Hilary’s comment > Likes and Comments
Like
Yes indeed. Her voice was "full of money." That was it's "inexhaustible charm." But not full of maturity. A memorable moment, when she and Tom sit at the kitchen table talking it over -- not quite happy, but not unhappy either. They deserve each other -- two shallow people (which is not to say that Daisy is not a victim in her own way; I feel for her; there is much in her backstory to pity).
Maybe they are all victims, but yes I pity Daisy too. it seems like Gatsby she just cannot find that elusive 'happiness'.
Hilary wrote: "Maybe they are all victims, but yes I pity Daisy too. it seems like Gatsby she just cannot find that elusive 'happiness'."
To be sure, Daisy was a victim of her place and time. She surely wanted to marry the dashing young officer Jay Gatz, and knew so the night before her wedding, when she got bombed: "Tell `em Daisy done change her min'." But of course it wasn't to be. Might there have been a young debutante from one of the wealthiest families in (Louisville?) with the courage and wherewithal (including financial independence) to follow her heart and marry Jay? Maybe; but Daisy is not one of them!
No, you are right, she didn't follow her heart, money was too important. It seems because of that we cannot fully sympathise with her.
I guess it was more social position and class. Gatsby's credentials were always questionable!
Sure, Gatsby had the money -- but not the pedigree.
But you know what's always bothered me about Daisy and Gatsby alike? Neither one seems to consider for a moment the potential effect on Daisy and Tom's child of a divorce. In the one scene including the child, she seems more an accessory than a daughter.
Thank you Jon! That bothered me too. From that scene, I got the impression that Daisy sees her kid maybe once a months. Like one of those soap operas where everyone gets pregnant but you never see the baby until they magically age 10 years in 6 months. Of course, Fitzgerald was a thousand times the writer than the ones who write for the soaps!
Deborah wrote: "Thank you Jon! That bothered me too. From that scene, I got the impression that Daisy sees her kid maybe once a months. Like one of those soap operas where everyone gets pregnant but you never s..."
Nor do the kids I tutor ever indicate that their English teachers discuss this point. Ah, even though Fitzgerald was a much better writer than the writers of soaps, he showed as little concern for the needs of children (even if the characters are not the author, the author could bring the adults' callousness into play).
why is would this refelect on fitzgerald? daisy and tom are CARELESS people. the disregard of their child, reflects upon what kid of people they are supposed to be. furthemore, this isnt really an uncommon theme within the upper classes. many weathy children especially in "socialite" sets, have been, and still are, raised primarily by nannies.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Jon
(new)
Jul 18, 2012 08:53PM
Yes indeed. Her voice was "full of money." That was it's "inexhaustible charm." But not full of maturity. A memorable moment, when she and Tom sit at the kitchen table talking it over -- not quite happy, but not unhappy either. They deserve each other -- two shallow people (which is not to say that Daisy is not a victim in her own way; I feel for her; there is much in her backstory to pity).
reply
|
flag
Maybe they are all victims, but yes I pity Daisy too. it seems like Gatsby she just cannot find that elusive 'happiness'.
Hilary wrote: "Maybe they are all victims, but yes I pity Daisy too. it seems like Gatsby she just cannot find that elusive 'happiness'."To be sure, Daisy was a victim of her place and time. She surely wanted to marry the dashing young officer Jay Gatz, and knew so the night before her wedding, when she got bombed: "Tell `em Daisy done change her min'." But of course it wasn't to be. Might there have been a young debutante from one of the wealthiest families in (Louisville?) with the courage and wherewithal (including financial independence) to follow her heart and marry Jay? Maybe; but Daisy is not one of them!
No, you are right, she didn't follow her heart, money was too important. It seems because of that we cannot fully sympathise with her.
I guess it was more social position and class. Gatsby's credentials were always questionable!
Sure, Gatsby had the money -- but not the pedigree.But you know what's always bothered me about Daisy and Gatsby alike? Neither one seems to consider for a moment the potential effect on Daisy and Tom's child of a divorce. In the one scene including the child, she seems more an accessory than a daughter.
Thank you Jon! That bothered me too. From that scene, I got the impression that Daisy sees her kid maybe once a months. Like one of those soap operas where everyone gets pregnant but you never see the baby until they magically age 10 years in 6 months. Of course, Fitzgerald was a thousand times the writer than the ones who write for the soaps!
Deborah wrote: "Thank you Jon! That bothered me too. From that scene, I got the impression that Daisy sees her kid maybe once a months. Like one of those soap operas where everyone gets pregnant but you never s..."Nor do the kids I tutor ever indicate that their English teachers discuss this point. Ah, even though Fitzgerald was a much better writer than the writers of soaps, he showed as little concern for the needs of children (even if the characters are not the author, the author could bring the adults' callousness into play).
why is would this refelect on fitzgerald? daisy and tom are CARELESS people. the disregard of their child, reflects upon what kid of people they are supposed to be. furthemore, this isnt really an uncommon theme within the upper classes. many weathy children especially in "socialite" sets, have been, and still are, raised primarily by nannies.
