The Great Gatsby
discussion
Gatsby's Criminality
Feliks wrote: "No evidence except what is literally on the page, impresses him as legitimate."Another bleeping assumption. A--you can't read my mind. B--I've said to the contrary.
What I said (go back and look, if you dare) was that you go to the moon if you want, but eventually you have to tie your excursion to what Fitzgerald put on the page.
And if there's text on the page that contradicts your theory, it trumps your theory. You don't get to cherry pick and selectively disregard what the author wrote.
Even though I know you will tell me I am wrong, just as you tell everyone else, you proved nothing in the case of Herold Bloom.
Karen wrote: "Even though I know you will tell me I am wrong, just as you tell everyone else, you proved nothing in the case of Herold Bloom."Okay, prove me wrong. I called him out for stating that the parties were "solely" for attracting Daisy. Prove I'm wrong.
(And it's Harold, not Herold.)
I confess I've not read all 6 pages of previous discussion, but this is where I'm at here.JG is criminal in the way that all the players of Wall Street in the 20s were criminals. In so much that Capitalism, white or black or grey, is in bed with shady ethical practice for personal gain. If that's the way we're looking at it, sure, JG is rolling in the misfortune of the lower classes, to his own benefit.
But for FSF, (If you believe he wrote this book and not his wife, but that's another topic entirely), the concept has to be that JG is a rich character or the book does not work. He gets his money from his business, which may or may not be on the books. For the sake of the plot, he needs this opulence so that the author can show how he blows it with abandon on Daisy, trying to buy her love. Now, JG doesn't think he's buying Daisy, he thinks he's wooing her. He thinks he's trying to reconnect with the past and start anew. But his tool is a hammer, and everything's a nail. He doesn't see how what he's doing looks to everyone else. He doesn't comprehend why it's not working.
But he's not the only one with a failed sense for love. Every character is up to no good in the sheets, and while it may be true that Gatsby is (or is not) a criminal with regard to his cash, he represents the rich and powerful, while other characters might represent middle and working class. The author's starcrossed lovers (all of them) are shown with their flaws and none of them escape unscathed.
I don't think that crime is the central theme of the novel. Maybe it's infidelity, and the equalizing power of love to help and harm no matter what one's financial station in life.
Monty J wrote: "Karen wrote: "Even though I know you will tell me I am wrong, just as you tell everyone else, you proved nothing in the case of Herold Bloom."Okay, prove me wrong. I called him out for stating th..."
Yes you did call HAROLD (with an a) out for his opinion, and you have yours.
Kenneth wrote;"Now, JG doesn't think he's buying Daisy, he thinks he's wooing her. He thinks he's trying to reconnect with the past and start anew. But his tool is a hammer, and everything's a nail. He doesn't see how what he's doing looks to everyone else. He doesn't comprehend why it's not working."
I agree with you on this, Gatsby doesn't get why it's not working or how it looks! I also agree that crime is not the central theme here. But, F.Scott wrote this book- it's his writing. I guess you could start a thread on that one.
Question:Does Monty J insist on one analytical method-- and no other-- even while 'officially stating' otherwise? Answer: yes.
--------------------
Monty post #1, (the OP)
"...a preposterous assertion for which there is virtually no support in the text . The proof that Gatsby is a kingpin in a scam to sell stolen or counterfeit bonds is right here.
Fitzgerald provides the dots. It's up to the reader to connect them..."
--------------------
Monty post #28
"Show us where this conclusion is supported in the novel.
Not some other book or Fitzgerald's biography; the novel.
The books you've read and your word gymnastics are impressive,
but it's all fluff unless you can support your conclusions from within The Great Gatsby...."
--------------------
Monty post #43
[FD insinuates: 'Monty is blinkered']
"...An odd conclusion. Blinkered by the facts on the page. I'm surrounded by acrobats doing back flips to avoid facing what Fitzgerald actually put on the page. If you can't support your argument from the text you have a weak argument. The facts of this case are within the covers of The Great Gatsby. If you can't face them, you're off in the weeds...."
--------------------
Monty post #56
"...You're doing back flips again...."
--------------------
Monty post #70
"... Show us the text supporting this speculation...."
--------------------
Monty post #76
[responding to FD about how often JG stands gazing at green-light]
"...In your mind, maybe, but in the book he does it only once. ..."
[(same post), FD insinuates: '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. ..."
--------------------
Monty post #91
"...It only appears in the book once...."
--------------------
Monty post #137
[FD insinuates: 'You've got a theory with more wires holding it together...']
"...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...."
--------------------
Monty post #162
"...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...."
--------------------
Monty post #167
"...In your mind, maybe, but not in the book. If you think so, show us...."
--------------------
Monty post #168
"...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?..."
--------------------
Monty post #174
"...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. ..."
--------------------
Monty post #187
"...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. ;)..."
--------------------
Conclusion #1
So this is the pattern, continuing onward. Whenever Monty feels he 'never officially stated' anything...then, 'it never happened'. He never expressed the attitude, never adopted the stance, and the thought never crossed his mind, he never persuaded or counseled anyone to take any course he ever advised. That's his story and he's sticking to it.
'Emphasizing the importance of one method over others' is [to MJ] not the same crime as 'giving his opinion the precedence it deserves'.
------------------------
Conclusion #2
Because he occasionally gives 'lip service' to other methods, he therefore feels he is being 'open and accommodating'.
But when actually confronted by people reminding him other other methodologies; he dismisses them, & shunts them aside. Clear difference in word, vs deed.
-----
See again, Monty post #187 and #76
"...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...."
----
No. What does he more truly 'state so repeatedly' in this thread? Answer: rather high-and-mighty intransigence. Intolerant scoffing towards all other suggestions, interpretations, possibilities...'other ways to read TGG' aren't recognized. Evidence? See above.
When accused of this, however-- only one string of events looms large in his mind, the 'semblance of innocence' he needs for 'CYA'.
He 'never said it' ...yea, but his actions always speak louder than his words. Very curious. Like Jay Gatsby in a way. Fitzgerald doesn't always specifically state what Gatsby does in a 1-to-1 ratio. "1 sentence = 1 clue"...nawp.
Question: does Merriam-Webster have the phrase, 'mealy-mouthed' in its online version? Just asking.
:D
Well Feliks, if mealy-mouthed isn't in the Merriam-Webster, it doesn't exist. You need to only use the words that are in there!
Feliks wrote: "But when actually confronted by people reminding him other other methodologies; he dismisses them, shunts them aside. Clear difference in word, vs deed. "Unadulterated nonsense.
I refuse to qualify every statement I make with "but I understand there may be other views" just to satisfy your inflated ego.
Kenneth wrote: "JG is criminal in the way that all the players of Wall Street in the 20s were criminals. In so much that Capitalism, white or black or grey, is in bed with shady ethical practice for personal gain. If that's the way we're looking at it, sure, JG is rolling in the misfortune of the lower classes, to his own benefit. "Yes, and that's something Monty should pick up on better...this novel is not specifically about the criminality or the corruption of Gatsby's practices (which result in his being shot in the pool, blah, blah, blah); it's so much more than that. If Monty is truly interested in the "criminality" aspect of the novel, he should look at the broader themes that FSF is establishing here regarding the corruption of the foundations of American society...starting with those Dutch sailors, that Dream, which is Gatsby's dream but also Nick's and Meyer Wolfsheim's and Benjamin Franklin's and Hopalong Cassidy's, is a dream predicated on plunder, on rapaciousness, on outright thievery and, to use that favored word of Monty's, on "criminality."
And the best example of this "criminality"? Well, it's Tom Buchanan, the man that Monty keeps subtly trying to excuse as some sort of ethical counterbalance to Gatsby. This is what may be so frustrating to me personally, not Monty's wrong-headed insistence that Gatsby was the one driving the car or his inability to understand Gatsby's motives throughout the novel, but it's his excusing of Tom Buchanan who FSF establishes as the real "criminal" of the novel, especially in terms of the culpability of rapacious capitalism in the creation of this place we call America.
If you ask me, going back to that quote by FSF about his critics and reviewers missing the point of the novel, Fitzgerald was probably talking about the way the novel indicts the corrupt, hollow thing we all bow down to as the American Dream, something his critics at the time didn't give much thought to in their reviews.
P.S. Give a look at this year's Between the World and Me, Coates' book-length reflective essay which takes a timely and sober look at the realities of this so-called "dream."
Petergiaquinta wrote: "Monty keeps subtly trying to excuse as some sort of ethical counterbalance to Gatsby. "Not at all. I am merely bringing to the surface and offering for discussion what Fitzgerald has put on the page.
Petergiaquinta wrote: "And the best example of this "criminality"? Well, it's Tom Buchanan,..."
Okay, I'll bite. In what way was Tom a criminal? We don't even know where it got his money.
I like the idea of a mass indictment of the wealthy class, but I don't see it as very well-developed in the novel. Gatsby's on the fringe of it, but not quite a member of the "club."
Monty J wrote: "I refuse to qualify every statement I make with "but I understand there may be other views" just to satisfy your inflated ego. ..."You don't have to. We don't need more lip-service. What we were looking for is true open-mindedness that shows you understand that your method is after all, not the only way to fathom the Gatsby story.
Monty J wrote: "I refuse to qualify every statement I make with "but I understand there may be other views" just to satisfy your inflated ego. ..."You asked me to show you where you made a statement, and I did. Where's the mature response we would naturally expect from someone of your personal reputation around here? You react as if stung.
On one hand, you want to claim academic respect from us, yet you hiss and spit like a cobra at even the slightest setback. That is not how it works in a university setting.
This is why the internet is so bogus. Face-to-face at a table of scholars --proceeding in this fashion--you wouldn't last ten minutes.
This thread could have been a really great one if you had just kept to the high road.
In what way was Tom a criminal? Hahahahahahahaha!This is what I'm talking about...
Feliks wrote: "... yet you hiss and spit like a cobra at even the slightest setback."More of the pot calling the kettle black.
I'm genteel until I'm mistreated. Then, "Watch out."
Kenneth wrote: "trying to buy her love. ..."I'd forgotten all about this aspect, myself. Good job Ken!
Monty J wrote: "I'm genteel until I'm mistreated. Then, "Watch out."""Get away from that phone, Strasser!"
--Rick Blaine
Look Monty ole son. Here's what you would do under such circumstances. If you feel you're mistreated by me then I'd appreciate if, you'd directly let me know. Right away. I would probably either apologize, clarify, or revise whatever I might have said. That's what adults do, right?
I mean, it's not like I am going to abuse you in this discussion, call you names, heap scorn on you personally. Not my style, so no need to warn me. I don't need ad hominem attacks to undercut this Reform campaign you're running. I'm not going to question your sanity, your vision, your manhood, your religion, or your patriotism. I have a high regard for you in general. I'm not going to claim you are unscrupulous. I think you're sincere. I think you're honest.
However, as you have advanced a very 'determined' argument for open discussion (in this forum), there are some subtle aspects to your endeavor which do bear scrutiny and which should stand up to analysis and comment. Without you feeling put-upon.
For example, I feel I can freely ponder the 'motivation' behind your platform. I also feel your 'methodology' is open to full dissection. I feel I can talk about your mindset and your attitudes. How you handle criticism and refutation, is worth observing. And I think the background as to how you developed your theory, is very safe to question.
Agree? This is all pretty standard in debate. Much of it rests on items you yourself, have offered openly, as a way to bolster the strength of what you are trying to convince us of. You've described your publishing, for example.
I'm not trying to skirt any line here, or 'test your mettle' in any way. Not trying to vex or harrie you. I will always speak politely and calmly; all I can hope is that there's no misunderstanding.
'Ideas vs ideas' is truly all I care about. You limit our ability to challenge your ideas so needs must these other aspects of your program, come under comment. That's all...
Monty wrote;"I'm genteel until I'm mistreated. Then, "Watch out."
YOU are mistreated? Or you are anticipating you will be? Watch out for what?
Feliks wrote: "...this Reform campaign you're running."I'm not trying to reform anything or convince anyone of anything other than it looks to me like some aspects of Gatsby have been overlooked and it seems to add up to something. What I'm still not sure of, but positing a theory and offering it for discussion is a way of exploring the topic, not trying to reform anyone. People will think that they think.
I'm asking questions and positing theories to understand how readers think.
"Feliks wrote: "No evidence except what is literally on the page, impresses him as legitimate."Monty wrote: "Another bleeping assumption. A--you can't read my mind. B--I've said to the contrary."
Item A: it's just an expression, has nothing to do with what your actual thoughts are. I'm just commenting on how you receive our ideas on Gatsby. You don't offer them any ground to stand on.
Item 'B'--true to form, you again insist that 'your exact words' exonerate you. But they don't. Why? Because they differ from your actual behavior.
Monty J wrote: "What I said (go back and look, if you dare) was that you go to the moon if you want..."
Why wouldn't I dare? Look what I did in post #258. Your own words. [Why blame me?] Anyway, here again, you're *dismissing other methodology*. Narrative structure is hardly 'hare-brained' analysis.
Monty J wrote: "but eventually you have to tie your excursion to what Fitzgerald put on the page...."
But that's wildly inaccurate. Such a blindfolded method, is not countenanced by the critical community. Certainly the way you are doing it, is not.
Monty J wrote: "And if there's text on the page that contradicts your theory, it trumps your theory. You don't get to cherry pick and selectively disregard what the author wrote..."
Cherry-picking? That's rather rich coming from yourself. That's the anatomy of your whole OP. I agree--clearly it is not the only way to frame a literary argument. Cherry-picking--as you just admitted--can always be matched by other cherry-picking.
Back again, to your worship of text on the page, this idolatry of the ink blot..and your over-confidence in your own interpretations. Honestly, it seems like the arrangement of the blots doesn't matter to you, just their presence. Once you spot the word that --very patently--suits your need, you announce the case is closed.
Oh well. Say, Monty--let me reiterate that I am not against your ideas themselves. I'm arguing against them, yes--but only to the point where you admit you can step back from them and realize that they are not a mandate. I simply don't want you running roughshod over people on this website. That's really the truth. The 'old Monty', I wouldn't have had to worry about. You always behaved like a gentleman. This 'new Monty' is definitely ...well, I just don't know...
Monty, where does Old Money come from? What happened to that fresh green breast of the New World? Why is Tom cast as a racist with such disdain for everyone around him? Why is purchasing a pearl necklace--or maybe it's just a pair of cuff buttons--more important to Tom than the two dead people at the end of the novel? Why does Nick tell us that this book we're reading "is a story of the West, after all?" These are some questions for you to ponder.Sometimes I wonder what book you've been reading...
'Scoop' Dzerzhinsky on the case again. Monty, question about your message #16 on page 1 of this fireside chat.(Reprinted below), you provide some info on the mysterious "three books of Gatsby criticism" you've consumed. Earlier, I rather felt you were citing these three tomes to 'add a mantle of authority' to speak on Gatsby.
But now it seems that these books are all three, junk books. They sound very poor fodder, indeed. At least, according to you. And their meager quality seems to have cast a spell on you.
First, why don't you read some good criticism on Gatsby? Reading bad criticism seems to have made you ulcerous about it all. Really, did these books set you off on the wrong foot? You endeavor to 'right the wrongs' contained therein?
Are you taking them to 'stand for' the ability of the entire lit-crit community of America? A collection of cheap essays from dusty decades past, probably pre 1974, so upsets you that you embark on this voyage to save the free world from bad critics? In other words, you think you can do better--and by jiminey, "you aims to show 'em"?
If so, I can only remind you that criticism based on 'burning figures in effigy' --chasing bogeymen--is rarely good criticism. Remember John O'Hara.
First section:
Monty J wrote: "Two of the books were compilations of essays. The third, Bloom's Guides..., is edited by and with an introduction by Bloom. After the Intro comes a biographical sketch of Fitzgerald, then a "Story Behind the Story" linking Fitzgerald's life with Gatsby's. Then comes a pitiful list of only the six main characters, a Summary and Analysis containing a synopsis of each chapter and very little analysis and finally a series of short essays on different aspects of the novel and Fitzgerald, some of which appear in the other two books.
Overall, Blooms Guides:The Great Gatsby does a poor job of literary analysis, and contains statements that are insupportable. There's even a misspelled word. The "Summary and Analysis" could have been written for the most part by freshman English students. The quality is that poor. I can't believe Bloom edited this. He probably had some grad student do the editing...."
It sounds as if your dissatisfaction simply gets the better of you. Scorn and spite are not worthy grounds from which to embark on critical analysis. I landed in this pit myself once, in college. When you hate the object of your analysis, you will never see it clearly.
Second question.
Monty J wrote: "Here's how Slagle's (Ch. 9) condemnatory telephone call is brushed aside ...Either the criminality of this scene flies right over the critic's head or he/she's deliberately avoiding it. ..."
Or..maybe they simply don't think it's important ...and they aren't impressed by any dot-connecting which suggests it might be?
Third:
Monty J wrote: "A lot of the material in all three books is puffery, literature professors and critics trying to outdo each other with how widely they've read and how some other writer's work relates to Fitzgerald/Gatsby. ..."
Doesn't this sound pretty much like what you're doing, as well? I get a strong sense that your own ego is tightly intertwined with this mission of yours. Doesn't that worry you at all?
Fourth point
Monty J wrote: "For example, instead of actually analyzing what's on the page for meaning, Bloom himself drones on about how different passages reflect the influence of Yeats. Bloom's head is so far up in the clouds you can hardly tell he's read the bleeping novella. It is abundantly clear that he has conflated Fitzgerald's biography with Gatsby's...."
Your reactions here sound very subjective. Like you have a personal ax to grind. Is this a bit of reverse-snobbery towards critics, I wonder?
These are all fair questions, I think.
Monty J wrote: "I'm not trying to reform anything or convince anyone of anything other than it looks to me like some aspects of Gatsby have been overlooked ..."Your post #270: This is very good to hear. I can only hope it turns out just as you describe. I will look for it to follow just as you say. After all, this little firestorm has to wend down eventually. Then it will be a long, 'Smokey the Bear' interval where we all wonder whether it blazes to life again.
Feliks wrote: "'Your reactions here sound very subjective. Like you have a personal ax to grind. Is this a bit of reverse-snobbery towards critics, I wonder? "They are subjective. I don't pretend to be otherwise. I have high expectations of people who hold themselves out to be literary experts. If you think I'm tough on them, read some of H.L. Menken's thoughts on the subject.
Feliks wrote: "I get a strong sense that your own ego is tightly intertwined with this mission of yours. Doesn't that worry you at all?"
Whose ego isn't on the line when they write something? I've got nothing to prove to anyone. I'm nobody. I have no academic audience to play to. There are no expectations of me. I'm just having fun and exploring the universe. If some good comes of it, so be it. I'm not getting paid.
Feliks wrote: "Or..maybe they simply don't think it's important ...and they aren't impressed by any dot-connecting which suggests it might be?"
If so, and they call themselves literary critics, they're pretty disappointing. I expect better.
Feliks wrote: "Scorn and spite ...hate..."
Where? Show me. You're assuming gain. Hate isn't in my vocabulary or thought processes. You're assumptions are undermining your condescending arguments. Get off your high horse. No one's impressed by your posturing.
Feliks wrote: "After all, this little firestorm has to wend down eventually."Stay tuned. There's lots more fun on the way, two more major topics, a granular analysis of the Plaza Hotel scene that's sure to fan the flames and one other (a secret.)
Plaza Hotel eh? Like the 'Edmund Hotel' in 'The Fugitive'?
Monty J wrote: " Get off your high horse. No one's impressed by your posturing. ..."Boy if I had a dollar for every time I've heard this thrown at me. As always, hurled by someone sounding all-kinds-of-defensive, under my steady 'question-asking'. It's a curse! A tribulation! My cross to bear!
Monty J wrote: "I have high expectations of people who hold themselves out to be literary experts,.." What about people who actually are literary experts? It doesn't sound as if you're very generous with them. Are you 'tarring them all with the same brush?' (love that phrase)
Monty J wrote: "Whose ego isn't on the line when they write something? ,.."
True scholars? People not posting on internet forums?
Monty J wrote: "I've got nothing to prove to anyone. I'm nobody. I have no academic audience to play to. There are no expectations of me.,.."
These are fine sentiments. I applaud them
Monty J wrote: "Where? Show me. You're assuming gain. Hate isn't in my vocabulary or thought processes..,.."
My post #273, reprinting your post from page 1, shows your withering scorn for these essayists.
Monty J wrote: "If so, and they call themselves literary critics, they're pretty disappointing. I expect better.,.."
There is better. Much better. That's why I wonder at your trowel-o'-scorn. I mean..this pony-show is a joke compared to real criticism, is that not immanent? I mean I *hope* this is at least suspected? You know nothing you've done so far is remotely like genuine lit crit, right? It is fun and diverting, but let's keep our perspective...
p.s. I have read Mencken, no worry there...oh! Whoops, there I go 'posturing' again. Sollie! Sollie ebellywun! Me good boy me workee velly har!
Monty wrote;"No one's impressed by your posturing."
I am
Petergiaquinta wrote: "And The Sun Also Rises is a copy cat novel? Come again? "Both novels deal with the corruption of the Twenties using the platform of a romantic relationship, wild parties and misbehaving rich people expressed through a male first-person narrator with a sexual handicap with women (Jake is impotent and Nick's hinted at being homosexual.)
TSAR was published in '26 and TGG in '25, and the authors were good friends at the time, so good in fact--as documented in Hem's memoir A Movable Feast--that Fitzgerald asked Hemingway for marital advice on how to satisfy Zelda and showed him his penis, concerned about its size.
(Not to stray too much off topic.)
Well, they are similar novels then, but not copy cat.
Okay, so where's the "copy cat"?
So...by your definition of "copy cat," any book published post-Gatsby with a love angle and parties in it is a rip off of Gatsby? Guess what? In both Gatsby and The Sun Also Rises, automobiles have four wheels and the human characters walk around on two legs!Whew...let's just take a deep breath and forget you used the term "copy cat." I think you're out of your depth.
Petergiaquinta wrote: " I think you're out of your depth. "And I don't care what you think. I'll call it what I want. Shove it up your patouie.
Was that French?
Here 's the thing, Monty. You can tile your bathroom all you like. You just aren't ready to make grand pronouncements about Hemingway and Fitzgerald.
Plucking any line of text out of a novel and combining it with "what we believe we know about the author" and then stating that 'this is what he had to mean when he wrote this sentence' is one of the oldest, most antiquated traps in criticism.And really Monty, you yourself criticize this practice--at several points throughout this thread. So I'm curious. Why do you yourself, keep slipping back into this well-known pitfall?
You acknowledge how dangerous it is, but when I look at the language you use in your first post of 'exhibits' it seems like it permeates your whole case.
Example: "Scott Fitzgerald wouldn't have mentioned 'Chicago' twenty times unless he deliberately intended to allude to it as the gangland it was known to be" (my paraphrase)
To me, it would seem that there's scads of reasons he might have done just that very thing, completely unintentionally. It might just have 'been on his mind'. He might have received a letter from Chicago. Chicago might have been in a newspaper that week. He might have been concentrating on something else entirely. Or, it could have just been for convenience's sake ("I need a city name, quick!"). It could have been a song playing on his gramaphone. A myriad of causes. Whether any of the above is too far-fetched or not, the point is, we don't know with any certainty at all, how his mind worked.
You 'guffawed' earlier when I reminded you that authors do not always follow a logical method as they wield their style. I'd say your guffaw reflects poorly on you. We know from looking at Fitzgerald's notes on 'Last Tycoon' for example, that he was anything but linear in his method. He strained his style out of the steam of a thick, messy, 'soup' in front of him.
English lit is full of authors who can never explain exactly how they came to write their masterworks. Same as for musicians, sculptors, painters.
You yourself, admitted to this in your own writing, on page 1 of this thread. You confessed you couldn't explain how your own Gatsby-writing emerged.
Just pointing out some inconsistencies I happened to notice.
Petergiaquinta wrote: "Was that French?"Oui
Here's a little sumpin sumpin from the Interwebs, a rough draft of the opening of The Sun Also Rises followed by a letter from FSF to Hemingway with some helpful critiques:https://ia601701.us.archive.org/16/it...
Petergiaquinta wrote: "Here 's the thing, Monty. You can tile your bathroom all you like. You just aren't ready to make grand pronouncements about Hemingway and Fitzgerald."I'll do as I damn well please. You don't own the Internet.
Nope, I sure don't, but I agree with Feliks that your ridiculous ideas shouldn't be allowed to spread all over the web site without response. In the market place of ideas, good ideas will win over poor ones, but not if the folks with the good ideas keep quiet. It's the same thing with Cosmic and Catcher or all the racist bullshit trumpeted all over Goodreads in response to Watchman. So, until I tire of it, I'll keep challenging your nonsense about Gatsby.
Petergiaquinta wrote: "I'll keep challenging your nonsense about Gatsby."Yea, I won't be lonely then... :)
But I don't know how to run a group, so any assistance would be appreciated. Just want to create a comfortable haven.
AnnLoretta wrote: "But I don't know how to run a group, so any assistance would be appreciated. Just want to create a comfortable haven."AnnLoretta,
As moderator of the group, you can set the rules you want and invite who you want. It will run itself- you can put topic categories in there also. It's a good idea! Sometimes these groups run out of steam, but that won't be your fault.
Monty J wrote: " which I proved in the case of Harold Bloom. .."I've yet to see this whatsoever, frankly. Proved? Come on now. Whenever you start off a Gatsby thread (as far as I've seen) you begin wholly from your own opinions. 'Man in the wilderness' style; overlaid with some contrivance like 'let's count all the words."
'Gatsby by the numbers' is a lot of fun to read, it's that wunnerful ole' "Minnesota J. Frog" swagger you have, offered up in spades. But the entire OP there looks to me nothing more than a very old-fashioned game of whist or euchre. It's crackerbarrel stuff, parlour-gamery.
Back in the OP of this thread, you mention that you read four books on Gatsby, (one of which was Bloom's) and you admitted that two? of the four books were assorted essays. You didn't like any of them and ..you simply offered your very withering 'summary opinion' on the lot. Sounded pretty much as if you were reviewing graphic novels.
You didn't display any analysis of the criticism you consumed. You didn't place these writings in context, refer us to their reception by other critics; you didn't dissect their method or even state what methodology they used. You dissed them, gave them short shrift. Terrible jumping-off point.
So let's remember where we are here--as you said a few posts ago, "you're just having fun". Great. Super. More power to you.
Otherwise, all of this is about as far from 'proof' as you can get. None of your Gatsby efforts has been peer reviewed; corroborated, affirmed, or vouchsafed by anyone in the field. No one in American literature community even knows we are talking about Gatsby. We're out here with the muskrats and crickets.
I really felt the "Vaseline hand" thread was quintessential Monty J. That discourse truly did show you in a self-effacing mode. In that thread, you never pretended it was anything else but chewing-the-fat. That's the way!
AnnLoretta wrote: "But I don't know how to run a group, so any assistance would be appreciated. ."Attagirl. If I may say so, take a look at any of my groups if you want to see exemplary group operations. Its all about organization. When you arrange things well, a group can nearly run itself.
Feliks wrote: "AnnLoretta wrote: "But I don't know how to run a group, so any assistance would be appreciated. ."Attagirl. If I may say so, take a look at any of my groups if you want to see exemplary group ope..."
How can she look at your groups? Your page is private, unless you blocked me , you didn't block me did you?
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)
An assumption, which ignores the very real issue of entrenched academic bias, which I proved in the case of Harold Bloom. Academia is not flawless. And if you expect outsiders to clam up in deference, you have another think coming.
Petergiaquinta wrote: "Monty has begun with his conclusion..."
Nope. I began with an open mind, deductively taking in the evidence on the page and arriving at conclusions only after extensive analysis and reading a great deal of literary criticism.
Petergiaquinta wrote: "...offered in isolation, ignoring the framework of the novel as a whole..."
Wrong again. My textual evidence is tied in a neat overall conclusion right here on Goodreads under the topic: "Gatsy, by the Numbers." Perhaps you missed it: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...