threestepsforward
Thu 02-Feb-12 20:34:55
Hello 
I have finished this book today and completely loved it! But I have a question...
What was the significance of her having The Studio painting at the very end?
Did she nick it from them? Or buy it? Or is it mentioned as Ned was supposed to have burned all his paintings?
I have a really bad habit of skim/speed reading and think I may have missed what happened earlier in the book regarding The Studio painting (and there's a lot of it to skim back through to try and find out!).
I am now really looking forward to getting my hands on The Observations
TwoIfBySea
Fri 03-Feb-12 19:26:47
I think the book deserves another reading because to be quite honest I was so involved in the twisty turny bits at the end that a lot of detail passed me by.
Harriet was so delusional that, by the end, I was questioning even Sybil's behaviour - had it really happened at all? Was this another of Harriet's manipulations?
More questions than answers I'm afraid!
freelancescientist
Fri 03-Feb-12 19:33:12
I thought it possibly meant she had made the whole thing up. 'The Studio' was the painting she saw in the London gallery right at the beginning, the first time she met Gillespie.
SO, I wondered if she'd bought the painting and imagined all the rest of the story - the whole Glasgow bit.
Intriguing. Be good for a book club read.
The Observations is a great read too.
threestepsforward
Fri 03-Feb-12 21:32:42
Oooo <mind now boggling at idea the whole thing was her imagination!>
Thanks for the replies . Twoif I think you're right, it definitely deserves another read. Right at the end she mentions marks on her walls and I thought ah, it was her who drew the cocks on the wall in Glasgow 
.
Such a good book. Have lent it to my Mum and will get it back after to have another read at some point. Am really looking forward to The Observations now...
Thanks again!
threestepsforward
Fri 03-Feb-12 21:35:08
Oh, and her stepdad avoiding her at the end. Because he was ashamed of her being trialled, or because she was completely mad... or none of it as she'd made it all up....gah <head explodes>
Colyngbourne
Sat 04-Feb-12 19:12:36
Spoilers included, I guess -
I can't recall about the picture but I really don't think the whole thing was her imagination. I think she either bought the painting, or got it from the Gillespie house but everything that happened was because of her manipulations from the off. She was partly deluding herself about her motives (and partly she knew exactly what she was doing).
My best read from last year.
threestepsforward
Sun 05-Feb-12 11:18:46
So even the kidnapping of poor Rose was orchestrated by Harriet?
It would add up when the kidnappers suddenly came into lots of disposable cash.
It's funny I read the book giving her the benefit of the doubt in my mind, until towards the end where I started questioning myself.
When I read it next, I'll be reading it with her guilt in mind, and reckon lots of other things will crop up where I'll think, "Ah ha"! (Thinking particularly about re-reading and paying closer attention to her interaction with Christina, was that her name? The first maid?)
Totally agree it's the best book I've read in ages. And I've been reading a lot of books!
TwoIfBySea
Sun 05-Feb-12 19:33:19
That whole idea she had that Sarah was Sibyl, completely convincing. Therefore it is hard to figure out what part of her story was true or not. Good point about the crude drawings supposedly made by Sibyl though, a way of Harriet driving a wedge between Annie and Ned?
