This novel won the Pulitzer Price for Fiction this year. "For distinguished fiction by an American author, preferably dealing with American life, Ten thousand dollars ($10,000)"
I recently read it, and did enjoy the book - characters and descriptions pulling you in and pushing you away through a compelling story of our modern times from New York to Las Vegas to Amsterdam. However, perhaps I have enjoyed even more reading the commentary on whether this is great art or not.
Vanity Fair had a good summation of the debate: Why Are Literary Critics Dismayed by Donna Tartt’s The Goldfinch and Its Success? | Vanity Fair: It’s Tartt—But Is It Art?
"No one denies that Donna Tartt has written the “It novel” of the year, a runaway best-seller that won her the Pulitzer Prize. But some of the self-appointed high priests of literary criticism—at The New Yorker, The New York Review of Books, and The Paris Review—are deeply dismayed by The Goldfinch and its success."
I liked a few juicy points it raised in particular. There's the experiences of earlier writers who are deemed great/compulsory today, but were of course challenged in their time, from Dickens to Salinger. Then there was the fun theory that one of the negative critics, Wood, may have been influenced by the public’s non-reception to his wife's book. “[Messud’s] writing was gorgeous. It was like beautiful carpentry. Everything fit. Everything worked. There wasn’t a single metaphor or simile or comparison you could pull out and say, ‘This doesn’t work,’ the way you can with The Goldfinch. But not many people read that book . . . . The world doesn’t think what she’s doing is as worthy as what Tartt is doing.”
The comments on blogs seem mostly supportive, though with plenty in both camps, for example at Donna Tartt's 'Goldfinch': Love it or hate it? | Shelf Life | EW.com
I do think it's an important debate, and one which I would need more preparation to properly weigh in on. I am sure there are all sorts of political sub plots behind the various Critics, including those on the Pulitzer Prize jury itself. But surely, the fact that this debate is happening, indicates that this is likely to be seen in time as a great work in the American canon.
Personally, I do think there is something seriously imperfect about The Secret History and, to a lesser degree, The Goldfinch. I feel this is an author for which the creativity does not flow easily, but must rather be nurtured over time, resulting in passages and some characters that seem overly crafted. Perhaps this is clear from her output, with 3 books over 20 years. In the Goldfinch, this was most clear for me in Theo's long reflection at the end, forced by his author to explain the obvious, or thoughts better left unexpressed. On the other hand, I will remember Boris and Hobie for a long time, and of course, the place of art in our lives.
Comments