Monty J’s comment > Likes and Comments

As much as a liar Gatsby was, I do believe that this was the one of the few cases in which he was telling the truth. I believe him as well in his tale about the yachtsman and his being written in the will for 25,000 dollars. The tale about Myrtle's death feeds into the sense of irony and there is plenty to be said for this. As for Nick's naivete, there are limits to that as well. At one point Jay takes Nick aside to tell him about his riches in Europe, the diamonds, sapphires and rubies, and Nick with much difficulty has to restrain himself from laughing at Jay in his face. Nick is not as naive as you think, Monty. He is a bit sceptical, but then he's enamored of the man for his life exuberance and subconsciously, I am sure, of the man's rippling biceps.

I agree that Nick had his moments of skepticism, but there's too much evidence to the contrary. I am building a complete case for "the big lie," but it will take time. I do have another life.

For example, at the end, Tom declares that Gatsby ran over Myrtle like a dog. If Daisy were the driver--and there's evidence she's reconciled with Tom--why has she not come clean with Tom about that? There's no logical reason not to. Gatsby's dead. A spouse can't testify against another spouse. It doesn't add up.

But the case must be complete, and I think I have it. I just need to write it up with citations.

Justice requires that Gatsby die for his betrayal of the working class, and he needed to be executed by the hand of those he betrayed. George Wilson was the hand of justice.

Daisy is Tom's justice. She will milk him for his infidelities the rest of their lives.

Yes, Monty,you've got me going on this one. You've got a good argument. I am going to check Michaelis statement again. I simply don't recall it.
Many people will lie about their personal exploits, trumpet it to the world to hear, but when it comes to lying about others, they may be a bit squeamish. Somehow, we are so much taken in by the love angle, regardless of its failings, that we can't imagine Jay lying about that. But considering that Daisy had thrown Jay over by that time, perhaps this was payback. But then again, the construct of the novel was that Jay's personality was unabashed perserverance in blind love, in his pursuit of wealth and his disposition towards life, that effervescence of a blind believer in the green light, but then again we only have Nick's word for that.

How do you know she didn't "come clean with Tom" about it?? When they (Daisy and Tom) were both at the kitchen table talking, readers assume that's what they were talking about. That was pretty obvious to me.

The conversation at the table could just as easily been making plans to move back west, which they indeed did, the very next day.

If Daisy confessed to Tom, he made no indication of this later when Nick ran into him and wouldn't initially shake his hand.

The fact remains that the only person who says Daisy was driving is Gatsby. Not one eyewitness backs him up. On the contrary, all eyewitness testimony indicates a man was driving and that the car didn't stop. None of these eyewitnesses have anything to gain by lying. Gatsby, on the other hand, has plenty to gain by impressing Nick, a bond salesman, enough to recruit him to sell his counterfeit bonds.

Tom was certainly not going to tell Nick about Daisy's confession, if there was one. Why should he? Why would Tom tell Nick it was Daisy driving the car?

Tom didn't have to say anything about who was driving, but he blurted out: "He ran over Myrtle like you'd run over a dog, and never even stopped his car."

Tom was in a state of emotion when he made this heated comment. It wasn't a carefully engineered statement to cover his wife's criminal act.

Nick caught Tom off guard by refusing to shake his hand, and Tom was scrambling to defend his ego. If Daisy had told him she was driving, it wouldn't have occurred to him to lie and say it was Gatsby. Remember, Nick was the only one who had been told Daisy was driving. To the newspaper-reading general public, Tom included, the driver was a man and the car hadn't stopped. Which of course Nick denies, saying: There was nothing I could say, except the one unutterable fact that it wasn't true.

Just because the general belief wasn't true to Nick doesn't make it untrue. Nick's bias, established from page one, renders him reliable in matters concerning Gatsby, his idol.

I will have to go back and look at it, but ofcourse it would occur to him to not tell Nick Daisy was driving.

Oops, read that as "un-reliable," not "reliable."

Karen, exactly. If Daisy had confessed to Tom, he'd have avoided the subject altogether.

No offense, but I think I'll take Harold Bloom's interpretation over yours, disagree with him and many other respected literary scholars if you want, but I'm not quite sure what your intentions here are.

To which of Bloom's book are you referring? All I've found is something he edited. He doesn't analyze the text itself. Show many any authoritative book that actually deals directly with the text and I'll be more than happy to take it on, line-by-line. Degrees mean noting to me; it's the text that matters.

Monty, you talk too much, and think too little.

Easy to search for Monty, I just did it, :) It's so easy I didn't think I would have to save them for you. Again, just wondering what your intentions are. It's as if all the academic critical analysis of this work means nothing, and you have the correct version, as if we have all missed it somehow. I'm not buying it, and I am not going to waste my time on it.

Randy, if you spot it, you got it. You're reading your own autobiography into my posts.

@Karen, I've poured over Amazon and found only collections of essays edited by Bloom. If you know of anything more direct, let me know. I'd like to work with the most authoritative source.

F. Scott Fitzgerald's the Great Gatsby (Modern Critical Interpretations).
And there are many more, Google this and you will find it and others.

Okay, I've ordered it.

Let the games begin.