This is an excellent book; I can't believe I stopped reading it about 30% of the way in and left it for two years. (minor spoiler in the next sentenceThis is an excellent book; I can't believe I stopped reading it about 30% of the way in and left it for two years. (minor spoiler in the next sentence, and a few more throughout I guess?) The book was a little depressing for me when I left off, which is right when Theo leaves New York for Las Vegas with his father and Xandra, and maybe I wasn't emotionally in the right place for it. For that first 30-40% of the book, Donna Tartt crafts such a feeling of rootlessness, of having nowhere to feel safe and at home, that I guess two years ago I just couldn't take reading a book that was going to exist in that world for too long. I know, I'm a wimp.
Since I picked it up again a week or two ago, I have been consuming it ravenously. I realized that despite such a long break, I remembered pretty much every major event that had happened up to that point, and most of the minor details; I think that speaks to how much this book will get under your skin.
It's such an exciting, engrossing book. For about the first half, it feels loosely plotted: it's very difficult to see how different actions are influencing each other or how they are important to the story; but then the threads all start to come back, and you realize that everything that happened at the beginning was essential to the huge events that would happen later. The last third of the book is so thrilling I found it hard to put down--and I'm the kind of person who doesn't feel that way often about a book.
And yet, though The Goldfinch's second half has thrills and tight plotting, it still takes its time to be thoughtful and explore the inner workings of the narrator, Theo. I think this is what sets The Goldfinch apart--the action isn't the point of the book, the action isn't manufactured for the purposes of keeping the reader excited--it's just the consequence of what Theo has done for the past fourteen years, the inevitable result of his choices and how they have shaped his character. Which is starting to sound like an English 101 explanation of what literary fiction is... I guess I am just struck by how expansive the book is, yet at the same time how tightly it is written. It's hard to understand without reading it yourself. Donna Tartt's writing is so effortless and flowing that it is incredible. It's really not surprising that The Goldfinch won the Pulitzer.
Though I give it five stars, I can't say it's perfect, just mostly perfect. The ending left me wanting more direct resolution with certain characters (mostly Pippa), and by "direct resolution" I mean another scene with them where a more developed "ending" would happen; though I understand Tartt's choice to resolve these things in the indirect, from-afar way that she did--I just wished she hadn't. But is that a fault of the book or just a choice I don't like?
I can't recommend The Goldfinch enough. I am going to re-read the first 30% again to see what I forgot. Maybe I'll read the whole thing again.
But I recommend you reading it without a two-year break in the middle....more
This book is mind blowing. It is John Steinbeck at his sharpest. He said that every author really only has one "book," and that all of his books leadiThis book is mind blowing. It is John Steinbeck at his sharpest. He said that every author really only has one "book," and that all of his books leading up to East of Eden were just practice--Eden would be his book.
I could write a summary of the book, but it would be more trouble than it's worth. You will often hear it referred to as a "modern retelling of the Genesis story of Cain and Abel" but that is too simplistic. Steinbeck takes the story of Cain and Abel and makes Cain (in the form of Cal Trask) the sympathetic character. Cal Trask does not act destructively for the sake of destruction, but he is desperately clawing for approval and love from his father, Adam, who prefers Cal's twin brother, Aron. The story isn't that pat, though--Cal and Aron really don't make their entrances as major characters until the last quarter of the 600 page novel. So, to say that this book is simply the retelling of Cain and Abel is to oversimplify the book. The main theme of the book is the desire within everyone for love, and how this desire can make people turn to destructive behavior.
This book has been criticized for being too verbose, meandering, inconsistently paced, and heavy handed in its parallel with the story of Cain and Abel. Yes, it is verbose and meandering, but that's Steinbeck. It gives a full picture of the Salinas valley. It gives you insights and perspectives you might not otherwise have. If anything, Steinbeck's constant forays into unrelated sidebars give the reader a break in pace, a rest that makes the more important parts of the books feel as though they flow more smoothly. As for the parallel with Cain and Abel, it is heavy-handed. That being said, the heavy-handedness didn't bother me. Going in to the novel with the expectation of it being a retelling of Cain and Abel (at least for some of the narrative) is enough to make the obvious references to Cain and Abel seem natural. If Steinbeck had given the impression that he was trying to hide the parallel, it would have been insulting. But Steinbeck isn't trying to hide it--he makes it clear that the story of Cain and Abel are an integral part of his story.
East of Eden is an amazing novel. Its strong points more than compensate for the very few shortcomings. Steinbeck is such a tremendous writer that his shortcomings become strengths. I highly recommend it....more
Loading...
