Michael Finkel

Well-written, well-organized, well-researched -- every question I had, the author attempted to answer (impact of solitude on psyche, Knight's possible mental health diagnoses). I also appreciated how, even though the book was about Knight, the author took pains to explore Knight's impact on his victims.
Even though the book was very well-done, and a page turner, and gave me a water cooler conversation topic, in the end, I think I am sorry I read it. It was too sad (I am thinking of the victims) and too gross (I am thinking of the 27 years of junk food). It was a well-told true crime story, and I usually avoid those, because they bum me out.… (mais)

The Art Thief, Michael Finkel, author; Edoardo Ballerino, narrator

This true story is read expertly by the narrator. The author has done great research to bring this book to life, although sometimes it felt repetitious since the main character steals over and over and the details sometimes became tedious. Still, his methods and the ease with which he did it were fascinating. I think that the art thief was reviled by many, and the author has painted a more sympathetic picture of him than I expected. Still, I can understand why. Stephane Breitwieser seemed to be wired incorrectly, and he was unable to resist the temptation of stealing the art. It was almost as if it was his calling. He also seemed to have no real ability to discern right from wrong. Perhaps he is a sociopath, perhaps his mother loved him a little too well and did not teach him right from wrong because she needed validation from him after her husband left her, and Stephane did seem to want to please her and make her proud of him; perhaps it was his father’s abandonment of them that played with his mind and left him adrift, feeling unwanted and unworthy, so he kept on trying to be special; perhaps he was always fragile and his home life drove him down a path to find himself, to find a place where he could respect his own worth by stealing art work of great worth. He claimed he stole it for its beauty, to free it from the boundaries that kept him from fully enjoying it. His ability to steal the art seemed to be his greatest or only talent. He educated himself so he knew great works of art, but he got too confident and after many successful thefts, he pushed the envelope too far, took greater risks and eventually made mistakes. When he was caught for the first time, it was after 8 years of getting away with it! He spent years in prison and always stole again. His last sentence was for house arrest. In 2031, when he finally can lose his ankle bracelet, how will he start over again? He was never able to before, after each of his prior arrests. This time he will be 60 years old when he is free again!
The author was with Stephane when he visited the Rubens House in 2023, before he was sentenced.. It was the place he had stolen for the first time. When the Adam and Eve piece was recovered and restored, he went to see it. At that time, the author admits that he went with him and was there when he stole a brochure. So, even after he had been arrested again and was awaiting another trial, shortly before that sentencing, he stole again. He is the very definition of recidivist, but he does not seem capable of doing anything else or understanding that what he is doing is wrong. He feels it is what he does best, and it makes him feel good, not remorseful.
I was disappointed that his girlfriend Anne-Catherine, his accomplice, got away with it. He protected her, and she threw him under the bus. I was surprised that his mother made such a foolish attempt to save him by getting rid of all of the valuable artwork. Was she saving him or punishing him? Was she trying to save herself? She definitely wasn’t wound too tightly either. Only some of the stolen artwork was recovered afterward, and much had to be restored. Much of it is still missing. I was also surprised by the lack of security in most museums, never realizing that the cost would be too prohibitive for small establishments. I was happy to learn that today, security is far superior.
Stephane Breitwieser stole art because he felt that he could not enjoy it fully because of the security, so he devised a way to free it by stealing it. He did not seem to understand that in doing so, he was preventing others from enjoying. If he captured it, and hid it, it would only exist for his pleasure. So stealing it for the sake of art, would really be only for his sake. Stolen art cannot be shared. In the end, his mother, who was overprotective and accepted all of his misguided behavior, without appropriate consequences or discipline to teach him right from wrong, betrayed him by destroying the very thing he loved most, his art, and still, he would not betray her or his girlfriend who also betrayed him.… (mais)