Gatsby's Criminality

[Karen]

Monty's view of Tom and Myrtle says more about Monty than anything else I'm afraid.

[Geoffrey]

And if you really think that p,just go ahead and outline your gripes about M.s misunderstanding.

There are several points of contention between M. and myself, but I wouldn't make such an outrageous claim as you do. In fact, I think there is so much disagreement about this book with no two identical viewpoints that each of us could make that statement about any and all of the others, and you know what, I doubt SF himself completely understood the novel's there are so many layers of ambivalence, half truths and evasions by the various principles that would leave not only us, but him, somewhat perplexed.

[Harry]

Fitzgerald intended to convey that Wilson had very little money and did not own any suit, and that his lack of means bothered his wife.

Fitzgerald intended to convey that Tom was loathsome and that Nick, Fitzgerald's alter ego here, did too. If you read any passage that gives you another impression, Fitzgerald failed to be clear, although his intent seems clear enough to me,

[Monty J]

Harry wrote: "Fitzgerald intended to convey that Tom was loathsome and that Nick, Fitzgerald's alter ego here, did too. If you read any passage that gives you another impression, Fitzgerald failed to be clear, although his intent seems clear enough to me, "

So, the reader gets to form an opinion from whatever source he choses and selectively ignore what the author has laboriously placed on the page. By that logic, the reader can make whatever he/she wants of a book. An interesting and perhaps satisfying point of view, though guaranteed to earn a poor grade in literature class.

By your logic, here are a few of Fitzgerald's "mistakes":

Tom showed humanity when he cried over Myrtle. He wept in the car on the way home from the accident (VII, 141) [Nick, narrating]:

I heard a low husky sob, and saw that the tears were overflowing down his face.

Tom set Myrtle up with a nice apartment rather than dragging her from hotel to hotel. He bought her a cute little puppy, and he wept again when he saw the dog biscuits at the apartment after her death (IX, 179) [Tom speaking]:

"I went to give up that flat and saw that damn box of dog biscuits sitting there on the sideboard, I sat down and cried like a baby."

In the Plaza Hotel suite confrontation, Tom confessed his sins, professed his love for Daisy and vowed to reform, fighting for her by touchingly reminding her of scene after scene of their romantic history (IX, 132)[Tom again]:

"Not that day I carried you down from the Punch Bowl to keep your shoes dry?" There was a husky tenderness in his tone.... "Daisy?"

Tom had the good sense to have Gatsby investigated, thereby exposing him as a criminal and salvaging his marriage.
Tom also courageously confronted Wilson when he forced his way past the butler and came up the stairs with a gun in his pocket.

But these are all "mistakes" and are to be disregarded by the reader, whose judgement is superior to the author's.

I prefer to take Tom Buchanan as he was written--a brilliantly conceived complex character, not a comic strip cardboard cutout. Tom was flawed, as any complex character would be. But he also had redeeming qualities that set him apart from the others. In the climax scene at the Plaza Hotel, he admitted his mistakes and vowed to treat Daisy better, professing his love to her, something Gatsby never did. He stood up to Gatsby in front of everyone and called him out for the criminal fraud he was. And Gatsby went away like a banished dog with his tail between his legs, (VII,142)

They were gone, without a word, snapped out, made accidental, isolated like ghosts even from our pity.

Later Gatsby ran over Myrtle and failed to stop, like the coward he was.


As for Nick, we must not lose sight of the fact that he is a fictional character, not the author himself. Nick's reaction to Tom and all the others must be taken within that context alone. A character can be informed by an author's biography, but not defined by it.

(Aside... Perhaps the trouble with many modern readers is a "television" mentality, which narrows perception and attention span, forcing us to make snap judgements about a character. In all but the very best TV series (video games as well) we are presented with snapshots of characters and must form judgements about them from only a few observations, and even these between commercials. The novel is a different medium, to state the obvious, but even so, people skim read, and some only read the Cliffs Notes version. We have to slow down and take in every word to filter out what our minds are supplying in place of what's really there on the page.)

[Petergiaquinta]

@Geoffrey

Oh, I have...more than once. Just scroll up.

At this point, I’m doing nothing more than trolling the goof. If he thinks that constant, long-winded repetition of his bizarre, flawed (and frankly, troubling) ideas constitutes critical analysis of this complex novel, then the only reasonable response at this point is disdainful mockery. Or loud guffawing. Take your pick.

[Geoffrey]

I will. You're not particularly open minded. At least he cites sources from the novel itself, however flawed some of his thinking is.

[Geoffrey]

Monty J wrote: "Harry wrote: "Fitzgerald intended to convey that Tom was loathsome and that Nick, Fitzgerald's alter ego here, did too. If you read any passage that gives you another impression, Fitzgerald failed ..."

Tom is also a highly prejudiced white surpremacist and a violent man who strikes his mistress across their face. Hardly a paragon of virtue. Also consider another matter that no one has ever touched upon. He befriends Nick and socializes with him exclusively throughout the novel.This is despite the fact that they are from markedly different socioeconomic classes. Tom is inherited wealth, super wealthy in fact and does not have to nor does work. Nick is an upwardly mobile young financial professional who aspires to nouveau riche status in the bond markets. In fact Tom has no other male friend. What is the matter with Tom? How come he has no rich male friends? Because he is a boor, that's why. His own class keeps their well guarded distance. And yes, that is conjecture

[Christine]

Monty J wrote: "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...."

Well, one thing we can all agree on is that Myrtle DEFINITELY DID NOT LOVE HER HUSBAND!! At least that is obvious.

As for the rental thing -- come on Monty! You know that a woman as rich as Daisy would never rent a wedding dress! The reason people rent formal dress is because they cannot afford to buy it. As for Wilson, he could not even afford the rental, so he borrowed the suit behind Myrtle's back. I would argue this makes Wilson a bit of a deceptive character, too.

[Harry]

Nick on Tom:

“a rather hard mouth and a supercilious manner. . .arrogant eyes. . .a cruel body. . .a gruff husky tenor, added to the fractiousness he conveyed. . .a touch of personal contempt. . .there were men in New Haven who hated his guts. . .he seemed to say, “just because I’m stronger and more of a man than you”. . .there was something pathetic in his concentration. . .something was making him nibble at the edge of stale ideas as if his study physical egotism no longer nourished his peremptory heart. . . .There is no confusion like the confusion of a simple mind, and as we drove away Tom was feeling the hot whips of panic. . . Flushed with his impassioned gibberish. . . I was tempted to laugh whenever he [Tom] opened his mouth. . . .’What’s the matter, Nick? Do you object to shaking hands with me?’ ‘Yes. You know what I think of you’. . .I couldn’t forgive him or like him, but I saw that what he had done was, to him, totally justified. . .I felt suddenly as though I was talking to a child. . .They were careless people, Tom and Daisy—they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, and let other people clean up the mess they had made. . . ."

[Petergiaquinta]

>>Flushed with his impassioned gibberish

I know people like that!

[Geoffrey]

Petergiaquinta wrote: ">>Flushed with his impassioned gibberish

I know people like that!"

We all do.

[Harry]

Proust thought that was true of almost every person--that few people know how to talk, and even fewer know how to listen.

[Geoffrey]

Harry wrote: "Proust thought that was true of almost every person--that few people know how to talk, and even fewer know how to listen."

In a classroom, whisper a short story to a lead student. Have him whisper it to the person next to him. Go the round of the entire group and have the last person get in front of the class and repeat the anecdote. Surprise!!!!

[Monty J]

Geoffrey wrote: "Go the round of the entire group and have the last person get in front of the class and repeat the anecdote. Surprise!!!!"

Everyone has their own mental filter. It takes training to suppress the filter and see what is truly there. Most people live a lifetime not knowing they have blind spots.

During a discussion of The Outsiders, Francis Ford Coppola said (paraphrasing), "What's on the screen doesn't matter. The real movie goes on in the heads of the audience.

[Harry]

It's filter in part, to be sure, but no one gets a second
of training in listening,
and few people know how to.

I've met two--total.

Two.

[Monty J]

Harry wrote: "It's filter in part, to be sure, but no one gets a second
of training in listening,
and few people know how to.

I've met two--total.

Two."

"Listen with the eyes." --Stephen Covey, in 7 Habits for Highly Effective People. In his audio, he goes into it in some detail.

[Geoffrey]

Monty J wrote: "Harry wrote: "Fitzgerald intended to convey that Tom was loathsome and that Nick, Fitzgerald's alter ego here, did too. If you read any passage that gives you another impression, Fitzgerald failed ..."

Tom is a serial philanderer. Why would you take him for his word? He makes amends to Daisy but would you trust a wife who repeatedly has extra/ marital affairs?

[Harry]

Listen with your entire body.
And pause at least two seconds before you speak in response.

[Geoffrey]

Monty J wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "Go the round of the entire group and have the last person get in front of the class and repeat the anecdote. Surprise!!!!"

Everyone has their own mental filter. It takes training ..."

So your blind spot is that anyone who is a habitual liar even lies about a hit and run affair. do you see that as a blind spot. Mine is white supremacists. Don't like them, don't trust them, don't care to be friends with them

[Monty J]

Geoffrey wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Harry wrote: "Fitzgerald intended to convey that Tom was loathsome and that Nick, Fitzgerald's alter ego here, did too. If you read any passage that gives you another impression, Fi..."

Authors (FSF included) present a character in individual parts, the sum of which make a whole. It is up to the reader to weigh the package in its entirety. Tom is by far the most complex character in this novel, which makes him to me fascinating, especially from the standpoint of the Judeo-Christian precept of sin, confession and redemption.

None of the other characters exhibit this pattern. Gatsby was a narcissist as a teenager and young man (lied about his identity, to himself and to others and exploited women for pleasure) and his pattern of depravity continued throughout the novel. He only cared about himself. He never changed or even considered changing for the better.

Daisy, too, was out for herself, from beginning to end. She never changed. Never learned from her mistakes. She rejected Gatsby only after learning he was a crook, and did so immediately, in her own interest.

Jordan was similar to Daisy, only perhaps a bit more corrupt. She chose Nick because of what he could do for her (balance her carelessness) and rejected Nick only after he had "thrown me over."

Nick professed to be honest and objective about people, then went about assisting in Daisy's corrupt affair and helped Gatsby conceal his murder of Myrtle. He also extended himself on Gatsby's behalf after he died, even after learning Gatsby was running an illicit bond scam, a pattern of devotion that Fitzgerald seems to justify with Nick's homosexual traits (McKee and the train conductor, the way he discriminately reacts to men versus women and his rumination about a "a thinning list of single men to know".) In the end, Nick is sorry for nothing he has done, remains devoted to Gatsby and is only temporarily moved by what happened ("temporarily closed out my interest in the abortive sorrows and short-winded elations of men".) In other words, Nick remains ignorant of or carelessly aloof to the social harm he has participated in and covered up.

Myrtle, corrupt from stem to stern and paid dearly for her corruption.

Wilson, never corrupt, but stooped to murder under extreme duress and ended his own life because of it, completing the full loop of crime to punishment in a matter of seconds.

Yes, Tom was corrupt, but he and only he vows to reform and attempts to make amends by heading to the jewelry store, ostensibly to buy something expensive for Daisy. He was rewarded for his redemptive behavior by keeping his family intact. Do we trust him? Daisy does, and she knows him better than anyone. After all, Tom publicly declared his love for her at the Plaza Hotel and had bought her a $350K ($5.2 million in today's money) pearl necklace as a wedding gift. Gatsby never bought her anything and refused to say he loved her at the one time she most needed that reassurance--at the Plaza.

[Monty J]

Geoffrey wrote: "So your blind spot is that anyone who is a habitual liar even lies about a hit and run affair. do you see that as a blind spot. Mine is white supremacists. Don't like them, don't trust them, don't care to be friends with them."

The lying put me on guard, but Gatsby did a lot more than lie and the hit-and-run. He tried to steal someone else's wife, and stole large sums of money from innocent people on a large scale. He also tried multiple times to corrupt Nick by recruiting him onto his bond scam. Plus what I said above. I considered the entire package Fitzgerald presented. It bothered me that he died, but I saw the death as justice.

The Judeo-Christian pattern of sin to absolution was well known to Fitzgerald, having been raised a Catholic. He even wrote a short story about it, "Absolution," which had originally been intended as the prologue to The Great Gatsy Hemingway didn't like it and Perkins excised it, but it did speak to a the novel's theme of corruption and would have provided some badly needed background on Gatsby.

[Geoffrey]

Tom also had an extramarital affair, don't forget that, so Jay is on par on that mortal sin.

[Monty J]

Geoffrey wrote: "Tom also had an extramarital affair, don't forget that, so Jay is on par on that mortal sin."

Yes, with the slight difference that Tom had no intention of stealing a wife and destroying a child's secure family environment. He just wanted to have fun. Gatsby, on the other hand, fully intended to take Daisy away from Tom, with no consideration for Pammy's welfare. Both were wrong, immoral, but one is significantly worse.

[Geoffrey]

Monty J wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "Tom also had an extramarital affair, don't forget that, so Jay is on par on that mortal sin."

Yes, with the slight difference that Tom had no intention of stealing a wife and dest..."

Granted

[Geoffrey]

I won't argue Tom to be the more scrupulous but, hey, let's compare DT to Bolton. Both suck.

[Geoffrey]

Okay folks. let's switch course. Explain the quote "Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgastic future that year by year recedes before us". Sounds profound doesn't it? Typical SF. Bamboozles us with his eloquence but signifies nothing. What is the saying? Full of fury but signifies nothing,the line from Prufrock or Wasteland. and what the h//// does the orgastic have anything to do with anything. i really get sick and tired of SF's drivel and attempts at gravitas. Pretentious bore too often. Stick him with Joyce in a bottle, shake twice and pour on your grits.

[Geoffrey]

And what about Daisy's disembodied body. give me a break. Sounds great but so much blather.

[Geoffrey]

And let's discuss McKee. What is the purpose of this? Is this but an oblique effort on SF's part to expunge his homosexual guilt. Why, if Nick is writing this book, bothering to put this confessional in the novel. It doesn't add anything to the story. Or does it? Confirmation on his latent homosexuality? SF's attempt to undermine Nick's adoration of a scumbag who may be the hero of aspiring upwardly mobile American readers?But why would Nick write this in? The narrator and author are working at cross purposes in including this scene.

[Christine]

Monty J wrote: "Tom had no intention of stealing a wife and destroying a child's secure family environment...."

But what about Tom's serial adultery? We don't know the circumstances of the women, just that there were many. Tim had MANY, MANY affairs, not just the one with Myrtle. Case in point:

1) Tom gets in a (Chappaquiddick style??) car accident -- "the girl who was with him got into the papers, too, because her arm was broken -- she was one of the chamber maids in the Santa Barbara Hotel." This event happened when Daisy and Tom had only been married for a few weeks! He was already cheating!

2) Tom is conspicuously "absent" during the birth of his daughter. "She was less than an hour old and Tom was God knows where. I woke up out of the ether with an utterly abandoned feeling..." (Implying specifically that he was off with another woman, as Tom would most likely be cheating while Daisy was pregnant.)

3) At Gatsby's party Tom tells Daisy he wants to have dinner separately from her (presumably to pick up women.) "Go ahead," answered Daisy genially, "and if you want to take down any addresses, here's my little gold pencil." She looked around after a moment and told me the girl was 'common but pretty'. " Daisy is so used to this sort of thing that she even gives Tom her pencil to take down numbers!!

4) The whole reason the Buchanans left Chicago in the first place was because of Tom's (embarrassing and disgraceful) extramarital affairs. "Do you know why we left Chicago? I'm surprised they didn't treat you to the story of that little spree."

So, the evidence is there that Tom has had numerous affairs throughout their marriage. Do we really believe he is going to stop now, just because of his so-called confession and absolution? Cheaters, like drug addicts, often cannot stop.

[Christine]

Geoffrey wrote: "Okay folks. let's switch course. Explain the quote "Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgastic future that year by year recedes before us" ..."

I think it is supposed to mean that even though the "dream" evades us, we keep striving for it. "Gatsby believed in the green light." He was never going to achieve his symbolic green light -- which for him meant wealth, and Daisy's love. But he strove for it anyway and he actually believed in it.

"The orgastic future that year by year recedes before us." Orgastic -- still not sure that is a real word! Haha, but it works here. I think it is supposed to mean, again, that the dream evades us and "recedes" away from us. Nonetheless, there is something noble in believing and striving for it.

TGG is, in a lot of ways, a novel that supports illusion yet at the same time warns against it.

[Christine]

Geoffrey wrote: "And let's discuss McKee. What is the purpose of this? Is this but an oblique effort on SF's part to expunge his homosexual guilt. Why, if Nick is writing this book, bothering to put this confession..."

I don't think it was "homosexual guilt", but it may have been FSF's subtle little way to make a statement about the prevalence of homosexuality. FSF hung out in Paris with Getrude Stein et al (Djuna Barnes, Cole Porter, etc.) As a writer and an observer, I think the closeted United States of 1922 (even liberal New York City) may have struck FSF as something that needed to be exposed, or something that would add interest to the novel. Plus, it is "coded" as are a lot of other points in this book.

I know folks think that the McGee incident is just a way to let us know that Nick is really, really drunk. Maybe so. But there would have been other ways of showing this. (Like he could have ended up in bed with Catherine, or something more hetero... Hell, if we take that bent, he could have ended up in bed with Myrtle! Which would have been interesting. But it would have shown straight guy DRUNK.)

[Petergiaquinta]

Nice job, Christine, documenting Tom’s serial philandering...clearly, this is a pattern of poor behavior on Tom’s part that will continue in the future. There is no redemption for this character, nor does Fitzgerald want us the readers to feel anything but scorn for him in the pathetic scene near the end when Nick sees him and reluctantly shakes his hand.

[Monty J]

Christine wrote: "Monty J wrote: " Tom had MANY, MANY affairs, not just the one with Myrtle.

Tom had multiple affairs. Gatsby was a serial deflowerer of virgins. I call that pretty much draw in terms of quantity. It's the quality of Gatsby's affair with Daisy that stands out. A calculated attempt to destroy a marriage to have Daisy as a trophy wife. Never once did Gatsby express the slightest concern about what Daisy wanted.* Nor did he express any worry over what might happen with Pammy.

*The sole exception to this was at the end of chapter 7, after Myrtle's murder, when Nick happens upon Gatsby in the Buchanan's garden where he was on vigil. Daisy was to signal him. (VII, 152)

She's locked herself into her room and if he tries any brutality she's going to turn the light out and on again.

On checking, Nick finds Daisy and Tom commiserating over cold chicken in the kitchen. This one time, after he fear's he's lost her, Gatsby is actually extending himself on Daisy's behalf. And it seems out of character for him.

What he do? He spent seven or so hours, 9:30PM to 4:30AM (minus however long it took him to walk to the train station or whever he found a taxi.) alone in the garden, "waiting for nothing." (If he'd had a cell phone he'd have been taking calls from Slagel and the rest of his bond scam sales crew and reporting back to Wolfsheim.)


Christine wrote: "2) Tom is conspicuously "absent" during the birth of his daughter. "She was less than an hour old and Tom was God knows where. I woke up out of the ether with an utterly abandoned feeling..." (Implying specifically that he was off with another woman, as Tom would most likely be cheating while Daisy was pregnant.)

Speculation. There's no indication in the text that Tom was having an affair when Daisy was pregnant or giving birth, and Fitzgerald was plenty capable of making that point if it were his intent.


Christine wrote: "Cheaters, like drug addicts, often cannot stop."

Sounds speculative to me. But feel free to cite a source.

A sex addict I agree might be unable to quit, but there's no indication in the text that Tom was a sex addict. Even so, Daisy would have known this before marrying him. Or should have. But again, there's no such indication in the text. We should stick to the text. By my count, Nick alludes to only three affairs on Tom's part--the maid, Myrtle and the one in Chicago that caused them to move east.


Christine wrote: "she even gives Tom her pencil to take down numbers!!

This could also mean Daisy was encouraging Tom to be unfaithful.

Let's be honest, Daisy was no wallflower. Nick infers late in the text that Daisy was no virgin when she first ran into Gatsby at a Louisville party at age 18 and he was 22. (VII, 149)

It excited him, too, that many men had already loved Daisy - it increased her value* in his eyes.

Furthermore, there was no indication that in any of Tom's affairs he was involved with a married woman or a woman with a child.

(To be clear, I am NOT defending corrupt behavior, just analyzing it.)

In summary, both men had multiple affairs, but Tom never tried to destroy a family. In fact,no one in the book seemed concerned about Pammy. She might as well have been a potted plant.


*Note the phrase "it increased her value" in the block quote above. Here Nick is telling us Gatsby saw Daisy as a thing of "value," something to possess. It was all about obtaining Daisy. Gatsby wanted to possess, to own, not love.

[Geoffrey]

Right on P. and C. This guy can't keep his pecker in his pants. It's virtually impossible for such a compulsive philanderer to keep it zipped. Any sequel to this story would have Tom squire another 100 gold diggers. He needs to manipulate and exploit the lower classes. Of course, the truth is that he is of the "lowest class"

[Geoffrey]

My previous comment refers to the misplaced word "orgiastic" which is indeed a word and refers to orgies.The Scribner paperback edition of TGG has comments after the novel ends which includes the history of this word. Originally SF used the word "orgasmic" and then substituted the other. At times I find SF pretentiously eloquent and this is one of those cases. The other, the statement about Daisy's disembodied head. I wish Perkins had taken SF to task about these two and several others.

[Monty J]

Geoffrey wrote: "Explain the quote "Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgastic future that year by year recedes before us". What is the saying?"

The word Fitzgerald actually coined was "orgastic." Later editions added the "i," but it was later restored to the original.

I don't think Fitzgerald meant any sexual connotation. To me it was to suggest the future as magically full of pleasure and possibility, but like a horizon that recedes as you move toward it. You can never actually get there. An "orgiastic future" was Gatsby's hedonistic, grandiose conception/dream of the possibilities in life.

I recall a letter Fitzgerald wrote to either a friend or his editor saying he had based Gatsby on himself. Gatsby could be inspired by the grandiose spectrum of Fitzgerald's own bipolar personality, a postmortem diagnosis I have read suggested by some biographer or pundit.


Geoffrey wrote: " Stick him with Joyce in a bottle, shake twice and pour on your grits."

I tend to agree. Some of it is kind of poetic, but he pushes it too often in TGG, taking me out of the story. He does this some in This Side of Paradise, but not in Tender is the Night, and it's a more enjoyable read for that reason.

However, the Nick's use of flamboyant language could be Fitzgerald's way of characterizing him as having an "artistic game" emotional personality, a stereotype often associated with the homosexual male.

I say this because no other character in Fitzgerald's short stories and the three of his novels I have read exhibit such language except Nick Carraway, the guy with a crush on Gatsby, admires Tom's physique, is aroused by the male train conductor, frets over his dwindling list of single men to know and admires Tom's muscularity and the masculinity of his girlfriend Jordan Baker. Add flamboyant language to the list.

[Monty J]

Geoffrey wrote: "And let's discuss McKee. What is the purpose of this? Is this but an oblique effort on SF's part to expunge his homosexual guilt. Why, if Nick is writing this book, bothering to put this confessional in the novel. It doesn't add anything to the story. Or does it? Confirmation on his latent homosexuality? SF's attempt to undermine Nick's adoration of a scumbag who may be the hero of aspiring upwardly mobile American readers?But why would Nick write this in? The narrator and author are working at cross purposes in including this scene.
"

This topic deserves its own thread. Pardon me if I post it?

[Geoffrey]

I make only one correction in your posts. It wasn't a train conductor but the elevator man.

[Monty J]

Geoffrey wrote: "I make only one correction in your posts. It wasn't a train conductor but the elevator man."

It's aboard the commute train on the way to the Buchanan's before the car caravan to the Plaza Hotel. Here's the scene (VII, 120-21):

The straw seats of the car hovered on the edge of combustion; the woman next to me perspired delicately for a while into her white shirtwaist, and then, as her newspaper dampened under her fingers, lapsed despairingly into deep heat with a desolate cry. Her pocket-book slapped to the floor.
"Oh, my!" she gasped.
I picked it up with a weary bend and handed it back to her, holding it at arm's length and by the extreme tip of the corners to indicate that I had no designs upon it — but every one near by, including the woman, suspected me just the same.
"Hot!" said the conductor to familiar faces. "Some weather! hot! hot! hot! Is it hot enough for you? Is it hot? Is it.. .?"
My commutation ticket came back to me with a dark stain from his hand. That any one should care in this heat whose flushed lips he kissed, whose head made damp the pajama pocket over his heart!

[Christine]

Monty J wrote: "Gatsby was a serial deflowerer of virgins. I call that pretty much draw in t..."

I am not sure I'd call Gatsby a "serial deflowerer of virgins". The passage was as follows:

" He knew women early, and since they spoiled him he became contemptuous of them, of young virgins because they were ignorant..."

But which is worse? A young single guy having a lot of girlfriends, or a married guy having extra marital affairs?

Also, maybe in her younger years Daisy was no wallflower, but there is no indication that she cheated on Tom before her affair with Gatsby. I get the idea Daisy may have thought the affair with Gatsby was payback for Tom.

Even if Tom only had 3 affairs, that is still 3 affairs in 5 years! A lot. Plus we know Myrtle WAS married. Just look at Wilson's reaction when he finally figured out Myrtle was having an affair. It made him physically sick and he immediately made plans to pack her up and leave town.

I'm not saying any of their behaviors were commendable, but just that I don't see how Tom is such a great guy. It seems to me Tom's ego would have suffered enormously if her were to lose his wife to Gatsby. And maybe she could have ruined him, gotten her hands on his money for alimony...

But, in the end, I have to agree that Daisy and Tom had some sort of alliance (however wicked) and in the end Daisy did choose Tom, so perhaps that says something good about him.

[Monty J]

Christine wrote: " in the end Daisy did choose Tom, so perhaps that says something good about him. "

Yes, she made the only decision that made sense to me. What sensible woman wants to marry a criminal? And Tom, faults and all, was a known entity, and he had promised in front of everyone to reform. Maybe he would cough up another $5 million (today's dollars) necklace.

[Geoffrey]

-
Monty J wrote: "Christine wrote: "Monty J wrote: " Tom had MANY, MANY affairs, not just the one with Myrtle.

Tom had multiple affairs. Gatsby was a serial deflowerer of virgins. I call that pretty much draw in t..."

considering that neither Tom nor Daisy took particular interest in their child, whether Jay would have bonded with her had he married the divorcee is moot. We do not know whether he had any paternal instincts, but Daisy certainly did not have sufficient maternal interest in her child. When Nick asks about the kid, she talks about herself not the toddler. How self centered can a mother be?

[Christine]

Geoffrey wrote: "When Nick asks about the kid, she talks about herself not the toddler. How self centered can a mother be?..."

I think Daisy and Tom's relationship to their daughter says something about "rich American society". I get the idea that people who are that rich do not care too much about their kids -- because they constantly have the kids taken care of by hired help -- as Pammy is certainly more in the care of nannies than she is ever with Daisy.

At the same time, offspring are absolutely necessary for the very rich -- as they are obsessed with bloodlines, and their wealth has to be inherited by their children. It is very paradoxical.

One might ask what is the purpose of Pammy as a character in the book at all? But I think the purpose is at least twofold:

1) Pammy's existence reveals Daisy's wish she be a "beautiful little fool" -- thus showing that Daisy feels trapped within her own life.

2) Pammy adds to the impossibility of an actual marriage between Jay and Daisy. With a child involved, a divorce from Tom would be way too messy. The scene in which Daisy introduces her daughter to Jay is excruciatingly awkward and painful. Jay has no idea what he would do with this daughter.

[Christine]

Monty J wrote: "Maybe he would cough up another $5 million (today's dollars) necklace...."

Even a $350,000 necklace in TODAY's money is nothing to sneer at, haha! I hope Tom did reform, for Daisy's sake. (Imagine a sequel! Someone once wrote one for Gone With the Wind!)

[Petergiaquinta]

@Christine: The scene in which Daisy introduces her daughter to Jay is excruciatingly awkward and painful. Jay has no idea what he would do with this daughter.

This scene is so awkward and painful for Gatsby because Pammy is irrefutable evidence of Daisy's relationship with Tom, the one real thing that Gatsby cannot ignore or erase as he seeks to turn back the clock and erase the past.

[Geoffrey]

Christine wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "When Nick asks about the kid, she talks about herself not the toddler. How self centered can a mother be?..."

I think Daisy and Tom's relationship to their daughter says something..."

You are absolutely correct in that it is often poor parenting on the superwealthy or even nouveau riche. I have seen this in several wealthy families. they can't be bothered with the kids, they've got more important dinner engagements.

[Harry]

There are bad rich parents and hideous impoverished ones; if there is a correlation at all, put a few bucks on the wealthier family.

And dinner engagements are the stuff of older novels.

[Geoffrey]

Harry wrote: "There are bad rich parents and hideous impoverished ones; if there is a correlation at all, put a few bucks on the wealthier family.

And dinner engagements are the stuff of older novels."

neither, Harry. I've taught all three classes, lower, middle and upper, and the lower classes and upper are the worst, the middle class by far the superior.It is all by parental guidance or lack thereof

[Harry]

Associating indifferent parenting with wealth doesn't even rise to the level of analysis.

[Karen]

Geoffrey wrote: "Christine wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "When Nick asks about the kid, she talks about herself not the toddler. How self centered can a mother be?..."

I think Daisy and Tom's relationship to their daugh..."

Bad parenting exists regardless of income, since the wealthy are a minority, I would argue that most bad parenting occurs among lower income and average income parents.