Gillespie & I - DON'T READ THIS IF YOU HAVEN'T READ IT!!!

[threestepsforward]

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

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!

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.

Oooo

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!

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

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.

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!

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?

Just spotted this old thread. Finished "Gillespie and I" this morning. I loved it,totally gripping but the ending raised a few questions! All the reviews said Harriet is an unreliable narrator so I was disbelieving much of her story from the start,but once the trial began I was less sure. Fairly convinced she was behind the Sibyl trouble,and the sacking of the maid Jessie.Less sure about the Rose abduction,seemed unbelievably risky.The bit I found most confusing was the very end when Harriet findsthe decomposing bird in the cage,and all the flies. According to the dates,Sarah has only been gone a few days.What has happened? And the final mention of the painting "The Studio"...I flipped back to the bit where she sees it at the beginning,before she meets Ned,and the woman in the painting sounds as if she is Harriet?? how?

I realise my comments are years out of date but I just can't help myself. I loved this book so much and it was compelling from the beginning and absolutely chilling at the end.

I found it interesting reading these comments, especially Clawdy's comment about Harriet perhaps being in the painting.

My interpretation of the Studio painting being in Harriet's flat at the end of the novel was that she had bought it anonymously at Ned Gillespie's exhibition in London. Therefore, I feel Harriet knew who Ned Gillespie was before she came to Glasgow on the pretext of visiting the 1888 Exhibition. I feel this was just her cover in order to pursue Ned further and to ingratiate herself with his family. I think upon meeting Ned at the London exhibition and their brief encounter, she began to obsess over him.

Of course, as narrator, she conceals this obsession but there are clues to her untrustworthiness. For instance, in the beginning of the book, Harriet narrates that she did not certainly make the connection between Ned Gillespie and the Scottish artist at the London Exhibition till she met him at Kelvingrove. After Ned and herself had both recognised each other, she asked if anyone had bought the painting at the London Exhibition and he informs her that it was bought anonymously. Well, in my opinion, she was the anonymous purchaser ! Of course, we only find this out at the end of the novel when she finally reveals the painting 'The Studio' hanging on her wall of her London flat fifty years on.

Commenting on Dawdy's message, I feel that Harriet might, from the beginning, have seen her likeness in the lady painted in 'The Studio' and thought that this was an omen that she and Ned were destined to be together.

Anyway, this is just my interpretation. It is very intriguing to read others too. Thank you for starting this thread.

What a coincidence. I was thinking about this book recently as I wanted to recommend IT but couldn't rembember its name. Great read.

Ooh,some clever working-out there paula! Feel like reading it again now!

I have just finished this as an audiobook and wanted to find out what others had thought so was glad to find this thread and feel the need to add my tuppence worth.
I agree with @paulasmith above. I was suspicious of the narrator from early on as there was something in her tone that put me on edge - not all the time, but enough. Possibly related to the constant references to ‘Dearest Ned’ even though there didn’t seem to be any reason for this extreme fondness, which didn’t seem to be reciprocated to the same extent. Later, when Christina left the court I wondered if she could have been bribed but couldn’t see how. Then at the end how would she know how hard it was to bribe someone from prison if she hadn’t tried/done so. I also wondered about the flies and smell at the end and the fact that no one had seen or spoken to Sarah, only that she had left a note....

I'm glad you bumped this mumofonedaughter because I finished reading it last week and it's still on my mind. What a fascinating story, not at all what I expected. It was in my bookcase for about 7 years and when I finally picked it up for some reason I thought it was going to be in the vein of Barbara Pym I couldn't have been more wrong!

I agree that the significance of the Studio painting is that their initial meeting was when she became obsessed with Ned, and set on becoming significant in his life. Because we find out that she also found the cuff stud that he lost and couldn't find on that day. I think it shows how much their first meeting meant to her, and she went to Glasgow specifically to see him. It's fascinating that she is our narrator and she tells us Ned was her 'soulmate', but nothing in her own words ever makes him seem more than a polite acquaintance.

The aftermath of her friendship on the whole family, wow... This one's going to stick with me for some time.

Something I found chilling was the way Harriet's amusement came through at difficult moments. I laughed twice at the way she described things, but it felt inappropriate. I guess it was showing how she felt on the inside while maintaining a civilized veneer around the family.

And the way she would describe the other female characters with backhanded compliments, or point out that a distressed mother who had lost her child wasn't smelling particularly fragrant when she called round to see her. I think the testimony of her ex friend at the trial was 100% true.

yes, I ageee

agree :)

Sorry to resurrect this old thread, but I’ve just finished bingeing this over the past couple of days and need to discuss!

I think the unreliable narrator has been done really cleverly, and the level of ambiguity just right - after all, in real life not everything ties up neatly with a clear explanation. I think piecing together the fragments and possibilities give a tangible explanation. I do wonder what Christina’s evidence would have been! But again, that probably would have brought too much out into the light.

Regarding points made above, I think that Harriet was definitely the anonymous benefactor who bought the painting, I thought so when it was first mentioned. So her trip to Glasgow was planned with meeting him in mind, she developed an obsession as shown at the end when we see she has his missing stud.

I doubt think there’s meant to be any doubt that the events happened, that’s not what I took from it. I was totally fooled by the Sarah/Sybil thing, it’s only the later dealings with the agency that shows how many companions she’s gone through and that she’s clearly deteriorating with age and illness, and unable to charm/control people as she used to. Also the allusions to the drink problem. I thought the flies etc were due to her not cleaning and rotting food (and rotting bird!), but who knows, maybe Sarah didn’t leave the flat! I don’t think she’d be that crude though.

Even though she’s clearly a troubled, awful person, I did have some slight sympathy for her. The rejection and abuse from her stepfather was awful and must have triggered her desire for a lover/father figure. I did wonder if there was a hint that she may have put her mother out of the way - she died from ‘botulism’ from asparagus they had bottled - a first iteration of her poisoning tendencies? Her mother was a competitor for her father’s attention. Or had they split up by then? Anyway, thought it could be a suggestion.

Sorry for the brain dump! I think this ones going to stay with me for a while…

Oh yes, and getting the letters out of prison - her remarks about only a very clever person could have done it were a giveaway, plus she had clearly cultivated Mrs Phee , who was being kind to her. I think she got her to do it.

I read and loved this a while ago - reading this thread has made me realise how much of the story I’d forgotten! Although I was absolutely sure that she orchestrated the kidnapping. It’s probably the best novel with an unreliable narrator I’ve ever read.