21st Century Literature discussion
2014 Book Discussions
>
The Goldfinch - Part I (January 2014)
date
newest »
newest »
Mod
I thought the opening was very compelling. Hearing the morning's events from Theo's perspective drew me into the catastrophe as if I was with him. I do not consider Theo to have stolen the painting. In effect, he saved it. It represents two things - it is his mother's favorite and, from my perspective, Welty seems to have told him to take in. Yes, he realizes he should tell someone about it, but as time passes and he hasn't, things become more complicated.
I like that perspective, Linda. And your thoughts about its links to his mother, Casceil, also echo my own.What do you think he might decide to do with the painting as the story progresses? Does the way the story is told from a future point looking back at all the events suggest any outcomes in particular?
Mod
I agree that Theo's reasons for keeping the painting is complicated. It was the subject of last significant conversation he had with his mother and she told him it was "...just about the the first painting I ever really loved." (p26). The painting itself also has this incredible story of being the survivor of a catastrophic explosion and fire in Delft. A fire that killed it's painter and destroyed most of his paintings.He was directed to take the painting by Blackwell who was with the little girl that had so captured his attention in the museum. So it also became a link to her in a way.
He also had left the picture in his apartment a place that he did not seem to return to after Social Services took him to the Barbour's. He did not seem to spend a great deal of time thinking about the painting until he saw the article in the newspaper and his father appeared on the scene.
I think had he stayed in NYC he would have told Hobie or Mrs. Barbour about it but then his father showed up and everything that seemed to be going well for him changed.
You all do know the inspirational painting is in New York City right now, at the Frick, on loan from Royal Picture Gallery Mauritshuis, in The Hague?"...the show is also benefiting from the popularity of “The Goldfinch,” the new novel by Donna Tartt; the book is inspired by a small, powerful painting of the same title, on loan from the Mauritshuis, by Carel Fabritius, a student of Rembrandt who died young."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/28/art...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/art...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-goldf... -- includes a picture of viewers looking at "The Goldfinch."
Linda wrote: "I thought the opening was very compelling. Hearing the morning's events from Theo's perspective drew me into the catastrophe as if I was with him. I do not consider Theo to have stolen the pain..."
I too didn't view it as stolen but rather taken for safekeeping initially. I am thinking that his initial motive may change. I want to like Theo but there is indication he's capable of getting himself off track.
Lily wrote: "You all do know the inspirational painting is in New York City right now, at the Frick, on loan from Royal Picture Gallery Mauritshuis, in The Hague?"...the show is also benefiting from the popul..."
It looks like a beautiful painting. Can't wait to see where this story goes.
"I want to like Theo but there is indication he's capable of getting himself off track."Ah, yes! I think his "friendship" with Tom Cable is evidence of such a tendency.
Boy, this was one loooong part, and many people have already posted. Despite the length of this part, I still think that the explosion is the most memorable part of the novel so far. Tartt placed me inside Theo's head and outside at the same time: his feelings, his pain, his disorientation, his sensual perception. I could actually feel the taste of dust and mortar in my mouth while I was reading the passage. It has a certain surreal but also realistic feeling.
The flashbulb memory of the day of the explosion is beautiful and painful. I was all edgy expecting and dreading the explosion, savoring the moments of her life and knowing that the end is inevitable.
Theo never admits that he experienced a serious trauma, and for a while we believe him, but then gradually we can see how he is either suffering from the dissociated memory or deliberately not telling us all the truth. He ignores the topic of the painting and mentions it cursorily,and by tiny clues we reconstruct what actually happened in the museum and why he 'stole' this painting from the museum.
To me, Theo is this little finch, chained to this traumatic experience, and his quest to find friends and family of the owner of the ring seems quite ominous, and the part actually ends with the portentous message - his past will never let him go
As far as the reasons why he stole the painting, I can not help remembering the words his mother said. She mentioned that nature mortes or still life images try to capture life right before its death. Maybe this painting symbolizes the same - Theo tries to capture the final moments of his mother's life and keep them in his mind and his heart.
Zulfiya wrote: "Boy, this was one loooong part, and many people have already posted. Despite the length of this part, I still think that the explosion is the most memorable part of the novel so far. Tartt placed..."
Well said!
I am in the midst of the final part of the book. It is great to have your astute comments here to take me back to Part 1.
I had my reading curtailed by holiday festivities, but I've just managed to finish this part today. I'll agree with Zulfiya's sentiment that this was a "loooong" part. It's obvious that story elements are being set up, yet everything seems so sporadic that it's not obvious where the story is going. My interest would peak at points (like the passages on furniture restoration with Hobie), and then I would be slugging it out for the next few dozen pages. Having said that, I can see a lot of promise for the story to come.For the painting, I had much the same reaction as Jane in every respect - especially in linking it to the centuries-ago explosion.
I also loved the reference to Citizen Kane. That particular scene (appearing just at the end of Chapter 1, section iv) has always haunted me, because I had experienced some similar emotion about a year before watching the movie. It has become part of some larger, ineffable whole for me, and there is some special bond formed when an author has been so obviously transifixed by something which also occupies the quiet recesses of your own being. I would be shocked if anyone else here had the same experience, but from my perspective Tartt nailed the concept with precision and aplomb.
History repeats itself in this novel - explosion, death (human sacrifice) and salvation for Fabritius' painting, AGAIN. Now whether it is salvation and a second chance for Theo is a BIG question. That chain on the painting seems sinister to me and significant. Maybe, it is just me, and there are no ties between Theo and the painting, except the obvious ones - he is now the owner of this miniature masterpiece.
Mod
There seems to be a lot of chance involved in what happens to this particular painting, not just in this part, but throughout the book. Theo planned to leave it stored in New York, rather than take it to Vegas, but things worked out so that he was getting in a taxi with the suitcase in his hand before he could make that wish known. (We discover later what a lucky thing that was.) The way Theo gets the painting also has many elements of chance about it. He happens to be standing near it at the time of the explosion. It also just happens that someone else who was looking at the painting at the right moment, wakes up from the explosion as a dying man, and that the man insists that Theo (the only other concious person present) take it. (We learn in the end that the painting had particular significance for that man.)
As you read through the rest of the book, I recommend watching out for the role of chance in what happens with the painting.
Good point Casceil about the role of chance in the painting's future! And Zulfiya, your comment about the painting -- "[t]hat chain on the painting seems sinister to me and significant" -- and it's potential connection to Theo is interesting. I'll be interested to see if you do see a connection as things progress.
Still thinking about Theo's mother's comment about nature morte capturing life before it is over. It was special to his mother and to Welty for some reason. I am way behind many of you as I just finished Part I. I will have to read more to get closer to this. I must say the arrival of Theo's Dad when things were just getting better, is icky. Uncomfortable to read. Where will the Pippa story go? What about Hobie and Andy and family? Hmmmmm?...
On reflection, I am now starting to wonder about equivocation around whether Theo 'stole' the painting. When some of us above have spoken out in favour of the idea that he has not, the main reason seems to be his motivation. But whilst a mitigating factor in the seriousness of a theft, does this negate the fact that a theft has taken place?Is it about point of view? From Theo's point of view, perhaps he did not steal it, but even then, I wonder. Certainly, from the point of view of the authorities, and the owners of the painting, he stole it, whatever his reason. Are we disposed to give Theo the benefit of the doubt because we sympathise with him, because he is our protagonist? Can we really make an objective case that he did hot steal it, whatever his reasons?
Obviously this can only be discussed in light of the contents of Chapter One here, but it is an interesting question to consider at the end of the book, as well, in light of later events. Feel free to post in the overall 'spoiler' thread about this topic, if you'd like to include knowledge gleaned from later chapters.
Sue, icky is a good word. I think that everything about his options and how they stack up to what he had before with his mother is well-done. His grandparents, his father... even the Barbours who seem like his best option, seem to have mysterious and sometimes murky depths and an air of dissonance and covered-over cracks.
Daniel, the reference bears quoting:'This was it, my chance to talk to the girl; but what can I say to her, I thought furiously, what can I say? I dug my hands in my pockets, took a breath or two to compose myself, and – excitement fizzing bright in my stomach – turned to face her.
But, to my consternation, she was gone. That is to say, she wasn’t gone; there was her red head, moving reluctantly (or so it seemed) across the room. Her grandpa had slipped his arm through hers and – whispering to her, with great enthusiasm – was towing her away to look at some picture on the opposite wall.
I could have killed him. Nervously, I glanced at the empty doorway. Then I dug my hands deeper in my pockets and – face burning – walked conspicuously across the length of the gallery. The clock was ticking; my mother would be back any second; and though I knew I didn’t have the nerve to barge up and actually say something, I could at the very least get a last good look at her. Not long before, I had stayed up late with my mother and watched Citizen Kane, and I was very taken with the idea that a person might notice in passing some bewitching stranger and remember her for the rest of his life. Someday I too might be like the old man in the movie, leaning back in my chair with a far-off look in my eyes, and saying: "You know, that was 60 years ago, and I never saw that girl with the red hair again, but you know what? Not a month has gone by in all that time when I haven’t thought of her."'
It resonates on a number of different levels. The idea from the film that a time when someone is truly happy can be something in your past that you try your whole life to get back to, and that tokens and talismans that remind you of that time can be a treasure like none other. In this light, we can see the painting perhaps as his sled, but whereas the text here says to us that Pippa is his rosebud, I wonder whether Pippa (and to some extent Welty) are, like the painting, links to the last time he was with the main thing that made his life happy in the last times he remembers it so: his mother.
Wow, part 1, wow! I finally got my copy and flew through this first part. I was truly impressed by the quality of the writing. I live in New York and I found the descriptions of the people and surroundings not only vivid but strikingly accurate. The description of the explosion, as others have mentioned, was a standout in this part-- it made the reader feel like they were there with Theo experiencing the horror. It actually wasn't until reading this thread that I even thought of Theo as stealing the painting. I thought of him as saving it, just like Welty (and presumably his mother) would have wanted. It was interesting that the ring, and not the painting, is what has thus far been leading Theo on his journey. I had forgotten about the ring by the time it was brought up again in chapter 3 because I think I was so focused on the painting being the way that Theo reconnects with Welty ( or as it turns out Hobie) and Pippa.
I wonder about the Barbours. Is this the end of them? Were they really just doing "charity" for an "orphan" in a very uptown nyc way? And what did platt do? Will we ever know?
I hated that theo's father showed up, but I felt like that was inevitable. I HATE Xandra- ugh! It's such a nauseating relationship between Xandra and theo's dad. I think part 2 might have some cringe-worthy moments as Theo moves to Las Vegas. I'm glad part one left us with the line "he pushed open the door,and I walked out of the house--for the last time, as I thought. But though I had no idea I'd ever be seeing him again, about this I was wrong." I can't wait to see where the Theo-Hobie friendship goes!
Has anyone been thinking about the chapter titles? I can't figure out what boy with the skull(chapter1) relates to. I can understand the others: 'The Anatomy Lesson' -- the painting his mother went to look at that separated them, ' park avenue' ---where the Barbours live, and 'morphine lollipop' --- the taste of his kiss with Pippa. 'The boy with the skull' has me puzzled though.
Shay wrote: "It was interesting that the ring, and not the painting, is what has thus far been leading Theo on his journey. "My thoughts after reading your post are so infantile, but the ring, Theo's journey/quest, and the nickname 'Hobie' together DO sound Tolkienesque :-)
The names of the chapters also befuddled me, and some of them are relatively easy to decode, but others are confusing, like 'The Boy with the Skull'. It definitely captures the duality of Theo's experience: Life and Death. Thinking in iconographic terms, the boy represents Theo, and the skull is the death of his mother. He is alive, but he has and will harbor the seed of death in him. Or maybe the explanation will be revealed later in the novel.
Mod
I was thinking The Boy with the Skull was so named because it was in the form of a painting name, boy referred to Theo and skull referred to the "concussion" he probably suffered?
Sue wrote: "I was thinking The Boy with the Skull was so named because it was in the form of a painting name...."I haven't had a chance to read this yet, but have been following the comments (yes, I am one who doesn't care about spoilers, at least oftentimes). Anyway, was doing some work on another book yesterday and came across the concept of memento mori -- "remember that you will die." The Wiki article for the term included this picture:
Frans Hals, Youth with a Skull, c. 1626-1628
Seemed just too much of a coincidence to not share!? :-0
Wow really interesting Lily. It makes a lot of sense that the chapter title was named like a painting. I like the idea that the skull could be his literal skull or figuratively the death of his mother.
I don't find images of the Fabritius The Goldfinch painting itself that totally satisfy, but here are two besides the one @7 of people viewing it. The first shows the whole ground and how it has been framed. The second is a postcard reproduction -- which has apparently been a bestseller at the Frick. (Not sure I'm going to get a chance to see it en vivo.)http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=&...
http://www.zazzle.com/the_goldfinch_p...
Shay, I am glad you brought up the question of the chapter titles and thank you Lily for that bit of fortuitous research! I wonder if the Hals picture was part of the exhibit? I thought I remembered some discussion in Chapter 1 and sure enough, on page 25, Theo remembers this about Halls (parenthesis quotes are his memory of what his mother said):"('Now, Hals. He's so corny sometimes with all these tipplers and wenches but when he's on, he's on. None of this fussiness and precision, he's working wet-on-wet, slash, slash, it's all so fast. The faces and hands -- rendered really finely, he knows that's what the eye is drawn to but look at the clothes -- so loose -- so sketched. Look how open and modern the brushwork is!') We spent some time in front of a Hals portrait of a boy holding a skull ('Don't be mad, Theo, but who do you think he looks like? Somebody' -- tugging the back of my hair -- 'who could use a haircut?') ... ."
I missed that on first reading!
Wow! Kudos to all for the great insights on the chapter title! I also largely glossed over the significance of the title (likely on account of the looming page total), but there is an awful lot of substance there. Nicely done!
Indeed. Great Work.The hardback (in case anyone is not reading that version -- I don't know about the others but this will obviously not be the case for Kindle) has an insert in the front -- a glossy print of the eponymous painting. I'm sure the real life viewing puts it to shame, but I found myself referring to it throughout when Theo immersed himself in or commented on the painting in the text, which added to my enjoyment of the book.
Mod
Terry wrote: "That link seems broken."Try it here (and still @27):
http://www.zazzle.com/the_goldfinch_p...
It is ironic this is from the postcard image. I now want to at least take a look at the hardcover. It looks to me as if that background must have been hard to photograph.
The copy of the picture in the book does not appear to be the best either. I may just have to see if I can get to NYC while the painting is at the Frick!
Linda wrote: "The copy of the picture in the book does not appear to be the best either. I may just have to see if I can get to NYC while the painting is at the Frick!"Linda -- I believe it is only there until January 19. The lines were very long in December, friends have said, although I understand members have preference and maybe don't even have to obtain the timed tickets. Check with the Frick site if you can come.
Lily wrote: "Linda wrote: "The copy of the picture in the book does not appear to be the best either. I may just have to see if I can get to NYC while the painting is at the Frick!"Linda -- I believe it is o..."
Thanks Lily. Your information is right. Looks like I'll have to wait until it is back at the Hague, as there is no way my schedule will allow a trip to NYC by Jan 19 - I'd have to hop the train in the morning with no guarantee that I could get one of the "few" tickets that might be available at the museum!
I just started the book, but thought I'd jump in on discussion anyway, and if those of you who want to respond feel like it, great! So we've talked about whether or not he stole the painting, but what about the ring? I'm hoping that comes back around. I hope the redhead is alive. I want to see where that goes.
And you know, I'm a fast reader as it is, but I just FLEW through the first 100 pages of this novel last night!
Mod
Jenny (Reading Envy) wrote: "I just started the book, but thought I'd jump in on discussion anyway, and if those of you who want to respond feel like it, great!..."We try our best to always keep discussion threads open with a warm welcome, so don't be surprised if you get more than a few responses as you read along!
I agree with Casceil that the ring was rightly gifted to Theo. As for the rest, it will be interesting to hear your perspective after a few more chapters...
Gifted but the man was disoriented. And I just thought the redhead might want it is all. I'll keep reading!
Jenny (Reading Envy) wrote: "Gifted but the man was disoriented. And I just thought the redhead might want it is all. I'll keep reading!"Ahhh, I see. A fair enough observation, at which point it makes sense to see the picture and the ring through the same lens.
Jenny, Good point. You will soon have your answer! Glad you're flying through it! I found it hard to put down.
In Chapter One (Boy with a Skull) we experience a confusing and catastrophic event with Theo. How do you think the style in which the event was written helped you to feel how such an event might be?
Later we see Theo go to great lengths to hide the painting he took from the gallery. What do you think he will do with it? What effect do you think stealing it will have on his life? He gives some reasons in the text as to why he hasn't returned it - are you convinced by these, or do you think there are other reasons he does not realise himself?