#kitsei

[psychicwound]

uhm . that's all

[willothewispwisteriadawn]

We need to talk about Tartt’s character descriptions

More Donna Tartt praise.

She writes human physical descriptions in the most genuine and true-to-life ways. I didn’t even realize how many books do not go into the actual nuance of human appearances until I read TSH and Goldfinch.

I think most books kind of categorize people as pretty, ugly, or plain then lean into what generally makes people pretty, ugly, or plain plus hair and eye colors. I love how Tartt’s books make characters appear how the majority of people really do: an assortment of specific details. There’s Boris’s bitten nails and how Henry is big and square but does not carry himself as if he is. Bunny is a once-muscled guy (now more chubby) whose naturally good looks are starting to get a little sloppy. His nose is also a bit small/sharp for his face shape. Camilla is pretty, and we hear about her thick ankles and the way her curls rest at her temples. Francis is nice-looking because he carries and styles himself well, but we hear that those things compensate for his kind of beaky nose and boney angles.

Pippa is another great example! Theo describes her looks as tender and precious. She comes across as very cute in a homely way. But we hear that her eyes look “naked” because her lashes are so pale (I can imagine this so well!) and that her nose is long. Her cheeks are thin. Theo notes these things, and thinks she’s pretty anyway; he assumes he must have some personal affinity for her and is given a wake-up call when Everett also finds these traits cute.

OH actually let me squeeze in Mr. Barbour here. Because lol???

His eyes were a queer unstable gray and his hair was pure white, which made him seem older than he was until you noticed that his face was young and pink — boyish, even. His ruddy cheeks and his long, old-fashioned nose, in combination with the prematurely white hair, gave him the amiable look of a lesser founding father, some minor member of the Continental Congress teleported to the twenty-first century.

This is so specific and so easy to see. It stuck out to me when I read it, and my mom mentioned it to me when she read it. She said she was really hit by Andy’s dad’s description and thought it was funny but did a really good job delivering an image.

It’s just so real and gets at how normal people actually are: not always pretty in a “safe” way. Tartt has the guts to give you a description of an actual unique, textured person and say “This is nice.” Or, in Bunny’s case, give someone who is basically handsome but not necessarily pleasant-looking. Theres so much nuance, and it’s honest.

It kind of made me rethink how I write human descriptions. There are “safe” things to point out that become a little insubstantial if you combine too many of them: “The pretty girl has glossy hair and curves and bright blue eyes.” And then there’s going into actual shapes and the way people carry themselves and how some features look against others. It honestly just makes the characters really pop and they’re easy to envision.

[queenofalmosts]

fyi donna tartt started the Girl Dinner thing in the goldfinch lmao

[yourrockdog]

something about both of Theo’s former boy best friends fitting the same archetype in the story and therefore both being Kitsey’s type

[buck-yyyy]

kitsey to theo

[foundmywei]

Kitsey when Theo suddenly left their engagement party with a strange man who he seemed overly familiar with

[bandaiddd]

The way Donna Tartt writes women both hurts me and makes me fascinated because on one hand, it’s incredibly realistic, but also feeds into stereotypes as she writes from a male narrative.

We often ignore this, that Tartt focuses primarily on men in her novels, she has her own idea of what men are like and how they behave. In The Goldfinch, all the men are destructive, they aren’t moral or kind while the women, such as Kitsey and Pippa, are idealised into this idea of true love or “wife material” and are rarely viewed beyond this - so when they do something outside a moral boundary, such as Kitsey cheating, it’s demonised almost, as if Theo wasn’t incredibly distant and using drugs/cheating behind her back.

In The Secret History, Camilla is someone to be protected, she is hurt and fragile (within the male perspective) and rarely has her own plot outside of being a victim or love interest unlike the other characters. She is destined to care for others and be hurt in return.

So while it’s fun to focus on this unreliable narrative, I find it even more interesting how androcentric her novels are.

[sassy-sofia]

I noticed something about the three love interests for Theo in the book.

Pippa represents the past: clinging on to what he will never get back. Often likened to the last connection to his mother. Something that is fond to remember but in reality it just pains us that we will never have it again.

Kitsey represents the present: doing what is expected. Actively choosing to ignore the warning signs. Pretending to be fine, not allowing anyone to see your past. Doing what is expected of you. This can be seen by Theo’s suffering through long painful socializing nights with Kitsey’s friends for the benefit of the future.

Boris represents the future: chaotic, unpredictable, and exciting. “And yet to be with Boris was to know that life was full of great ridiculous possibilities- far bigger than anything they taught in school” (465)

[alltimefail]

Finding out there are people who read the Goldfinch who do not think Theo is some variation of queer will knock the wind out of you. Mind boggling, truly!!! Like there is no way we read the same book!!!!

Anyway heteronormativity must be one hell of a drug for some people, but it is rotting brains fr 🥴

[oddlyworse]

ripped straight out of my notes app . this is like rly old and it needs to be added to

[derrypubliclibrary]

does anyone else think about kitsey barbour

[carduelism]

“Boris as a vampire” WRONG him as a werewolf, Theo as a vampire, Pippa as a zombie and Kitsey and a banshee actually

[h8t3-d]

I just realised something about The Goldfinch movie and book version. In the book there is a part where Theo decides to commit suicide in Amsterdam, but he doesn’t succeed and when he wakes up he almost gives himself away to the police. Then Boris runs through security just to see what is with Theo because he wasn’t answering his calls or text messages. But in the movie they made this scene differently by making Boris come to Theos room while he was unconscious and quickly hoisting him up and basically saving his life.

I think that the movie version wanted to make it more clear that it was actually Boris that saved Theos life because it was very subtle in the book.

Let me elaborate, even though the book version of Theo didn’t die he would have given himself to the police which is Theo still wanting the worst for himself and punishing himself for something that he didn’t have to be punished for. But after Boris came, told him that his painting was safely stored and they had that talk about how sometimes even though you do something good it can do more harm to other people around you than doing what you’d think is bad. And how Boris says that everything he did and does is out of love and he believes that that is the best he can do for himself and people around him. This all meant a lot to Theo and even though I remember him saying that he didn’t want to get philosophical or he wasn’t getting anything of what Boris was saying it really got to him and he might’ve been just pretending not to understand to hide his reaction, but he surely understood everything in his last monologue.

And I just have to say that it is very sweet of Boris that every time when Theo gets in his depressed haze he tries to distract him by telling him stories. For example right after he found Theo in his room and noticed that he looked unwell he started telling him the story about how he got high on weed and that it hit him too hard. Which was very random but it loosened up Theo a little bit. Another thing that I noticed was that Boris was the only one mentioning how badly Theo looked and always trying to go get food with him whenever they were together. Maybe it doesn’t sound so special but considering that not Hobie, Pippa, Kitsey or Mrs. Barbour seemed to care about how badly Theo looked because they didn’t really try to help him or even mention it. Only time Kitsey mentioned Theo’s drug abuse was to say that she knew about it and that she just didn’t mind. So Boris was really the person that cared about Theo the most.

That is why I think Theo didn’t even write a suicide note to Boris, because of all those people he would understand why he did that. He didn’t need an explanation or some sad story of his past. Boris was there with him at his worst moments so there was really nothing left to write. That is why Boris was so caring of Theo he saw how hurt he was and wanted to overcome the worst which was his suicide.

[sneakydraws]

Must an AU be “in character”? Is it not enough to entertain me, at my boring retail job?

[yourrockdog]

only my favorite girl in the world

[tarobumma]

there are so many things u can say about the goldfinch (2019) movie but my personal nitpick of it that i will never get over is how they made kitsey not wear the emerald earrings at the engagement party. i feel like its such a small but important moment in characterising her and theo’s relationship. 

it takes place after theo confronts kitsey about cheating, so at this point they’re both fully aware how much of an act their relationship/engagement is, and how much they both don’t love each other, at least not the way they should. 

theres something so uncharacteristically tender about it. i truly think this is the only moment of actual real understanding and vulnerability between them. the fact that kitsey chooses to wear them, even though she was right - they don’t suit her - but she’s decided that the fact that they mean something to theo is more important. 

for kitsey, willingly choosing something that blemishes her perfect appearance is so at odds to what we’ve seen of her until now. kitsey’s entire reason for being in a sham relationship with theo is to do with keeping up appearances. 

i think people tend to overlook that kitsey is also dealing with a lot of trauma (in recently losing andy and her dad) and i just feel that this tiny excerpt lifts so much weight in characterising and deepening our perspective of her and her relationship with theo. 

in wearing the earrings, kitsey is acknowledging theo’s vulnerabilities, and i almost feel that in recognising his grief and loss, she exposes her own. and its so fascinating because really this shared experience is what binds them, but is the one thing they never directly acknowledge. this is their one moment of actual honest tenderness and transparency towards each other, and i also love how its immediately followed by everyone at the engagement party interpreting it as a romantic moment and being like, ‘omg finally the happy couple interacting!’ and taking photos of them, etc. the reader is immediately taken out of the intimacy of the moment and swept back into the glaringly contrasting performativity and facade of their relationship.