David's Reviews > The Great Gatsby

The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
6971227
's review
Sep 18, 13

bookshelves: favorites, american, love-loves-to-love-love
Read from April 08 to 10, 2012

You can basically divide people who have not read a novel since high school into two camps: (1) those whose "favorite book" is this, The Great Gatsby, and (2) those who champion Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye. These tend to be bitter camps, and without any evidence to back it up I stake the claim that these camps are mutually exclusive, and these two books seem to appeal to two distinct groups, and turn-off the other completely. I'm sure someone will rain on my parade and say they love both but poo to them, I'm talking about non-readers! If you're on here, you don't fit that bill.

The appeal of Salinger is one that I understand but do not share. Particularly for those who haven't read any Literature (capital ell) that wasn't assigned in a high school classroom, they probably read Catcher in the Rye at that perfect age: on the edge of solipsism and responsibility: that spark of life called "adolescence" which shimmers between the black abysses of blindered youth and burdened adulthood. Probably misreading the whiny Holden as an oh-so-misunderstood teen like themselves, rather than a teen who suffers from the post-trauma of his dead, idealized brother Allie. "Holden gets me; I get Holden" they cry! "Woe is us, the misunderstood! the Holden Caufields!" Or some nonsense like that. Holden didn't resonate with me at sixteen, but for those that he did, that seems to be the basis for the larger-than-life infatuation with Salinger's novel (I wonder if many have read it again since?). But there's a different sort of sensibility that loves Fitzgerald's beautiful novella The Great Gatsby. I find it difficult (impossible) to believe that anyone, least of all sixteen year olds, can truly relate to the careless carousers, lush languishing of New York's nouveau nobility and posh passivity of the East Egg élite. As modern readers we are distance from Gatsby by eighty years, and in most cases a string of zeroes at the tail-end of our pay-checks. Why do readers persist in their love for The Great Gatsby? While Catcher in the Rye fans love that tangible, personal element they find in Holden, Gatsby fans seem to cling to the more abstract elements of illusion, dreams, ideals, and ultimately tragedy.

In Gatsby there is a childlike sense of wonder and imagination, a petulant desire for the impossible, a stubbornness and blindness of what is real, human, accessible. Daisy, the lazy, lackadaisical, and flighty damsel of Gatsby's dreams figures lowly in reality. She is shallow and vapid. Like Werther's Charlotte, who she actually is accounts barely at all in the ledger of Gatsby's imagination, which is all to her credit. While Goethe's tragic lover is blinded by the coup de foudre flash of love's crystallization, Gatsby's love is for an image of the past, which has diamondized like compressed coal in his solitude over the many years of their separation. For Gatsby, the past is a perfect thing, his nostalgia for all things has reflected onto the single locus of his young love for Daisy, and all that makes him happy in the world adds to his infatuation, while likewise his infatuation reflects sunny on the world around him. Gatsby's image of the past-in-the-present is not one of time-travel: for him the past is merely a state of being, a station which can be revisited by reconstructing the surroundings, by tearing away the barriers, the interceding changes. He believes in the past because, like Ms. Havisham, he stopped living after he met Daisy: his clock is stopped, and the world which he sees is the pale reflection of his fleeting salutary gesture to Daisy.
There must have been moments even that afternoon when Daisy tumbled short of his dreams -- not through her own fault, but because of the colossal vitality of his illusion. It had gone beyond her, beyond everything. He had thrown himself into it with a creative passion, adding to it all the time, decking it out with every bright feather that drifted his way. No amount of fire or freshness can challenge what a man will store up in his ghostly heart.
In John Banville's The Sea, he asserts: "The past beats inside me like a second heart," but for Gatsby, his heart has receded away and the past has claimed the solitary tremor of his only heart. His illusion gives him his vitality, his life-force, his sangfroid bearing and composure. He enjoys a few sojourns in his own memory when he meets Daisy at Nick's, when he escapes with Daisy at the party, but these are lost, illusory Edens. Slowly the dazzling mask of nostalgia begins to slip from Daisy's doe-eyed face, and Gatsby is too quick to try and prop it back up, only to bear the ultimate brunt of his lost paradise when she refuses to deny her one-time love for Tom.

I've heard that Fitzgerald once said something like "A man is happy to lose his innocence, but it kills him to lose his illusions" - I've never been able to track down the exact quote or source of this apocryphal aphorism, but Fitzgerald certainly seems a likely candidate for its originator. We are all hospitable to our own handful of illusions, which we defend in silence when they are rebutted, which we nurse when our vanity is wounded. The "American dream" is a common illusion discussed in relation to this book, but I think that "American dream" is a bit too grandiose: we do not nurse illusions for our country, our illusions are us at our most selfish and vain. Everyone carries with them a dream in their back-pocket, but the American dream is only to say that we are a country of dreamers. We dream of success, we dream of true love, of happiness, of one million silly fancies which feed our vanity and self-love. The American dream is a dream particular to people who do not live in America: "America" is stripped of its reality and impregnated with the private dreams of each individual which sees salvation in moving. Movement is how we feed our dreams, whether it is a literal movement from one place to another, or the existential movements and emotional movements which take place when we stand still, alone or with someone we adore: movements of the heart. Gatsby's dream is not the American dream, but his story of rapid-rising success is the cheap veneer which glosses most who dream of success. Wealth, power are revealed to be empty achievements to Gatsby, they are merely waiting rooms in the eternal enfilade of his illusory movements toward Daisy, towards idealized love. They are wrong-bought wrungs on a ladder of success which he climbs alone, and each step he moves up, his idol retreats higher and higher: is imbued with the image of his success which only he knows is empty and ill-purchased.

Each of Fitzgerald's shadow puppets which adorn his theatre carry in them the illusions of different lights. For Gatsby it is the long-ago love for Daisy, for Tom it is social power, for Daisy it is freedom from choice, from ethical and emotional obligations, and for Nick it is the masculine vitality of Gatsby. No matter what our illusions, they are simply the gilt-rimmed robes worn by our idealized selves, manifestations of the perfect which is always beyond our reach: greens lights across a "courtesy bay" which pulsate in the twilight of reality.
In his blue gardens men and girls came and went like moths among the whisperings and the champagne and the stars.
We are all of us, all of us dreamers, like moths: chasing a flame which we cannot reach without ensuring our disaster. In accordance with Flaubert's caveat (Il ne faut pas toucher aux idoles: la dorure en reste aux mains) our illusions are both a source of our vitality and of our mortality, shimmering mirages over the precipice of disaster. We chase celebrity, fame, physical perfection or professional success, but when we come within the range of a snatch at our idols, when our fingers graze the gilding of our wildest dreams, they are revealed to be hollow vessels. Our dreams only constitute an image, never a substance.

Gatsby was incompatible with the world: with the roaring world of the 1920's and still in the world of 2013. While the character of Gatsby has an almost fairy-tale surrealism, though he escapes potentiality and possibility, his dogged pursuit of an unattainable dream is something which vibrates at a universal frequency. Gatsby is not a "good man" (he is, in fact, a crook), but in his vain hopes, in his childlike love for his illusions and dreams, we see our own follies, our own vain hopes, our own bodies floating lifeless in the swimming pools bought on the credit of our self-styled castles in the sky.
21 likes · likeflag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read The Great Gatsby.
sign in »

Quotes David Liked

F. Scott Fitzgerald
“So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”
F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby

F. Scott Fitzgerald
“In his blue gardens men and girls came and went like moths among the whisperings and the champagne and the stars.”
F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby

F. Scott Fitzgerald
“There must have been moments even that afternoon when Daisy tumbled short of his dreams -- not through her own fault, but because of the colossal vitality of his illusion. It had gone beyond her, beyond everything. He had thrown himself into it with a creative passion, adding to it all the time, decking it out with every bright feather that drifted his way. No amount of fire or freshness can challenge what a man will store up in his ghostly heart.”
F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby

F. Scott Fitzgerald
“And as the moon rose higher the inessential houses began to melt away until gradually I became aware of the old island here that flowered once for Dutch sailors' eyes--a fresh, green breast of the new world. Its vanished trees, the trees that had made way for Gatsby's house, had once pandered in whispers to the last and greatest of all human dreams; for a transitory enchanted moment man must have held his breath in the presence of this continent, compelled into an aesthetic contemplation he neither understood nor desired, face to face for the last time in history with something commensurate to his capacity for wonder.”
F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby


Reading Progress

04/09/2012 page 140
78.0%

Comments (showing 1-16 of 16) (16 new)

dateDown_arrow    newest »

message 1: by Moira (new) - added it

Moira Russell I'm sure someone will rain on my parade and say they love both

Hey, I love both!

but poo to them, I'm talking about non-readers! If you're on here, you don't fit that bill.

WELL THEN

Hah, really just kidding, because while Gatsby is one of my favourite books ever, Catcher isn't in the same class, altho I do really like it. This is a beautiful review.


David Moira wrote: "I'm sure someone will rain on my parade and say they love both

Hey, I love both!

but poo to them, I'm talking about non-readers! If you're on here, you don't fit that bill.

WELL THEN

Hah, real..."


I knew I'd have a naysayer! Haha! Yea, I tend to think Gatsby operates on a higher level than Catcher. I get Catcher's appeal but it feels a little narrower.


Richard Reviles Censorship Always in All Ways The "American dream" is a common illusion discussed in relation to this book, but I think that "American dream" is a bit too grandiose: we do not nurse illusions for our country, our illusions are us at our most selfish and vain.

Very well-said and a useful analysis of the mass hypnosis afflicting the USA.


David Richard wrote: "The "American dream" is a common illusion discussed in relation to this book, but I think that "American dream" is a bit too grandiose: we do not nurse illusions for our country, our illusions are ..."

Thanks Richard!


Samadrita Excellent review, David. Loved your penultimate paragraph very much.
And I am yet another person who loves both Catcher and Gatsby.


Rowena Great review! I actually liked both equally but perhaps that's due to the fact that I read them in my 20s and not as a teen like most people seem to have done.


Dolors "In John Banville's The Sea, he asserts: "The past beats inside me like a second heart," but for Gatsby, his heart has receded away and the past has claimed the solitary tremor of his only heart."
Yesss...checkmate.

I need to re-read this novel, I have always been more a Catcher kind of girl(even more a Demian kind of girl, which is worse...).
But in any case, this is a brilliant review, David. Hats off for your digression on the American Dream and that closing paragraph.


David @Samadrita @Rowena Thanks! I think my point is that Catcher and Gatsby appeal to a different sentiment in the reader. For people who aren't avid life readers I think they tend to prefer one or the other: deep character readings based on empathy vs. deep meaning based on experience. Obviously there are lots of ways to enjoy a book, but these seem to be common in my observation of "favorite book" questions-answers.

@Dolors: thanks! I think Gatsby is brilliant to re-read, I've read it quite a few times myself. Maybe one of these days I'll re-read Catcher and give it a second chance.


Samir Rawas Sarayji Lovely review!


Warwick Wonderful review.


David @Warwick @ Samir: thank you both for your kind words, always!


message 12: by Karly *The Vampire Ninja* (last edited Jan 14, 2014 11:31AM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Karly *The Vampire Ninja* I adore this review, and have to laugh at your favourite book comparison. I am definitely a Gatsby lover over Catcher in the Rye. I appreciate Salinger's style but it's not an enjoyment for me to read. (And I say this having re-read it as an adult not merely my opinionated youth).


notgettingenough Have you seen either of the film versions, David, and if so, what are your thoughts?


David notgettingenough wrote: "Have you seen either of the film versions, David, and if so, what are your thoughts?"

Yep! I've actually seen 3 versions! The '74 and '13 movies and the made-for-TV one from 2000 with Paul Rudd and Toby Stephens. The 1974 one is by far my favorite, and I think the closest feel to the book (for me), it his just the right note of melodrama, and anyway who could not love the young Robert Redford as Gatsby (much better than the old, bloated Leo DiCaprio)?


notgettingenough David wrote: "notgettingenough wrote: "Have you seen either of the film versions, David, and if so, what are your thoughts?"

Yep! I've actually seen 3 versions! The '74 and '13 movies and the made-for-TV one f..."


I long thought the 1973 version pretty well perfect and to begin with cringed with embarrassment at the Luhrmann version. It's the only time I've felt like claiming to be Swiss. Or Italian. Stateless war criminal. ANYTHING but Australian. But despite watching obscene crime after obscene crime in interpretation and casting take place in front of my eyes, I started warming to it. Even as I cringed. I've been thinking of analysis because I really don't understand how I could even think about forgiving it. I don't think I've ever seen a movie which remains so verdict-undecided in my mind. Probably dreadful, but maybe, just maybe....? Not?


message 16: by Ben (new) - rated it 4 stars

Ben Babcock I read both The Great Gatsby and Catcher in the Rye in high school (though, I don’t think, for high school). I re-read the former before the movie came out last year but haven’t gone back to the latter, and I’ll agree with you in championing Fitzgerald over Salinger.

In addition to the thematic differences you aptly elucidate, there are also stylistic elements that differ between the books. Catcher in the Rye is (and I’m stretching my memory here, so I might not be entirely on the mark) a much faster-paced, up-close-and-personal type of narrative. The Great Gatsby, on the other hand, sort of lingers over each of the main characters as Fitzgerald moves them into place for the dramatic finale of the novel. These contrasting styles probably contribute as well to the membership of the different camps.


back to top