The Goldfinch - Why did this win a Pulitzer?

Submitted by CoastalSailing t3_11mjmso in books

For the last few years in life I've been working through the Pulitzer prize winners in fiction, and I've found it to be a reliable shorthand for a fantastic book.

Broad in subject, composition, execution, but invariably fantastic books that are a pleasure to read, deeper when you want to dig in, and invariably make me feel something / cry.

  • Nickel Boys, devastated
  • Less, joyous, made me reevaluate literature
  • All the light, beautiful, tragic
  • The Underground Railroad, everyone should read it
  • The Overstory, big, different things. Maybe not the best, but really made me think. And the human vignettes in the first part.... Wow.
  • Middlesex - amazing
  • the Road - hard. But so good. But fucking hell.

And then... The Goldfinch.

It started strong, strong enough I suppose. But then we just get... Lost. And I got lost. And everything gets tied up with a bow....

Whatever deeper themes we were meant to be interrogating, they've been well trodden before. Pleasure of reading, it was ok at times... I really tried to dig in, and challenge myself, but as much as I dug in, nothing had substance, and the ending is so... Neat. Tidy.

What am I missing here?

Because surely I must be missing something. It was fine, serviceable, but underwhelming. Nothing more.

What do you think?

4

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

lyrasbookshelf t1_jbi6wqk wrote

You're not missing anything. You don't have to like every book that others or critics like. Just because a book has won an award doesn't make it amazing for you.

Personally, I really liked this one.

13

CoastalSailing OP t1_jbi8alf wrote

If it won a Pulitzer, and I a pretty avid critical reader of literature don't see why, the safe bet is that I'm missing something.

Hence this post.

Literature isn't always about liking a text, but I've failed to find anything substantive in the themes the book ostensibly interrogates.

What did you make of it beyond just the story?

Which is to also say, hewing back to my ur-question, why did this book win a Pulitzer?

−8

lyrasbookshelf t1_jbj82sk wrote

Because it was deemed worthy by the judges. Why don't you read some reviews and find out what lit critics thought about it? It's not not worthy of a prize simply because you didn't manage to find anything in it. As we all know, reading is subjective.

9

CoastalSailing OP t1_jbj9j53 wrote

"go Google it" eh?

🙄 aren't you a peach.

−14

lyrasbookshelf t1_jbjg9kn wrote

What exactly did I say that you didn't like? I'm super confused. Reading IS subjective and so is what we get out of it. It's fine not to enjoy a book or feel like it didn't offer you anything new, but at the same time someone else might consider the same book great or even innovative, which is why I suggested reviews. I don't get why you consider this a hot take.

5

CoastalSailing OP t1_jbm9uh2 wrote

This is a public forum for discussion, and your response amounted to "go Google it" in response to my original post, which was clearly looking for personal discussion with reddit users.

That pattern matches to rude AF in my book. The more verbose equivalent of "LMGTFY"

−6

rollerskateginny t1_jbi9jqv wrote

I personally loved the Goldfinch. My take on the book, is that is an exploration of the question ‘what is real art’, which makes the debate about whether it deserves the Pulitzer sort of meta. There are lots of examples throughout the book, both large plot points and small bits of dialogue, but mainly his relationship with the painting itself >!And how it means so much to him for years even though he literally doesn’t know it’s missing and is in fact carrying around an empty canvas!<. Similarly, a huge plot point of the last third of the book, (which I’ll admit was not my favorite part of the book), was Theo’s forgery of antiques, and how no one noticed until it was pointed out.

And maybe this is a stretch, but I think the ending could feed into this as well. Does something need a tragic, ultra-realist ending to be considered art? Of course, there are many options in between tragic and super tidy, but I think this could’ve been purposeful. And yes, things come together in Dickensian coincidences to evade disaster, but it still feels sort of eery and depressing - he’s traveling around from soulless hotel to soulless hotel, still doing drugs, with the questionable Boris and a big question mark on his relationships with Hobie and Kitsy. It’s a happy ending, but is it really that happy? Maybe this is silly, but I felt the overly coincidental and tidy ending played into the eeriness of the ending as well.

Oh, and I also think this book pays direct and very blatant homage to David Copperfield. But that’s a whole other thing and I’m not sure why she chose that book particularly.

13

CoastalSailing OP t1_jbiqqep wrote

That point, about art, and more broadly the distance between perception and reality, is super interesting and not something that I'd consciously called out. That's the sort of thematic linkage that I hadn't unearthed, but helps me understand why it won a Pulitzer.

Thank you.

Edit and after reviewing David Copperfield's Wikipedia entry, I see it, totally.

3

Fun-Daikon-7185 t1_jbkn37a wrote

I found it more similar to Great Expectations. Even the character names are derived from characters in Great Expectations.

1

rollerskateginny t1_jbkrjct wrote

Could you give some examples of that? I found a lot of explicit parallels between DC, especially in the characters themselves. But it’s certainly possible it’s a mix of both, I just didn’t notice the Great Expectations parts. Maybe it even references more Dickens books that I haven’t read. But I found the DC references pretty substantial.

1

mjackson4672 t1_jbi5zyv wrote

It was an oops we should have given it to you for The Secret History award. This is just my opinion but I stand by it.

9

Tea_4_thee t1_jbit8sg wrote

I thought it was a really good exploration into the ways trauma can completely derail your life, make you act in senseless ways, and leave you stuck in this hole that seems impossible to climb out of. We watch Theo go deeper and deeper down the rabbit hole with each traumatic event until he’s a completely different person, and on a path he most likely would’ve never gone done if him and his mother hadn’t decided to take a quick detour into the museum.

It shows how one split second decision can define your entire life, how it can mold you into a totally different person.

6

CoastalSailing OP t1_jbja5ne wrote

The lingering invisible damage of psychic trauma.

I agree, the book does delve that cave.

2

chummybuckett t1_jbjknip wrote

It was a rare DNF for me, but that's mostly because I have a very specific and acute pet peeve of authors that center a story around children and cannot write children well. I had a really difficult time getting past that. I do know other people that loved it, though.

2

fragments_shored t1_jbm5biz wrote

I have no interest in changing your mind, but just as a counterpoint, your complaints about "The Goldfinch" (which I loved) are precisely what I hated about "All the Light We Cannot See" - started out strong but immediately lost its way, all flash and no substance, trope-y with no new ideas, the WWII setting gave it a veneer of seriousness that it didn't deserve, and a terribly schlocky ending. There's no accounting for taste, even on major prize committees.

2

CakeBatterEater t1_jd1q7hh wrote

Just finished reading this yesterday! Someone said that that the book is an exploration of the question - "what is real art?". Hobie talks about how art means different things to different people. An art collector, a dealer, a person buying a book from a gift shop that has a reproduction of the piece etc. And how it would mean different things to different people, far into the future. That said, my takeaway was beyond the commentary on art. Theo may be an unreliable narrator but he talks about life is a catastrophe. And how he thinks everything he wants is an illusion but there's charm in wanting and experiencing that illusion. He also talks about how some secrets define who we are on the inside and that the painting helped him realize who he is. To me, the painting is Theo's way of learning and accepting who he is. >!There's a line in the last few pages that say "There is no resolution". Maybe Theo doesn't intend to end his narration in a conclusive way. In my view, the painting is yet another part of Theo's life that has touched him but he will never get to own. There is no resolution for Theo. No Pippa. No Kitsey (though he hinted that the engagement wasn't off?). No painting. Even Boris. Was there a conclusion or continuation of that relationship? !<IDK, maybe I read too much into those last few pages but that was my takeaway!
Also OP, as to why it won the Pulitzer - I'm not sure! Just like the painting, the book can mean different things to different people. As an exploration of someone coping with trauma and using art as a way to explore themes like loss, temptation, addiction, love, friendship and crime, its a good (without being spectacular) book Like most people, I liked the first 2/3 of the book and the last act felt rushed and forced. Maybe I should read the other finalists (if there is such a thing) to see which book lost out to this one!

1

WeeklyCheesecake5223 t1_jbj3lyf wrote

I hated it. Maybe I missed something too but I totally didn't get the hype around it. Speaking of shitty but lauded books have you read Ducks, Newburyport? Won the Goldsmiths Prize and nominated for the Booker. 1000+ pages of absolute drivel! A month of my life I'll never get back and I didn't even finish it

0

atlwellwell t1_jbijl9x wrote

I avoid pulitzers

This audiobook was great

Story was great if dragged a bit sometimes

Almost feels shocking that someone didn't think it was at least greatish

The Russian kid

Vegas

Growing up

The bolt

The later in life meetup

The explosion

On and on and on

Great stuff

...shrug...

−10