The Great Gatsby
discussion
Gatsby's Criminality
Monty J wrote: "The words on the page have the most weight because they're what the author wrote...."But that's rarely the case in the world of publishing. What about the role of the editor?
Monty wrote;"I will do that, definitely. )And perhaps you'll appreciate the social critique.)"
I think that Peter and several others including myself ARE reading it for the social critique also- the opulence and destruction- that is different from reading TGG as a crime novel with Gatsby as a kingpin.
As far as my memory affords, I can recollect not a single policeman in the Gatsby narrative except perhaps at the conclusionThere is a policeman earlier when Gatsby is pulled over for speeding, I believe. He pulls a card from his wallet, shows it to the cop, and suddenly it's all apologies, have a nice day, Mr. Gatsby, sir...
Or maybe I dreamed this. I don't have the book in front of me.
This does seem a tad kingpin-ish, the old card in the wallet gambit which suddenly opens all doors...
No, he 's still not a kingpin, Monty!
Monty J wrote: "B. Nick notices "well-dressed" Englishmen at the party whom Nick concludes are probably selling bonds. C. The owl-eyed man reveals that most of the patrons at the parties were brought there, suggesting they were solicited...."In the days of the 'speakeasy' everyone was 'brought' to parties. You had to be sponsored, approved, escorted, & spoken-for, in order to be admitted anywhere.
I read this entire 'damning' item this way: Gatsby parties where financial transactions were conducted, parties at which VIPs were sought--were (1) a standard feature of Gatsby's long process of making himself a multi-millionaire and (2) part of his stratagem to lead him back to an encounter with Daisy. Not for the sake of any money in/of itself; but only as a means to make himself a suitable match for her, at last.
So it all comes back again to his true motive: romance.
Feliks wrote: "If his business broke no laws of land, then you're moralizing...Come-on, be real. Just because he hadn't been caught doesn't mean he broke no laws. How many traffic laws have you seen broken, or have you broken, without being apprehended?
Parke was "picked up." By whom do you think? His mother, taking him to church? Slagel thought he was reporting this to Gatsby. Bonds were mentioned. What, rubber bands? A list of numbers, if not serial numbers, what were they?
You're doing back flips again.
Your knife cuts both ways. Sure, being a law-abider doesn't necessarily mean one is 'clean' in the eyes of God. But neither does merely 'breaking a law' (whether one is caught or not) necessarily make one a lifelong criminal either... much less, would it "automatically render one a bad man". Earthly jurisprudence is not adequate to describe the 'state of a man's soul'. Nor is earthly religion. We just don't know anyone's true state-of-grace. That is a matter between a man and his Maker.
But as far as Gatsby's American citizenship is concerned, there probably were no laws he was even breaking.
Which could account for his unconcerned attitude. He clearly wasn't skulking; slinking around through the underbrush of Long Island. He was out in the open. He wasn't Richard Kimble, running away.
As for what the 'phone call conversation' really meant--I'm content to realize that I don't know. Nor can I even guess at all the myriad financial maneuvers which stock market sharpsters might have been involved in, back in those days. Maybe they were selling bonds to other brokers. Maybe they were short-selling or back-dating, laundering, or a hundred other maneuvers. Its ambiguous enough for me to simply "let it be"; and instead form my lasting impressions of Gatsby from all the sundry other more convincing material found in the rest of the read.
Bonds and bootlegging...it's interesting what Fitzgerald is doing here--what could be more American and what could offer someone like Gatsby a quicker buck if what he wants is fast and easy money to gain access to Daisy's rarified world of privilege?And consider Nick...he's drifting post-WWI...his family wants to find something productive for poor Nick to embrace, where he can put down some roots and make some money, and so they send him off to NYC to make his way in the rapidly expanding bond market...it's the same institution that Gatsby is milking from the other side of the law!
If you do a search for "bond market 1920s," you'll find some interesting reading. (Pensions don't seem to be linked to the bond market until the 1940s or '50s, according to the graphs in the second link.) The third link is to a publication through JSTOR, so I'm not sure you'll be able to see it, but it's a 1950s article from the University of Chicago: "A Bond-Selling Extravanganza of the 1920's." Apparently there was big money to be made by U.S. banks selling fairly useless Latin-American government bonds...and think where all this perfectly legal bond market led the country by the end of the decade.
I don't want you fine capitalists out there to think too poorly of me, but I'm not sure there's really that much difference of consequence between the legal and the illegal sides of the bond market in the 1920s!
Good legwork there, Pete.Also, 'Faust' comes to mind. Gatsby is a man of the world, after all. If you enter into a devil's bargain it doesn't mean you yourself, are evil. You may have simply misplaced your soul, but you can usually get it back.
Feliks wrote: "'Faust' comes to mind..."I agree with the Faust analogy.
Petergiaquinta wrote: "If you do a search for "bond market 1920s," you'll find some interesting reading..."I've done a similar search. It's hard to find anything, but, as a bit of trivia, I used to manage money for Texas Instruments. Once a month I'd have lunch with my peers at Halliburton and a couple of other Dallas multinationals, and we'd compete with each other forecasting interest rates. The month I won (got closest to the prime rate) I was awarded a framed worthless counterfeit 1920s municipal bond certificate, inlaid with a news article about how counterfeit bonds contributed to the 1929 collapse. It's packed away somewhere.
The Fiztgeralds, while Scott was working on TGG, lived in Great Neck where one of his neighbors was a wealthy investment banker who threw lavish parties, a likely source for his material about bond scams and uber-partying. Gatsby is likely a blend of: a) Fitzgerald himself, b) his Great Neck Wall Street high-roller, and c) a bootlegger phenomenon in the Chicago area who also threw lavish parties.
NYC is certainly the most vulgar burg I've ever been confronted with. It hasn't gotten any better since FSF was around Great Neck. In fact, these days having a mechanic like Wilson and his wife as neighbors would be a blessing and a relief.
So you are hankering after Myrtle, Feliks?
Oh yerr. That is my kind of wimmen. Plus, free wheel alignment by hubby. Good-hearted, solid, American citizenry.
Watch out or the hubby might do more than wheel alignment. He might go for the tailpipe.
I'm coming back to this thread because this business about "Gatsby's corruption" seems to have started here. It is now plaguing nearly every Gatsby discussion. So here is the thread where it must be counter-acted. Why? Because its a smear campaign. Yes, a smear--okay but what's wrong with that? Monty's a polite guy, a gentleman, educated... and he's arguing for nothing more than more stringently -applied morality, so what's the harm?
No harm at all. Ordinarily, I'd do what I could to embrace these aims. Except that in this case what's happening is that we are altering the reading experience for others. Taking away the enjoyment of the book for new readers. This is just as wrong as discussion threads where people forget spoiler-tags and give away surprise-endings. Just plain reckless and over-reaching.
So its time to nip this 'reform movement' in the bud. This whole thing has gotten way out of hand.
---------------***--------------
First, I don't very much appreciate (and I'm sure no one else does either) being informed that I am 'morally lax' because I don't hate Jay Gatsby. It is no stain on my personal ethics to NOT hate this book.
---------------***--------------
Next: let's remember that it's a work of fiction; and that no actual crime has been committed. Why *should* anyone be up in arms about Gatsby's past? He's make-believe, yes? Don't we have better things to do with our time?
---------------***--------------
Next: reading a book bears no reflection on how I behave in my role as a citizen of this nation. I can be in energetic favor of prosecuting all lawbreakers, yet still fully enjoy this obvious romance novel.
---------------***--------------
Next: the 'evidence'. Let's re-sift all of Monty's exhibits, cited above in the OP of this thread.
Frankly, they wouldn't be accepted by any 'court' anywhere.
Circumstantial evidence, is all that they consist of. Point by point:
~*~*~*~
A. Nick sells bonds for a living and Gatsby tries repeatedly to recruit him to join his team to peddle bonds that are apparently counterfeit or stolen.
Supposition. 'Apparently counterfeit' --? This insinuation is based on what? Even if Nick had chosen to work with Gatsby, there's nothing wrong with that--just as long as Gatsby's guilt itself, is unproven. And it never is proven, so there's nothing wrong with Gatsby inviting Nick to join him.
~*~*~*~
B. Nick notices "well-dressed" Englishmen at the party whom Nick concludes are probably selling bonds.
And? So? Whether or not any transactions occur at this party there is no evidence that the transactions are anything but legal. Such dealings are the normal, routine flow of business activity in the world of finance.
~*~*~*~
C. The owl-eyed man reveals that most of the patrons at the parties were brought there,
Hearsay. This is a man merely speaking his own opinion, and this man is not in a position to confirm his opinion one way or the other. He could be mistaken. He could be speaking from a motive of his own. His opinion would have to be cross-examined before it would be accepted by a court.
~*~*~*~
C. suggesting they were solicited.
Inconclusive. As mentioned above, 'being brought to a party' during Prohibition can have numerous interpretations. In this case especially, (since Gatsby's own motives for throwing strings of parties are portrayed cryptically and enigmatically by the author himself), we have even less reason to suppose we know exactly how/why guests appear.
~*~*~*~
D. Repeated references are made to "Chicago," a city notorious during the 1920s as a center for organized crime, Al Capone in particular.
Inconclusive. Chicago was hardly the only such city notorious for crime in that era. Crime was country-wide.
"Repeated references "--? If one insists that Fitzgerald's 'repetition' constitutes culpability--consider that they can be nothing more than Fitzgerald's mistake, whim, or even his mere stylistic decision, part of his authorial flair in general. There is no 'logic' in an author's style. He's simply telling a story; and a very complicated and artful one at that. It could be a misstep, could be a stumble on his part. Could just be bad writing.
Moreover, FSF was a known alcoholic, an erratic artistic temperament...how can we trust anything he might say or do?
~*~*~*~
D. Gatsby is repeatedly interrupted to take or make telephone calls, some from/to Chicago, ostensibly to coordinate bond scam activities.
Inconclusive. We don't know what content actually transpired during these conversations.
~*~*~*~
E. Nick intercepts a telephone call from Chicago intended for Gatsby about someone named Parke getting apprehended.
Leading. Is this the only business call Jay Gatsby ever received? What were the nature of all the other business calls Gatsby ever might have received? Were they all as "lurid" and "melodramatic" as this? Is it proven that all Gatsby's business phone calls were all related to the bond business? Jay Gatsby is a millionaire, perhaps a multi-millionaire. He may have many businesses; many streams-of-income.
If Gatsby is involved with bond scams (by no means, a proven fact) it may only be a recent development. A recent turn which his enterprise has taken. He might have been duped. He might have been unwitting. He might have been trying to extricate himself out of any such dealings.
If you insist that he *had* to be involved --at some point-- in chicanery--even so, that may have been a mere episode which occurred when he was building his early fortune. A mistake attributable to youth and inexperience. He may not have had any direct involvement for a long time, subsequent.
Money makes money. As a millionaire, Gatsby likely has diversified holdings. He may have made most of his money entirely legitimately. He may have leveraged an original small seed sum into many millions via the stock market, without any associated taint of bond manipulation. There are many ways in which an entrepreneur could have made his fortune. It is not for anyone to come along at this late date and stipulate that there was just 'one way'.
~*~*~*~
Next: Gatsby's criminal activities have been downplayed if not largely ignored by literary critics,
Nevertheless, they are the experts, they are numerous, and they are in a strong consensus. They have 'close read' the book for decades. No judge would give any credence to the notion that an amateur can come along and overturn their expertise.
~*~*~*~
Next: they have exaggerated his romantic side, doing a disservice to readers and students of literature.
Unfortunately that is what you are doing, Monty. That's why I'm objecting. Stating your 'speculation' the way you did originally was --marvelous --illuminating--grand. And it would still be, if you did but that much and then ceased. If you allow us to choose for ourselves, how to interpret and enjoy this book. But you are making this into a propaganda campaign, you are now mandating the reaction you wish to see--and therefore as guilty as any of the critics you're accusing of over-zealousness. It's time to let the witch-hunt drop.
~*~*~*~
Next: Fitzgerald complained "that of all the reviews, even the most enthusiastic, not one had the slightest idea what the book was about," a condition that apparently has not changed.
This is tying two statements together which have no connection established between them at all. Fitzgerald's remark has nothing to do with your own ponderings about this novel. You are claiming it does, but without any proof.
----------------------------------------------
I rest my remarks here. If Monty's insists we use "just what's between the pages" I have just shown that there is not enough certitude either way to determine Jay's guilt. Gatsby is entitled to the benefit-of-the-doubt when the evidence is this insubstantial. Assuredly, there is enough doubt to allow us to return to enjoyment of the literary aspects of the novel itself, and forget all such judiciary angles. There is enough ambiguity present to stay the hand of any fair-minded individual who is inclined to damn him.
That cryptic comment by Fitzgerald about critics failing to understand his book could be spun in so many different directions it hurts to think about it. I'm surprised no one offered the quote up on that lengthy thread about Nick being gay as "proof" for a homoerotic reading of the novel.Maybe Fitzgerald was talking about the way critics rarely read the book through the lens of the "Lost Generation." Maybe he was thinking about neo-Platonism. I dunno. I doubt we'll find a conclusive answer, though.
Feliks wrote: "I'm coming back to this thread because this business about "Gatsby's corruption" seems to have started here. It is now plaguing nearly every Gatsby discussion. So here is the thread where it must..."
Thank you Felix! Good work.
All we know is what present day critics have said about the book, but what actually was said back in 1922 by the literary critics of that time? We are assuming that they made the same comments then as have been made since. I, for one, would like to see a composite compilation of the principal comments made by book reviewers in the two years following the publication of the book prior to commenting on whether SF's comments were on the mark or not.As for the appropriateness of Monty's claims, although I do find some over the mark, let me remind people of Plato's Cave. Appearances can be deceptive. There is a strong subtextual thread throughout the novel and Monty's and mine attempts at deciphering them are a step in the right direction. Unfortunately for me, his is the more studied.
Feliks wrote: "what's happening is that we are altering the reading experience for others."No one can make you feel stupid without your permission. People can read and think for themselves. They don't need a consensus or a dictator to tell them how. They will read what I write, and you and everyone else, including the author, and make up their own minds.
(Or, are you so insecure in your perception of the book that you have to shout down the conflicting opinion of a curious mind?)
Feliks wrote: "A. Nick sells bonds for a living and Gatsby tries repeatedly to recruit him to join his team to peddle bonds that are apparently counterfeit or stolen.
Supposition. 'Apparently counterfeit' --? This insinuation is based on what?"
Based on what Fitzgerald wrote, as cited elsewhere and here again:
E. Nick intercepts a telephone call from Chicago intended for Gatsby about someone named Parke getting apprehended. (Ch. IX, p. 166) Nick, narrating:Who do you think picked up Parke, his mother? What trouble's he in, being out after curfew? What circular with numbers do you suppose Fitzgerald's referring to in relation to bonds? You'd have to be simple-minded, obstinate or extremely naive not to conclude Fitzgerald's telling us the bonds were stolen or counterfeit and that Parke was trying to sell them. Jeeze, if an author has to spell everything out for readers, where's the fun reading?
...Long Distance said Chicago was calling...the connection came through as a man's voice, very thin and far away.
"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 interrupted breathlessly. "Look here--this isn't Mr. Gatsby. Mr. Gatsby's dead."
The proof that Gatsby is a sub-lieutenant kingpin in a scam to sell stolen or counterfeit bonds is right here.
Feliks wrote: "If Gatsby is involved with bond scams (by no means, a proven fact) it may only be a recent development. A recent turn which his enterprise has taken. He might have been duped. He might have been unwitting. He might have been trying to extricate himself out of any such dealings. If you insist that he was involved at some point in chicanery--even so, that may have been a mere episode which occurred when he was building his early fortune. A mistake attributable to youth and inexperience. He may not have had any direct involvement for a long time, subsequently."
Show us the text supporting this speculation.
And as for inconclusiveness, of course the individual clues Fitzgerald laid out are inconclusive when taken individually. No one asserted otherwise. But taken together, as I have laid them out chronologically, a pattern emerges. The words didn't drop onto the pages by themselves; Fitzgerald put them there, in that specific order, and for a reason. (And I think I know what it is. Stay tuned for my next topic, "Jay Gatsby, the Inverted Frog Prince."
Feliks wrote: "Nevertheless, they are the experts, they are numerous, and they are in a strong consensus. They have 'close read' the book for decades."
A--Copernicus challenged conventional consensus and was proven right.
B--My opinion is the only one I have, but I own it. It wasn't handed me by a teacher nor borrowed from a movie. I can only speculate as to how others come up with theirs.
C--Experts are a dime a dozen and prone to group think. Independent thinkers are rare.
Feliks wrote: "No judge would give any credence to the notion that an amateur can come along and overturn their expertise."
A--Einstein was a patent clerk when he published his Theory of Relativity. No judge would have listened to him either.
B--You've just committed one of the cardinal sins of an educated person--the discouragement of the pursuit of knowledge.
Feliks wrote: "...you are now mandating the reaction you wish to see"
Where? Where have I done this? By being passionate? By being eager to engage others, by challenging others to look below the surface and think outside the conventional box?
At least I don't belittle someone for thinking differently and have supported my position from what Fitzgerald actually wrote (something I've noticed conspicuously absent in your posts.)
Feliks wrote: "...forget all such judiciary dimensions. They simply don't belong here. "
Who put you in charge? What makes you the arbiter of what belongs anywhere? You have the temerity to draw box around certain phrases Fitzgerald wrote that don't fit your neatly packaged perception and pretend they don't exist? Even Harold Bloom admits Gatsby's a criminal.
And if Fitzgerald created the hero of the novel as a criminal, it means something. It speaks to the essences of his character, his values, what he deserves out of life. In the end, he's in denial about Daisy and dies a violent death at the hands of the man whose wife Gatsby is responsible for killing. It's judgment day. That's how Fitzgerald judged Gatsby. How readers judge him is up to them.
Oh stop- counterfeit bonds, who CARES? I don't think Feliks is simple minded. He's right, except for the counterfeit bonds, still, who cares- bonds are boring. Except for James Bond.
Geoffrey wrote: "All we know is what present day critics have said about the book, but what actually was said back in 1922 by the literary critics of that time? We are assuming that they made the same comments then..."You know, you can find just about anything on the Interwebs, I've heard...and anything else you'd like to read would be in a good library with access to the Twentieth Century Literary Criticism series, an enormous multi-volume set published by Gale.
But here's a little something special from H.L. Mencken, who didn't much like the book and early on refers to Gatsby as" a young man with a great deal of mysterious money, the tastes of a movie actor and, under it all, the simple sentimentality of a somewhat sclerotic fat woman." That Mencken guy never held back. I wish he was here today to weigh in on Donald Trump!
Like any reviewer, Mencken got some things right and some things wrong. (And I think he must have cursed FSF by saying of the author's literary output, "There is certainly no sign of petering out in Fitzgerald"!) If you know Mencken, you'll love this review. And if you don't, you'll probably think he's an ignorant a-hole. He sure didn't worry about spoilers!
Read it for yourself:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifesty...
Here's Time magazine (5/11/25):http://time.com/vault/issue/1925-05-1...
The New York Times (April 25, 2015):
https://www.nytimes.com/books/00/12/2...
The LA Times"
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/...
And here's an interesting bit of reading:
http://www.mhpbooks.com/ten-nights-on...
I had no idea there was a 1926 film version. The link to it in that article is broken, so here's another link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_3bo...
Merry Christmas!
Oh, these are good! Merry Christmas to you too!I like this line from the L.A. Times review-
"The story is powerful as much for what is suggested as for what is told."
This is one reason I find the book so interesting, and one reason why I read it over and over.
Agreed. Monty stresses the importance of 'sticking only to what is between the covers of the book'. Going so far as to scoff at any other evidence!But his exhibits are all (or almost all) based on dialog. What is said in any story's mere expository dialog is far from being the only way in which meaning is conveyed.
Whether in real life or a novel, dialog hardly ever encompasses what is actually going on. Things don't have to be stated aloud, in words, to be true.
Gatsby stands every night gazing out across the water to Daisy's dock. Do we need him to tell us what he's doing? In speech? What can a man in love 'say' about his passion which wouldn't sound cliche, trite, and superfluous?
If you see a man holding a razor to his wrists, do you need to ask him what's on his mind? Does he need to answer?
Feliks wrote: "Gatsby stands every night gazing out across the water to Daisy's dock."In your mind, maybe, but in the book he does it only once.
Feliks wrote: "Things don't have to be stated aloud, in words, to be true."
Omg, could we be talking about subtext? Could you mean, like, Fitzgerald's more than fifty poetic references to ashes? As in the valley of ashes? No, I didn't mention any of that.
Feliks wrote: "Monty stresses the importance of 'sticking only to what is between the covers of the book'"
I've never said that nor implied it. I've only given it the precedence it deserves. After all, those are the author's words, which I have just illustrated just above, are subject to interpretation and distortion.
Hi guys! Just jumping in to thank Feliks for his astute analysis. One thing that got to me in Feliks' comment, and I want to emphasize: " in this case what's happening is that we are altering the reading experience for others. Taking away the enjoyment of the book for new readers."
Exactly so! I, for one, do not want to ruin the experience of the book for new readers.
Petergiaquinta wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "All we know is what present day critics have said about the book, but what actually was said back in 1922 by the literary critics of that time? We are assuming that they made the s..."Thanks P. but that is only one critic. As SF complained that the critics didn't get the real gist of the novel, that doesn't address the issue. Yes, Mencken was insidiously ferocious in his criticism. But thanks for including the link. I had read only a portion of that review that had been included in the after notes of the paperback edition. I still want to see what the rest of them had to say.
I do believe that Mencken had it down pat. His remarks have struck some resonance with me as I have always felt this book to be a deeply flawed "masterpiece".
Karen wrote: "Oh stop- counterfeit bonds, who CARES? I don't think Feliks is simple minded. He's right, except for the counterfeit bonds, still, who cares- bonds are boring. Except for James Bond."Who cares? That's exactly the point we're making. Americans have so tragically lost their moral compass that they are not disturbed that a criminal peddles counterfeit bonds. Perhaps this is the issue that SF was addressing. In the 20's we lost our moral moorings, cast adrift in a sea of immorality.
Karen wrote: "Oh stop- counterfeit bonds, who CARES? I don't think Feliks is simple minded. He's right, except for the counterfeit bonds, still, who cares- bonds are boring. Except for James Bond."Haha Karen, I had said something similar in another thread! Love your JAMES bond :)
Merry Christmas.
You can love him all you want. I want his women.
If no one cared in the 1920s as bond swindles were occurring, (much less caring about the plight of returning veterans, or the Molly MacQuires, or later the Okies) it's even less to purpose for anyone to care about it this many decades later. There's real life people today being swindled, how about them? What does hand-wringing do anyway? This whole thing is so childishly naive. It's beyond the responsibility of any mere novel-reader who picks up Fitzgerald's book. The only power we have is the ballet box, but since the whole government is corrupt anyway, pray tell what the feck is there to do about teapot dome scandals and whatnot? Its OVER.
Christine wrote: "Hi guys! Just jumping in to thank Feliks for his astute analysis...."I very much appreciate the kind word. The way I see it: Monty's original argument has been met with an argument of exactly equal force. He took up a lawyerly approach; and so did I. The result was scissors-scissors, rock-rock, paper-paper. If it takes a third argument--or a fourth argument-- to maintain the front.... just to make his initial premise stand? Then that is a descent into mere hair-splitting and quibbling. There is no longer any moral force behind the platform; no longer any high-ground, and consequently no longer any reason to ramrod these condemnatory views all over the Gatsby discussion pages. It remains a very interesting literary debate, nothing more. Nothing to prick anyone's conscience with. Like I said above: his investigation is great if kept to one treatise. Thought-provoking and cogent. Revelatory, in its way. But making it into a pogrom --reducing people's opinions to just ONE 'correct reaction' to the book--is what's egregious.
Geoffrey wrote;"Who cares? That's exactly the point we're making. Americans have so tragically lost their moral compass that they are not disturbed that a criminal peddles counterfeit bonds. Perhaps this is the issue that SF was addressing. In the 20's we lost our moral moorings, cast adrift in a sea of immorality."
Ummm.... We are discussing a novel, my comment was not about real life bonds, though they are boring. And no, I am not disturbed that a criminal peddles counterfeit bonds IN A NOVEL.
Feliks wrote;" Like I said above: his investigation is great if kept to one treatise. Thought-provoking and cogent. Revelatory, in its way. But making it into a pogrom --reducing people's opinions to just ONE 'correct reaction' to the book--is what's egregious."
Yes, and that is what Monty is doing.
Christine wrote;"Haha Karen, I had said something similar in another thread! Love your JAMES bond :)
Merry Christmas."
Thanks Christine, Merry Christmas to you also!
Monty wrote;"In your mind, maybe, but in the book he does it only once."
How do you know he only did this once?
Monty wrote; "Who cares? That's exactly the point we're making. Americans have so tragically lost their moral compass that they are not disturbed that a criminal peddles counterfeit bonds. Perhaps ..."There's no tragedy in the slightest. Your evidence is as thin as spun glass. The case is founded on sand, and just as microscopic. You're making your hay off the hides of others who are perfectly innocent of this grossly unfair, 'blanket accusation'. The 'point' itself is sanctimonious and self-serving. None of our 'moral compasses' is wobbly. No one today was even alive at the time.
To read Gatsby is to enjoy a work of multi-faceted prose, from which many things can be gained. It is not a dry, matter-of-fact court proceeding. No defendants are in the dock. There are no actual victims .
Nor is there any course of action for anyone to take. Whatever the moral compass of Americans today is, giving a rat's ass about real [or fictional] bond sales (past, present, or future) makes not the slightest stain on anyone's halo.
Readers shouldn't have *any* regret for simply picking up a celebrated American novel and enjoying it for what it is. Fitzgerald's comment? Too bad. If he blew it, he blew it. Readers find the story romantic.
This moral-bandwagon'-ing then, is nothing more than someone "using" people for ends-of-their-own. Continuing to tilt-at-windmills well after your evidence has been knocked down, demonstrates that. If it were only literary debate you were keen on, you'd let the matter rest. But nope. You got a hangup about this thing and you're forcing it on others. I'll continue to object to it.
Feliks wrote: "None of our 'moral compasses' is wobbly."I never mentioned a moral compass. That was Geoffrey.
Feliks wrote: "The 'point' itself is sanctimonious and self-serving."
If you (and others) can use the phrase, so can I. You've just skewered yourself.
Feliks wrote: " your evidence has been knocked down,"
You're deluding yourself. I'm running circles around you, and you're too dizzy to see it.
Ffeliks wrote: "You got a hangup about this thing "
I'm just getting warmed up.
Monty wrote;"In your mind, maybe, but in the book he does it only once."
How do you know he only did this once?
Can you answer the above please?
Monty wrote; " I never mentioned a moral compass. That was Geoffrey."
Yes it was, but you have mentioned a moral compass elsewhere, and don't ask me to find it- it's there and you know it, in the many other threads on this that you have started.
Feliks wrote: "You got a hangup about this thing "
Monty wrote; "I'm just getting warmed up."
What is your problem then? You are getting warmed up for what? Weird.
Karen wrote: "but you have mentioned a moral compass elsewhere, "Nope. Not a phrase that I use.
Karen wrote: "How do you know he only did this once?
Can you answer the above please?"
It only appears in the book once. Concluding from this that he does it every day is an extrapolation from the reader's imagination, which he/she is of course welcome to do. But Feliks stated it as fact, not opinion. A fact it is not. The scene of Gatsby reaching for the green light appears only once.
Yeah..I'm disappointed. When it gets down to the level of "I didn't say that there in that thread, I said it here in this thread and I meant this, not that"...then, its nothing more than any of the splashing and dogpaddling I've ever seen on the net, displayed in only the shallowest kiddie-pools of forum 'discussions'. No great premise ever survives on such folderol. I expect better from Monty; having seen him in some really wonderful debates.
This my be my last remark for the rest of the evening (unless I read more of the responses cached above).Let me put this out there. I won't even accept that any (fictional) Americans in this (fictional) story were "swindled"--- even were we to accept outright, any of Monty's logic that Gatsby and his cohorts were 'bond scammers'.
Let's for the moment agree they were scammers. That still does not represent crime. Crimes need victims. I'm not convinced at all that any of the hypothetical 'townspeople' were truly victims; nor do I credit that if they were swindled, that it was at all dastardly or cold-hearted on the part of Gatsby et al. Nope. I'm not swallowing these violin-accompanied assumptions by Monty --not when it comes to this fine point of criminal behavior.
Because, I'm not satisfied that these targets were themselves, free from taint. Monty left it unexplored; he simply stated the moral intransigence as if it were fait accompli. 'Ma and Pa Kettle had their life-savings taken', so pass around the handkerchiefs, sob sob sob. Baloney.
Such melodrama is just not a 'given', if you know anything about the way scams and con artists work. Particularly cons of the 20s, which I do happen to know a tiny bit about (no, not from watching Newman & Redford in 'The Sting'.)
I can cite three works-of-reference right off the bat which will inform you that scams of that era were rarely played on completely innocent rubes or 'simple, innocent townsfolk'.
Scammers invariably, overwhelmingly chose only those individuals who were already involved in some petty larceny themselves, as their dupes. They always roped in the small-town sharpsters, the avaricious, the tax-cheats, the gamblers, the wiseguys, the hustlers. Sneaky, dishonest small-businessmen were their favorite repast. The innate chicanery of everyone's local store-owner, is what fixes their lips 'on the hook' in the first place. Every time.
Con men's accounts are very consistent on this point: when they lay bait, there's always a stage at which an honest citizen would simply shrug and pass it up. It's always the 'smart guy', the 'slick-but-not-slick-enough' amateur anglers ...those perennial low-lifes who always "seek something-for-nothing" ...that cons are designed for.
Its a fresh angle from which to test Monty's theory, and I wish I had recalled it earlier. Why should anyone necessarily feel any sympathy when some crooks ..rob some other crooks? There are no real victims of 1920s scams, as far as I'm concerned. Remember, 'you can't cheat an honest man'.
Its at least as valid to consider these supposedly swindled citizens as crumbs deserving of their mishap, as it is to style them 'plain, sweet, honest, God-fearing souls from the American heartland'. Therefore, Monty's cross-country "guilt-trip" --to Chicago and back-- collapses like a carnival tent.
Exercise in rhetoric? Maybe, but it again shows up that all these criminal theories are built upon prose fiction, and all of them are therefore insubstantial. There is no reason to take this novel as a yardstick for anything which might ever have happened in real life. Its a confectionery, no more.
Monty J wrote: "It only appears in the book once. Concluding from this that he does it every day is an extrapolation from the reader's imagination, which he/she is of course welcome to do. "No, it's much more than that. It introduces an important motif that runs throughout the book. C'mon, Monty. You should understand these things better than most folks on GoodReads. You're just being willfully stubborn here. We see Gatsby reaching toward the green light once, but as readers we are led to understand by Nick that this is a recurring, habitual action not limited to the one time Nick sees it. He would have us understand that Gatsby did this action more than once--he says as much later in the book--and he just happened to eyewitness this private action one time on one particular evening. How many scenes in this short novel is Fitzgerald going to include of Gatsby reaching out to the light? That's not the way books are written.
And what's more, we have the "light green" car that Myrtle reaches out to; we have the green breast of the New World that the Dutch sailors reached out toward centuries before. And of course there is that last page of the book, "Gatsby believed in the green light..." It's that same green light that we all believe in. Well, most of us anyway...
Monty wrote;"It only appears in the book once. Concluding from this that he does it every day is an extrapolation from the reader's imagination, which he/she is of course welcome to do. But Feliks stated it as fact, not opinion. A fact it is not. The scene of Gatsby reaching for the green light appears only once."
So therefore we are all supposed to believe it happened only once? Do you? Like Peter said, that's not the way books are written. Or maybe you are just playing us and having what you think is "fun."
And yes, you have brought up morality many times concerning this- maybe you didn't use the word "compass". Let's split more hairs.
Petergiaquinta wrote: "It introduces an important motif that runs throughout the book."Yes, of course. I was just playing Word Pong with Feliks, who'd been razzing me.
And your connection of Myrtle and the green car upholstery was very observant. I'm still absorbing the ramifications of that.
Both Myrtle and Gatsby sought materialistic gain through corrupt relationships (adultery) with wealthy individuals, and both were killed by the yellow Rolls "death car," a symbol of materialism. The car killed Gatsby indirectly because Gatsby failed to stop it (Even Bloom admits this), causing Wilson to hunt him down.
If I were directing a film of this book, I would make a big deal of the green upholstery right before the crash and show Myrtle reaching for it just the way Gatsby reaches for the dock light. It was a corrupt path Myrtle and Gatsby had chosen which led to their deaths, and the green upholstery supports that link in Myrtle's case.
The green light can generically represent opportunity, material wealth included. One of the essays in Bloom's analysis of Gatsby addresses the theme of corruption and supports my conclusions. I will soon post excerpts from it.
As I said, people can imagine Gatsby reaches for the light every day if they want to. For me, once is enough to make the point. The green light comes up often enough to support it.
I am reminded of that final scene in Pretty Woman where the hero in his white limo gets the girl and some guy on the street yells, "Welcome to Hollywood. What's yo' dream?" Here it is:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIl-h...
The difference being that the Richard Gere hero wasn't corrupt and the Julia Roberts heroine reformed her "waywardness." Nobody dies, or needs to, in contrast with Gatsby and Myrtle's tainted romances.
Feliks wrote: "If one insists that Fitzgerald's 'repetition' constitutes culpability--consider that they can be nothing more than Fitzgerald's mistake, whim, or even his mere stylistic decision, part of his authorial flair in general. There is no 'logic' in an author's style. He's simply telling a story; and a very complicated and artful one at that. It could be a misstep, could be a stumble on his part. Could just be bad writing."This triggered an involuntary guffaw. It's not only an insult to an artist of Scott Fitzgerald's stature, it's about as likely as winning the lottery.
I accept that there may be aspects to an author's style that come naturally, but "no 'logic' in an author's style" is a bit sweeping and dismissive. It says everything just effortlessly flies into place. Word choices are not deliberate. Symbols are not painstakingly selected for emotional impact, to open up a reader and get past resistance, to support a theme, carry a motif. Authors don't have editors to catch their mistakes. The moon doesn't come up in the east every day.
It's like saying Mozart didn't compose; he just sat and watched The Marriage of Figaro fly onto the page from that ink-tipped feather in his hand.
(Put this on your list of things to cover in the confession booth.)
Imagine you have the ability to understand the artistic process. Imagine you have it all figured out. Imagine that music couldn't possibly come in a flourish, but must be logically consistent and painstakingly placed to manipulate the listener, to maximize emotional impact, to get past their resistance (to what?). Imagine a writer so lowly in his creativity that his editor would correct every mistake the editor deems must be a mistake. Imagine a preacher at a pulpit telling you the one true way things must be. Then you have no need for imagination. Just a spoon. Imagine.
Karen wrote: "What is your problem then? You are getting warmed up for what? Weird. ""Weird" is an understatement. I can't explain it. I'm just going with a feeling, an obsession, trusting that the meaning will eventually reveal itself.
It started over a year ago when, as a writing warm-up exercise, I started retyping The Great Gattsby into my laptop, hoping to learn something about writing and that maybe some of Fitzgerald's talent would rub off on me by ink osmosis.
What happened was beyond expectation. It was like getting hit by lightening in slow motion, non-stop. Typing the sentences forced me to absorb his words at a much deeper level than just reading them.
The last time I became this obsessed with a book was in 1989, when East of Eden changed my life. I rented the miniseries (Jane Seymour) and synched it up with my reading. Paid the late fees. Came away transformed.
I still go to the Steinbeck Festival in Salinas every year or so. I've actually trekked on foot down to the Salinas River near Soledad where Highway 101 crosses over, trying to find the place where George and Lennie camped. I should become a Steinbeck literary tour guide.
I can't explain it. It just is.
James wrote: "Imagine a preacher at a pulpit telling you the one true way things must be."Imagine a reader who is so insecure in his perception of a book that he can't stand to read an opinion he doesn't agree with. Literary discussions are limited just to those with whom he/she agrees.
It's okay for someone like Harold Bloom through the weight of their position to distort a dead author's work, but anyone who attempts to bring to light what has been overlooked, or deliberately disregarded, must be shouted down.
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)
While Gatsby was alive & kicking--while he was still among the quick--he himself, apparently worried not one whit about the cops. He was a respected member of the community as far as the law was concerned.
If his business broke no laws of land, then you're moralizing to no purpose and allowing it to skew your literary analysis. American business is --well, heck we stole the entire country from the indians in the first place. Rapine and pillage is a staple of ours; chicanery lay behind all the great fortunes (DuPont, Getty, Rockefeller, Morgan).
What are you really looking for? That readers should repudiate this transcendent novel because the character engaged in some slick financial footwork? That will never happen, and insisting we ought to is quixotic at best.
After all, society is not going back to using the headsman's axe, or hot pincers to extract the tongues and eyeballs of people who steal loaves of bread from shop-windows. These days, you'd have to start at Congress and work your way down.