The Goldfinch
discussion
What year is it? Why the inconsistencies?
Those arguing that it's fiction, so the inconsistencies shouldn't matter... Where do you draw the line? This novel was not fantasy or sci-fi, and made mostly accurate references to pop culture, timelines, etc., which made the inaccuracies that much more annoying (to me, anyway). If you were reading historical fiction, would you not expect to get the historical aspects of the story right? The author of a fictional novel has every right to jumble details at will, but that doesn't mean every reader will be on board, just because it's labeled fiction.
No, my comment was directed at you.In response to this post:
'This was one of the many things I loved about the book. I do not think these are mistakes at all.'
You said,
'I wish that this was the truth…but I don't think Mrs. Tartt is all that clever.'
I pointed out that the inconsistencies have been addressed by Tartt in numerous interviews.
For someone who thinks she has authority over the term 'literature' you don't display authority.
David wrote: "No, my comment was directed at you.In response to this post:
'This was one of the many things I loved about the book. I do not think these are mistakes at all.'
You said,
'I wish that this was t..."
If my comments made you feel this: I think I am an AUTHORITY on literature, I am truly sorry if my comments were condescending, off topic, or any other form which you took offense to. I never said I was an authority, not once. You assumed this on your own. Although you wrote much regarding your own opinion and research about a book which you loved and I did not. Your words could also be construed as elitist by some people.
There have now been only three people who have reacted (to my Goldfinch rampage)similarly, and as I pointed out to them as well, (just as a point of observation in this thread and other comment pages in general), all three have been male. It appears that males are hypersensitive to being possibly condescended to and instead of just writing that, they write "the snotty come back" comment. However noted, this does not prevent me from apologizing for my lack of attentiveness to this thread. And it also gives me the opportunity to clear up a misunderstanding: I am absolutely not an authority on literature, far from it. My intent is not to display authority.
My opinions may be extreme on this one book, but they are just one person's opinions. That you read into such words that I think I am an authority is clearly a lack of communication on both parts. I will be careful with my words in the future. Although I still hold to most of my words and opinions regarding this book, which I had to read as I have read all Pulitzer Prize winning novels and am attempting to write an article about them. (Now, does that make you think I am a snob again?
With some people it would. You may be one of them.) Even if its the truth.
I can't be responsible for everyone's personality and I think it is okay to write ones opinions, good or bad, about books on Goodreads.
I will in the future be more aware of the thread title. Thanks for your comments.. I certainly take no offense at being unable to display authority…. I don't even care if you think I am sub intelligent....just wish they/your words were less personally caustic and more real in what was in reality just a disagreement about a book.
Oh my god.I don't understand why you can't just admit you were wrong, and instead have to reframe this as some snotty little spat.
Your comments were off-topic, ignored all previous posts, and were rude.
Instead of telling other people how they should react to you being rude, just say "I'm sorry" and move on.
Deborah, thank you, but I am just saying that that is joy of this club, was that everyone is entitled to their own opinion of a certain book without being critiqued or criticized. If everyone had the same opinion or criticism of the same books, we would be like robots.
Jeffery wrote: "Deborah, thank you, but I am just saying that that is joy of this club, was that everyone is entitled to their own opinion of a certain book without being critiqued or criticized. If everyone had ..."exactly, and I am entitled to my opinions as well…so in the end, I don't understand what your issue is. Because I read a lot of criticisms here by a lot of people. Not just me. I will try to be more careful and I have apologized. So, I hope you can also understand my perspective, thanks.
I liked the book, but there is something about the timeline I don't understand, but not in the way s mentioned before in the thread. At a certain point, Theo puts the painting at the locker store. This is still in his first term at college, and so he must be close to 15 years (am I wrong here?).
Then the next chapter starts, 8 years later. So, he should be 23. Instead, a few pages later it is said he is actually 26. Then he visits the storeage place again, and actually opens his locker, something he had not done, as stated explicitly "the last 3 visits in the past 7 years." Then it goes on to say that he was as close to the painting as he was since he was "15 years". So - again - it appears 8 (or 7) years have passed since he was 15, so he should be 23, not 26. Is this a mistake on my part or on the writer's part? It's not really important for the overall appreciation of the book, but it does kind of bug me.
No at 15 he'd still be in High School - first term of colledge would be at likely 19 so 7 years on would be 26.
So, why does he say, when he's opened the locker that he hadn´t been that close to the painting since he was 15? I mean, that was when he first put the thing inside the locker, which - according to the text - was 8 years ago.
I'd have to read that passage again - page reference?
In my paperback version, page 474: "... and new looking as the day I'd bought it eight years before.". Page 475: "I hadn't been so close to the painting since I was fifteen year old, ...". (At the end of section X, in Chapter 9 "Everything of Possibility")
Just a small contribution on the discussion points regarding references to people being “Soviet”. I am from Belarus (previously part of USSR) and I testify that at times we (especially immigrants, I think) describe particular events, traits of character, etc. as being “sovok” or ‘”sovdep” – all references to “Soviet”. This reference will die with the last person raised behind the iron curtain, I believe.
Machiel wrote: "I liked the book, but there is something about the timeline I don't understand, but not in the way s mentioned before in the thread. At a certain point, Theo puts the painting at the locker store...."
This same detail bugs me about the book. He was 13 when his Mom died. He lived with his Dad in Vegas for 2 years before he ran away to NY, which would make him 15 and we jump 8 years on which should make him 23. I also confused myself there and thought I missed something. It isn't integral to the plot, but it is distracting.
Elena wrote: "Just a small contribution on the discussion points regarding references to people being “Soviet”. I am from Belarus (previously part of USSR) and I testify that at times we (especially immigrants, ..."Thank you, Elena, for your insight. It is very interesting and helpful. This is what I enjoy most about Goodreads.
Jennifer wrote: "Machiel wrote: "I liked the book, but there is something about the timeline I don't understand, but not in the way s mentioned before in the thread. At a certain point, Theo puts the painting at t..."
There were the years that he went to college while living with Hobie, and for me that put him at about 27 when he was in the hotel.
I don't think it matters what year it is. The Soviet thing is odd, but it didn't bother me because they're still Soviets to me. But what difference does it make what year the story is? None of the other things mentioned in the original post bothered me. But it illustrates the dangers these days of taking ten years to write a novel.
Michael wrote: "they're still Soviets to me. But what difference does it make what year the story is?" None of th..."
Nice use of irony based on current events and since the Boris character is from Ukraine.
The most bizarre thing to me? People have iPhones & computers, but how do they communicate long distance? With letters. Wuh???
Fairytales don't have timelines. They're not particularly consistent. Motivation is always an issue - Baba Yaga eats children. Why is that? The Big Bad Wolf blows down houses? I had no idea wolves had that kind of lung power. Some of Tarrt's characters write anachronistic snail-mail letters! I write letters. I don't understand the carping about timelines and quotidian details. Perhaps there's a number you can call, a talking cure, a med, something, that will help you through the book. Otherwise, if it's making your skin crawl, why not simply set it down?(Not to mention the author wrote this over ten years, the culture changed to one of asocial [not anti- ] texting, Tweeting, and cheesy, omnipresent gripping of cellphones in a prayerful attitude, and - I hazard to guess - Tarrt doesn't always and everywhere encourage every depressing development of "modernity." Or is it "contemporaneity"?)
I agree with most people who claim that "the absolute timeframe" in which the story takes place is not important for the appreciation of the story. I.e., it doesn't really matter if there is a relation with real-life 21st century (existence of mobile phones, Skype, social media, computers, before or after 9/11, etc...). However, the *internal* time-consistency is another issue. And I insist that after the 8-year timejump in the book, the age of Theodore is not consistent, it is either 23 or 26 depending on which part of the text you believe (see my message 58).
Is it important for the overall appreciation? Maybe not but it is an annoying inconsistency. One would like the internal timeline to make sense. And age does matter to understand someone's reactions: someone of 23 does not behave as someone of 26, in relation to e.g. money problems, marriage, travelling abroad, sex, drugs, meeting an old friend again, ... all issues that are dealt with here.
I was not bothered by the timeline or anything mentioned in this thread but I do think it's unnecessary to mention specific TV shows or the brand of phones and so on. It makes the book more dated quickly.One time marker that hasn't been mentioned is that 13-year-old Theo is saying that he used to play some computer game (Age of Wonders?) as his hobby which was released in the late 90's, in late 1999 I think it was.
I just figured that the explosion was the 9/11 bombing in a parallel universe, perhaps where art was targetted because it was more important than money or religion.
Tim wrote: "Well really people have only touched on the blatant anachronisms in the book. I posted this elsewhere, but it's relevant here; so I'm repeating:Here are just a few of the things that had not bee..."
The mobile phone thing irked me too! The thing that got me the most though was the traveling on a plane with a priceless painting, really airport security?
For goodness sake, why on earth can't the author clarify all this?
I expect if someone asked her as in an magazine interview though she doesn't seem to have an on-line presence so may well have no idea there are questions about the timeline to need to clarify. You can always send a letter to her agent or publisher and maybe that will get a response.
Finished the novel this evening and there are many, many things I enjoyed about it. I have to say that Andy having an iPhone gnawed at me throughout. But something else gnawed at me even more. On page 119 of the original hardcover Theo says "To kill some time I walked over to Greenwich Street, to the Elephant and Castle, a restaurant where my mother and I ate sometimes..." I used to live around the corner from Elephant & Castle and today it's still on Greenwich Avenue, not Street. That's a mistake many people make. But in the next paragraph Theo, too overwhelmed to stay in the restaurant, rushes outside: "Greenwich Avenue was almost empty..." We go from Street to Avenue in one paragraph.
Is Theo that unreliable a narrator or did an editor miss something which to this former West Villager is a glaring mistake?
I would only rate the book as ok. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone and didn't even discuss it with others while reading, which I usually do with annoying frequency. I have not met anyone that has personally read this book so it was interesting to read these posts. The part that drove me crazy was all the parentheses (I'm not a writer or English major so I have no idea if they are appropriate) I thought it was unnecessary. I thought maybe it was to emphasis Theo's young age? Can someone explain why she used so many?
Bec wrote: "For goodness sake, why on earth can't the author clarify all this?"I'm sorry to belabor the point, but if an author puts a passage in a book (about a work of art, no less), describing how there is a glaring inconsistency in said piece of work, how this is an addition way for the artist to continue the conversation with the viewer, that, to me at least, is a pretty clear clarification by the author. I guess I would call this a meta-metaphor.
That being said, I do not know what would be considered an inconsistency left in on purpose (ie the ipad issue) vs. a lazy error by the writer or editor (ie street vs avenue).
I have also heard that the electronic versions of this book have had more errors.
Me thinks that the author ghives us a clue in her opening chapters; artists sometimes cheat a little in order to draw your attention.
I haven't finished the book yet (on page 531), but the date and technology inconsistencies have been bugging me, too. But when I read how Hobie restores antique furniture by sometimes using new materials, it made me wonder. Perhaps the book itself is of uncertain provenance, so to speak. It mixes times and consumer items to create a new or alternate history that could be mistaken for our own history. Like Hobie's work, the novel is a work of art, and is not necessarily an honest mirror of our times, but an interpretation crafted to create a certain impression.
Mike wrote: "I haven't finished the book yet (on page 531), but the date and technology inconsistencies have been bugging me, too. But when I read how Hobie restores antique furniture by sometimes using new mat..."i'm sure some is intentional but also convenient cover if unintentional
When Theo returns to NY from Vegas and goes to see his attorney with Hobie the talk is of restaurants that have closed. Mr. Bracegirdle says the Café des Artiste has closed and what would Theo's mother have thought of this. That restaurant closed in 2009 so when Theo returns to NY it has to be some time after that, 2011 perhaps? The book was published in 2013. Considering that Theo's return to NY is 2 years after he goes to Vegas and about 8 months to a year after he lives on Park Ave. I'm assuming that the museum bombing took place around 2007-- (?)
There is a difference between inventing a bombing that did not occur, or placing a painting in a museum in which it has not been, to making simple period errors. For me, for example, mentioning that many people in the crowd where taking photos on their phones (on the night of the bombing), or Jose mentioning Lebron as one of the celebs he saw on the block, in a scene that was supposed to have occurred 14 years ago, when Lebron was 16 and phones did not take photos - it just seems careless. Mainly by the editor.
I am not positive these things are errors or accidental anachronisms. The assumption here is that 9/11 has happened; but I see nothing in the book that implies this is the case. For instance, none of the terrorism response units put together following the WTC attack (the CRV, for instance) of the NYPD are mentioned in the quite extensive list of responders Theo notes when he emerges from the museum. Is this attack, in the world of art and culture v. an attack in the world of finance, an alternative to 9/11?
And small errors and inconsistencies in time and place have long, long been used to unsettle a reader's complacencies. Just as the reader gets "comfortable," the writer gives a little shove -- nope, not that, look here, what you thought mattered doesn't.
As an example, you might want to look at:
http://www.uapress.ua.edu/product/Dar...
I'm editing to add something. In terms of Theo's recollection of the events in the museum, some readers' objections, particularly, to his stating that people were taking pictures on their cell phones, the writer is trying to convey the reconstructed memories of a probably concussed, traumatized 13-year old. Lots of people taking pictures, he remembers. If it did happen pre-cell phone (which I don't think is the case), might not someone that young, if you interrupted his recollection to say maybe they were using disposable cameras, and not cell phones?, maybe that person would say, "Yeah, yeah, whatever, you get my point, cell phones, cameras, whatever, just lots of it going on." Sometimes, looking back, recalling a childhood event, you find yourself caught in the language of the present, and what might seem like a mistake in perception is merely a cultural shift between your older and your younger self. I remember a car accident that happened when I was a kid, the station wagon was broadsided, full of kids and both my parents, and every now and then, it crosses my mind "Why didn't the air bags go off?", and then I remember, oh, yeah, there weren't any. You know what I mean?
And small errors and inconsistencies in time and place have long, long been used to unsettle a reader's complacencies. Just as the reader gets "comfortable," the writer gives a little shove -- nope, not that, look here, what you thought mattered doesn't.
As an example, you might want to look at:
http://www.uapress.ua.edu/product/Dar...
I'm editing to add something. In terms of Theo's recollection of the events in the museum, some readers' objections, particularly, to his stating that people were taking pictures on their cell phones, the writer is trying to convey the reconstructed memories of a probably concussed, traumatized 13-year old. Lots of people taking pictures, he remembers. If it did happen pre-cell phone (which I don't think is the case), might not someone that young, if you interrupted his recollection to say maybe they were using disposable cameras, and not cell phones?, maybe that person would say, "Yeah, yeah, whatever, you get my point, cell phones, cameras, whatever, just lots of it going on." Sometimes, looking back, recalling a childhood event, you find yourself caught in the language of the present, and what might seem like a mistake in perception is merely a cultural shift between your older and your younger self. I remember a car accident that happened when I was a kid, the station wagon was broadsided, full of kids and both my parents, and every now and then, it crosses my mind "Why didn't the air bags go off?", and then I remember, oh, yeah, there weren't any. You know what I mean?
Pierre wrote: "I was not bothered by the timeline or anything mentioned in this thread but I do think it's unnecessary to mention specific TV shows or the brand of phones and so on. It makes the book more dated q..."
Oh, Pierre, I just said the same thing below, not having seen your comment. Yes, an alternate bombing in an alternate universe. Brilliant. Did you notice how closely Ms. Tartt stuck to her characters, to Theo, to Pippa, in particular, who were victims, and never turned her lens to the national reaction? Because this is such an intimate story, such an internal story, things mistaken and mis-taken, there's no room for the hue and cry of the nation's reaction. There's no room for it in the story. As do most people, I know someone who knows someone who lost their spouse, and that remains the story to them, to that person, it remains personal, and small, and private, the day she lost her husband. Sorry, I didn't mean to miss your comment. I'm glad someone else wondered about the implications.
Oh, Pierre, I just said the same thing below, not having seen your comment. Yes, an alternate bombing in an alternate universe. Brilliant. Did you notice how closely Ms. Tartt stuck to her characters, to Theo, to Pippa, in particular, who were victims, and never turned her lens to the national reaction? Because this is such an intimate story, such an internal story, things mistaken and mis-taken, there's no room for the hue and cry of the nation's reaction. There's no room for it in the story. As do most people, I know someone who knows someone who lost their spouse, and that remains the story to them, to that person, it remains personal, and small, and private, the day she lost her husband. Sorry, I didn't mean to miss your comment. I'm glad someone else wondered about the implications.
Well, all the inconsistencies certainly do make for good detective work on the reader's part. I found myself looking things up again and again. I will say this: I think much of this is intentional on the author's part, but I also think the book definitely needed better editing. Regardless, I loved the book. For me, those last pages were filled with truth and humanity. Boris is my favorite character, so full of foibles, complexities, loyalty, disloyalty, craziness, just a great character.
John wrote: "The most bizarre thing to me? People have iPhones & computers, but how do they communicate long distance? With letters. Wuh???" ~~~~~~~~~ I still write letters & this is one fact of the book that I enjoyed....this has to be the most interesting thread on "the goldfinch" ever!~~ & honestly this is why goodreads is one of the grandest places
I am going to go back & check on that paragraph
where we go from Greenwich Street to Greenwich Avenue...
could these all have been purposely written to keep us on our toes?
Neat!
going to keep reading the many interesting facts found that I seem to have missed ~~
Alicia wrote: "John wrote: "The most bizarre thing to me? People have iPhones & computers, but how do they communicate long distance? With letters. Wuh???"
~~~~~~~~~ I still write letters & this is one fact of ..."
Oh, Alicia, I so appreciate your delight in the book, your expressiveness. It is wonderful fun.
~~~~~~~~~ I still write letters & this is one fact of ..."
Oh, Alicia, I so appreciate your delight in the book, your expressiveness. It is wonderful fun.
This conversation cracks me up. On the one hand, it seems fairly clear that the author intended to compare her writing to the painting she adores, something passed down through centuries that has a subjective meaning that is hard to define despite their being objective flaws with the work. So there was clearly some intention in her having mistakes in her novel or in her not cleaning up (or not wanting to clean up) her mistakes. On the other hand, many commenters have gotten carried away into thinking the author is some kind of divine being who can foresee all things, as if every mistake by definition was planned as a foreordination -- as in, my toast was burned today, surely a sign from God because when I reached into the counter to get out more bread I realized I had forgotten to put peanut butter on the grocery list and I was overcome with emotion, and then my car ran out of gas, also a sign from God because when I went into the gas station to pay for gas the lady at the counter reminded me of my aunt whose birthday is in five days and I remembered I needed to send her flowers, and I was overcome with the awe of the universe. I think the author deserves some credit for the theme/notion that the novel is itself like a painting, created over periods of time both in the natural world and in periods of time experienced by the author herself, so that it is inherently layered and flawed. On the other hand, I think the execution of the theme is poorly done for the most part, arrogant, indulgent, annoying, vain, and uninteresting.
Mayor wrote: "This conversation cracks me up. On the one hand, it seems fairly clear that the author intended to compare her writing to the painting she adores, something passed down through centuries that has a..."
Such an angry little hamburger. I'll tell you what's a sign from God: "Block this member."
Such an angry little hamburger. I'll tell you what's a sign from God: "Block this member."
So basically, Mayor, in fewer words, you are saying the novel is palimpsestic in form, or at least that's how I read your post. Actually, that's a pretty cool idea, regardless of authorial intent. On another note, does anyone have any thoughts about the antiques dealer in the West Village? Do you think its modeled after any particular shop in that area? "Ring the green bell."
Doreen wrote: "So basically, Mayor, in fewer words, you are saying the novel is palimpsestic in form, or at least that's how I read your post. Actually, that's a pretty cool idea, regardless of authorial intent. ..."that sounds right. awesome word! i wish i had that vocab
Vivian et al: In my opinion, the details about which you fret are irrelevant. This book was agony to read, had no end game which I could determine and, frankly, was a total waste of my time. Maybe I missed the boat but cannot see what all the hoopla was about.
Interesting how different people get hung up on different things, for whatever reason. I also noted the time/fact settings but not enough to hinder my overall feel for the book.It is interesting that someone thought maybe she did it on purpose and their reasoning...I wouldn't have thought of that but it does make you wonder.
deleted user wrote: "Alicia wrote: "John wrote: "The most bizarre thing to me? People have iPhones & computers, but how do they communicate long distance? With letters. Wuh???" ~~~~~~~~~ I still write letters & this ..."
I really did ....honest~
Mary wrote: "My recollection of the Oklahoma City bombing, which I think was in 1994, was that al Quaida was mentioned as possibly being responsible (of course it was not al Quaida, it was domestic -Timothy McV..."Oklahoma was in April of 1995
The 'phone, date etc inconsistencies are muddling, so I started to ignore those! Mostly tried to read as if listening to the thoughts of a child or someone's childhood memories. ( my own include being terrified to see the flying monkeys from Wizard of Oz film in the trees of our garden!) BUT, my firmly held belief is that the Barbour family would have made a determined effort to at least inform Theo on the deaths of Andy & his Dad, & would have surely desired his presence at the funeral???
I know exactly what you mean. The book was written in 2013. Theo is 27. That means he was born in 1986. The bombing happened in 2000. Harry Potter was still pretty new. Cell phones with cameras and laptops were still pretty rare. Why didn't her editor catch any of this. If it was deliberate it wasn't deliberate enough. Addictive though.
Julie wrote: "Ummm...the book is a novel, so the author is free to jumble timing of actual historical events and popular culture at will. You can't call it a mistake when it's fiction." But not when it takes 13 years to write AND you win the Pullitzer
Deborah wrote: "Am I the only reader who seriously disliked this book???????"No. It didn't deserve to win.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Hi Jeffrey, I also just wanted to point out that I was referring , as I made clear, only to the people who I know personally, not all readers in the world. Your response was as if I wrote anyone who like this book is stupid….that is not what I said..it is what you inferred. Sorry for the misunderstanding.