Book+14+-+The+Goldfinch

Discussion Dates: Friday 9th May to Friday 23rd May



1. What would you rate The Goldfinch out of 10 and why?

Jane: 10. I think the book is extraordinary. The pace, the characters, the fact it celebrates the endurance and love of an art piece, the pure magic of the storytelling. The beauty of the words on the last page. Bloody extraordinary.

Gen: Jane, you and I are normally so on the same page so to speak... but I'm afraid I really didn't like this book. I'm sorry to say I found it boring, relentless and overly descriptive- I wanted more 'show' less 'tell'. 5/10

Sharyn: Also 10. I absolutely loved this book. It was breathtaking! I couldn't put it down and couldn't wait to see how it ended. I developed such affection for the characters, especially Theo and Hobie. I loved that at the heart of the book is a piece of art and a beautiful, touching relationship between a mother and son. I was originally going to give the book 9 1/2 because I found the introductory sections, particularly the events around the bombing confusing and unbelievable, but I went back and re-read them after I finished the book and realised that they were perfect in the context of the book. Thank you book club for alerting me to this book and author!

Jane: Oh no, Gen, I am so sorry to hear you did not enjoy this book. I agree, we always seem to have similar views so it is surprising. Maybe you could re-read it just to make sure? :)

Gen: Yes maybe I should, I am definitely in the minority!

Michelle: I'm going to be in-between you all and give it an 8. I loved reading this book, and Jane and Sharyn I can understand your passion for it. But I'm also with Gen, it's long winded in a lot of places. I think a really good editor would have made this book amazing. I feel like a lot of the detail, eg. the overly long amount of time we spend bonding with Theo and Boris in Las Vegas, could have been cut without affecting the book.

Gen: yes Michelle I agree!

Jane: I think all the detail added to the building of characters and the depth of the story. I liken it to life - it takes years and years to really get to know the depth and soul of a person, so why should a novelist (or an editor) attempt to edit out parts of a life that make a person who he/she is?

Lucy: Gen, I'm with you. I wouldn't give it more than a 5/10. I found the first half slow going and in many places unbelievable. I can't believe that he would have been able to walk out of the explosion and not be stopped by anyone. He even went up to a policeman. We know he was covered in dust and soot - it was in his eyes, his ears, his throat etc so it would have been completely obvious that he was a survivor and also a child. I also found the behaviour of the social workers who collected him odd. Again I would have expected the first thing that should have been done was to take him to a hospital to get him checked out any yet that wasn't done until Mrs Barbour took him days later because he still had a headache. I also found the characters often inconsistent.

Mel: 9/10. I really did love it. Great writing. A fascinating protagonist - I really did want the best for Theo. I don’t think that a book needs to be ‘perfect’ in my eyes to get 10/10, but there were a few too many aspects that bugged me slightly (and not so slightly) to give it full marks.

Lynne: Gen, Lucy, I'm going even further than you both and giving this a 3/10. She gets "3" for her multitude of beautiful passages, beautiful words and sentiments. She gets no more because the whole thing was just too long. The editor must have been so mired in the fug of Las Vegas that he/she forgot to get the red pen out. Never mind the believability (or not) of the bombing scene, what about the convoluted plot to use the painting in drugs deals and the confusing mess of people involved in the double cross in Amsterdam, and don't even get me started about the murders....did we all just gloss over that?? Am I the only person that could not understand how Horst & Martin fitted into the scam? I got so lost that I wound up feeling completely ambivalent about all the criminals in this book. I pitied Theo because of the dramatic sequence of his life, but I never particularly liked him, which made 771 pages all the more difficult to endure.

Mel: Ok ok Lynna - I will give you that - the whole Horst & Martin situation was tiresome, but REALLY 3/10? You stretched to 4/10 for Mornings in Jenin!

Lynne: Yes, Mel, that was because I learned some things about history, an important history too. The Goldfinch however taught me very little, even AFTER those furniture restoration lessons - spare me!

Jane: Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. That is all.

Sharyn: I totally agree about the implausibility of the bombing scene and the convoluted nature of some aspects of the plot and so I have to ask myself why I am willing to give the book a perfect (10) rating. For me, it's the characters who came to life for me in a way that no book has done for a long, long time and the beautiful passages of writing that took my breathe away (especially in the last 50 pages or so). Despite the length of the book and the fact that it has won the Pulitzer prize I feel that it is a really ACCESSIBLE book. Like Mel, I kept thinking who I could buy this for as a gift and I thought of people I know who might not normally read prize winning fiction. However after reading some of the scathing (but fair and hilarious) reviews I will rethink the gift idea as it might be a bit risky, not to mention onerous on the recipient given the length!

Rachel: First of all hello to everyone and thank you Mel for inviting me to be part of this wholly positive experience! Goldfinch is the first book I've read in a long while that I haven't been able to put down and devoured in under ten days, and for that reason I give it 9/10. I was truly mesmerised by the character Theo and his constant teetering on the brink of either self destruction or success. I agree with some of the above comments about Tartt's descriptions of Theo's journey through grief and loss - utterly heart wrenching at times. HOWEVER. what I cannot forgive Tartt for and what knocks this book down to a 9 for me, is her self indulgent quasi-philosophical ending (please don't kick me out the group!). The line '...here's the truth: life is a catastrophe' made me want to hurl the book to the other side of the room. Leave existentialism to the professionals like Camus or Sartre, in my mind Tartt may as well have ended with 'and it was all just a dream..'! I think the reason why I feel so strongly is because of how much I loved this book and regardless I will still recommend it to everyone :)

Mel: Hooray Rache! So happy to have you here and read your thoughts.

Jen: I gave the book 8/10 as I really really just loved the story however at times got a little frustrated at the story telling. I even skipped and skimmed at times, still while loving the story. Which is not to say that I didn't like the authors style, but there were parts where I started to lose interest. The description of the characters in the online discussion was beautiful, I enjoy seeing everyone get so passionate about the individuals in the book. The link between Theo was one of my favourite parts of the story, I loved how his feelings for it reflected his obsession and guilt for the loss of his mother. The goldfinch kept him going. I would definitely read a sequel although I fear I maybe wouldn't enjoy it. That probably doesn't make sense! I felt Theo was not in a good place at the end of the book however it was an "apt" place. He was where his choices took him. But a sequel, for the characters to revolve around him, would mean he would need to carry on and I'm not sure that is staying true to the story so far.

Clarissa: I am enjoying all your views, with some of which I agree. Actually, I found the book difficult for a considerable proportion of it, because I did not enjoy reading about all the drinking and drug-taking bouts, when both boys had so much potential. Theo's mother had been such a positive influence on him, showing sensitivity to art, compassion and generosity, and he clearly admired these qualities, but, as he said of himself, he was "shameful, threadbare....a deceiver, coward, liar and cheat" and I found it difficult to want to continue to read about such an exasperating character. I felt, as Hobie said, that Theo's life story "does all swing around strangely sometimes" On the other hand, the permanence, but vulnerability of art works and their effect on generations of people was well described. The story was redeemed by the inclusion of the wonderfully portrayed Hobie, again, giving Theo such a shining example of honesty, decency, generosity, acceptance and tolerance.

2. Donna Tartt has said that the Goldfinch painting was the "guiding spirit" of the book. How so—what do you think she meant? What—or what all—does the painting represent in the novel?

Jane: I think, first and foremost, the painting represents a connection for Theo to his mother. I also believe that because the painting is such an object of beauty, perhaps it represents the beauty of Theo's life with his mother before her death. How it was sort of a golden period of his life, he felt anchored, loved, secure. The painting endures, and as long as the painting endures, so too does the memory of his mother.

Gen: Yes I agree, although there were long stretches of the book where the painting was not mentioned explicitly.

Sharyn: Jane has described beautifully how the painting connects Theo with his mother. I also think the painting also represents the immortality or permanence of art which (unless it is destroyed) endures and is loved and remembered across generations. This contrasts with the mortality of humans as represented by all the death in the book (Theo's mum and dad, Welty, Andy etc). At various stages through the book Theo struggles to understand and come to terms with his mortality, his place in the world and whether life is worth living and it is the painting that keeps him afloat and through which he discovers purpose and joy as a custodian of the painting and his role in rescuing and preserving the painting so that future generations can enjoy its beauty.

Michelle: Beautiful insights ladies. I also think there's something to the subject matter of the painting - a beautiful creature, that you only realise after looking is tethered to 'repeatly take flight and land in the same place' (I'm paraphrasing, I remember I line something like that in the book). It seems like a metaphor for many of the stories within the book. I found a lot of the narrative was circular and didn't really go anywhere, perhaps that's where Gen and my frustration lies.

Gen: I agree Michelle!

=
Mel: I too love what you have written girls. I felt that the painting was always present, even when it was not mentioned for 50 pages or so. It was Theo’s connection to his mum, He took it home when what he really wanted that day was to go home with her. He strove to keep the painting safe in a way in which he couldn’t keep his mum safe. I would have liked one of the final scenes to be Theo going to a gallery somewhere and viewing it. I guess I wanted to see it again - through Theo's eyes. ======

Lynne: well done ladies - you have highlighted the best part of this book and written about it beautifully and concisely. Please send instructions to Donna Tartt.
Jane: Lynne, that made me laugh. So much. When I send instructions to Donna Tartt I will also let her know that you have a big RED PEN if she needs an editor for her next book.

Rachel: Interesting to read your comments because I genuinely regarded it as a negative presence throughout the book - I felt it kind of lurked there in the shadows and was a catalyst for a lot of the tragedy and wrong decisions in the story. I do like Jane's reading of it though, an interesting interpretation.

3. Tartt has said that "reading's no good unless it's fun." // The one quality I look for in books (and it's very hard to find), but I love that childhood quality of gleeful, greedy reading, can't-get-enough-of-it, what's-happening-to-these-people, the breathless kind of turning of the pages. That's what I want in a boo // k. In other words, a good book should propel readers from page to page, in part because they care about the characters. Has Tartt accomplished that in //The Goldfinch//? Did you find yourself rapidly turning the pages to find find out what happens to the characters? Does the story engage you? And do you care about the characters? If so, which ones?

Jane: Oh yes. I think that Tartt brings her characters to life on the page. I know that is such a cliche. But Boris. Oh, Boris. I don't think I have ever met such a character so ridiculously well-written in a novel before. He is fun, naughty,nutty and I LOVED reading the section of the book in which he was a major part.

Gen: Yes I love this kind of book that Tartt describes, but this book was not it for me.

Sharyn: The characters were so rich and interesting and engaging. I cared so much about Theo and was always barracking for him, even when he disaffected and doing things he clearly shouldn't have been. I think this was because the author introduces Theo to us when he is a boy, vulnerable after the death of his mother and so much in need of someone who cared about him. The bond he shared with his mother was so beautiful and touching. His love for Pippa was so endearing. I also loved Hobie - so eccentric, reclusive, kind and warm. Kind of like an old jumper. He had the best moral compass of any character in the book. I loved when Theo described Hobie as: 'I felt better just standing next to him - just to breathe in the clean air of him'. The characters of Boris and Theo's dad were so vivid. When I read passages about Theo's dad I kept on envisaging him being played by Chris Noth (Peter Florrick in The Good Wife and Mr Big in Sex and the City) in the movie version of the book - same kind of slickness and smarminess.

Jane: Sharyn, I too loved Hobie. What a gem. I would quite like to have a Hobie in my life. Clean air, what a beaut way to describe and get a sense of a person.

Sharyn: I would also love to have a Hobie in my life!

Mel: I just read that line today Sharyn (clean air) and took special note of it after you had mentioned it. Love it also. Hobie made me wish (not for the first time) that I had known my grandfather. In my mind my Pop was Hobie like - but I don't really know, he died when I was 11 months old.

Gen: grouchy here. Don't you think Hobie was a bit too Harry Potteresque??

Sharyn: LOL, grouchy, I love it! It's awesome that not everyone agrees. I am probably the only person in the world who hasn't read or seen Harry Potter. I am waiting until my son gets to that stage. I did think Hobie's household was a bit like the household in Great Expectations though.

Michelle: I did read this book gleefully and greedily, which really was such a pleasure. I read it whenever I could possibly sneak in a little bit, I even emailed Mel a photo of me reading whilst making school lunches. Could not get enough! It was a great ride in that respect. But I'm also with Gen, really, Welty, Hobie, Pippa - are they just supposed to be perfect people? I kept waiting for the revelation that they'd been involved in some shady antique dealing, or sheltering great paintings... something, anything! It just seemed a bit odd that Theo turned up in their magical safe harbour of a house, and that was it, they were the 'goodies'. Very Harry Potter, good call Gen!

Lucy: I disagree with Donna Tartt on this one! The breathless turning of the pages is pointless if it detracts from the writing. I did a lot of speedy page turning, skim reading and even page skipping because I wanted to know what happened but I couldn't be bothered to read it properly. I don't think this was what Tartt was intending. I liked Hobie and I could understand how he could be a grounding influence for Theo who was in such desperate need of that. However, I found that a lot of our experience of the characters came as flash backs. After Theo's first two meetings with Pippa, just before and just after Vegas we don't get much more direct information about how their relationship builds. It is only after he has taken her to the film and dinner that we hear about the time when they sat out on the step all night etc. This made it hard for me to understand his infatuation and to believe it was any more than that.

Mel: I was very engaged with the story and characters and really enjoyed the ‘ride’ of the book. I would have finished it earlier except that it is so damn big that it was too heavy to take out of the house! I agree with Tartt’s point and I did feel that this was a page-turner. And also it is a book that I am keen to talk about. I have been asking people if they have read it, suggesting it to people to read and wondering who would appreciate it as a gift. Re the discussion on Hobie - why can't he just be a good, kind, compassionate person? I think people like Hobie exist and I believed in him. But what was it that he felt for Theo? Did he love him like a son? And what did Thoe feel for Hobie? I found it implausible that Theo would be in Amsterdam that whole time and it not dawn on him that Hobie would be really worried about him. In reference to Lucy's point about Theo's relationship to Pippa - maybe he did just love her in abstract, like you do a painting. Maybe the love he felt for her wasn't as 'real' as Theo wanted to believe it was.

Jane: Mel, I too really believe that people like Hobie exist. Quiet, unassuming, kind, humble.

Lynne: I read it quickly because I started to take her writing for granted. If I stop now and look at any page there will be something written there that would be inspiring - she has so much talent - and yet it gets lost in the gigantic story, with painful detail (at times) and I read to conquer, instead of savour.

Rachel: Michelle I'd have to borrow your words of 'greedily' and with pleasure - my husband actually began to get a little miffed as I wasn't showing him any attention in the evenings, I think 'Tartt addict' were his words!

4. How convincingly does Tartt write about Theo's grief and his survival guilt?

Mel: Very well. For example, it is painful to read about Theo slipping into alcohol and drug taking oblivion as a teenager, but without caring and compassion from adults I can see how living in denial like this would be a plausible option for someone who went through what he went through. And Pippa's note to him about why she could never be with him reminds us that it doesn't matter how many years pass since the explosion, they are both defined and permanently damaged by it.

Lynne: I have never had somebody close to me die so I was interested in the process of grief and I thought she did a really good job - I was totally convinced; the way he dreamed about his mum, the way he clung to the painting and it's meaning to him, the scenes back at the flat where he gazed at her possessions and invoked her memory. I also got the distinct impression that his survival grief extended beyond his mum to Welty and even Pippa.

Rachel: Theo's grief for me was at the very heart of this novel, to the point where I struggled to breathe at times - I just kept thinking about all the little things we mums do for our kids that father's don't really think about - what food groups has my child met that day, does his hair need cutting, does he need fresh bed sheets...It was Theo's grief coupled with his absolute neglect at the hands of the (sometimes) well meaning but inadequate adults that was depressingly plausible.

Mel: Rache's comments makes me realize that we haven't even mentioned Theo's Dad and what a dead beat/ drop kick he was. I for one was certainly not unhappy when he ran his car off the road. It got me thinking about the best interests of the child, and how often it is assumed that the child should be with a parent if at all possible. Shouldn't it be the responsibility of child services to look a lot more deeply into the background of an abandoned child before deciding where the child should be placed? The Dad (name now escapes me) is so much to blame for Theo's slide into alcohol and drugs. So much more so than Boris, who was just a kid himself. The absence of parental love and guidance is surely a major theme of the book that we have not really touched upon.

5. What do you think of Andy's family: especially Andy himself and Mrs. Barbour? Are we meant to like the family? Is Mrs. Barbour pleased or resentful about having to take Theo in. What about the family as it appears later in the book when Theo re-enters its life? Were you surprised at Mrs. Barbour's reaction to seeing Theo again?

Sharyn: I found Andy's family - and in particular Mrs Barbour - the most confusing characters in the book. The author seemed to go to great pains to make us not like Mrs Barbour at the start and I remember thinking that was unfair given that she had agreed to take Theo in after his mother's death notwithstanding her four children, bipolar philandering husband and busy social schedule. She seemed to do this without resentment although she was a bit aloof. I found her persona in the second half of the book a bit strange and unbelievable. I found it a bit strange that she was so traumatised by the deaths of her husband and son (who she never seemed to be that close with) that she would totally change and become a recluse. I was surprised to learn that Andy was her favourite child and that clearly was why she became so close to Theo towards the end. The family was a bit of a disaster generally and Andy was the only one who appeared authentic at all times.

Lucy: I agree Sharyn and this is another time when I felt she didn't develop characters fully and that they weren't always consistent.

Mel: Early in the book Mrs. Barbour appears not to be able to emotionally connect with Theo, or anyone else for that matter. She sees philanthropic work (of which taking Theo in is a part of) in abstract terms. She does a lot but does not really reach an emotional depth with what she is doing. I agree that there is a big disconnect with her character when she appears later in the book living as a recluse, never having recovered from the death of her husband and Andy. But we all change as we age, many of us soften (I know that I am). Maybe the death’s jolted in her an untapped emotional depth? As for Andy, I thought that he was great. I currently teach a boy that I find very Andy-esp. Funny, intelligent (‘geeky’), cynical, not really in touch with or understanding of his peer group. There are many teenage boys out there with similar traits to Andy, so I found him believable and enjoyable as a charter.

Lynne: what a bunch of hopeless snobs (excluding Andy). It seemed like Mrs Barbour took on Theo as a conversation topic for her social engagements - philanthropically, as you say Mel. I was shocked at the transformation of Mrs Barbour from her society-ice-queen past to a touchy-feely affectionate motherly figure. Didn't quite gel with me. I was suspicious of her motives at the end.

Rachel: If the Barbours had only invited Theo on their holiday that summer...!!!

6. Many reviewers have remarked on Boris as the most inventive and vividly portrayed character in the book. How do you feel? Are you as taken with him as both Theo and book reviewers are? Talk about his influence over Theo—was it for better for worse?

Jane: Yes. Oh, yes. YES. He is superb. The obvious answer to the question about influence would be that he was a bad influence - drugs, alcohol, mischief. BUT I think he was amazing for Theo. He provided an intense friendship when he probably needed it most. He was savvy and not afraid to bend the rules, but he did seem for a time the most secure relationship in Theo's life for a while. Theo seemed to be able to be himself with Boris, which I am pretty sure is rare in teenage friendship.

Sharyn: Boris is not my kind of person but I do think he was the most inventive and vivid character with the strongest point of view. I loved his snippets of philosophy on life, even though they were so cynical. Towards the end of the book Theo wonders whether it is better to be unconventional like Boris and 'throw yourself head first and laughing into the holy rage calling your name'. How wonderful is that description?! Like Jane, I felt that Boris was a good friend for Theo when he most needed it, but ultimately Boris was like a drug for Theo - something that made him feel giddy and wonderful but who was not very good for him. When Theo and Boris are reunited in Amsterdam Theo describes his initial relief and then heartsink and likens it to when his Dad used to come home. I think Boris was better for Theo than his father ever was but he pulled him down all the same.

Michelle: I thoroughly enjoyed reading about Boris, but am I the only one who found reading his Russian/Ukranian accent annoying? I felt like it reduced him to a caricature at times.

Jane: Hmm, slightly agree with you, Michelle. But I also think it is really really really difficult to write accents (and maybe sometimes authors should not even try).

Mel: Yes, Boris was a very vividly drawn character, but because I was so much in Theo’s corner, whenever Boris was around I was nervous as I knew that he would send Theo down a rabbit hole of drinking and drugs. I understand that Theo was predisposed to dependency and that his mother's death added to this, but it was Boris's raging appetite for booze and drugs that really led Theo to a dependency problem. And honestly, how great is a friend that steals from you the only important possession in your life, hooks up with your dead dad’s girlfriend and leads you into a criminal situation such as the one that they found themselves in in Amsterdam. I know that Boris ‘redeemed’ himself – but it was Theo’s idea in the first place to contact the art police, and he did just as well out of it as Theo did. However - without Boris by his side in Vegas it is very likely that Theo would have committed suicide. Is it better to have one bad influence in your life or no one at all? I would take one bad influence.

Rachel: There with you Michelle - caricature! I get that Tartt needed a character that would push her main character to a whole new depth of self-destruction but I question why she chose his accent. Bordering on stereotyping at times?

Lynne: I did find Boris entertaining and I really liked they way she wrote his English, I could 'hear' it clearly and I loved the notion of his accent. Having said that, his nihilistic attitude to life was disconcerting, but believable given his family circumstances (ie: dead mum and drunk dad, just like Theo). I appreciated the way he kept striving to make it up to Theo for stealing the painting. I loved how matter of fact he was about the //act// of stealing it, as if he only realised the gravity of it much much later - like most of his actions.

7. The book also ponders beauty and art. Why is art so important to the human soul?

Jane: JUST READ THE LAST PAGE. It endures. Forever. It connects people, events. It creates memories. It moves. It inspires emotion. WIthout art, what is life? It would have no meaning. There is art and beauty in almost everything we do, whether it is noticing the formation of clouds, seeing great works in a gallery, capturing a moment on film.

Sharyn: I couldn't have said it better!

Michelle: Yes I loved this aspect of the book, the way she writes about art is beautiful and affecting. I also feel like she highlights the fact that this story is only one in a long list of events that have occurred around just this one painting. Whatever happens to Theo, Boris, Hobie etc, the art must live on.

8. What do you think the future holds for Theo? Why do you think Tartt left the book's conclusion open as to whether he will end up with Pippa or Kitsy? Did you leave the book feeling satisfied by this ending?

Sharyn: Theo is going to become a person who tracks down stolen or lost pieces of valuable art. There is still a child inside me who (naively?) believes that he will live happily ever after with his true love, Pippa.

Michelle: I ended the book feeling like Theo was a mess. I hope he found his fictional narration of his life cathartic! I can't say that I feel he is a candidate for living a long and happy life.

Jane: Michelle, I agree, I do not know if Theo will ever recover properly from the events of his past. I think he will always be troubled, but perhaps that level of 'trouble' will rise or fall depending on stresses that might be happening in his every day life. I felt that the book could probably not have ended in any other way... there is no happy ending, so why make one up?

Mel: I agree Michelle – I don’t think that Theo is in good shape at the end of the book. All this traveling around seemed a lot like running away rather than running to anything. I don’t mind that it was left up in the air about which girl he would end up with (if either). I am pleased he didn’t marry Kitsy, while going off into the sunset with Pippa would have been too twee and perfect and probably unrealistic..

Lynne: Theo is going have addiction issues for the rest of his life and a dysfunctional marriage, regardless of the (un)lucky candidate. In the end I just didn't care what happened to him next, especially after he blasted a guys brains out - admittedly, in self defence - and moved on to the next chapter of his life so quickly. I reckon he will be haunted by fake antiques more than by taking a mans life.

9. If Tartt were to write a sequel of 700+ pages, would you read it?

Jane: Yes.

Gen: No!

Jane: Gen, you are funny!

Sharyn: Yes.

Mel: I'm not even finished and my answer is YES!

Michelle: Yes, the writing really was so good. Maybe her next one will be the perfect book (in my ratings system, which of course, Donna Tartt deeply cares about)

Jane: I think Donna will take note of your ratings system, Michelle, and contemplate it a lot as she spends the coming ten years writing her next book.

Mel: Finally finished and still yes. I would settle in straight away for another 700 pages.

Lynne: only if the book club made me.

10. Is there anything else that you would like to ask or add about the book?

Jane: I think Donna Tartt is truly one of the greatest writers of our time. What a mind.

Sharyn: I agree. Has anyone read any other of her books or heard anything about them?

Jane: Yes, I have read The Secret History, which is also pretty darn great. Here is a really wonderful interview with her: []

Mel: I loved The Secret History. Read it about a decade ago. What I found really interesting is that in both the The Goldfinch and The Secret History the protagonist is a young male - but the voice is TOTALLY different in the two books. You would never pick that the two books were written by the same person. Different to say - Tim Winton - it is always good writing, but you always know that you are reading Tim Winton.

Mel: Did anyone else think about “The Hare with Amber Eyes” while reading The Goldfinch? I did a few times about the joy that beautiful objects can bring. The whole last sentence of the book could have been written specifically about figurines. //“And I add my own love to the history of people who have loved beautiful things, and looked out for them and pulled them from the fire, and sought them when they were lost, and tried to preserve them and save them along literally from hand to hand, singing ot brilliantly from the wrecjk of time it the next generation of lovers, and the next”.//

Lynne: I read The Secret History this year and thought it descended into melodrama at the end, and I think Tartt did the same in The Goldfinch as soon as Theo and Boris started chasing this painting to Amsterdam. It is almost as though she is half trying to write a thriller that could be adapted into a screen play. I wish the ending could have been more subtle. I wish the whole thing was shorter and more concentrated. I wish she didn't dilute so much good stuff with so many boring stretches...how about that bus trip from Vegas to New York, with the dog in the bag, blah blah blah???....couldn't that have been quicker instead of subjecting me to 72 hours of pain RIGHT ALONGSIDE Theo on that stinking trip!?! Enough said.

Jane: Oh dear, I even loved the stinking bus trip!!