The Great Gatsby
discussion
Gatsby's Criminality
My favorite part of that Bruccoli essay is the attention it gives to "time," a concept most of us don't pay as much attention to in the novel. Bruccoli astutely points out how the opening and closing sentences of the novel deal with the past, the movement of time. Interestingly the word "time" appears 87 times in this short book, along with 450 time words.Is "time" the most important word in art? Or is it death? Or love?
Petergiaquinta wrote: "Uh...yes?Pretty sure everyone on this thread knows that Gatsby is involved in money, bootlegging and securities fraud. We've all read the book. That's why we're discussing it."
Actually, that post was for Feliks' benefit, and those who might be influenced by his denials that Gatsby was a criminal.
Monty J wrote: "Never heard of it. I'm out of touch with popular culture. No TV since 2008...Really? I took it you were interested in TV and trailer park stuff, because of your post:
Monty J wrote: "...the trailer park analogy is brilliant.
It makes me think that a movie or TV series along the lines of Oh Brother, Where Art Thou parodying The Great Gatsby could be a phenomenal success. (I'm afraid it would cause heart attacks among a few Gatsby snobs though.)"
The conversation suggests that you and Mayor think TGG is not good enough on its own, and should be reduced to a trailer park soap opera.
Petergiaquinta wrote: "My favorite part of that Bruccoli essay is the attention it gives to "time," ... Interestingly the word "time" appears 87 times in this short book, along with 450 time words..."That is fascinating to me because one of the main themes is the passing of time and whether or not one can relive the past!
Petergiaquinta wrote: "...the word 'time' appears 87 times in this short book, along with 450 time words."That's amazing. I don't know what to think of it. Nick mentions his age being 30 twice that I recall, and it drew me out both times. Add to that the temporal sentiment in Gatsby's, "Of course you can!" (repeat the past), and it starts one pondering.
Bruccoli speaks with more authority on Fitzgerald and TGG that anyone I've read. I enjoy reading him.
Christine wrote: "The conversation suggests that you and Mayor think TGG is not good enough on its own, and should be reduced to a trailer park soap opera. "I suppose you could take it that way if so inclined, but that wasn't my attention. I just think it would be interesting, as I said, along the lines of Tortilla Flat and Oh Brother, Where Art Though.
I have expressed many times the highest regard for Fitzgerald and TGG.
So what Gatsby was a bootlegger during the jazz age, which was also prohibition.
srhelsel609 wrote: "So what Gatsby was a bootlegger during the jazz age, which was also prohibition."That's what I think, so what. It's just a part of the story, not its theme.
Feliks wrote: "Gatsby doesn't die a criminal's death and no moral is presented."Actually, Nick tells us that Gatsby paid a high price for living too long with a single dream. It's a common moral in 20th C. American literature: Romantics do not fare well in the modern world.
Monty wrote: "The corruption that ran rampant through this novel represents the materialist moral decay of the Twenties. It was Gatsby's milieu that Fitzgerald put on trial. Tom and Daisy redeemed themselves. Gatsby and Myrtle did not and paid the ultimate price."I agree with your first two statements here, but not the second two. How do Tom and Daisy redeem themselves? They do not do so any more than Gatsby does. They survive, however, because they do not (a description originally applied to Jordan) carry well- forgotten dreams from age to age. Daisy starts to do so but then stops. Gatsby never stops doing so, and thus there is really nothing left for him as a literary character except death.
Penny wrote: "How do Tom and Daisy redeem themselves? They do not do so any more than Gatsby does. They survive, however, because they do not (a description originally applied to Jordan) carry well- forgotten dreams from age to age. Daisy starts to do so but then stops."Tom redeems himself through a public confession of his lechery, vowing to reform, professing his love for Daisy and salvaging his marriage and family. Daisy redeems herself by rejecting the criminal Gatsby and restoring family unity. This includes their child Pammy, who represents the future, an implicit dream for her happiness.
Penny wrote: "Gatsby never stops doing so, and thus there is really nothing left for him as a literary character except death."
Gatsby deserved death because of his corruption and because it was he, not Daisy, who murdered Myrtle. (All eyewitnesses said it was a man behind the wheel, and Myrtle would not have run toward the car if it were a woman driving.) It was Nick who invented the idea that Daisy may have been driving, and Gatsby adopted that fabrication to save his larcenous hide. A dream contaminated with corruption has no redemptive value. Gatsby the narcissist did nothing for anyone but himself. All he did was take.
Ah, the new reading of Gatsby in the filthy Age of Trump finds the much beleaguered Tom Buchanan finally restored to the role of misunderstood but ultimately redeemed hero...build that wall, eh Monty? Sigh...
Tom is the only character in the book who underwent transformation, going from unrepentant philanderer to devoted family man.He fessed up to his mistakes, vowed to reform and took decisive action consistent with that vow. Unlike Jay Gatsby, who was tarnished by criminality, Tom Buchanon stayed above the law, thereby earning Daisy's loyalty to her vows.
Nonsense, Monty. You are smarter than that. Tom does none of what you attribute to him. Nick is the dynamic character at the core of this novel who changes and is transformed by the end.Tom is a liar, a fraud, a racist, a bully, and a coward from start to finish. Boohoo, that story about the dog collar at the end? Seriously? You think that shows redemption? Tom has reformed? By fleeing to Europe, conspiring with his wife, and sending Wilson to murder Gatsby?
Like many of the characters in the novel itself, you seem to be seduced by the allure of money and power. How else do you explain your willful misreading of the text?
Petergiaquinta wrote: "Nonsense, Monty. You are smarter than that. Tom does none of what you attribute to him. Nick is the dynamic character at the core of this novel who changes and is transformed by the end."Nick has a mixed role. Yes he changed, or said he did. We have no action to support his declaration that he had become less naive. (I, 6-7)
...it is what preyed on Gatsby, what foul dust floated in the wake of his dreams that temporarily close out my interest in the abortive sorrows and short-winded elations of men.(Note the qualification, "temporarily," which undermines the argument that Nick has undergone permanent change.
Secondly, Nick's steadfast loyalty to Gatsby in spite of the man's deception and criminality is further evidence that Nick remains either fundamentally, congenitally naive or suffers from judgement warped by infatuation. Perhaps a combination.
Nick has a dual role in the novel--part bystander/narrator and part active participant as Gatsby's forgiving confidant And one role impairs the other. Nick's reliability as narrator flies out the window when he procures Daisy for Gatsby, ignores evidence of Gatsby's criminality and even drums up an alibi to cover Gatsby's murder of Myrtle, which makes Nick complicit in the murder.
Nobody but Michaelis and Gatsby's father escape the dust of corruption in this novel. They're all corrupt.
But Tom and Tom alone pierces Gatsby's smoke of deception and sums up the situation nicely in the last chapter as Tom addressess Nick: (IX, 187)...
He threw dust into your eyes just like he did in Daisy's, but he was a tough one. He ran over Myrtle like you'd run over a dog and never even stopped his car.Note the word "dust," which throughout the novel symbolizes corruption.
On the next page Nick shakes Tom's hand, in effect approving of Tom whether or not he fully agrees with him. A handshake, under these dramatic circumstances, is not a minor gesture. (Come to think of it, I don't recall Nick ever shaking hands with Gatsby.)
Tom didn't send Wilson to Gatsby's, he merely told Wilson who owned the yellow car to get a gun-toting mandman out of his house, thereby protecting his family.
Petergiaquinta wrote: "Tom is a liar, a fraud, a racist, a bully and a coward....
Tom was no more of a racist than the rest in his social sphere, Nick included. It was fashionable in that milieu to be so. In 1906 there was even a zoo exhibit with a caged African man. Here's an example in Fitzgerald's own words in TGG cited in Lois Tyson's text, Critical Theory Today (pp. 404-405:
Nick sees “three modish [fashionable] Negroes” in “a limousine . . . driven by a white chauffeur” (73; ch. 4). He describes them as “two bucks and a girl” and says, “I laughed aloud as the yolks of their eyeballs rolled toward us in haughty rivalry” (73; ch. 4). Of course, Nick’s un-self-conscious racism is obvious in his reaction to these characters: the black men are “bucks”—animals rather than men—and the description of their wide-stretched, rolling eyes resonates strongly with racist stereotypes that portrayed African Americans as foolish, childish, overly dramatic, comic characters.A liar? Perhaps, but nowhere near Gatsby's league.
Tom a fraud? How so? (You must be thinking of Gatsby.)
Tom a bully, not hardly, not the gentle way he helped Wilson come to his senses when he was overcome with hysteria over Myrtle's death, nor the real tears he shed for Myrtle in his car on the way home after the accident and later when he saw the dog biscuits on the sideboard (dog biscuits, not dog collar.) A brute who didn't know his own strength, surely, but not a bully.
Nor was Tom a coward, for he investigated Gatsby and stood up to him at the Plaza Hotel and called him out for what he was, a criminal. He was more than capable of knocking Gatsby to the floor, which a bully would have surely done. But instead he kept a cool head as Gatsby lost his.
Just because you say something, post it to a discussion thread, and then say it again and again and again doesn’t make it true.The text doesn’t bear it out. The critics don’t agree with you. Your fellow GoodReaders don’t agree with you. Any junior in high school would see through your baloney here. And yet you keep trying to hold Tom up as some bizarre paragon of virtue. It’s all rather sad. Your adulation of Tom Buchanan and misunderstanding of the tremendous shift Nick goes through over the course of his experiences in the East display a gross misunderstanding of the book. You don’t get it. You read it, but you don’t understand what you’re reading.
Go ahead and take the last word here. I know you like doing that.
Petergiaquinta wrote: "Just because you say something, post it to a discussion thread, and then say it again and again and again doesn’t make it true.The text doesn’t bear it out. "
On the contrary, everything I posted is rooted right there in text. Happy to oblige if you want a citation.
Petergiaquinta wrote: "The critics don’t agree with you."
On the contrary, some in fact do, except in the case of who was driving. I seem to be the only person who's been able so far to parse out the truth. And I stand behind my position because the words are right there on the page. Fitzgerald would not have put those words in Michaelis mouth for no reason. It comes down to whom you believe, the sober caring neighbor and honest businessman Michaelis or the lying criminal Gatsby? If you choose Gatsby you've got to explain why.
Petergiaquinta wrote: "Your fellow GoodReaders don’t agree with you. ."
I'm not here to win a popularity contest.
You can throw together conclusions about Tom Buchanan with a few cherry picked aspects of Tom to paint a preferred picture of him, but I've chosen to weigh everything Fitzgerald put in the novel to flesh him out. He's a complex character, not some two-dimensional caricature villain.
In a Dec, 1924, letter to Max Perkins (Scott's editor at Scribners) Fitzgerald avowed that Tom Buchanan was among "the three best characters in American fiction in the last twenty years." He was even tempted to "have Tom Buchanan dominate the book."
You called Tom a fraud. Where in the text is that assumption defended?
And tell me, if a deranged man like George Wilson barged past your butler with a gun in his pocket demanding to know who owned the car that killed his wife, and your wife and daughter were upstairs trembling in fright, what would you have done? If Tom wanted to rat out Gatsby all he had to do was pick up the phone. He knew the Wilson's number by heart. Cornered and caught by surprise, Buchanan did the only thing a sane individual would have done. He gave up Gatsby's name.
Penny wrote: "Feliks wrote: "Gatsby doesn't die a criminal's death and no moral is presented."Actually, Nick tells us that Gatsby paid a high price for living too long with a single dream. It's a common moral in 20th C. American literature: Romantics do not fare well in the modern world."
That's the "moral" in the classical sense; that is, in the Aesop's tales kind of way. I'm sure FSF was well aware of the ideas of classical storytelling, and his whole last chapter is a nod to that.
But if I might quibble, I think there's a bit of an issue with the definition of terms here. That is, "moral" is a slippery word as it's being used here. It reads to me like you (Penny) are using it more of the classical storytelling sense. There certainly is a "moral" in that way. FSF ends his story on that note. It's the lesson to be learned from the story. However, FSF is also subverting that storytelling technique, ending his story on a nihilistic note with his version of Aesop: "So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past."
That's a pretty dark "moral" of the story. Striving, yearning, aspiration then death, death, death, and boom: we're all beating against the tide but going backward. The more things change, the more futility there is in failing to change them, because all that change was an illusion anyway....
There's certainly a moral to the story in the sense that it ends on that storytelling technique, but what's the personal, ethical, real world positivist life lesson to be absorbed? It's more of a nihilistic cautionary tale than an exploration of morality. What I think Feliks was getting at is that one isn't supposed to sit back and nod one's head at the ending of TGG with satisfaction that justice was done and all is right in the world. As you note, the moral of the story is that a devout believer in high Romance (in the classical epic Romantic Tragedy sense) isn't going to fare well in the real world, but that's a deconstruction of the concept of the "moral of the story". It's a moral without morality, if you will.
Monty J wrote: "Petergiaquinta wrote: "Just because you say something, post it to a discussion thread, and then say it again and again and again doesn’t make it true.The text doesn’t bear it out. "
On the contr..."
Not in the least. He could have simply said he did not know who was driving. Later, at the store where he buys the space cadet a trinket to make up for his dalliance with gold digger, he explains that he cited Jay because, after all he was banging his wife and needed to eliminate once and for all the competition. He never explained that he felt threatened by Wilson in revealing who he thought had done the deed. And remember, he wasn't there so he wouldn't have seen who dun it.
Geoffrey wrote: "He could have simply said he did not know who was driving."It is clear in the text just after Tom arrives on the scene that Wilson recognizes that Tom was driving the "yellow car" when they stopped for gas on the way to the City. For Tom to only a few hours later deny he knew who owned the car would have risked a violent response by Wilson.
Tom did the prudent thing--he gave Wilson a satisfying answer that got him on his way and out of his house. There's no indication he told him where Gatsby lived. If Fitzgerald meant for the reader to believe so, he would have made that clear. As is, we only know that Tom identified the car's owner as Gatsby.
Monty J wrote: "I seem to be the only person who's been able so far to parse out the truth. And I stand behind my position because the words are right there on the page"If you don't see how deranged you sound in that sentence, I can't help you to see it. I could remind you about the similarly delusional Cosmic who had unlocked the secret message inside The Catcher in the Rye or the crazy GoodReader who insists Boo Radley is the biological father of Jem and Scout. Sadly, you lack the self-awareness to recognize that you are doing the same thing here, but in thinking your understanding of the novel is superior to that of several generations of academics and critics, you display the kind of hubris and delusional thinking worthy of one of the characters in The Great Gatsby.
I hadn't planned to respond to you again, but you did ask a question, so I will answer with plenty of support from the novel that is not cherry picked but which demonstrates an understanding of how Fitzgerald has established the character of Tom Buchanan throughout the novel as a whole.
You called Tom a fraud. Where in the text is that assumption defended?
Tom's an incredible fraud. I don't know how you fail to see that in the novel or how you manage to read his character through some kind of bizarre heroic lens, but this is not Fitzgerald's intention, nor does that letter from Fitzgerald you cite establish any proof to the contrary. Tom can be a fraud and still be a fascinating, well-developed character. Fitzgerald can like a character he has created who is a fraud. Tom could be a fraud and dominate the novel. So what? Gatsby in fact is a fraud and he does dominate the novel. Your reference to Fitzgerald's letter proves nothing.
But here's a couple of things Fitzgerald does right off the bat to establish the fraudulent nature of this boorish, arrogant, abusive man. First, his name is "Buchanan." You think it's a coincidence that Fitzgerald named this character in a novel about America for one of the absolute worst presidents in our country's history? James Buchanan was a fraud as a president, ineffective and incompetent; some have even called him a traitor, a word that can be easily applied to Tom Buchanan as well.
And second, how is Tom different from the other male characters in the book? Well, besides the fact that he is from old money and has not done anything to earn that money? (This significant detail about Tom's character constitutes fraud itself, one of the biggest lies at the core of the American Dream.) No, I was thinking about how Tom, this man's man as he sees himself, has not served in WWI as both Gatsby and Nick have. Why didn't Tom serve? Well, for the same reason your president didn't serve. He came from money and he used that money to keep himself out of the war. Where's my textual evidence, you ask? There isn't any. But the shadow of the war hangs over that entire novel, and the fact that Tom wasn't there, as tough as he thinks he is, demonstrates what a fraud he truly is. Sure he can punch a woman in the face and break her nose...but serve his country in wartime? Not Tom Buchanan!
It's funny how Nick describes Tom as washed up after playing football for Yale, constantly "seeking a little wistfully for the dramatic turbulence of some irrecoverable football game." He could have found some of that glory in Europe, but he chose not to go there. Why? You tell me. However, while Nick and Gatsby were fighting in Europe, Tom Buchanan was off in the South Seas on a three-month honeymoon. He does eventually get to Europe...but it's a year after the war is over and they went to Cannes. Yeah, Cannes. And they went there because Tom had been screwing a chambermaid in California who he injured due to his recklessness. Sounds like fraudulent behavior to me! In fact, Tom Buchanan is the representative of the very rich in America who use that wealth all the time to get benefits unavailable to the rest of us. This is called "fraud."
What's the first thing Tom says in the novel? "I've got a nice place here," which doesn't prove he's a fraud; it just shows what an arrogant, self-involved jackass he is. But I digress...
However, Tom is a fraud as displayed by the fraudulent racist ideas he espouses in that first visit Nick has with the Buchanans. "It's all scientific stuff," he asserts. "It's been proven." Except that's just fraudulent nonsense, and Fitzgerald put those words in his mouth to show what a fraud he is. Even Daisy mocks him in this scene for being such a moronic blowhard.
Tom is a fraud because his marriage is a fraud. He is a fraud as a husband as seen through his serial adultery, and he will continue to be a fraud in his marriage after the novel concludes. He is a fraud as a parent. Tom was absent at his daughter's birth. Where do you see him interacting with Pammy? Does he even mention his daughter?
Tom is a fraudulent in his interactions with George Wilson. He is stringing Wilson along with the false promise of selling him a car, using the lie of the car to make arrangements to fuck Wilson's wife. This is fraud.
Tom is obviously engaged in a fraudulent relationship with Myrtle, as he has done with other women in the past. The relationship itself demonstrates what a fraud Tom is. However, if you want a specific textual reference, how about this? He has lied to Myrtle about why he can't marry her. Catherine tells Nick, "It's really his wife that is keeping them apart. She's Catholic, and they don't believe in divorce." Nick tells us he is a little shocked by this fraudulent lie.
What else makes Tom a fraud? Let's see...well, besides everything he does in the novel, how about the way he conspires with Daisy to let Gatsby take the blame for Myrtle's death? What about the cowardly way he points Wilson in Gatsby's direction? What about how after Gatsby and Myrtle's deaths he flees New York to avoid the spotlight (to Europe again? ha!)? What of that sad, sad story he tells Nick about going back to his empty love nest? He "cried like a baby"? Boo fuckin hoo. What about the way he buys his wife expensive jewelry to assure her compliance? His retreat into materialism to avoid any responsibility for the wrong he has done? Yes, Nick shakes his hand at the end, because he says it would be silly to refuse to, but not because he values him. Nick tells us on that page that Tom is a child. And Nick leaves us with this perfect description of this arrogant fraud of a man and his ridiculous wife: "They were careless people, Tom and Daisy--they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made.” This, if I haven't made it clear, is fraud.
I'm getting bored, but if you can't see the fraud at the core of Tom's character as established by Fitzgerald throughout the book, from the first time we meet Tom to the last thing Nick says about him, then you don't understand the novel at all.
Petergiaquinta wrote: "Monty J wrote: "I seem to be the only person who's been able so far to parse out the truth. And I stand behind my position because the words are right there on the page"If you don't see how deran..."
Take a breath, Peter, you're starting to sound hysterical. We get it that you really, really, really don't like Tom Buchanan and cannot see anything good about him. Even the Tom Buchanan in the book.
Monty J wrote: "Take a breath, Peter, you're starting to sound hysterical. We get it that you really, really, really don't like Tom Buchanan and cannot see anything good about him. Even the Tom Buchanan in the book."
No he isn't. That's what people accuse others of being when they don't have a valid argument. Did Tom redeem himself of being a woman beater Monty?
Monty J wrote: "Petergiaquinta wrote: "Monty J wrote: "I seem to be the only person who's been able so far to parse out the truth. And I stand behind my position because the words are right there on the page"If ..."
Monty, my feelings are identical to Peter.....'s. Buchanan was a piece of shit. Excuse my vulgarity. Anyone who strikes a woman without justification is a POS.
And before Karen jumps on my back for the aforementioned post let me add that if a woman came at me with a knife or gun I would hope I don't hesitate to strike. The same if a woman came after a loved one with the same.
I am out of the country for a month and away from a computer. This is a complicated issue which I dealt with in detail and posted 2 or 3 years ago.I will find it and repost when I return.
The short of it is Myrtle was antagonizing Tom with insulting words about his wife Daisy, and alcohol was involved on both their parts. Tom didn't go chasing after her. In fact, he told her to back off, but she persisted, goading him with, "Daisy! Daisy! I'll say it as much as I want!" or words to that effect.
In such a case a court of law would not uphold a charge of assault. Tom was a brute who did not know his own strength, as was clearly established in chapter 1 when Daisy complained about him accidentally bruising her wrist.
Myrtle doesn't get a free pass to commit verbal assault just because she's a woman. What Tom did was despicable, but there were extenuating circumstances. This is isn't a clear-cut case of outright abuse. Ask any cop trained in domestic violence.All the characters in this novel except Michaelis commit despicable acts. Fitzgerald didn't write 19th century melodrama. His postmodernist characters are complex and fascinating, Tom Buchanan being, by Fitzgerald's own admission, among his most thoroughly developed.
Geoffrey wrote: "And before Karen jumps on my back for the aforementioned post let me add that if a woman came at me with a knife or gun I would hope I don't hesitate to strike. The same if a woman came after a lov..."I wasn't going to "jump on your back"
Monty J wrote: "Myrtle doesn't get a free pass to commit verbal assault just because she's a woman. What Tom did was despicable, but there were extenuating circumstances. This is isn't a clear-cut case of outright..."What did the cops say when you asked them Monty? Who are you really defending here? I thought when someone punches another in the face and breaks that persons nose it is considered an assault.
Monty J wrote: "I am out of the country for a month and away from a computer. This is a complicated issue which I dealt with in detail and posted 2 or 3 years ago.I will find it and repost when I return.
The sh..."
I am not convinced she was insulting Daisy. We only have Nick's word that she was and considering his antipathy to the member of the lower class, would have stacked the blame on Myrtle. When I read it, I did not get the impression there was any insult as the actual words were never stated. So big deal, she said, "Daisy, Daisy, I will say it as much as I want", again quoting your paraphrase of her exact words. hardly fighting words.
Again, regardless if there was an insult or not, you do not strike a woman unless she is life threatening. If it should come to that you are so angry, you walk away or break up.
Words matter. Words have consequences. Verbal aggression is just as deadly as physical aggression. This is why there are laws such as Inciting to Riot.
Still it's immoral to strike a woman. And then we have no direct evidence that Myrtle insulted anyone. The only thing we do know is that she repeated Daisy, Daisy, Daisy several times. Hardly an insult Monty.
😂😂😂 so, a verbal insult from Myrtle is just as deadly as physical aggression! Still I wonder Monty, who are you really defending here??
Geoffrey wrote: "I am not convinced she was insulting Daisy. We only have Nick's word that she was and considering his antipathy to the member of the lower class, would have stacked the blame on Myrtle. When I read it, I did not get the impression there was any insult as the actual words were never stated. ."Here's the text (II, 37), Nick narrates:
Sometime toward midnight, Tom Buchanan and Mrs. Wilson stood face to face, discussing in impassioned voices whether Mrs. Wilson had any right to mention Daisy's name.They were in close quarters, the living room of a small apartment, yet Myrtle was shouting even though Tom had previously warned her about talking about Daisy. Myrtle was goading him. Much alcohol had been consumed and the hour was late, near midnight. It was enough to make Tom momentarily lose control.
"Daisy! Daisy! Daisy!" shouted Mrs. Wilson. "I'll say it whenever I want to! Daisy! Dai---"
Making a short deft movement, Tom Buchanan broke her nose with his open hand.
A single "short deft movement" is not drawing back a fist or chasing her around the apartment. It is much more like a reflex reaction. One alcohol-laden mistake in the heat of being verbally assaulted is not a pattern of behavior. Nowhere else in the text does Tom behave in this way, whereas Myrtle is shown manipulating and bullying her passive husband George with impugnity. This time her natural inclinations backfired.
Here's an example of what Myrtle thinks of her husband (VII, 137) [Myrtle speaking]:
"Beat me!" he [Michaelis] heard her cry. "Throw me down and beat me, you dirty little coward!"Myrtle is partially culpable in her own injury. To blame? No, but partially responsible. Tom would not have struck her had Myrtle not been goading him. It was a one-time mistake, not a pattern of behavior.
This is,, as you said, more than a glorified romance novel, you said. It's a mystery (Who is Gatsby?), a novel of manners, a crime novel, a romance, and a commentary on the American Dream. The criminal aspects of the book are relatively subtle, the romance so much more apparent that many readers see it as little more than that. Perhaps this was nothing more than Fitzgerald echoing the common belief that a great crime is behind every great fortune.
My read was that Gatsby saw wealth as a means to end, and his ideal end was Daisy or, failing her, someone like her. This certainly seemed true of Fitzgerald who exposed those feelings of his own in This Side of Paradise. The girls he desired wanted men with money and rejected him because he was not one of them. And the girl F Scott wanted most, Zelda, proved that to him. He wrote his novels, in large part, as means to that end: Winning Zelda.
For that reason, I'd add that Gatsby might be a sixth type of book: A roman a clef, with lots of details changed to hide what was an autobiography,
Harry wrote: The girls he desired wanted men with money and rejected him because he was not one of them. And the girl F Scott wanted most, Zelda, proved that to him. He wrote his novels, in large part, as means to that end: Winning Zelda.For that reason, I'd add that Gatsby might be a sixth type of book: A roman a clef, with lots of details changed to hide what was an autobiography, ..."
I'd have to agree that it was, at least in part, autobiographical. But of course, the details were greatly distorted, with a nugget of truth from FSF's life experience of never quite fitting in with the upper class... But then again, FSF did win Zelda -- for better or for worse.
"...It's a mystery (Who is Gatsby?), a novel of manners, a crime novel, a romance, and a commentary on the American Dream. "Agreed to a point, except I would say the mystery was who was driving the death car.
The Roman a clef angle is interesting. Gatsby did sort of grow up, but we learn about his childhood only in retrospect. He grew up crooked, warped by his greed and delusional about Daisy, who could never be more than a dream because of his criminality.
Perkins felt that Fitzgerald's first iteration mistakenly gave away Gtasby's background immediately. By delaying the reveal, Fitzgerald pulled along the readers who wanted to know, "Who is he?" He made Gatsby the mystery and didn't completely answer that until Gatsby's dad arrived and filled in the remaining blanks. I'd argue that it was that mystery that makes this book as interesting a tale as it was--just as Perkins insisted.
Yes, I remember Perkins comments about the mystery of Gatsby's identity, but it didn't gel with me. Once I realized that Gatsby was a crook, all that mattered was that he be caught and punished. The mystery was only how and by whom. Having Wilson pull the trigger was poetic justice. The rich crook got taken out by an innocent member of the working class he exploited.
Too bad it wasn't Tom that got the lead. After all, he was the one bopping myrtle
Wilson should have shot Tom instead
Karen wrote: "Wilson should have shot Tom instead"Yes, absolutely. If you're going to shoot someone, shoot the f////// who is bopping your wife.
Geoffrey wrote: "Karen wrote: "Wilson should have shot Tom instead"Yes, absolutely. If you're going to shoot someone, shoot the f////// who is bopping your wife."
By this logic, Tom would have been justified in shooting Gatsby. Fair is fair.
And what about the women? No one forced them into cuckolding their spouses. To avoid a double standard, Myrtle and Daisy should have shot each other in an equal opportunity duel.
The only deeds that could warrant death as punishment were the murder of Myrtle and grand theft on a massive scale-- both committed by Jay Gatsby. Fitzgerald got it right. (In the end, the right person was "pushing up daisies.")
Monty J wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "Karen wrote: "Wilson should have shot Tom instead"Yes, absolutely. If you're going to shoot someone, shoot the f////// who is bopping your wife."
By this logic, Tom would have b..."
So now we are going to have to rewrite TGG. Daisy and Myrtle at the Old Corral Ranch with their Remingtons out of their holsters, taking pot shots at each other. I like that. Zane Grey could have done the rewrite.
Monty J wrote: "By this logic, Tom would have been justified in shooting Gatsby. Fair is fair. And what about the women? No one forced them into cuckolding their spouses. To avoid a double standard, Myrtle and Daisy should have shot each other in an equal opportunity duel...."
Interesting point, Monty. The discussions have prompted me to re read the book once again... One could argue, of course, that Daisy was justified in her affair with Gatsby -- after all, Tom started his affair with Myrtle FIRST. And, it was apparently not the first of his extra-marital affairs. There is a hint that the Buchanans left Chicago in the first place because of something shameful that Tom did. Daisy had faced a good deal of humiliation, plus she had the past connection with Gatsby.
As for Myrtle, yes, she was after Tom's money. There is also some hinting that Myrtle did not know what she was getting into when she married Wilson. He had borrowed the suit for their wedding, possibly giving her the impression that he was richer than he actually was. It is not an excuse for having an affair, but it adds to the moral ambiguity of the novel.
Christine wrote: "Monty J wrote: "By this logic, Tom would have been justified in shooting Gatsby. Fair is fair. And what about the women? No one forced them into cuckolding their spouses. To avoid a double standa..."
I got the impression that it was not just the money but that Wilson was a stay at home husband who didn't know how to romance the girl. No parties, no dancing, no flics, no kick up your heels and get shit/faced
Geoffrey wrote: "I got the impression that it was not just the money but that Wilson was a stay at home husband who didn't know how to romance the girl. No parties, no dancing, no flics, no kick up your heels and get shit/faced .."Agreed. That too. Interestingly, at the apartment party, Myrtle speaks of her first meeting with Tom as "The best day of my life", and shortly after that, Tom breaks her nose. Thus letting us know that this is no great relationship. It is Myrtle's "idea" of a relationship -- just like Daisy is Gatsby's "idea" of a relationship...
Christine wrote: " He had borrowed the suit for their wedding, possibly giving her the impression that he was richer than he actually was. It is not an excuse for having an affair, but it adds to the moral ambiguity of the novel."The suit thing puzzles me. People rent and borrow nice clothes for special occasions all the time. If Daisy had borrowed her wedding dress would anyone have cared?
For Myrtle to raise a stink about Wilson's borrowed suit says more about her than him. If she loved him, it wouldn't have mattered.
Wilson was an honest hardworking successful businessman who was devoted to and trusted his wife, a conniving, manipulative golddigger. The parallels between her and Daisy and Jordan are striking.
In the entire novel, no one loved anyone. They weren't capable of it. The central characters are a pack of narcissists except for Nick, Michalis and Wilson.
And among that sordid pack, only Tom publicly confesses his transgressions, professes his love for Daisy and vows to reform going forward. This is what sets him above and apart from the rest.
And in the end, Nick shakes Tom's hand, acknowledging his acceptance of Tom's behavior. (IX, 187-8)
I couldn't forgive him or like him but I saw that what he had done was, to him, entirely justified.Even though Nick naively disagrees with Tom's assessment of Gatsby, Nick shook his hand just as he had shaken Jordan's hand a few paragraphs earlier.
...I shook hands with him; it seemed silly not to, for I felt suddenly as though I were talking to a child.
If Nick thought Tom was unjustifiably responsible for Gatsby's murder, he would not have shaken his hand. On the contrary, he accepted Tom's action (of revealing to Wilson that Gatsby was the owner of the yellow car.) He doesn't like it, but he saw it as justifiable and acceptable.
Yeah, you don’t understand this book at all...
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Great Gatsby (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
A Life in Letters (other topics)The Great Gatsby (other topics)
Pretty sure everyone on this thread knows that Gatsby is involved in money, bootlegging and securities fraud. We've all read the book. That's why we're discussing it."
He also is hopelessly infatuated with a woman named Daisy.