The Great Gatsby
discussion
What does "Great" signify in "The Great Gatsby"
date
newest »
newest »
Monty J wrote: "Karen wrote: "Your distraction is what I found unique- therefore he succeeded, it kept me interested!"If this was his intent, it was a stroke of genius."
BINGO!
I wish when I was 20 that I could have been a flapper- I had (have) the body for it and would have loved the decadent lifestyle! I can only dream- all those outfits!
Oh, heels were not in style with flappers- well I would have been a short one!
Monty J wrote: "Anne Hawn wrote: "...and his lavish weekly parties are all merely means to that end"This is a sweeping conclusion that is not supported in the text, an example of how wrong the majority can be.
..."
I wouldn't be so taken by majority thinking necessarily. We've had in this century numerous instances in which the majority was wrong. Hussein, Hitler,Richard M. Nixon, the list goes ponderously long....Or how about the incarceration of Japanese American during WWII. There was only a small minority who thought the repeal of the Steagall Glass bill would get us into trouble. Or for that matter the Iraqi or Vietnam incursions, both of which had a greater number of supporters than detractors at the onset. So like they said to Harry, Monty, GIVE THEM HELL
Hmmm. If Nick was so convinced that Jay was not the driver of the car, why would he ever have written in the diary the false reports of the men who claimed they saw a man behind the wheel. This is a bit confusing to me and again I suspect that there is a structural problem in the novel. This reverts to Monty's claim that the omniscient view as established by SF is undercutting Nick's account, and Nick is the author.My goodness, I am glad that I am not SF. This book was way too much to write.
I suspect the book was a little beyond SF's abilities. It was too taxing and doesn't add up in too many instances. It was an extremely ambitious book that raises a lot of question and I for one, am gaining more respect for it.
I have read only one other book that I wish had been written by a more accomplished writer. I refer to the Alexandrian Quartet by Lawrence Durrell, perhaps the most complex of all novels I have read. Again, Durrell wrote it at the beginning of his career as the foreign service was still fresh in his mind, and although he went on to write more polished novels, none had the brilliance of this 4 tomer.
Geoffrey wrote: "Hmmm. If Nick was so convinced that Jay was not the driver of the car, why would he ever have written in the diary the false reports of the men who claimed they saw a man behind the wheel. This is a bit confusing to me and again I suspect that there is a structural problem in the novel."Consider that presenting such substantive countervailing evidence may be Fitzgerald's way of signaling to the reader that we should question: a) Gatsby's honesty and b) Nick's objectivity concerning all matters Gatsby, which is consistent with the theme of Eastern "sophistication" versus Western innocence/naivete, a theme embodied in Jay Gatsby/James Gatz, himself, as well as Nick, and Daisy:
P. 7 [Daisy] "Sophisticated--God, I'm sophisticated!" she exclaims after Tom's infidelity with Myrtle has been rudely exposed to Nick during dinner at the Buchanan's, bringing honesty and exploitation of trust to center stage in Chapter 1.
Trust/naivete and loss of innocence come full-circle in the final chapter when Nick is wrapping up his relationship with Jordan:
p. 177 [Jordan] "You said a bad driver was only safe until she met another bad driver? Well, I met another bad driver, didn't I? I mean it was careless of me to make such a wrong guess. I thought you were rather an honest, straightforward person. I thought it was your secret pride."
"I'm thirty," I said. "I'm five years too old to lie to myself and call it honor."
The dramatic dichotomy between the naive/trusting Nick in first-person and the more objective third-person Nick/narrator can represent the inner tension within us all over when and how much to trust someone.
In first-person, Nick presents a naive trusting worshiper of his hero, Gatsby. In third-person, we get the more objective sobering details that first-person Nick seems incapable of accepting.
Herein lies, I suspect, an unheralded secret of the novel's lasting appeal--the subliminal embodiment in Nick of a universal theme, the need to trust someone versus the risk that trust entails.
Gatsby loses his innocence to Wolfsheim, who lives by exploiting trust. Corrupted, Gatsby in turn exploits Nick's trust by using him to get to Daisy, and he exploits the trust of everyone else, especially those who buy his worthless bonds.
Nick violates Jordan's trust, though justifiably, by throwing her over, and violate's Tom's trust by enabling his wife's infidelity. Jordan violates trust by enabling Daisy's affair and by cheating at golf and habitually lying (e.g., about leaving the car top down in the rain.) Tom violates Daisy's trust and exploits the trust of George and Myrtle. Daisy violates Tom's trust. Myrtle violates George's trust.
The only honorable characters are little innocent Pammy, the elder Mr. Gatz, George Wilson and Michaelis, whose testimonies Nick disregards because of his loyalty to a crook, Gatsby.
Hero? What hero?
"Gatsby? What Gatsby?"
No, Monty, I would add Mr. Gatz. I liked his character very much. Here's a simple man, proud of his achieving son, who has kept the boy's diary over the years.But yes, I believe that Wilson was a worthy individual and I don't fault Myrtle. She was badly mismatched to Wilson who loved her blindly. So despite Nick's elitist snobbery, the better characters in the novel are those without wealth.
Geoffrey wrote: "No, Monty, I would add Mr. Gatz. I liked his character very much. Here's a simple man, proud of his achieving son, who has kept the boy's diary over the years.But yes, I believe that Wilson was a ..."
Sorry I forgot Gatz. Will add him.
He did everything for Daisy, all in all he's a hopeless romantic. I think that Nick was just trying to portray just how horrible people can be. I think Gatsby is great. So does Nick. In all honesty, I think the great just signifies his view of Gatsby.
It is the fact that he would try something, so apparently impossible - and find out it is so - as to turn back time, that makes him great.' "Can't repeat the past?" he cried incredulously. "Why of course you can!" '
Rapunzel wrote: "He did everything for Daisy, all in all he's a hopeless romantic."A "hopeless romantic" that steals people's life savings.
Rapunzel wrote: "He did everything for Daisy, all in all he's a hopeless romantic. I think that Nick was just trying to portray just how horrible people can be. I think Gatsby is great. So does Nick. In all honesty..."Read it again- carefully.
That's just my view of things. We can agree to disagree. Not everyone will view a book the same way. Only the author will see it as it's truly meant to be seen.
Rapunzel wrote: "That's just my view of things. We can agree to disagree. Not everyone will view a book the same way. Only the author will see it as it's truly meant to be seen."Well, since you rated the book 5 stars, I thought you might want to read it again to pick out things you may have missed the first time. I've read it three times, and each time I discover something new.
Gatsby was a hopeless romantic- but also was crazily obsessed and did not care how he got his prize, as long as he got it- but he didn't. Nick did think he was great - at first.
Gatsby was ambitious, maybe too ambitious. Not only did he want Daisy to say she loved him, he wanted her to say she never loved Tom. Throughout the book all Gatsby wants is Daisy back, and when he says "Repeat the past? Why, of course you can." it shows that he will do anything, even repeat everything they did 5 years ago, to get daisy back. It shows how far he is willing to go. But, if he repeated what they did 5 years ago, wouldn't they just end up like they are in present day? Gatsby doesn't think that, he thinks if he does what he did 5 years ago he will be with daisy again and that's all that matters.
Kate wrote: "Gatsby was ambitious, maybe too ambitious. Not only did he want Daisy to say she loved him, he wanted her to say she never loved Tom. Throughout the book all Gatsby wants is Daisy back, and when he..."I agree with you. This is most definitely my view on things.
Karen wrote: "Rapunzel wrote: "That's just my view of things. We can agree to disagree. Not everyone will view a book the same way. Only the author will see it as it's truly meant to be seen."Well, since you r..."
I've read this over and over. I don't ever really tire of reading it. I do have an open mind to things, so I'll try to read it again and see from your point of view.
Rapunzel wrote: "Karen wrote: "Rapunzel wrote: "That's just my view of things. We can agree to disagree. Not everyone will view a book the same way. Only the author will see it as it's truly meant to be seen."Wel..."
"I've read this over and over. I don't ever really tire of reading it. I do have an open mind to things, so I'll try to read it again and see from your point of view."
It is a great book because there are several ways to read it! :) this last time I concentrated mostly on Nick's view and that's what I wrote my review on. Good for you for having such an open mind concerning literature, you will have great reading experiences in the future.
Great in his ability to dream, to go above and beyond what, deep down, he knew he could not obtain. Great in the amount of hope he has, the amount of eagerness to reach out for the green light despite its distance.
Karen wrote: "Rapunzel wrote: "Karen wrote: "Rapunzel wrote: "That's just my view of things. We can agree to disagree. Not everyone will view a book the same way. Only the author will see it as it's truly meant ..."Thank you for being a kind person! Most people hate on other for expressing their opinion. But this time around, I'll focus more on Nick's view. I'll try to see it as much as possible through his mind. :)
Rapunzel wrote; "Thank you for being a kind person! Most people hate on other for expressing their opinion. But this time around, I'll focus more on Nick's view. I'll try to see it as much as possible through his mind. :)"Oh how nice! There is too much hate in this world, Good Reads should be a place to learn. I read TGG every three years, in summer at the beach- next summer is my read, maybe I'll find something else in it too!
Gatsby was all right in the end. And great. He died for our hope, our wonder, our romance. When it came to such heroes, Fitzgerald knew what he was talking about.
Robert wrote: "Gatsby was all right in the end. And great. He died for our hope, our wonder, our romance. When it came to such heroes, Fitzgerald knew what he was talking about."Gatsby consorted with organized crime through Wolfsheim. As kingpin of a scam selling worthless bonds in small towns, he stole from innocent people who trusted him. Small townspeople just like his own father. This was the ultimate betrayal--to turn against your own people and exploit them.
Gatsby broke the law selling alcohol. He committed adultery with a mother of a little girl and tried to break up her marriage. He lied about his identity and quite likely lied to Nick about Daisy driving the yellow death car to make himself appear heroic so Nick, a bond salesman, would join his bond scam.
Gatsby did one good thing that could be proven--he bought a house for his father. His story of military success was uncorroborated, but Nick swallowed it hook, line and sinker. His "love" for Daisy was expressed through the rose-colored lens of Nick's hyper-fertile imagination. What did Gatsby actually do to prove that his love for Daisy was anything but lust and craving for power and status? Nothing. He didn't even buy her a ring.
What about Gatsby reflects greatness unless greatness is defined as money, parties, expensive cars and a big house, all attained through illegal means and exploitation of the vulnerable?
Yet Nick says he turned out all right. What does that say about Nick? What does that say about the values of people who see Gatsby the way Nick does? Are these the values of the American Dream? Where does honesty fit in that hierarchy of values?
If Gatsby were truly great, Daisy would have left Tom. She didn't even return Nick's call or send flowers. If Gatsby were truly great, why did only Nick, Gatsby's father, a few servants and the "judging eyes of god" owl-eyed man attend his funeral? Not even Wolfsheim showed up, even after Nick paid him a visit to plead with him.
Owl-eyes rendered his judgement in the now famous line, "The poor son-of-a-bitch." Hardly a fitting eulogy for true greatness.
Fitzgerald was a genius. He would not have written the funeral scene this way without intention.
No, Gatsby was only "great" like a circus side-show performer.
The foul dust that floated in the wake of his dreams...Irony, of course, that the best is the enemy of the good, as is the great.
Garima wrote: "A lot of what Gatsby does is just for show - the parties, the lies, etc. It's all an illusionWhen I hear "The Great ----" it kind of sounds like a magician's name/title, and magicians also put up..."
Garima, your "magician" insight is brilliant.
The "Great" in The Great Gatsby was nothing more that a marketing ploy by the publisher. They thought it would sell. I've read articles that state Fitzgerald hated the title, but the publishing company wanted it.
A case can be made that The Great Gatsby is an allegorical tragedy in which the title character represents America, idealism, optimism, the human will, ambition, imagination, innocents, wonder, the life force, etc., pitted against the vulgar, cruel, crass and ultimately invincible "foul dust that floated in the wake of his dreams"...man vs. the universe, in other words. Fitzgerald carried it off very well in this book and pretty well in his own life. He and Gatsby were both great because they strove to fulfill their dreams and never gave up, no matter how ridiculous or fatal. Cervantes could appreciate this as well.
Ellen wrote: " He wanted it changed right up to the point that the papers hit the presses."That's what I read. He proposed titles like, "Trimalchio at West Egg" and a few others. A books title is tremendously important. It catches interest and is what shows most prominently on the bookcase shelf.
Ellen wrote: ...I wish people would start being readers, reading with their hearts and their life experiences, and not proponents of critics and the publishing industry. "Well said. Too much focus on what we're supposed to think and feel, rather than what we actually do.
James wrote: "Well said. Too much focus on what we're supposed to think and feel, rather than what we actually do."Yup.
People forget that too many academicians have to toe the political line to get funding. How can Harold Bloom say anything materially critical of capitalism or the American Dream while his paycheck comes from a private equity firm bent on profits? His literary criticism in Blooms Guide: The Great Gatsby reeks of political bias for anyone who reads the book with a critical mind.
I can't wait to read Blooms Guide:Of Mice and Men or any of Steinbeck's work, where I expect more of the same.
Ellen wrote: "I wish people would start being readers, reading with their hearts and their life experiences, and not proponents of critics and the publishing industry. "
Ditto.
Monty J wrote: "James wrote: "Well said. Too much focus on what we're supposed to think and feel, rather than what we actually do."Yup.
People forget that too many academicians have to toe the political line to..."
Harold Bloom's critique of "The Grapes of Wrath" is in this book:
The Western Canon
Appendix A–D
Harold Bloom
And Harold Bloom can write anything he wants- he doesn't have to worry about "towing the political line", he's too big a deal. He's just not towing your political line, and you don't like that.
Karen wrote: "He's just not towing your political line."A teacher has an obligation to recognize his/her prejudice and rise above it. When he/she steps over that line, a sacred trust has been violated, a trust that is magnified a thousandfold when you are an academic demi-god like Bloom.
A teacher of literature isn't just another reader. They have immense power to shape the public consciousness through their selection and interpretation of what others have written.
Hitler knew and feared this power; so the first thing he did after invading Poland was gather up the teachers and intellectuals and murder them, liquidating the country's brain trust.
Students, by definition, are a vulnerable audience. Every teacher knows this, and in many schools proselytizing is grounds for dismissal. And should be.
This isn't Nazi Germany, where teachers were required to subvert truth to promote a national cause. At least not yet it isn't.
Politics/party-lines vs. morals/integrity never agree on the justification of means to an end. There's a great line in the movie The African Queen, where Bogart's character gets drunk and says, "It's only natural." And the Victorian Hepburn character says, "Nature, Mr. Alnaught, is what we were put in this world to rise above." Great movie, great characters. They wind up agreeing with each other.
Monty wrote;"This isn't Nazi Germany, where teachers were required to subvert truth to promote a national cause. At least not yet it isn't."
Oh I think colleges and universities are the worst places for freedom of thought. When I was in college twenty years ago, if I didn't agree with a far left professor my grade was lowered. That really happened and I didn't fight it, I learned to shut-up. It's even worse now- unless of course you always agree with the professor.
But that's really another topic. Subverting truth? Who's? Yours?
Robert wrote: "A case can be made that The Great Gatsby is an allegorical tragedy in which the title character represents America, idealism, optimism, the human will, ambition, imagination, innocents, wonder, the..."Good post- I should have mentioned that earlier, I think you are quite right.
Karen wrote: "Subverting truth? Who's? Yours?"The author's, when something is or is not on the page. "Solely to attract Daisy" is NOT on the page, nor is anything similar.
Ellen wrote: "Just block her. I'm sorry she's such an unhappy person, but why waste your energy. I've lost track of who's saying what, you're all just scrabbling with each other. Not that there aren't some good ..."Ellen, Monty and I have been goodreads friends for over a year. We have had many discussions and some disagreements, I have not been disrespectful and either has Monty. If I get too annoyed with him, I just go to his page and look at his pics- he's kinda cute. I am not an unhappy person- what a silly thing to say. This is a discussion, which is what we are doing, we are not fighting.
Getting back to Bloom and other literary critics- isn't part of critiquing forming your own interpretation on certain areas of the novel? Bloom saying that Gatsby had the parties solely to attract Daisy is not a far off stretch for me- it doesn't distort the novel for me at all.
By using the word "solely" Bloom may have gone an inch too far. Otherwise he is correct, in my opinion. And indeed it is on the page that Gatsby hoped to lure Daisy to one of his parties - like a male bird (perhaps especially birds of paradise) posing and flashing bright feathers to attract a mate..."Then wear the gold hat if that will move her...and if you can bounce high...'till she cry lover..."
Robert wrote: "By using the word "solely" Bloom may have gone an inch too far. Otherwise he is correct, in my opinion. And indeed it is on the page that Gatsby hoped to lure Daisy to one of his parties - like a male bird (perhaps especially birds of paradise) posing and flashing bright feathers to attract a mate..."Then wear the gold hat if that will move her...and if you can bounce high...'till she cry lover..." Using the word solely doesn't give any wiggle room does it- but it still doesn't bother me much. Any analysis will be a bit biased, Monty's right about that- but it shouldn't distort a readers perspective after reading the analysis, and I don't think it does.
Good bird simile by the way!
Robert wrote: "..indeed it is on the page that Gatsby hoped to lure Daisy to one of his parties..."Nope. Not there. I've checked and triple-checked. If you think so, show us where. Quote the words and cite the page.
As I have said repeatedly here on Goodreads, and no one has challenged me on it, the only reference in the entire book as to a purpose for the parties is an offhand speculation by Jordan on the last page of Chapter IV, after her private conference with Gatsby, cited here:
"I think he half expected her to wander into one of his parties, some night," went on Jordan, "but she never did."
This is anything but definitive. "I think" is a surmise, at best, and "half-expected" is anything but "solely" and a far cry from "hoped."
An objective reading of the text would conclude that the parties were part of Gatsby's bond scam, a way to attract affluent Americans ripe for the fleecing: (Nick, narrating on Ch. 3, p. 42)
I was immediately struck by the number of young Englishmen dotted about; all well dressed, all looking a little hungry and all talking in low, earnest voices to solid and prosperous Americans. I was sure that they were selling something, bonds or insurance or automobiles. They were at least agonizingly aware of the easy money in the vicinity and convinced that it was theirs for a few words in the right key."
Later we learn from the owl-eyed man in the library that Gatsby had most of the guests brought in by car. In Ch. 3, P.46, the owl-eyed man, addresses Nick and Jordan:
"Who brought you? he demanded. "Or did you just come? I was brought. Most people were brought."
You don't allow a sales crew to prowl your expensive party that you have paid to have affluent people brought to unless you're in on it. And there's simply zero proof that the parties were to attract Daisy. That notion I have only been able to attribute to Harold Bloom, and I've read three books of literary criticism on this vastly misunderstood novella.
For Bloom or anyone else to take the "bounce high...'till she cry" epigraph and apply it as a litmus filter to every paragraph strikes me as lazy analysis, if not comical. Fitzgerald deserves better.
Monty - It's been several years since I read The Great Gatsby, and I no longer own a copy. I'll reread the book some day and will let you know if I find anything I think you may have missed, although I believe you did a thorough search for explicit statements as to Gatsby's MO. Just a couple things - Fitzgerald was vague, but clear enough, that Gatsby was a bootlegger, not a bond scammer (humdrum Nick was learning to sell bonds, while bootleggers were dashing figures in the 1920s and beyond). I think Fitzgerald didn't know how a dreamer like Gatsby could make lots of money (or he would have done it himself), so he left that part pulp-fiction vague. For me, the whole book says that Jordan Baker was correct and so was Bloom. Gatsby built a web (socially and economically) to catch his ideal girl, and died for his efforts because (ironically) she wasn't good enough. He was great because his idealism was great, greater than anyone else's, and tragic for the same reason.
Robert wrote: "Gatsby was a bootlegger, not a bond scammer"...Wrong again. He was both. First a bootlegger, then a bond scammer. Here's the evidence of Gatsby's bond dealings, chapter and verse.
A--Nick sells bonds and Gatsby tries repeatedly to recruit him.
B--The presence of the "well-dressed" Englishmen at the party (cited above) whom Nick concludes are probably selling bonds.
C--Repeated references throughout the novel about Gatsby taking or making telephone calls from Chicago, ostensibly coordinate bond scam activities--Chicago was notorious during the twenties as a concentration of organized crime-- and culminating with the posthumous Chicago call (cited just below) that Nick takes at Gatsby's about Parke getting busted (Ch. IX, p. 166):
Long Distance said Chicago was calling...the connection came through as a man's voice, very thin and far away.(The proof that Gatsby is kingpin of a scam to sell stolen or counterfeit bonds is right here.)
"This is Slagle speaking..."
"Yes?" The name was unfamiliar.
"Hell of a note, isn't it? Get my wire?"
"There haven't been any wires."
"Young Parke's in trouble," he said rapidly. "They picked him up when he handed the bonds over the counter. They got a circular from New York giving 'em the numbers just five minutes before. What d'you know about that, hey? You never can tell in these hick towns---"
"Hello?!" I [Nick] interrupted breathlessly. "Look here--this isn't Mr. Gatsby. Mr. Gatsby's dead."
In a new topic I just posted, "Was Gatsby the Kingpin of a Bond Scam?" I cite chronologically the instances leading up to this conclusion.
Monty - You have built a strong case, and I admit I was wrong, that Gatsby had branched out from bootlegging to bond-scamming. However, this seems incidental to me, and I still maintain that Jordan Baker and Bloom were correct, except that Bloom went too far by using the word "solely" (when "souly" would have been better). Gatsby gangsterism was "only personal" (like Daisy being a married mother), something distasteful he had to do to realize his dream, the driving force of the story. In an early, poetical section, Fitzgerald had something or other ring off a star when Gatsby and Daisy kissed or whatever. At that moment Daisy became the embodiment of Gatsby's dream. I also seem to recall that when Daisy showed disdain for his parties, Gatsby shut them down. "Business First" was not Gatsby motto.
Robert wrote: "Gatsby gangsterism was "only personal" (like Daisy being a married mother), something distasteful he had to do to realize his dream, the driving force of the story."I accept this as one way to interpret the novel, but I am working on an alternative. It's complicated.
There's no question that Nick saw Gatsby as a passionate dreamer; what I am focusing on is how much the reader should rely on Nick because of his infatuation with Gatsby. How much of Gatsby's imagination is a fabrication of Nick's mind?
For me, Nick is the key to the novel, with Gatsby as much an object of his fascination as Daisy seems to Gatsby, through Nick's eyes.
Monty - Ah!!! That's very good. When Flaubert was asked "Who is Mme Bovary?" he answered that she is himself. In this way, Gadsby and Nick are both Fitzgerald, a kind of Freudian-Gemini thing (if I'm not going a bit too New Age, or too far a la Bloom). So, in a way, Nick was Fitzgerald's sober self, how he saw himself in the real world, whereas Gatsby was his idealistic, poetical, super-wonderful but ridiculous, tragic self, flummoxed by reality. I think I read somewhere that when Fitzgerald was a young boy he put on theatrical shows for other children in the neighborhood. Lots if not all kids do the imaginary acting-out thing, and I would guess (secretly) none grow out of it. Certainly reality could use improvement...I'm off now to buy a lotto ticket.
Robert wrote: "When Flaubert was asked "Who is Mme Bovary?" he answered that she is himself. In this way, Gadsby and Nick are both Fitzgerald, a kind of Freudian-Gemini thing (if I'm not going a bit too New Age, or too far a la Bloom). So, in a way, Nick was Fitzgerald's sober self, how he saw himself in the real world, whereas Gatsby was his idealistic, poetical, super-wonderful but ridiculous, tragic self, flummoxed by reality."Exactly. Fitzgerald was a genius who could see the world through the eyes of a woman as well as a man, as evidenced in the way he appropriated and milked his wife's diaries. When Zelda became inaccessible, his writing suffered.
Lotto, good idea. Good luck!
Monty, it is implied that Gatsby wanted to attract Daisy and the parties were one way to do so- he wanted to see her and we know that. You can disagree with Bloom on that one, but to claim that all the literary analysts you have read are wrong seems a bit much!In my review I relied on Nick but part of that reliance was my knowledge of his bias.
Karen wrote: "...it is implied that Gatsby wanted to attract Daisy and the parties were one way to do so- he wanted to see her and we know that. You can disagree with Bloom on that one, but to claim that all the literary analysts you have read are wrong seems a bit much!"Call it thinking outside the box.
Or, pushing the envelope.
Or protecting a deceased author's work from academic distortion.
(Besides, Copernicus disagreed with everyone too.)
Oh Monty. You're driving me crazy.
Karen wrote: "Ellen wrote: "Just block her. I'm sorry she's such an unhappy person, but why waste your energy. I've lost track of who's saying what, you're all just scrabbling with each other. Not that there are..."I have to agree with Monty on this one. I don´t believe that Jay is footing the bill. Wolfsheim is. Jay couldn´t have amassed enough capital in two years to lay out $15,000 a month on a mansion in Eggtown.
Wolfsheim is top dog in this plot. He´s the one that´s pulling Jay´s strings as well as the bond sellers.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
If this was his intent, it was a stroke of genius.