James’s comment > Likes and Comments
Like
Susan Sontag is on to something with Against Interpretation (one correct interpretation, that is). Everybody comes to the book (art) with their own perspective, their own experience, his or her own reality. Many realities, many interpretations. To boil it down to one makes little sense.
There are degrees of interpretation, but in the end, an author either did or did not say y or x, and once something is on the page, it must be addressed. It is there for a reason, which may be unclear.
In "Hills Like White Elephants," Hemingway wrote about abortion without ever using the word or even mentioning pregnancy or baby. To have made clear his subject he would have been tabu and the story would not have been published and possibly resulted in criminal charges.
In Gatsby social critique was present as well. Those who are being criticized will try dull the blade. And, through Harold Bloom, an esteemed Ivy League professor, this has been accomplished.
It is human nature to "see the world as we are, not at it is," as human potential guru Stephen Covey put it. We all have 20-20 vision of how we think the world should work. The John Birchers and Ayn Randers are famous for distorting the truth to fit the way they want things to be and denigrating those who expose and resist them.
Gatsby has fallen victim, I am afraid, to such distortions in order to conceal the criticism of capitalistic excess it contains.
Harold Bloom is among those who have tried to give the book a right-wing spin, thereby forcing upon teachers and students a "preferred" interpretation of the novel. It is up to the reader to dig deeper for the author's truth.
Right-wing spin? You just don't like Bloom's interpretation because you think yours is the correct one. Not everything is leftist or right-wing. Bloom is wrong and you are right? I'll rely on my own interpretation, thanks.
Bloom is wrong because he's wrong, not because I have an opposing view.
Here are a few examples from his Bloom's Guide:The Great Gatsby
From "List of Characters" pp. 18-19
Nick Carraway - Bloom describes Nick as a "money manager," which is incorrect. He's a bond salesman, an oversight which conveniently conceals Gatsby's intent to involve Nick in his corrupt bond scheme.
p. 19 Jay Gatsby - Bloom says he "throws elaborate parties solely to attract Daisy..." an assertion that is unsupported in the text and exaggerates Gatsby's romantic zeal over his ambition for becoming wealthy. Bloom fails to make any mention here of Gatsby's criminality, even his bootlegging.
Under "Summary and Analysis", pp. 20-30...
p. 20, Bloom says Gatsby, after falling in love with Daisy, "leaves then, determined to make his fortuen that he may rturn to marry her and usupport her in a manner reasonable for her expectations and her class." another assertion unsupported in the text. The statement is true for Fitzgerald himself, but not Gatsby, who simply left to go to war. Bloom, or whoever--perhaps one of his grad students--has apparently conflated Fitzgerald's biography with Gatsby, the character.
p.20, Bloom says, "Gatsby earns his fortune through illicit means, bootlegging and organized gambling." A-organized gambling is unsupported in the text and B-Bloom again fails to mention the illicit bond scheme (which is the ostensible reason for the parties, not to to attract Daisy.)
I could go on and on, but you get my drift--that Blooms Guides: The Great Gatsby is either carelessly composed or deliberately skewed to de-emphasize Gatsby's corruption and promote his image a romantic hero.
I will be posting a more complete critique of Bloom's Guide: The Great Gatsby in my review of the book, where I will distinguish between factual errors and interpretation.
I don't dislike Bloom. I simply disagree with his analysis, which I feel distorts Fitzerald's intent, willfully or otherwise.
Fitzgerald himself said: “of all the reviews, even the most enthusiastic, not one had the slightest idea what the book was about.” A statement that may hold true even today.
Incidentally, Chelsea House Publishers, publisher of Blooms Guides..., is an imprint of Infobase Publishing, which is wholly owned by Veronis Suhler Stevenson, a private equity firm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veronis...
I am not in disagreement with any of Bloom's INTERPRETATIONS that you posted here.
I am. I agree wholeheartedly with Monty on this one Karen. It´s apparent that Jay had dual purpose in mind in throwing the parties and locating in Egg in the first place. Of all the wealthy suburbs of NYC, he just so happens to choose the one in which his heart´s desire happens to live in?
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
Susan Sontag is on to something with Against Interpretation (one correct interpretation, that is). Everybody comes to the book (art) with their own perspective, their own experience, his or her own reality. Many realities, many interpretations. To boil it down to one makes little sense.
There are degrees of interpretation, but in the end, an author either did or did not say y or x, and once something is on the page, it must be addressed. It is there for a reason, which may be unclear. In "Hills Like White Elephants," Hemingway wrote about abortion without ever using the word or even mentioning pregnancy or baby. To have made clear his subject he would have been tabu and the story would not have been published and possibly resulted in criminal charges.
In Gatsby social critique was present as well. Those who are being criticized will try dull the blade. And, through Harold Bloom, an esteemed Ivy League professor, this has been accomplished.
It is human nature to "see the world as we are, not at it is," as human potential guru Stephen Covey put it. We all have 20-20 vision of how we think the world should work. The John Birchers and Ayn Randers are famous for distorting the truth to fit the way they want things to be and denigrating those who expose and resist them.
Gatsby has fallen victim, I am afraid, to such distortions in order to conceal the criticism of capitalistic excess it contains.
Harold Bloom is among those who have tried to give the book a right-wing spin, thereby forcing upon teachers and students a "preferred" interpretation of the novel. It is up to the reader to dig deeper for the author's truth.
Right-wing spin? You just don't like Bloom's interpretation because you think yours is the correct one. Not everything is leftist or right-wing. Bloom is wrong and you are right? I'll rely on my own interpretation, thanks.
Bloom is wrong because he's wrong, not because I have an opposing view.Here are a few examples from his Bloom's Guide:The Great Gatsby
From "List of Characters" pp. 18-19
Nick Carraway - Bloom describes Nick as a "money manager," which is incorrect. He's a bond salesman, an oversight which conveniently conceals Gatsby's intent to involve Nick in his corrupt bond scheme.
p. 19 Jay Gatsby - Bloom says he "throws elaborate parties solely to attract Daisy..." an assertion that is unsupported in the text and exaggerates Gatsby's romantic zeal over his ambition for becoming wealthy. Bloom fails to make any mention here of Gatsby's criminality, even his bootlegging.
Under "Summary and Analysis", pp. 20-30...
p. 20, Bloom says Gatsby, after falling in love with Daisy, "leaves then, determined to make his fortuen that he may rturn to marry her and usupport her in a manner reasonable for her expectations and her class." another assertion unsupported in the text. The statement is true for Fitzgerald himself, but not Gatsby, who simply left to go to war. Bloom, or whoever--perhaps one of his grad students--has apparently conflated Fitzgerald's biography with Gatsby, the character.
p.20, Bloom says, "Gatsby earns his fortune through illicit means, bootlegging and organized gambling." A-organized gambling is unsupported in the text and B-Bloom again fails to mention the illicit bond scheme (which is the ostensible reason for the parties, not to to attract Daisy.)
I could go on and on, but you get my drift--that Blooms Guides: The Great Gatsby is either carelessly composed or deliberately skewed to de-emphasize Gatsby's corruption and promote his image a romantic hero.
I will be posting a more complete critique of Bloom's Guide: The Great Gatsby in my review of the book, where I will distinguish between factual errors and interpretation.
I don't dislike Bloom. I simply disagree with his analysis, which I feel distorts Fitzerald's intent, willfully or otherwise.
Fitzgerald himself said: “of all the reviews, even the most enthusiastic, not one had the slightest idea what the book was about.” A statement that may hold true even today.
Incidentally, Chelsea House Publishers, publisher of Blooms Guides..., is an imprint of Infobase Publishing, which is wholly owned by Veronis Suhler Stevenson, a private equity firm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veronis...
I am not in disagreement with any of Bloom's INTERPRETATIONS that you posted here.
I am. I agree wholeheartedly with Monty on this one Karen. It´s apparent that Jay had dual purpose in mind in throwing the parties and locating in Egg in the first place. Of all the wealthy suburbs of NYC, he just so happens to choose the one in which his heart´s desire happens to live in?
We would do well to focus on what's on the page instead of what some academic bigwigs have misinterpreted. I've just found major errors in Harold Bloom's Guide... which I will be posting soon here on Goodreads. With academic luminaries like Bloom leading readers astray, the confusion about the book is not at all surprising.
For example, Bloom says Gatsby's parties are "solely" for attracting Daisy, a claim which is not supported anywhere in the text other than an oblique speculation by Jordan Baker, "I think he halfway expected her to wander into one of his parties, some night." (p. 79)
Jordan's speculation is a far cry from "solely" to attract. Nowhere else in the text is the purpose of the parties even addressed.
This is just one of Bloom's glaring faux pas.
Stay tuned, folks.