The Great Gatsby
discussion
Gatsby's Criminality
Monty J wrote: "Imagine a reader who is so insecure in his perception of a book that he can't stand to read an opinion he..."It's not insecurity. We simply don't like baseless arguments. That's what's been emerging here. Poorly-formed debate always rankles in the nostrils of reasonable men.
Monty J wrote: "I'm just getting warmed up. ..."
I wouldn't have it any other way. I need some new gristle to gnaw on during my lunch breaks and chicken fingers just aren't doin' it.
So if you wish to play William Jennings Bryant, there's a squad of people here who seem willing to play Clarence Darrow. You'll tired out before we will.
I for one, will personally replace the yoke of restraint and commonsense back down on any Goodreads discussion thread where I see this 'skewing' of new readers going on. No one should have a 'free hand' to sour that many people's reading pleasure. I'll direct everyone right back here to this thread where the argument breaks down; so they can see for themselves. Sure, 'any publicity is good publicity', and your fanbase will grow; but it's only fair that the rest of us all do what we can to slow this whitewash from dripping all over the site.
Anytime you interrupt a legitimate Gatsby discussion to assert his criminality, I'll pipe up with the counter-evidence we've explored here, which thoroughly debunks this strange streak of irresponsibility on your part. Nothing personal, it's just the right thing to do.
We could almost cut to the heart of the matter right here.Everything you've stated up to now has been piffle. Each point has been undercut, batted down.
For your theory to have even a faint shred of cogency you would have to show us--show us very convincingly, no far-fetched gyres of circumlocution--show us that Wilson killed Gatsby because Wilson & Myrtle were among the supposed innocent victims of Gatsby's alleged bond-swindling. Show us that Wilson 'lost a bundle' in a bond deal and that this is why he killed Jay.
That's the only true point at which the story could be styled a crime yarn. Otherwise it is a romance.
If FSF had it in mind to write a pulp crime tale but neglected this fundamental part of classic story-structure, your assertions fail. They remain 'inference'; 'circumstantial-evidence' only.
Because the rule is: when a pulp crook gets his comeuppance in Act III , his doom must stem from his misdeeds in Acts I & II. Otherwise no moral interpretation is conveyed to the audience.
If Gatsby is slain by random chance, that says you can lead a life of crime without any penalty. After all, anyone can be killed by random chance.
We see though (in the book), that Gatsby is killed not by random chance but but a series of events stemming from his pursuit of Daisy.
That says: romantic tragedy. Nothing less.
So go to it. Find somewhere that says Wilson & Myrtle were playing the bond market and somehow got 'taken' by Gatsby. Prove that Wilson wasn't grieving for Myrtle but furious over his market losses when he pulled the trigger.
Remember, whatever you come up with has to be stronger than all the other evidence found to the contrary. Not just something someone mutters in a phone conversation, or hears at a distance of thirty yards away on a golf course. Show it to us in the foreground of the narrative.
Feliks wrote: "That's the only true point at which the story could be styled a crime yarn. Otherwise it is a romance. "It is neither, and to cast it as such discredits your entire argument. It is social critique delivered on a platform of romantic tragedy.
"Gatsby stands every night gazing out across the water to Daisy's dock.."I'm indifferent to the debate over whether this is stated explicitly--or how many times it was ever stated-- by FSF or not. As I said earlier, not every observation in a novel, is given an explicit sentence of its own, to be sure that low-brows can connect the dots correctly.
Look at it this way: Gatsby purchases an expensive waterfront property which faces Daisy's across the Egg. What does anyone do when they own an estate which fronts up against a body of water? Avoid the dock? Stay inside the house? Even when you know the love-of-your-life is across the bay? Obviously, he comes down to the water from time to time for a quiet moment. It doesn't have to be stated, it's human nature.
Feliks wrote: "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 (fic..."
Actually, in American jurisprudence, an intent to commit a crime is indeed a crime in itself. If someone approached you and offered you to eradicate your worst enemy, regardless of whether you did so, he would be guilty.
If you conspire to kill the President in conjunction with a jihadist, regardless of whether either of you purchase the arms necessary to bring that action about, you are guilty of conspiracy to commit murder.
If you work at the highest level of a company and you feed insider information to Martha Stewart about future uptick on the company's stock in exchange for a future cash take, you are guilty of conspiracy to aiding and abetting insider trading.
Regardless whether Peachers or whoever actually sold the bonds, had they been stolen or counterfeit the attempt would land that person in gaol. Simply stated, intent constitutes guilt.
Monty J wrote: "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 t..."
I envy you Monty. I was a subscribing member to the JS literary society several years ago and they shipped me more than 20 of their past journals. I have several first editions of his books.
I have never been to CA so I never made that opportunity. I would love to go to the frog pond the boys went to from Tortilla Flat, where the bus got stranded, Rickert's laboratory, the brothel that Debra Winger and Nick Nolte rendevoused at, the empty lot where the boiler engine home was situated. I never visited the government camp that the Joads stayed at. Its real life director was married to Dorothea Lange, the photographer, and ran for P on the Socialist ticket back in '76. I was fortunate to meet his campaign manager in Boston years later. What a heyday!!
Geoffrey wrote: "Actually, in American jurisprudence, an intent to commit a crime is indeed a crime in itself...."Yes, I'm aware of the nature of 'conspiracy' charges in the States.
Your comments stem from my remark that 'crimes need victims'? Okay. Fair enough. I dashed that off because I had a lot of material to get to and was eager to start.
Nevertheless, the rest of my post stands. Put it this way: if a crime is to be prosecuted, suspects must be identified and 'possible misdeeds' must exist in the mind of the authorities. 'Victims' are a part of that.
There must be some kind of 'loss' or 'harm' reported, set down on record. Something has to have transpired for the state to become engaged. There must a questionable series of deliberate actions on my part which they examine. There must be an investigation.
For, unless I embark on steps which reflect my intention, I am guilty of nothing. I can walk down a street contemplating any crime I wish. 'Thinking' a crime is no crime; there is no way to indict me on my "thinking" unless it results in an action.
Example: I 'thought about' a jewel robbery a decade ago, but never acted on it in the slightest. Not guilty. Not even charged. Never even suspected.
Here's one perhaps you are unaware of: I can rest my hand on someone's jewel case in the middle of the night, but if the jewel case is proven not to have been moved--not even one inch--then, no theft has occurred. Law enforcement must indeed, develop its case based on circumstantial evidence alone. They can be grossly off-base in that situation; my conscience can be entirely clean. 'Trout in the milk', happens very rarely.
Thus: conspiracy is often much harder to prove than crime in real life and certainly much harder to prove in the sphere of literature. If we can only find that Gatsby 'contemplated' a misdeed --that is assuredly not enough for Monty's 'Hellfire & Brimstone' campaign.
For Monty, everything rests on innocent 'townspeople losing their savings'. I still say this is his inference; and by insisting upon it --forcing us to analyse it as a real crime--it falls apart. That's not how bond scams worked.
Monty J wrote: "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. ..."Two wrongs don't make a right. It's merely your opinion that Bloom distorted anything; your urge to 'redress his wrong' rests on shaky ground in the first place. Secondly, your supporting arguments have not carried the day; and thirdly your attempt to sway others to your opinion is as much malfeasance in its own small way as any influence Bloom ever exerted.
"Feliks wrote: "That's the only true point at which the story could be styled a crime yarn. Otherwise it is a romance. "Monty J wrote: "It is neither, and to cast it as such discredits your entire argument. It is social critique delivered on a platform of romantic tragedy. ..."
Story structure doesn't lie. The book has a protagonist, the protagonist was killed. How? By chance? No. By his misdeeds being turned back upon him? No. Because of his love interest? Yes.
Its cut-and-dried at this level and there's a several powerful disciplines within literary criticism which would support it pretty much as I've just stated. They're the big leagues, and they make Harold Bloom look like a sniveling waterboy. You'd never rumble with them, and you know it. You won't go anywhere near them; because there's no way to grandstand or earn any of the vainglory you're seeking. I could invite an expert on detective fiction to this thread and he'd laugh at your theory of Gatsby's moral turpitude.
So all this is an 'ego trip' of yours (as well as a guilt trip on us). You're not Robin Hood, you're not Gunga Din; you're not Joan-of-Arc. You just want to tilt at a windmill...Harold Bloom looks fit for the part of a villain, and so you ride off to meet him. But its a faux battle. The structure of 'The Great Gatsby' makes itself abundantly clear as to what kind of story it is. Bloom's influence was negligible. It'd be regarded as a romantic storyline had he never lived.
Fitzgerald says, 'No one ever understood this book'? Fine, but it clearly doesn't mean what you stipulate he meant by that. He wasn't referring to Jay's 'criminal' conduct. No way in hell. Because F Scott Fitzgerald didn't write Jay Gatsby dying as a result of his 'criminal' lifestyle. Without that, your theory won't wash. You can't accuse readers of missing a moral if the moral wasn't even offered by the author.
Now, can we have the old Monty J back?
A message to Monty:Rina started a thread called "My point of view." She started it. You never asked her a question about why she might think about what she posted. Rather, you shut her down. Your response: "So you think..." "Do crooks deserve anything but jail?" PERIOD. No questions to her. You simply shut her down without a thought. She didn't post after that. Do you even ask yourself why? I don't think you do. Because there is no evidence that you do.
You post your opinion over and over and over again. To me, personally, you're opinion is rather boring. But that doesn't matter. What matters is that you are demanding that other people listen to what you have to say in such uncompromising terms that it stops other people from contributing here. I want to hear other opinions. Other than yours. I want to enjoy what other people have to say.
Take a chance. Go back. Ask Rina more about why she feels the way she feels. You might learn something.
James, I agree with your post, I have noticed also that new posters are not contributing, so these threads Monty is starting here are not very accessible to others.
James wrote: "A message to Monty:Rina started a thread called "My point of view." She started it. You never asked her a question about why she might think about what she posted. Rather, you shut her down. Your..."
Actually quite a few people have posted to this message thread, so if it was Monty's intent to shut people down, the very opposite has occurred. Your criticism lacks merit on that account.
Karen wrote: "James, I agree with your post, I have noticed also that new posters are not contributing, so these threads Monty is starting here are not very accessible to others."Sure they're accessible. Anyone can post.
Monty J wrote: "Feliks wrote: "That's the only true point at which the story could be styled a crime yarn. Otherwise it is a romance. "It is neither, and to cast it as such discredits your entire argument. It is..."
Exactly, but then again that fact has clearly sailed miles above everyone's heads.
Geoffrey wrote: "Karen wrote: "James, I agree with your post, I have noticed also that new posters are not contributing, so these threads Monty is starting here are not very accessible to others."Sure they're acc..."
Anyone can post, but I it's only been four or five of us- no new readers of the book.
Bravo to James for mentioning Rina's thread. It was that which prompted me to come barreling back here. Appalling. Sheer browbeating of that girl.
And--before anyone mentions it--yes, I myself have plenty of bad traits and irascibility when I post online. But I'm as critical of myself as anyone else.
Geoffrey wrote: "Actually quite a few people have posted to this message thread ..."I see what you're saying, but really isn't this thread all about rebutting Monty's strange attack on readers who enjoy 'The Great Gatsby'. All about Monty J?
To me, this chat doesn't look anything like the typical harmless, tentative, hesitant Gatsby thread where readers new to the material, ask questions and talk about their impressions.
Geoffrey wrote: "Exactly, but then again that fact has clearly sailed miles above everyone's heads. ..."What fact? My comment about it not being a crime yarn? Or Monty's reply?
We've posited from the first that its a romantic tragedy, rather than a morality tale. I still maintain that, and none of my arguments have been shaken in the slightest.
I also don't think anyone here has missed any tricks. Seems a pretty bright bunch.
Monty's arguments aren't Bertrand Russell or Ludwig Wittgeinstein caliber stuff.
What he's handing us is really just a throwback to emotional, (pre-New Criticism), 'literary appreciation'. He's admitted as much when he confessed his own dabbling in the financial market. He 'feels for the poor folks who lost their savings'. Fine.
But now we have this mawkish, stilted self-recrimination he is foisting on everyone...overlaid with a thin veneer of 'close reading'.
Sorry, but that's how it strikes me. No offense to Monty. Even a good-hearted guy can go off down the wrong road.
But really...the whole methodology is unsound and antiquated. Asking readers to alter their genuine reactions to what is in front of them (for 192 pages), in favor of a hysterical judicio-moral stance?
All based on a couple of tiny, ephemeral, red-herring sentences buried in the last few pages of the work? Stringing it all together with logic as stout as paper-maiche?
That' s why I want the old Monty back. He argued well, but even better, he had temperance and restraint.
Reinforcing my post #110Another reason why I say picayune clues like "the comment from the owl-eyed man", or "calls from Chicago" (found early on in the book), are meaningless the way Monty is choosing to interpret them. Their face-value is zero.
Why? Because F Scott Fitzgerald would never break "Chekhov's shotgun" rule. Never. He was too astute a novelist.
Monty insists such microscopic observations, laced through the text, point to Gatsby's true character: "willfully criminal".
Yet--since the structure of the novel never follows through on this aspect whatsoever--they are left 'dangling'. That's clear to everyone, right?
Monty had to go back and hunt them up. He had to root them out. They're not connected to anything which later transpires in the plot. Gatsby doesn't die a criminal's death and no moral is presented.
So, do ye think Ft Scott Fitzgerald overlooked 'dangling dialog' in a novel just 192 pages long? He 'forgot' these 'important' clues? Hardly.
But, what other conclusion would there be except that he deliberately broke the Shotgun Rule (drawing the reader's attention to something that has no follow-up)?
That's a cardinal sin; and Scott Fitzgerald just wasn't that blind, or incompetent. These items look like grist for Monty's mill, but they're simply not. They're nothing. FSF didn't forget he wrote them, nor did he intend them to represent some hidden theme. They're just 'banana peels' to slip up on, if you stroll down a primrose path not watching where you're going.
.
.
Feliks wrote: "Appalling. Sheer browbeating."Pot calling kettle black.
Feliks wrote: "To me, this chat doesn't look anything like the typical harmless, tentative, hesitant Gatsby thread where readers new to the material, ask questions and talk about their impressions. "Who put you in charge of what people get to say?
Monty J wrote: "Who put you in charge of what people get to say? "By forfeit--and default--under the circumstance that no one else is able to step up and maintain democratic proceedings, yes, I will put forth some effort. Think of the role of Captain Horster in Ibsen's 'Enemy of the People' --who (when the town tried to silence Dr. Stockmann) ensured a forum where everyone could have a voice.
When a heavyweight like yourself (armed with very persuasive powers of argument) starts throwing his weight around and behaving irresponsibly...then someone like myself is bound to speak up. It's not a prerogative, its a duty.
I really don't give a hoot about your literary investigation, I myself found it interesting and stimulating. But you can't go shoving it down folks' throats no matter how deeply you feel about it. That's the only reason I came back to this thread. You're one of the best posters on the Goodreads site but I'll repel this Bible-beating campaign anywhere I can, simply on the face of it.
I'm dismayed to see a good mind (yours) lend itself to this kind of partisanship and hegemony. You got the bit-between-your-teeth about this book...its a mystery as to why, when there are so many better pursuits you could be furthering.
I'm satisfied so far, that if anyone visits this thread (and they will) they will see that the logic has been eviscerated from your platform and that there's only your 'fervor' left. Thankfully, that's not enough to convince anyone to hate this great American novel. Not on this internet.
I'm a die-hard proponent of books and reading, as you may remember.
Monty J wrote: "Pot calling kettle black."That may be true. However, anywhere that someone calls me down for it, I'll listen to them and rein myself in accordingly. Just last week I flew off the damn handle on the Recommendations board, I know I did, and I'm kicking myself for it. All I can do is mend my ways better, in future. You on the other hand, don't yet even admit you're overstepping.
Monty J wrote: ""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. ..."It's not there even when you shine the light on it. You've got a theory with more wires holding it together than what Orville & Wilbur built at Kitty Hawk. The 'blind-spot' is in thinking that you can use logic to restrict the way other people feel towards this profound work of fiction. That's a mis-use of the tool.
Millions of readers have never heard of Harold Bloom; yet they all find their way to the self-same reaction --completely on their own-- when they encounter this novel: they see stirring, bittersweet romance. He didn't brainwash anyone. He's not Blofeld.
I think everyone who discusses Gatsby on Goodreads would be pleased to read your insight on this 'criminality' angle. But you have to know when to step off the pulpit and allow people to make up their own minds. No agenda-steering of free, open discussions.
Feliks wrote;"I think everyone who discusses Gatsby on Goodreads was, is, (or would be) pleased to read your insight on this 'criminality' angle. But you have to know when to step off the pulpit and allow people to make up their own minds."
That's where I see a problem also. New readers of this great novel need to be able to post their ideas, and we can help expand on them-THEIR ideas.
Feliks wrote: "He didn't brainwash anyone."Except the teachers who are introducing them to the novel.
Feliks wrote: "It's not a prerogative, its a duty."Sort of like me, defending Fitzgerald's work against distortion, huh?
Feliks wrote: "Gatsby doesn't die a criminal's death and no moral is presented."He does precisely that. Wilson shoots him for killing his wife with his car. His body, ignored by his staff, floats around the pool like a dead opossum until Nick arrives. And Gatsby's hundreds of party-goers, Daisy included, shun him by ignoring his funeral, at which he is judged by Owl-eyes as "The poor son-of-a-bitch." Daisy, the stated object of his affection, doesn't even lift a finger to pick up the phone and order flowers--a kick in his postmortem dental work. Even the lowly Wolfsheim fails to show, and after Nick paid him a personal visit.
Moral? You expect a writer of Fitzgerald's stature to state, "The wages of sin is death" or something? Be real.
Feliks wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "Actually quite a few people have posted to this message thread ..."I see what you're saying, but really isn't this thread all about rebutting Monty's strange attack on readers wh..."
Yes, but we have had so many other threads about TGG, so all the spunk has tired us out of old critiques to bring up. Now, on the other hand you want to bring up some new interesting points, or even old points in a different light, go right ahead. No one is stopping you. Knowing you, any attempt to do as much would be disregarded anyway.
Feliks wrote: "Monty J wrote: ""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..."Yes, and you will recall from your history books, not from personal experience unless you've found Ponce de Leon's treasure, that Orville and Wilbur were successful.
Monty J wrote: "Feliks wrote: "Gatsby doesn't die a criminal's death and no moral is presented."He does precisely that. Wilson shoots him for killing his wife with his car. His body, ignored by his staff, floats..."
This is what I find most disturbing about the book, Monty, and for me it's the moral ambiguity. On the one hand, SF has successfully manipulated our feelings to elicit sympathy for the hero's demise, yet on the other hand, the subtext and true moral of the story is more akin to your aphorism. This is a tearjerker of a story about a poor boy through ambition, pluck and luck makes it big only to go under, by the cruelest unfortunate mistake. That is the shadow in Plato's cave, but the truth is deeper than that. And you're making the right steps to the light outside the cave. But I have to disagree with you about Jay killing Myrtle. The witness's testimony is tainted. That is but another example of what makes this novel so dastardly difficult to unravel.
Whatever he died from, its not bond sales; thus no moral whatsoever. Not a whit. Loving someone is never cause for moral regret. It's only Gatsby's passion which puts him in Wilson's sights; not his bond dealing. So, the cause and the effect do not link up. An affair, a case of mistaken identity, a jealous husband, a car accident. Not a thing there having to do with Jay's past or current financial career.
Jay could have made his money in chicken-farming and still been slain this exact same way. Unfairly. Honest or dishonest, his career clearly made no difference to how he eventually died.
Just because he's wealthy, dead, and American--that's nothing but irony, maybe a little poignancy. But not anything a moral can be drawn from. Possessing money and dying by a fluke--that happens to a lot of people. Possessing money and dying from a love affair, also not uncommon. Nothing to deter anyone from similar ambition.
Remember, a moral ending to a story must at least provide:
a) emotional release, relief to tension
b) satisfaction that order has been restored, & evil punished
c) a lesson learned [do not go down this same path because this will happen to you]
If you disbelieve me, then perhaps you'd better bone up on your Aristotle. These are really basic lego blocks of tragedy. They simply don't line up the way you wish for Gatsby. Serious obstacle to your game plan.
No one's ever felt satisfaction at Gatsby's death. Certainly, they wouldn't feel that way all on account of a few phony bonds! And you can't blame Harold Bloom for that.
Do you start to see how ridiculous this all is? Readers themselves--their hearts-- bounce in completely the opposite direction from how you think 'they ought'.
Geoffrey wrote: "Orville and Wilbur were successful. ..."I'm not opposed to Monty flying for 35 ft or 75 ft or 150ft or whatever it was. I just don't want him swooping over every Gatsby discussion like a vulture, waiting to pounce on innocent Goodreaders with this poppycock.
Geoffrey wrote: "Yes, but we have had so many other threads about TGG, so all the spunk has tired us out of old critiques to bring up. ..."Karen: Monty's arguments are off-putting to others
Geoffrey: anyone is welcome to post in this thread
Felix & Karen: this thread is just the thread where we're debating Monty's points
Geoffrey: well, all the other threads have dried up anyway
Is that correctly summarized?
If so, then I find this whole bit, circular. What about future threads where people want to talk about Gatsby without all this criminal gobbledeygook?
Feliks wrote: "...its not bond sales; thus no moral whatsoever. Not a whit. Loving someone is never cause for moral regret. It's only Gatsby's passion which puts him in Wilson's sights; not his bond dealing. So, the cause and the effect do not link up. "You're just playing dumb. I know you're not that dense. Illicit bond sales is just ONE example of Gatsby's corrupt character.* Another is he failed to stop his car after Myrtle was hit. That little item was what sealed Gatsby's fate. Had he acted responsibly and stopped to render aid, Wilson wouldn't have had a motive for killing him.
Gatsby died because he was corrupt. The bond scam, adultery, bootlegging, lying, manipulating Nick, taunting Tom about Daisy--all these are examples of his low character. Any of them could have taken him down; it just happened to be his refusal to stop his car that did it.
Myrtle also died because she was corrupt. She cheated on her husband with a married man. Remember, this was 90 years ago, when adultery was a big deal. In Texas, even as late as 1960, it was justifiable homicide if a guy caught his wife in bed with another man and emptied his gun into them. True in other Southern states as well. Adultery was one of the worst things that could happen. Not prosecutable, but the law would look the other way if the cuckolded party became violent.
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.
*Character. It's not just a component of literature, theater and film. It means moral fiber, the will to do what is right because it is right, not just what gets you an advantage or some value in return. Life as a string of quid pro quos means you're for sale to the highest bidder. You have no soul. This "exchange transaction" concept of human interaction comes up in Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises (see my review of TSAR in case you're interested.) It comes up in other literature as well from this era of the disillusioned post WWI "Lost Generation," (of which I will cite an example from one of the essays in Bloom's book on TGG when I can put my finger on it.)
Feliks wrote: "You've got a theory with more wires holding it together than what Orville & Wilbur built at Kitty Hawk."On the contrary, it is so far bulletproof, supported at every turn with examples straight from the text and with solid logic,which you have failed, without fail, to refute.
You make a mountain of assertions, but fail to support them with evidence. Opinions without support are hot air, cerebral diarrhea, digital drivel.
Feliks wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "Yes, but we have had so many other threads about TGG, so all the spunk has tired us out of old critiques to bring up. ..."Karen: Monty's arguments are off-putting to others
Geoff..."
If you are so tired of this gobbledeygook, why do you persist in tacking on additional posts?
Apparently you're not so tired of complaining.
Okay, is anyone getting work published, or are we just a bunch of pissers in the Good wind?
Authors do make moral judgments about their characters even if there is no direct comment. The fact that the novel transpires to two characters deaths certifies to that Feliks.
Karen wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "Karen wrote: "James, I agree with your post, I have noticed also that new posters are not contributing, so these threads Monty is starting here are not very accessible to others."..."
Perhaps the other posters to other threads re TGG are either just plumb tired of discussing the novel or they find this particular thread uninteresting, but the fact that Monty makes comments that border on a dogmatic stance would not discourage anyone. It certainly hasn't discouraged P. or Karen or Felix or James, sorry if I left someone out.
Perhaps you need to check to see if there have been rebuttals to H. Bloom's writings, Monty.
Monty J wrote: "On the contrary, it is so far bulletproof, supported at every turn with exam..."Far from it. The fact that your conclusions are based on your own set of strict morals and that you repeatedly try to tell us what Fitzgerald means by what he writes (thus inexplicably equating his morals with yours) puts your arguments out of reach of being conclusively correct. You are simply stating your opinions based on what you yourself read into Fitzgerald's words. No more. No less. Nothing wrong with that. Just no factual conclusions to report here like Einstein was able to do - repeatable, testable, verifiable facts. Just Monty J's opinion, which can be lined up with many other equally valid "opinions" for examination:
1. Gatsby wasn't such a bad guy, just caught up in a bad situation.
2. Gatsby had legitimate reasons to take the path he took.
3. Fitzgerald puts more words and directness into the romantic angle than he does the criminal angle, thus giving it more weight.
4. Gatsby was killed by an angry husband whose character is arguably lower than Gatsby's. We have, after all, a criminal justice system to handle what Gatsby might have done. Imagine if the world were filled with vigilantes. Is that better or worse than scamming bonds?
5. The Great Gatsby is, in fact, a roaring condemnation of american values in the 1920s, and yet Gatsby was not killed because of his own low moral fiber, but by a man who was worse.
These are all opinions. All valid, depending on your moral outlook on life, outlooks which vary greatly from person to person, reader to reader, time period to time period. You do not own the one best bulletproof opinion in the room. Not even close.
James wrote;"These are all opinions. All valid, depending on your moral outlook on life, outlooks which vary greatly from person to person, reader to reader, time period to time period. You do not own the one best bulletproof opinion in the room. Not even close. "
So true, good post James. Isn't that part of the excitement in reading TGG? Trying to figure out the moral ambiguity that is not so clear? It is for me.
Monty wrote; "The corruption that ran rampant through this novel represents the materialist moral decay of the Twenties, which is what Fitzgerald put on trial through these characters. Tom and Daisy redeemed themselves. Gatsby and Myrtle did not and paid the ultimate price."So, Tom redeemed himself and Myrtle didn't? She died. Tom was a WOMAN BEATER- he is better than Myrtle, who had an affair? I don't share your morals here. Very disturbing.
Karen wrote: "James wrote;"These are all opinions. All valid, depending on your moral outlook on life, outlooks which vary greatly from person to person, reader to reader, time period to time period. You do not..."
It's what interests me most, too. Fitzgerald backed off of a short story about a younger Gatsby after the book was released because he wanted to maintain the mystery around him. Fantastic!
Monty J writes: "The corruption that ran rampant through this novel represents the materialist moral decay of the Twenties, which is what Fitzgerald put on trial through these characters. This is exactly the kind of comment that has no logical basis as you keep claiming as your mantle. To wrap your arms around the pretense that Fitzgerald is putting these characters on trial for the moral decay of the twenties is nothing more than you preaching your superior moral code. Especially since you seem to forgive, or at the very least find unimportant, vigilante murder and keep talking about the "crimes" of a man whose past you know nothing about. Nothing at all. You know none of the reasons that Gatsby came to be the man he has become. No logic gets you to where you are going. I have no respect for preachers of any kind, and I especially have no respect for preachers who co-opt reason and logic to preach their beliefs. Co-opting reason and logic is a far worse crime than any of the crimes you seem to see in this book, and you do it for no further reason than to promote your own moral code. Talk about moral decay.
Geoffrey wrote: "If you are so tired of this gobbledeygook, why do you persist in tacking on additional posts? ..."Because of what happened in Rina's thread, exactly as I stated. I don't want to keep seeing that occur. You don't slam a drawer shut on a kid's fingers like that. Just not right.
Geoffrey wrote: " but the fact that Monty makes comments that border on a dogmatic stance would not discourage anyone...."
That's just what we've already witnessed.
Feliks wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "If you are so tired of this gobbledeygook, why do you persist in tacking on additional posts? ..."Because of what happened in Rina's thread, exactly as I stated. I don't want to ..."
Yes. Why not stand up to someone who bullies people? I hate bullies. And the worst bullies preach from their moral pulpit. It disgusts me.
Geoffrey wrote: "Authors do make moral judgments about their characters even if there is no direct comment..."They are bound to do it first and foremost through the story structures handed down to us from the Greeks. No modern author has the ability to write a new tragic form which supercedes this literary legacy. What was coined centuries ago, is what we have to work with.
A tragedy doesn't have an evil-doer as the protagonist; because when an evildoer finally meets his fate in Act III, this does not provide any audience catharsis. That would be poor, improperly constructed tragedy. Is Scott Fitzgerald that incompetent? No way.
But sure, authors sometimes add additional judgments or commentary on their characters via dialog, or via the omniscient narrator, or by devices like 'the eyes of Dr. TJ Eckelberg'. Granted.
Indeed, this is the type of ephemeral material that Monty furtively seizes on for his Inquisition; instead of facing the more obvious factors, more squarely.
Point blank: if Scott Fitzgerald didn't write morality even into the basic bricks-and-mortar of this tale, nor the beams, nor the joists--what can we assume but that it was not on his mind? FSF simply holds out no condemnation for Gatsby. Doesn't invite us to join in any schadenfreude at all.
Monty ignores anything this massively obvious. It doesn't fit his aims. He insists on finding a trout-in-the-milk when the murderer has already confessed and the case is closed. He forces everyone to haggle over bits of foolscap.
But okay, back to sly, deceptive, 'author judgments'. What do we see?
Nick Carraway represents Scott Fitzgerald's opinion of Gatsby. And Nick near-worships Jay. He voices Scott's opinion that, 'Jay is worth the whole bunch of them put together' and that, Jordan & the Buchanans are 'careless people'. Unlike Jay, who does care about not hurting folks.
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)
Imagine. Indeed.