21st Century Literature discussion
2014 Book Discussions
>
The Goldfinch - Part II (January 2014)
date
newest »
newest »
Mod
Boris is an interesting friend for Theo. Neither is exactly a good influence on the other, but they give each other a sort of whole-hearted acceptance that each of them needs. Boris helps Theo become a bit more worldly, less sheltered and naive.
At the end of this part, Xandra says he is more like his father than he would like to think. Is this just a parting shot, or is there some truth to it?When his father says he's enjoyed getting to know Theo better, does he mean it, or is this just a way to get closer to the money?
Mod
Having read a bit farther in the book, yes, I think Theo is much more like his father than he wants to be. I think Theo feels wounded by Xandra's statement, but I think Theo is also afraid it may be true.
This part of the book dragged a bit for me. Perhaps because Theo was in such an ugly situation with his father and his only friend was a guy who got introduced him to progressively more nasty drugs - beer, then vodka, then E, then acid and finally, on his way out of Vegas, cocaine. However, Boris seemed to be the only person that cared for him and as Theo said when he left - he loved him. I think that when Theo's father was 'up' and taking them to dinner and throwing money around, he was trying to get to know his son better and liked being around him. But when the chips were down and he became desperate, he turned ugly and violent. Very much the behaviour of an addictive personality and something I imagine that Theo's mother saw. He really became a scary figure.
Xandra's parting shot to Theo about being like his dad may hold some truth. We know from the opening chapter of the book that Theo (14 years after his mother's death) is a drinker like his father.
In this time between returning to New York and being in that hotel room in Amsterdam -
Will he become a user of people like his dad was?
Will he become violent and steal from those he loves?
Mod
Just before "Dad" shows up at the end of Part I, things seem to be looking up for Theo. He seems to well on his way to being accepted by the Barbour family and he is developing a relationship with Hobie that is helping him heal. But then Dad arrives and it is off to Las Vegas, where Theo's only support comes from the equally, if not more, damaged Boris. I did not find this part to drag but I did a whole lot of speed reading to keep up with the disaster that Theo's life was becoming. Theo was suspicious of his Dad, for good reason, but I think Theo still loved him and wanted acceptance. And then, just when Theo thought things were going well with Dad, the wheels fall off the bus.
Is Theo like his Dad, as Xandra suggests? I think Theo is afraid he might be ..... Boris reminded me a bit of Tom Cable -- bad influence on Theo. But, even though Boris refuses to leave with Theo, I seem to remember that early in the book, Theo refers to Boris as still his friend, so unlike Cable, Boris remains a friend. I have to say, though, that Boris would not be my choice of a friend for Theo. Andy Barbour would be.
'Why it was OK to shoplift from Costco (huge corporation) but not mom and pop stories (steal from working man--not good)'Casceil, this is a good observation. You sound sceptical. Do you believe that there can ever be merit in such a philosophy?
How much of the 'disasterous path' was the responsibility of Boris, and how much Theo's own self-destructive tendencies? Would he have developed in the same way if his experience of living with his Dad and Xandra had been more fulfilling?
Very few adolescent boys benefit from large amounts of unstructured time, especially when the caretakers are as neglectful as Theo's. Even worse when the child has just lost his primary caretaker, and in such a traumatic way. I think Theo might have had problems anyway burst it's hard to know given the level of neglect and abandonment at play here.
Terry wrote: "How much of the 'disasterous path' was the responsibility of Boris, and how much Theo's own self-destructive tendencies? Would he have developed in the same way if his experience of living with his..."Well, I don't think the book would have been nearly as good, at least for me, if Theo's dad and Xandra had been decent caretakers! Plus, given the way Theo's dad was set up in part 1, it would have been hard for him to grow into a good parent without some significant re-engineering. I think this part allows us to consider the issue of a son's love for his father and the disappointment/damage that an ill-equipped parent can render, not only through Theo but also through Boris.
The Vegas section was possibly my favourite. Partially because Boris and Xandra were among my favourite characters...they completely came to life for me. I think there's no question that Theo's early neglect is part of what shapes his adult character. Who knows what he might have been like otherwise, but I agree with Linda that it would be a very different (and les interesting) book!
Yes, this was a slower paced section of the book - but one of Tartt's great achievements, in my view, is how she evokes suburban life (especially in contrast to the New York section). She absolutely nailed it in my view. Her shaping of the relationship between Boris and Theo is so complete - I believed every bit of it and the influence / bond that it set for life is entirely believable.
Jen, I'm glad you liked this bit. I'm confused when people say they felt it dragged (although of course each to their own) -- I ate it up as much as the rest of the book. The relationships are so well-drawn and even apart from its setting up of later events, I would have lapped it up standing on its own.What did you feel when Theo and Boris stole from Xandra? Were you torn around how justifiable this was, or did the morality of it seem clear-cut (in either direction)?
I definitely don't think the morality was clear cut, but I do think the truth of it was... hmmm that doesn't make sense. What I'm trying to say is that it was entirely believable that they would steal from her. And I think she would have expected nothing less from them - and quite possibly wouldn't hold it against them. They are all just surviving in their own ways.
Not suprising that Theo and Boris stole from Xandra while she was passed out. They've been stealing from her all along - apples, oranges, loose change, cigarettes - and Xandra even told them she knew it was them. Now, the last theft was a lot bigger - significant money, drugs, and the dog - but the same. Stealing seemed to be the only way the boys survived (and were able to pay for their increasing alcohol and drug use). I did not think of it in terms of whether it was moral or justifiable, but I could make an argument that it was both, given the situation, at least with respect to Theo, the money, and the dog. If memory serves me right, Boris had to convince him that they should take the drugs as well as the money.
Mod
Casceil, you are right about Theo's fear of Child Protective Services and that is certainly understandable, given his experience with them in NYC. It wasn't that they did anything wrong, it was just that they were constrained in what they could do. Theo was unlucky in not having any relatives that would be competent caretakers. Guess there's a real life lesson there for all parents of children under 18 -- be sure you specify a guardian for your child in your will.
I tend to agree that I forgive Theo on the whole. He owed Xandra very little. And I see his pragmatic reasons. But it still felt pretty low, as someone rooting for Theo, to see him steal serious amounts of money from someone -- anyone -- who was out cold through grief at losing a partner.I actually have a lot more ease in accepting the dog being taken. For me, the animal's interests come way before his value as a liked object for Xandra, and it seems fairly black and white to me that he was going to be happier with Theo.
Nothing written or gleaned from the text alters my view of the senior Decker (why can't I remember his name?!) as a reprobate father. And while I was not swayed by Boris' more forgiving view of Theo's dad, perhaps in comparison to his own brutally violent, alcoholic and absent one, Theo's dad seems a notch or two better (for instance, one can argue that at least he had the "decency" to leave his family although his real motivation for doing so was less altruistic). Boris was also forgiving of his own dad, so it may simply come down to his fluid notions of "good" and "bad," however, I cannot ignore the fact of Boris' own upbringing and the fact that he does not have a moral compass (we cannot confuse street loyalty with morality) outside of those he loves (and even they are not exempt at times).I guess what I'm trying to say is that Tartt doesn't really offer anything that redeems Theo's dad in any way that would make me think his character was nuanced beyond what we saw. I rather accept Boris' characterization as an unreliable one but important just the same because its not delivered in the absolute terms of thought that seem to plague our (anti)hero...
Wendy, I'm not sure a first name for Theo's dad is ever used. I agree with you that nothing I read redeemed him. He tried to say there was another side to the story but the third-party evidence to support Theo's recollections (Carlos and Goldie, the lawyer, etc) seems to confirm that he was a violent drunk and a weak, manipulative person. Probably understandable, given what we've heard about his father. We should probably revisit the question of how Theo saw his dad at a later point.
It still feels to me as though the story hasn't yet begun. The background is still being sketched. In terms of whether this section dragged, though, I'm very much on the side of those who appreciated the pace here. And yet, I can't help but draw some comparison to the "paid by the word" vibe that I get from 19th century serialized novels.One thing that did click for me in this part was the carryover of the money question from part one. A big deal was made of Pippa being taken to Texas on account of money, and it seemed obvious that there must be some similar motivation behind Theo's dad coming to claim him. That question loomed large for me over this entire section, but the revelation of fraud in Theo's name seemed well-timed in the plot structure.
The relationship with Boris introduces some very curious themes. The whole "Russian" element is used as a catch-all to capture some alternate moral philosophy, and the homoerotic undertones (or perhaps overtones) leave the door open on a wide range of possible directions for the story to take.
I'll post a question about Theo's Dad in the 'overall' thread. I'll be interested, Wendy and others, to hear your thoughts at that point.
The pace of this part was definitely different, but I like the way it developed Theo's character and his relationships. It dragged in comparison to part 1, but it was still kept my interest. I actually fell into the trap of thinking that Theo's dad was a changed man-- he enjoyed spending time with him and was even setting up a savings account for him then BAM it was all an act to get is ssn and steal money (his mom sure was smart the way she put it aside for him). I was impressed the author was able to lead me in one direction then so quickly snap me back.
Did anyone else think of theo's dad's death as a suicide? It seemed like everything was coming to a head with his debts and his last hope was destroyed after the phone call with the nyc lawyer. He may have even felt guilty about physically abusing Theo (for the first time I think). I felt like he maybe intentionally drank so much and drove off into that other part of Vegas in hopes of ending his life.
Mod
Was it all an act? Or did the acting dovetail with what he would have liked to do to some extent, on some level, anyway?I wonder sometimes whether the line between suicide and death by misadventure is as hard as we sometimes assume. I think there is a place a person can go where they perhaps don't want to specifically kill themselves, but their life has become so lacking in worth to them that they tempt fate, tempt death, see how close to the line they can get. I could imagine Theo's Dad drinking and drinking to forget and to escape, thinking 'fuck it' about getting into the car, thinking 'why not?' about driving like a maniac, deliberately. all the while never necessarily thinking 'this will be the end', but rather, 'if I die now, so what?'.
I'm not saying it wasn't suicide, but I wonder if we can ever know how clear-cut a decision it was (and others such were).
This line of thinking, thinking about Theo's Dad in that kind of moment, the desperation, the shame and guilt and utter failure, the fact that he was an innocent, a boy once, with hopes and dreams, and this is the end of the road on which they lay strewn behind him in a mess of bad decisions and pain caused to others... this line of thinking is perhaps what makes me a little more sympathetic to the character than seems the norm. He did some shitty things; he was not a good person. But I think perhaps he was more weak than evil, more pitiable than hateful. Perhaps the end shouldn't matter, perhaps the actions should each be judged on their own merits, but there it is, for me.
Terry, after reading your post I'm more inclined to think it was a death by misadventure at a time when he was hopeless and careless than an intentional suicide as I initially suspected. That certainly fits more with his character and in particular his weaknesses as a father. He has run away before so it's not all that surprising that he would run again, but this time with a tragic end. Thinking about his death in this way, makes Xandra's parting words to Theo about being more like his father than he thinks all the more eerie.
Mod
Smart of the author to leave it to the reader to ponder about whether Theo's father's death was a suicide or an accident. When I read this part, I concluded it was a suicide. I had second thoughts later, similar to those being expressed in this discussion. I think I still come down on the suicide side (not from a legal perspective, however), regardless of whether he consciously intended to commit suicide or not. He was probably a dead man walking in any event, as he was not going to be able to pay the money he owed and the "mob" was going to either beat him within an inch of his life or kill him. So, he drank himself into oblivion and ran away as fast as he could.
Terry wrote: "'Why it was OK to shoplift from Costco (huge corporation) but not mom and pop stories (steal from working man--not good)'Casceil, this is a good observation. You sound sceptical. Do you believe t..."
I remember being very irritated by this comment. It seemed to be a point where what is right and wrong seemed to get muddled.
Sue, is it just the length that makes you wonder that, or other factors in particular?You don't sound like you have any sympathy with the idea that you can make comparative moral judgements about stealing from different kinds of people/organisations -- do you see this as a black-and-white issue?
What an intoxicating cycle for Theo. It began with Hobie saying goodbye, and it ended up with Hobie saying hello. And we are pluged in the maelstrom of the suburban life in Nevada that is believable and tangible as the think layer of sand on my lips. Theo and Boris are up to a point doppelgangers: both have tragically lost their mothers, both have somewhat abusive fathers, both feel uprooted (Boris more that Theo), both are nerdy and out of this place. Boris is a cosmopolitan introvert (how is that for an oxymoron;-)), and so is Theo, a very sheltered teen from cosmopolitan New York.
Theo up to the moment of his father's death was luckier that Boris, whose father was truly abusive while Theo mostly experienced neglectful parenting rather than actual abuse. After his death, Theo is a rolling stone without any moss and all alone in the big world. It is hard to say whose influence was dominant in the symbiotic relationship, but Theo definitely learned some survival skills as the result of the partnership with Boris.
Xandra's final words may be a rude awakening for Theo. I think Theo knows that he is like his father more than he wants to admit it. He left Xandra without telling her about his plans, he stole money, he did get exposed to alcohol and drugs. He is still very secretive about the painting as his father was about his losses.
I have not read part III yet, but I do feel that Theo's past had a firm grip on him and will possibly shape his future.
P.S. I find it quite enigmatic that the fourth read in the row has a Russian element: City of Thieves, A Constellation of Vital Phenomena, The Children's Book, and now The Goldfinch.
And to clarify certain points, I think it is important to know that there is a patronage system for orphans in Ukraine, and usually either grandparents take care of these children or social workers help to place a child in an orphanage and later into a foster family or find a family that is willing to adopt, but there are children that are neglected and slip through the safety net or simply enjoy living in the street as gang members like anywhere else.
P.P.S. I am also concurrently reading The Secret History by Tartt, and she is indeed fascinated with languages and how different languages affect an individuality and a way of thinking. I think she might be an ardent support of the Sepir-Whorf hypothesis:-)
What do you think of his father? Boris seems to be more forgiving towards Theo's father (as well as has own). Is Theo seeing everything? How nuanced is his father's behaviour, or not?
Boris provides Theo with a much needed friend, while at the same time perhaps not always being a positive influence. What do you think of their relationship? How does it affect Theo to have formed this friendship?