Book Review: Mixed emotions. The paperback edition of the The Goldfinch makes room for 32 (!) blurbs (someone insecure?), and it won the Pulitzer, so you know it must be good. It read quickly: the fastest 771 pages I think I've ever read. There were patches of good writing, wonderfully crafted sentences. Overall it's well-written, as Tartt certainly knows how to write. The characters were interesting (the most interesting character dies on page 31). So what's not to like? Well, if it comes down to one big word, the lack of verisimilitude. So many moments and characters in The Goldfinch were just not believable. From such minor points as characters' bursts of improbable vocabulary and knowledge, to characters acting irrationally without any indication or explanation of why they acted irrationally. For instance, when something significant happens, the main character sits and ponders, passive as a mushroom; when something minor happens he becomes hysterical and snappish as a Yorkie. He's supposed to have a deep relationship with his lifelong best friend, but it's more like he's frenemies with the guy than a friend -- he's distrusting, envious, suspicious, and petty. He has no interest in what boys are interested in, for awhile it seemed as tho he was supposed to be gay, and he spends most of his time fretting. Periodically he sounds more British than American, where does that come from? There were also passages that were bizarrely extended, especially in the second half, as tho Tartt was being paid by the word and simply repeating herself so that the scene might just as well have been printed three times so the reader could skip two of the repetitions. There was a lack of continuity -- Tartt piles on mountains of detail and description, but then the detail that was described on one page is different 30 pages later. Which leads to another complaint, this book seems more researched than lived. Lots and lots of research, I'll admit, but life isn't research. So many pages have the flavor of coming from a book, a different book, than being someone's life. Yes, there's massive detail, but it doesn't seem like a life that anyone has lived, but how certain people are supposed to live. The main character has a significant trait while drinking that miraculously comes out of nowhere without his ever having noticed. Then to the last 50 pages where I almost lost interest, and the deus ex machina ending, which although possible, still seemed much too neat and tidy. When it was good The Goldfinch was great, when it wasn't good it was mediocre at best. Because I loved The Secret History, this book sat on my shelf for a couple years as I was saving it for a time when I could really devote myself to enjoying it in great blocks of reading. Perhaps I built up my hopes too much. Even as I was eagerly turning the pages (Donna Tartt can write a page-turner) the flaws were obvious and I was thinking about these distractions as much as the story. I'm not even going to get into the also flawed and inconsistent, but oh so deep, theme of "art," tho Tartt does write very nicely about it. Several of the blurbs mention that the book is Dickensian -- I was hoping for something more Tarttian. As I was reading, I wondered if The Goldfinch won the Pulitzer because the committee knew that The Secret History should have won, and then The Little Friend was a disappointment, and this nice, really long "important" book was finally their chance to give Tartt the prize she should have received earlier. A well written page turner with many nice moments, but so unbelievable and with so many moments that rang false that I just couldn't fully enjoy it. Better than The Little Friend, not as good as The Secret History. I'm still glad I read it, if only because of The Secret History I would read anything by Tartt. Maybe with The Goldfinch my expectations were too high, maybe it wasn't the right time for me to read it, maybe I need to re-read. {Pulitzer Prize Winner 2014}[3.5 Stars]
No comments:
Post a Comment