Gatsby's Criminality

[James]

So let's get down to it, Who's worse? Gatsby? The vigilante who killed him? The leaches who came to his parties but not his funeral? Who exactly is Fitzgerald condemning if he is condemning anyone at all? Bring on your "bulletproof" logic. Enquiring minds want to know, Monty J.

[Feliks]

Geoffrey wrote: "The fact that the novel transpires to two characters deaths certifies to that Feliks. ..."

They do not die the same death for the same causes, clearly.

Then also, one character is minor/supporting and one is the novel's protagonist.

Many thousands of novels feature characters dying for one reason or other. But are they all the same type of tale? Deaths in a romantic tragedy evoke one emotion in a reader, deaths in a morality play evoke another.

No one has ever felt smug satisfaction at Gatsby's death. Suggesting that people can gloat over a hero's death because of counterfeit bonds is just about the silliest thing conceivable, where this novel is concerned. It's absurd.

One might just as well condemn motorists, or golfers.

[Monty J]

James wrote: "So let's get down to it, Who's worse? Gatsby? The vigilante who killed him? The leaches who came to his party but not his funeral? Who exactly is Fitzgerald condemning..."

All of the above. The millieu. Hemingway did something similar in his copycat novel, The Sun Also Rises.

I have a quote somewhere in one of my three books of literary criticism on Gatsby that Fitzgerald declared he wanted to do something unusual with his next novel. He wanted it be unlike anything that had ever been written, and by putting society itself on trial, perhaps this is what he was talking about by making practically everyone corrupt in one way or another and alluding (ironically, through Tom's comments) to the way society was sliding downhill.

Perhaps this is what Fitzgerald was referring to when he said none of the reviewers had the slightest idea what the book was about. It couldn't be neatly pigeon-holed because of the sweep of his canvas.

Corruption is universal. Individually and collectively, we all have a shadow side that we conceal the way Gatsby's criminality was kept as subtext. "God sees everything," declared the deranged and sleep deprived Wilson as he looked out at Dr. Eckleburg's eyes before heading out with his revolver to find Gatsby.

[James]

Monty J wrote: "James wrote: "So let's get down to it, Who's worse? Gatsby? The vigilante who killed him? The leaches who came to his party but not his funeral? Who exactly is Fitzgerald condemning..."

All of the..."

Interesting. I haven't seen you challenge the vigilante so far. You are a bullshitter not unlike bullshitters I have encountered before. So where is your moral compass exactly?

If the word bullshitter offends you, please understand that I don't care.

[James]

Monty J: BTW, I like your selective response attitude. Very convenient. Straw men are much easier to answer to. Kudos.

[Feliks]

Monty wrote: "Tom and Daisy redeemed themselves. Gatsby and Myrtle did not and paid the ultimate price..."

Tom & Daisy certainly are not redeemed; they remain as miserable and corrupt as they always were. Tom will continue to cheat and Daisy will too--they will stay hollow, loveless, bourgeois, and conventional.

Gatsby is the only figure in the story who comes anywhere near redemption. This is because of one thing: he does not give up on his love or his dream. He is rebuffed by Daisy but hangs on. He isn't a capitalist, or a materialist, or a hedonist. He holds on to the ideal he values. He is the only transcendent character in the story.

[James]

Geoffrey wrote: "Authors do make moral judgments about their characters even if there is no direct comment..."

More simply, do you know what those judgments are? Was Fitzgerald judging Gatsby, Daisy, Tom, the vigilante killer? Or was he judging the leaches who go to the parties but not the funerals? I'm pretty sure all the people who didn't attend the funerals were world class assholes. So who was Fitzgerald talking about exactly? Do you have a clue, Geoffrey?

[Feliks]

Monty wrote: "You make a mountain of assertions, but fail to support them with evidence. Opinions without support are hot air, cerebral diarrhea, digital drivel."

What did you start with, 5-6 little exhibits? Well. I've given you points which match yours at every level of your own argument.

Provided tiny bits of cherrypicked sentences (as you did), as well as stronger logic, better reference to established literary criticism, and more historical facts.

As well as showing you how --at a higher plane of analysis--your claims just do not fit anything known about novel writing in the first place.

Many of my responses stem from the text itself--the structure of the book, not minutiae like phone call conversations. (If you insist on one, you have to admit the other).

See, if you only examine 'Gatsby' via a microscope--you will remain halted in your tracks. Your efforts to sway readers to your beliefs will go nowhere. If that's what you intend, forget it. Ain't gonna happen. You can call me whatever names you wish, I don't mind. Whatever happens, your platform will wind up swiss cheese.

Is it really worth your energies? An intellectual like yourself, who loves analysis? Can you tolerate a Pyrrhic victory like that? Your beautiful analysis in shreds? I don't think so.

Still, if you want to make this your life's work; I got nothing but time on my hands. I could go back over every one of your replies so far and respond to them point-by-point as I did earlier.

And then wait for more, and oppose them, then the next batch, and the next. I haven't done this yet, because this really doesn't need to be such an out-and-out dogfight. There's more than enough counter-evidence raised by all of us so far.

You said earlier you were 'just getting started'. Well, same here. I can stick with this until everyone's out of breath. I've done it before, many times-- on many websites-- in the past. It's what I'm known for. I make things like this into hobbies. I'll type away on this keyboard til my fingers drop off. Simply bookmark the page and return every evening, from now til doomsday.

Not asking you to drop your ideas, I'm just looking to preserve open discussions around the site. Dislike it anytime I see one man telling others 'what to feel'.

[Monty J]

James wrote: "I haven't seen you challenge the vigilante so far."
I don't see Wilson as a vigilante so much as a man deranged by shock, grief and sleep deprivation. Shock from realizing his wife was cheating on him. Grief from her brutal loss.

Ultimately, he was judge and executioner, so I guess the vigilante aspect rings through, especially since he made that comment about God seeing everything just before he left to hunt Gatsby down.

James wrote: You are a bullshitter not unlike bullshitters I have encountered before.
We're all bullshitters. Aren't we?

James wrote: So where is your moral compass exactly?
I am irrelevant. What matters is the novel and what it means to us.

[Karen]

But Feliks, remember to have fun too.

[Monty J]

James wrote: "Was Fitzgerald judging Gatsby, Daisy, Tom, the vigilante killer? Or was he judging the leaches who go to the parties but not the funerals? I'm pretty sure all the people who didn't attend the funerals were world class assholes. ...So who was Fitzgerald talking about exactly? "

All of the above. Society in general.

[Monty J]

Feliks wrote: "Unlike Jay, who does care about not hurting folks. "

Another of your quicksand opinions. Show us, in the text, where you get that. For once, support your position from the text, if you can.

[Feliks]

Karen wrote: "But Feliks, remember to have fun too."

Indeed. A tenacious argument is very welcome 'mental-floss' for me. Gives me relief from the concentration required for my job, and all my other projects. Other people play computer games. Debate is my recreation.

Also, just wait til Gatsby fans 'at large' get wind of this thread. This cozy chat will explode.

[Petergiaquinta]

I've pretty much stayed out of the ongoing discussion on this thread because I've read Monty's odd take on Gatsby on too many other threads, but Monty's recent statement about Tom and Daisy being redeemed by the end of the book adds just one more bizarre twist to his overall misreading of the novel.

Tom fingers Gatsby to a grieving Wilson; Tom and Daisy conspire over their late night meal that Nick sees through the window, and then they take off to Europe leaving two more dead bodies in their wake. They are the two most objectionable people in the novel, and yes that includes Wolfsheim, Jordan Baker, and all the fools at Gatsby's parties.

There is no hint of a "redemption" for either of them in the novel. Nick tells us they were careless people who smashed up things and other people and then retreated into their money. They are everything Monty would like to accuse Gatsby of being, the moneyed elite who hurt regular folks without concern. That "touching" moment when Tom tells Nick about finding he dog biscuits? What a bunch of hogwash. Tom Buchanan doesn't have an honest, human emotion in his body.

"Redemption" doesn't have a place in this novel. The closest thing to it is reaching out to that green light despite it continuing to recede before us. No one is redeemed in this book, but Gatsby is better than them all because of the single-minded purity of his dream even if it is built on a foundation of corruption.

And The Sun Also Rises is a copy cat novel? Come again?

[Feliks]

Monty J wrote: "Show us, in the text, where you get that. For once, support your position from the text, if you can. ..."

I have to 'show you' where Nick Carraway holds a high opinion of Jay Gatsby? Something which occurs all throughout the story? Something which you yourself have admitted on numerous occasions? Something which everyone who ever discusses Gatsby, acknowledges? Who is the narrator of the story anyway, and why does he lovingly linger over every facet of Gatsby at all, at such length? Common sense, please.

Somebody who has a copy of the book in front of them, will have to remind me where this exact bit of dialog appears. Towards the end of the tale I recall, either after the car accident, after the visit to the city, or after Gatsby is rebuffed by Daisy. It doesn't need to be specific; we're not pinheads after all.

This thing about 'unless it's stated outright in the text it didn't happen' is nonsense. You continually insist on it but its exactly the opposite of how you style it: a novel is not an FBI exhibit, nor an episode of a CSI cop show. There's no basis for such maniacal 'close reading' like this. Its foppery.

Remember Monty: once your credibility is gone as a *logical* debater, you are finished. You will be seen as merely an 'internet hothead'. A zealot. You will never be able to convince anyone of anything if that happens. It'd be dismaying to see that transpire.

[Feliks]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "Nick tells us they were careless people..."

Thanks Peter!

"... they were careless people". They. Them. Gatsby is not. He covers up for Daisy, remember Monty ole sport?

Gatsby's visibly noble character (including his treatment of Gatz, his father) probably goes back to even before his honorable service as an American soldier. Loving Daisy ennobled him. Shaped his fine character. How many more 'proofs' do you need to admit he's not just a scurvy con-man? He is ready to take a manslaughter rap for his beloved. Not exactly chopped liver, that.

[Monty J]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "they take off to Europe"

In your mind, maybe, but not in the book. If you think so, show us.

[Monty J]

Feliks wrote: "I have to 'show you' where Nick Carraway holds a high opinion of Jay Gatsby? Something which occurs all throughout the story? "

That's a dodge. You're doing a tap dance because you can't defend your statement from the text.

Why don't you stop winging it and actually open the book?

[Geoffrey]

James wrote: "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..."

Regardless of how Gatsby arrived to his criminality, that is a point moot. It is in our day and age that the tenets of situational ethics has followed to your way of thinking, "oh, but what made him that way" as if it truly matters. We are all responsible for our actions and unless a gun is held to our heads, the action is reprehensible. Jay seduces multiple virgins to his way of trysting with Daisy, he discard hysterical lovers with a sang froid indifference, he befriends a married man and probably becomes his "bitch", remember that the will called for a $25,000 inheritance due to Jay, and please, a boat boy would never stand to gain that kind of money unless his services were especially gifted, he forges a medal from Montenegro, he become a bootlegger and a fence for stolen or counterfeit goods, and then lastly, after he takes the wheel from his paramour, he never drives back to the scene of the crime to aid the stricken Myrtle. A scumbug, you bet and all of Nick's adulatory praise doesn't mitigate that. I refuse to be manipulated by either SF or Nick.

As for what caused him to his life of driven success, shame of his roots ground in the soil. His father was a farmer. What a slimebag! His father was an honest man doing a job what should give any son proud and that ingrate of a cur turns his back on him. Do I loathe Gatsby, you bet.

[Geoffrey]

Karen wrote: "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 Dais..."

No, they did not redeem themselves, Monty, they simply succumbed to their ultimate fate as renegades to their social class. Both toadied up to their caste superiors and were destroyed in the process. The critique is that there is no upward social mobility in America, the ladder is studded with pitfalls.

[Feliks]

Monty J wrote: "That's a dodge. You're doing a tap dance because you can't defend your statement...."

I haven't tap danced or dodged once since participating in this thread. No need to. Your entire methodology is that far off-the-beam. I expect this will come out more and more as we proceed.

There's a well-known phrase for it, even. "He can't see the forest for the trees". One of the classic pitfalls of vision.

That rubric must go back at least as far as ...Cotton Mather? :)

See, if you cling--white-knuckled--to 'text citations' alone in order to avoid any broader, more depthful, bedrock-observations--you're displaying no rigor as a critic at all. Even an amateur critic needs to do that much: [look at a text from different distances].

And real critics hold themselves open to all inputs; not 'closed-off'. They devise theories which accommodate all opposing views consistently, rather like scientists.

Hiding behind, "if it's not in the text explicitly, it doesn't exist" is the real dodge. Its deliberately ducking your head under the covers like a trembling boy.

[Feliks]

Monty J wrote: "That's a dodge. You're doing a tap dance because you can't defend your statement...."

Seriously, Monty. No one does 'close reading' the way you make such airs about doing. No one would 'close read'--and at the same time, ignore everything else about the book before them--and then strut around as if they're being super-scrupulous and mega-diligent. Where the blazes did you get this act from? It is a ludicrous, suburban farce that would embarrass any community-college English adjunct.

I don't currently own a copy of the novel, is the only reason I don't give you the chapter, paragraph, and line you crave. But you do own the book, so why not look for yourself? Use your own method.

[Geoffrey]

Actually, Feliks, Monty has as a critic held himself more open to inputs than anyone else on GR's TGG threads. He's evolved his thinking on several points from input from me. You, on the other hand, are steadfastly closeminded.

[Monty J]

Feliks wrote: ""if it's not in the text explicitly, it doesn't exist" is the real dodge."

I never said that and you know it. I said to be credible you eventually have to support your position from the text.

You can fly to the moon and back if it pleases you, but until you can connect with with the text, it's your words, not Fitzgerald's, that you're analyzing.

[Petergiaquinta]

Monty J wrote: "Petergiaquinta wrote: "they take off to Europe"

In your mind, maybe, but not in the book. If you think so, show us."

Here, finally, you are on some firm ground regarding the book. No, it doesn't specifically say "Europe," although where you think they might have fled with their baggage and no forwarding address, I dunno...

Too bad you aren't as astute with the rest of your textual analysis of the novel!

[Monty J]

Geoffrey wrote: "... steadfastly closeminded. "

Mummified. Ossified. Petrified. Hermetically sealed. Cryogenically preserved.

Geoffrey wrote: "Monty has as a critic held himself more open to inputs than anyone else on GR's TGG threads. He's evolved his thinking on several points from input from me."

For which I am an ingrate for having neglected to express my gratitude before now. Thank you. (bows.)

I should also admit that I have gleaned substantial benefit from other posters here on Goodreads. Your guffaws, gasps, and expressions of chagrin, disgust, surprise, anger and glee have all contributed, helping me to shape and hone my arguments.
Thank you as well. (bows.)

[Monty J]

Feliks wrote: "But you do own the book, so why not look for yourself? "

Two copies, actually, a threadbare, moth-eaten, marked-up paperback and a digital Nook version. Plus three books of literary criticism devoted "solely" to The Great Gatsby,

Plus I've submitted a paper to various litmags, including Penn State's The F. Scott Fitzgerald Review, stating my social critique position.

Plus, my essays on Nick's bisexuality are ranked in the top 0.5% on Academia.edu and earned over 21,000 hits on Wattpad.

I may not be a Bloom or a Bertrand, but I have studied this fascinatin' friggin' novel.

(And I ain't through yet.)

You can at least show enough interest to spring a few bucks on Amazon for a used paperback.

[Karen]

Monty wrote;
"Plus I've submitted a paper to various litmags, including Penn State's The F. Scott Fitzgerald Review, stating my social critique position."

Have you heard back yet?
Did you defend Tom, the woman beater, in your paper like you do here?

[Monty J]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "No, it doesn't specifically say "Europe," although where you think they might have fled with their baggage and no forwarding address, I dunno...."

I figure they eventually headed homeward, to the Midwest. They could have set up temporary housekeeping in the Plaza Hotel. After all, Nick ran into Tom downtown not long after the funeral, so Europe seems unlikely.

Bloom says they went to Europe, so I guess his rumor got around. But Bloom didn't, and can't, defend his (grad student's careless?) statement from the book.

[Monty J]

Karen wrote: "Have you heard back yet?"
You'll be the first to know.

Karen wrote: "Did you defend Tom..."
Somewhat,but that wasn't particularly relevant. You can read it under the topic, "Gatsby, by the Numbers" and see.

[Petergiaquinta]

Monty J wrote: " Bloom says they went to Europe, so I guess his rumor got around."

I'm in good company then.

But if they only went to the Midwest, why couldn't Nick get ahold of them?

[Monty J]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "But if they only went to the Midwest, why couldn't Nick get ahold of them?"

If I were Tom, and a deranged gun-toting Wilson had just left my house, I'd have myself and my family driven to the train station immediately, leaving instructions to the staff that no one except xxx be told of my whereabouts. Then checked into the Plaza for a few nights until the "dust" cleared (if you'll pardon my ash heap allusion.)

Recall that when Nick phoned to talk to Daisy, the butler said he didn't know/couldn't say where they had gone or when they'd return.

[Geoffrey]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "Monty J wrote: " Bloom says they went to Europe, so I guess his rumor got around."

I'm in good company then.

But if they only went to the Midwest, why couldn't Nick get ahold of them?"

Why would he? He's pretty disgusted with them by that point. Do you really think he would want to get back into the vipers' den?

[Geoffrey]

Monty J wrote: "Karen wrote: "Have you heard back yet?"
You'll be the first to know.

Karen wrote: "Did you defend Tom..."
Somewhat,but that wasn't particularly relevant. You can read it under the topic, "Gatsby, ..."

Sometimes those academic journals will take forever to get back to you. I've had a 4 year wait on a few.

[Feliks]

Geoffrey wrote: "Actually, Feliks, Monty has as a critic held himself more open to inputs than anyone else on GR's TGG threads. You, on the other hand, are steadfastly closeminded. .."

You don't have to praise Monty's past to me. I've been a fan of his since my first month on the site. Not just Gatsby threads, either.

Anyway your comment makes little to no sense.

Right here in this very thread, I have offered 4? 5? 6? Different ways to analyze Gatsby, whereas Monty advocates only one (1!) absurdly narrow approach. So what kind of sunglasses do you have on?

Monty wrote: "Mummified. Ossified. Petrified. Hermetically sealed. Cryogenically preserved..."

Same response. Shall we go back and count the different options I have laid out for you, and tally them up? All the different roads you've ignored? You insist--have insisted from the first--that there is just one way to find meaning in this book. Who in their right mind would harbor such a view as that?

Come on, guys. Pretty rudimentary (counting from 1 to 5). I guess we shall hear more opinions on this point, when more people arrive to look over the proceedings so far.


Monty wrote: "For which I am an ingrate for having neglected to express my gratitude before now. Thank you. (bows.)

Hoot! Listen Monty, if you're counting on Geoffrey for extended support on any Gatsby topic, I'd think twice about that. Because if this 'Geoffrey' is the 'Geoffrey' I'm thinking of, he won't last very long in this thread. Very shaky ally you have there. Let's put it that way for now.

[Geoffrey]

Nice try, Felix. And you're going to do the shaking? You might start by jiggling your laptop.

And no, there have been times I have disagreed quite strenuously with Monty, but at least he's been the most delving of all of us. His quest for a correct reading has been the most thorough and deep. Unfortunately he is blinded by Tom's person.

I will pop up on another thread, no doubt should I disappear. My animal sign is Hydra. Get your blade ready with your rapier wit.

[Monty J]

Feliks wrote: "Meanwhile you insist--have insisted from the first--that there is just one way to find meaning in this book."

Never. Never have I nor would I make such a preposterous assertion. You are putting words in my mouth, then throwing mud at the lie you, yourself created, you conniving mud-thrower, you. ;)

I have stated repeatedly that people get out of any work of art what they bring to it and there are a "myriad" of ways a scene can be interpreted. Mine, being the only opinion I have, happens to be the one I promote, just as you do yours.

[Karen]

Monty wrote;
"If I were Tom, and a deranged gun-totting Wilson had just left my house, I'd have myself and my family driven to the train station immediately, leaving instructions to the staff that no one except xxx be told of my whereabouts. Then checked into the Plaza for a few nights until the "dust" cleared (if you'll pardon my ash heap allusion.)"

Yes, this must be exactly what happened!

[Karen]

Geoffrey wrote;
"Sometimes those academic journals will take forever to get back to you. I've had a 4 year wait on a few."

Well, these academics could be going in order of importance.

[Feliks]

Monty J wrote: "Plus, my essays on Nick's bisexuality..."

Oh, don't tell me you're in the 'Great Gatsby is a gay icon' camp? Or was that a different thread? Anyway, if you are, that would be rather a demerit as far as I'm concerned. I read those Goodreads threads and thought them a farce. I never imagined you took them seriously. Felt you were just keeping your debate skills in practice, the same way you took on the Ayn-Rand-frothers on that other occasion.

I mean, of all the absurd topics to fight for, you can't really put any stock in breaking down stuff like 'Vaseline hand' and making some kind of name for yourself on that kind of thing, right? I mean, not really, right? More like simple exercise for one's gums, wasn't that? Target practice. You don't take internet pissing-matches seriously, do you? You don't think haggling with anonymous, random net 'spouters amounts to diddly, do you? The net is not the real world, remember?

Monty J wrote: "Plus three books of literary criticism devoted "solely" to The Great Gatsby,...."

Just three books? Harrumph. Maybe this is the problem. Maybe this is where you got the idea that Bloom is a 'dragon' and that you can 'fight him' by relying on the outlandish method of 'microscope' reading of 'just the text'. Try explaining that to anyone at Penn State. They might enjoy it as a curiosity, nothing more.

Karen wrote: "Have you heard back yet?...."

Karen, don't bother to humor or indulge anyone in this kind of thing whenever you hear it. Lit mags and university rags accept submissions from practically anybody, especially an alum. They're always desperate for any copy, especially these days when English departments are dying and most kids think America rebelled from France in 1779. Sheesh.

[Karen]

Humor is good! The is Nick Caraway gay thread was fun, and funny. Was it ridiculous? Yes!

[James]

Monty J wrote: "I don't see Wilson as a vigilante so much as a man deranged by shock, grief and sleep deprivation. Shock from realizing his wife was cheating on him. Grief from her brutal loss.

Telling. Finding ways to excuse the cold blooded murderer, while condemning the bond scammer. Poor poor man. His wife cheated on him.

[James]

Geoffrey wrote: "oh, but what made him that way" as if it truly matters. We are all responsible for our actions and unless a gun is held to our heads"

It truly matters. It is no mistake that children in america become christian because they are brainwashed that way. Just as children in iran become muslim, because they are brainwashed that way. Where you come from matters, no matter what form the gun held to your head. To pretend that everyone has a "choice" to be who they want to be is both naive and ill-considered.

We are the lucky few who escape the bullet.

[James]

Geoffrey wrote: As for what caused him to his life of driven success, shame of his roots ground in the soil. His father was a farmer. What a slimebag! His father was an honest man doing a job what should give any son proud and that ingrate of a cur turns his back on him. Do I loathe Gatsby, you bet.

And where do you derive the fact that his father was an honest man? Why do you assume he was not an abusive man, as you have no evidence to support one side or the other?

Fitzgerald left Gatsby's past a mystery, after all.

[Feliks]

I agree that humor is good and I'm always ready to return to it. I'm not trying to quash Monty's ideas. I can't do anything else, however, except place myself in the path of his apparent plan for world-Gatsby-takeover. I respected him prior to this and I will respect him afterwards. Its a shame we're on opposite sides. I don't expect things to get 'nasty' as long as people remember what an ad hominem attack is. I've already made a practice of ignoring even tiny digs at me, so far in this thread. I've never lost my aplomb in any Goodreads throwdown, and don't intend to here. Not my style.

Nice try, Felix. And you're going to do the shaking? "

As for Geoffrey, I can't say the same. I think he's lost his cool a number of times on this site. Worse than that. So yeah I can do more than 'try' to shake your tree if I have to Geoff. You seem better behaved this time around. My advice to you is continue on that way. I stand by my admonition to Monty that you are no one to rely on.

[Feliks]

Monty J wrote: "Never. Never have I nor would I make such a preposterous assertion...."

Frequently and continually! I beg to differ here, Monty. You've stood by this position repeatedly throughout this chat with comment after comment emphasizing this method and no other. You never admit any other type of evidence.

At some point I will have to go back and copy these remarks of yours and bring them forward for examination. Stay tuned for that at a later date.

[Monty J]

James wrote: "And where do you derive the fact that his father was an honest man? Why do you assume he was not an abusive man, as you have no evidence to support one side or the other?"

He was both honest and abusive, by today's standards. Abusive as in, "He told me I et like a hog once, and I beat him for it."
Honest in that we have no evidence to the contrary, and he showed admiration, pride and gratitude toward his son by carrying around that weathered photo of Gatsby's house and making a keepsake of the Hopalong Cassidy book and striving so mightily to get to the funeral that he collapsed in exhaustion. These are not typically traits of a dishonest person.

[Karen]

Feliks wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Never. Never have I nor would I make such a preposterous assertion...."

Frequently and continually! I beg to differ here, Monty. You've stood by this position repeatedly throughout..."

I for one am staying tuned Felix

[Monty J]

Feliks wrote: "I stand by my admonition to Monty that you are no one to rely on. "

Yes, I have teeth. And will bite when bitten or growled at. You can count on it.

[Monty J]

Feliks wrote: "You've stood by this position repeatedly throughout this chat with comment after comment emphasizing this method and no other."

I don't self immolate either. Why would I emphasize someone else's method or opinion? That's their job. Am I supposed to go around stroking people until they purr, so they'll stroke me back? Forget it. I don't need stroking. And neither should other adults.