a long book that was spread over such a huge chunk of the characters' lives, I felt like the ending didn't really wrap up enough. We have a time jump of almost a year and Theo is kind of still engaged to Kitsy and is trying to get the stolen works back but there is no resolution. I would have liked a bigger time jump and to have Theo clean and in a stable relationship, preferably with Pippa living near Boris with Hobie having a new shop in the Netherlands. Wishful thinking? Perhaps. I listened to the audio book so the last 5 minutes or so of Theo being all philosophical were okay, I mean I understand where he/the author was coming from with that but my problem is really that before that we don't have enough resolution. Theo addressing the readers was actually a great addition in my opinion, it was like in Ferris Bueller when he breaks the fourth wall and talks directly to the audience. I read that the book is being turned into a movie so maybe I'll get some closure from the Hollywood treatment.

I cast my vote in the "hated the end" column. ANd I wasn't crazy about the Amsterdam section either (too frenetic and confusing, tying up loose ends for a lot of characters in whom I had not become invested). But the philosophical rant, really? Was it to tell us how we were supposed to interpret the rest of the novel (if so, isn't that why we join boo clubs or post here). And if it was, more likely, ironic, it was heavy handed. Plus it made me really dislike Theo for, in the end, such a pompous ass.

Similar to the other commenters, I didn't love the Amsterdam part. I was ambivalent about the ending.

I did not like The Secret History, but apparently I'm in the minority. I was so in love with The Goldfinch that I read The Secret History right after, and I might have just been too worn out from the bloated writing style to really enjoy it.

I LOVED the philosophical, existential, neurotic ramblings.
They made me cross eyed a few times.
But I could completely relate to Theo as a character through out the entire book. From his dark sensitivity and worrying desire to do good, to that his downfall was that he WAS good but had been battered by early trauma, to the whole thing about what if you cant trust your own heart to guide you to what is good for you, to the art lover in him and the antique dealer ( i am a painter and have also been a vintage furniture dealer and restorer!). I was never a drug addict but went through a time in youth where I was surrounded by them so I could even relate to all that. I could relate to his need to have people like Boris in his life, fearless, jovial, able to live in the darkness but not be touched by it, to help pull him out of it.
I thought the end was perfect, his attention to and obsession over the brushstrokes and subject of the painting were illustrations of his irrational love for it. And I loved how in the end, for all his disgust for life and humanity he was finding peace in finally being able to do the right thing and learning to see the love and light in the world as well. I think that is who he really was at the core. Someone good and kind and worthy of Hobie's forgiveness and Boris' undying protection and loyalty. I love that they saw that in him without ever saying it about him but showed it just by being who they were in his life, when he could not see it in himself. And finally he was able to start to be in the world in a way that was almost going to be enjoyable (while sober).
Relating so much to it let me realize for, not the first time in my life, how self indulgent my own over sensitivity to life can be and to laugh at myself for it and appreciate that I am not alone in experiencing things that way.
It's crazy how much I could relate to this character. I had no idea what this book was even about going into it.

I'm most in agreement with Greenheartlife's posting. I too thought the end was perfect or, if not perfect, very close. I think that Theo wanted to honor the memory of his mother by beginning to lead a life of honesty and integrity. I was so proud of him. If Tartt would have tied up all the loose ends I think it would have been too much like a fairy tale.

I don't see a way to edit one's work. I meant to say "would" in the last line of my post--not "wouldn't."

This is a very old thread. No, the ending didn't disappoint me. Theo developed some coping skills, some passing as normal skills. He's a flawed being, though, flawed by trauma and neglect, and by having this terrible thing happen when he was a child. I anticipate this is not the end of Theo's woes. I always thought, even when I was a child, that the phrase "happily ever after" had an unspoken "as far as you'll ever know" at the end of it. I think Theo would have been remarkable if he had the full benefit of his mother's intelligence and grace and joy. In that sense, he will always be truncated, a sort of emotional amputee, and however the book ended, Theo goes on. For good or for ill. Most likely both, just like all of us. I do believe that Theo is The Goldfinch, tied by a fine chain to his mourning, to his prison of loss and damage. That painting wasn't chosen at random. Look at how the artist died.

Yes, I couldn't agree with you more. I got lost with the whole Amsterdam chapter. I sometimes question if it was all necessary.

I'm so glad I'm not the only person who feels this way. Towards the end of the book I started wondering "How is this going to end?" I felt like I was on a crazy roller coaster ride that I didn't want to stop and I can understand how some people felt about the Amsterdam part but I actually liked it even though it may have veered off course a bit. But still the plot managed to surprise me and keep me turning those pages! I knew she couldn't just have a happily ever after ending and I hoped it wouldn't end in Theo's death. But this ending?? I've read it three times because I want to make sense of it so badly. And while I admire some of the passages and find them moving and beautifully written, especially all the stuff about the bird and the way the artist made something sublime, it takes a stronger effort than I think it should have to take in order to make sense of it.

In any case, for what it's worth, here is my final take on it: The bird in the painting is the universe's gift to Theo (or the painter's gift or his mother's gift depending how you look at it). It is reflective of Theo, the trapped bird, and it's also a lesson for him: the goldfinch is looking out at him with his "unflinching" stance etc and that's the way we have to live in spite of all the bad stuff in life. So now Theo feels like he's going to break free-- the secrets are off his shoulders-- and become the artist of his own life. (He is now kind of delirious with possibility after all.) Whether he will or not we don't know, i.e. he could also be an unreliable narrator, hence Tartt's reminding us that this is his story.

[Maybe that little art lecture is also in there to tie back to the beginning when his mother said that Fabritius did something even Rembrandt never did, but doesn't go into it. Maybe Theo is finishing that lecture for her and Tartt is trying to show that Theo's mother lives on in him or still talks to him; the circle is complete. (We've already seen how like his father he is so now we see his mother's influence.)]

Alyssa wrote: "I really, really liked this book. I respected the writing so much, loved the character development...it was definitely long and sometimes long-winded, but I was happily along for the ride. The whol..."

i feel you , the last 70 pages or so were boring for me , i kinda skipped a couple of pages to keep going

Alyssa wrote: "I really, really liked this book. I respected the writing so much, loved the character development...it was definitely long and sometimes long-winded, but I was happily along for the ride. The whol..."

I'd completely agree with you on this point. I realize the majority of the book was long winded and didn't expect much less of it from the ending, but it was SO rambling, and the last 20 pages left me rather unsatisfied with the experience, especially after the length of the book.

I couldn't agree more! I thought this book was great until that last chapter that was just a lengthy rambling on about the meaning of life. Could have done without that part.

Alyssa wrote: "I really, really liked this book. I respected the writing so much, loved the character development...it was definitely long and sometimes long-winded, but I was happily along for the ride. The whol..."

Alyssa wrote: "I really, really liked this book. I respected the writing so much, loved the character development...it was definitely long and sometimes long-winded, but I was happily along for the ride. The whol..."

The end is an absolute triumph, and I'm baffled by the fact that so many feel it unnecessary. Tartt eloquently summarises the functionality of artistic endeavor and translates it into an almost unnervingly personal realm. What is introduced by Hobbie in the previous chapter is elaborated on, as Theo grapples with understanding how the painting speaks to him. Akin to the rest of the book, Tartt is tackling huge themes within the artistic field, from semiotics to art objects - and is doing so with chilling reality. To compare the end to a rant is insulting, to author, artist, creator and thinker. It's intelligent, incredibly well crafted and deeply personal.

Yes! So glad other readers also found the ending to lack closure on fundamental elements of the plot, and the longwinded philosophical rambling at the end was ridiculous. Was the author paid by the page? This story could have easily been reduced by at least 100 pages though some basic editing. A great novel but I am a bit surprised by all the awards and accolades it has received.

Alyssa wrote: "I really, really liked this book. I respected the writing so much, loved the character development...it was definitely long and sometimes long-winded, but I was happily along for the ride. The whol..."

I felt the same way. I was skimming the last 30 pages and had to go back the next day to re-read those pages.
Just like you I enjoyed this book until the very end.

well, it did lose some momentum but I have to do back and reread the ending. She got a little deep about life and beauty and such. I would have like more closure with Pippa and his fiance'.

I'm so glad to see this question. I really, really wanted to love this book because I have held A Secret History in my heart as one of my all-time favorites. The beginning is so painfully tragic I questioned if I should continue, but I made it through.... I do love her writing, but I got so tired of Theo's bad decisions! (And it was a complete disconnect to me that the Barbours, who were nice but cold to him all of a sudden worshipped him.)

Anyway... Big sigh when I got to the Amsterdam part. (Really? He's going to take off to Amsterdam no question asked?) I was ready for the book to end already. I was also really disappointed with his reunion with Hobie. I realize Theo was troubled, but it really pointed to how thoughtless he was in taking the money from the shop and just leaving.

But those last 15 pages? I was stunned, really. Paragraph upon paragraph of "We can't escape who we are....There's no truth beyond illusion....Whatever teaches us to talk to ourselves is important." and 3 pages on why Fabritius might have painted the painting.I couldn't read it either, but just skimmed through it.

i ditched it evidently just prior to the amsterdam section, it was basically boring.

no book, or film, has the right to be boring

I thought the book was too long, but loved it. I am finding more and more books have endings that disappoint me. I find when I'm reading a book I love and want to recommend it, I now say, "but I'm only 1/2 way through it." Just finished another one last night with a disappointing ending!

Loved the book,amazing writting! It occurred to me that maybe when Theo was in Boris apartament in amsterdam and Boris was getting high he overdosed? I think amsterdam was a total enlightment for Theo's life; he was going to turn himself up to the authorities after realizing the gravity of what he had done...from a thief and junkie he was trying to find himself and change when back to NY by fixing his bad deals (traveling around was like medicine to his soul). Moreover the romance w pippa and his fiancee are just not the focus for an author so philosophical; but her view of life/death and the paiting are what this book is about in my opinion.

I agree. I rated it 5 stars because I loved the rest of it, but the pointless philosophical rant at the end just annoyed the crap out of me So pointless.

Yes, yes, yes. I liked the Amsterdam section but WHOA....she just started preaching and preaching and preaching at the end. What was that?? When he comes home and Hobie confronts him, I started speed reading to try to get to a hoped-for resolution with Pippa that never came. I just skimmed to the end. I don't think an author should indulge the impulse to preach to the reader, which is what she started doing, addressing the reader directly. I think her editors may have been weary at that point and just let her do it. Brilliant book, lost it at the end.

YES YES YES! Throughout the book, I could barely put it down. I couldn't wait to get back to it everyday. The ending totally lost my interest and disappointed me. I could barely attend--how much can a person actually read about brushstrokes? Its too bad that such a great book otherwise ended up being such a let-down at the end.

After reading the posts above and catching the central theme, I agree that the editors, who waited so long for this book, just gave up on trying to convince Tartt to let them edit just gave up. I know editors and I don't know one of them that would not have trimmed this book, advised to wrap up relationship questions and cut that oration at the end or at least concentrated it.

All that said, I still liked the book and since she probably won't write another one for at least a decade, no serious harm done.

While I agree that the philosophizing goes on a bit long at the end, I didn't find it boring or pointless. Theo is putting his mistakes to rest and finally finding a sense of life worth living. I loved the character development, the stunning descriptions of Theo's internal life. Loved it!

I think readers need to differentiate between the rising action & climax of the story and the falling action (Amsterdam) & the conclusion (the philosophical ending). A book is not meant to be an incessant action-packed drama, but needs to tie in all the happenings toward the end with a solid explanation. I loved the ending, because, after so much has happened the these characters, reflection and Theo's introspection was much needed.

I was a bit ambivalent about the ending, but after reading everyone's comments I've decided I would rather have that ending in the book than not. Also, in defense of Tartt's bloated writing, and it IS bloated at times: I came to realize that much of what she does is a way of creating and intensifying suspense for the reader. Sometimes at crucial points in the plot she'd go off into some long-winded description of the surrounding environs, which at the time drove me crazy, but which ultimately served to heighten my need to keep reading and find out what happens. I think it's a clever writing technique, and she knows what she's doing.

Totally agree. The irony is, his "explanations" made things LESS clear for me, not more. I found it rambling, dense, and self-contradictory at times. I would have loved it if it had been a one-page epilogue concluding with something like "And so, Pippa, I have written this for you, even though you will never read it."

The ending of this book drove me nuts. I absolutely loved it until the end--holding our hand through all of Theo's contradictory, convoluted thoughts, Theo addressing us as readers for the first time--it didn't make sense. But more than anything, didn't we know, as readers that the return of the painting would be the beginning of a new, healthier chapter of Theo's life? I didn't like the author's hand-holding, and wished that his future was left up to our imaginations. It reminded me of a terrible version of the way Tolstoy ends some of his novels. But whereas Tolstoy adds meaning and depth, Tartt just added a flimsy film that only detracts. And it bums me out because I LOVED this book before I reached the end. Now I'd only recommend it with caveats.