My point of view

[Rina]

The Great Gatsby is a good novel to read because the story is portrayed about “human” and “the society”; these makes it very thoughtful. However, in my personal opinion, I didn’t like its kind of bitter ending. I was quite shocked about the lack of humanity in people’ hearts in the story, and the untrue love. Also I was shocked that Gatsby wasn’t deserved anything. It was absolutely unfair. Some people say it is a kind of romantic story which represents Gatsby’s love to Daisy. I also thought so as well first of all but in the end I thought it is mainly showing us the friendship between Nick and Gatsby. In the novel, as I mentioned, even though it has a bitter ending and I didn’t like it I really loved the friendship between Nick and Gatsby. It was a beautiful friendship. In addition, I loved Nick was developing well with Gatsby in the story. First of all he was represented as an old money person but throughout of the story, he changed to the person who has more humanity than others. Even though it was a bitter ending, at least this Nick’s development made a story not too sad. Besides, I did enjoy the creative senses in the novel which gave me gorgeous imagery. Overall, this is a story which has a lot of betrayals, love and senses.

[Monty J]

Rina wrote: "I didn’t like its kind of bitter ending."

So you think that Daisy should have overlooked the fact that Gatsby was a crook?


"I was shocked that Gatsby wasn’t deserved anything."

Do crooks deserve anything but jail? Did you overlook, as others seem to have, the fact that Gatsby was stealing from innocent people in small towns by selling them worthless bonds?

[Davidz]

I agree with Rina and I do believe this is a absolutely tragic ending for the readers to accpet the facts that Gatsby lost everything after his death. But meanwhile I also agree with Monty that Gatsby is a liar and he is a crook. He does bootlegging business and gets money from innocent people.So I do believe that Gatsby must gets justice for his guilt. But death is definitely the heaviest punishment for Gatsby.Most of the readers like Rina were looking for the romantic ending but Fitzgerald absolutely denies this. In my opinion, I think the main purpose about this novel from Fitzgerald is to show us more senses about roaring twenties in American and he Gatsby is a excellent example to reflect some people's daydream and their selfishness for their American Dream. So too bad for Gatsby :( , he could be a good man but he just ever gets a chance

[Feliks]

Monty, please. This is a newish reader, taking the story in square, even, face-frontal terms the way everyone always has done. She's unfamiliar with literary hobbyhorses of the kind you enjoy riding. You ought not go shunting her off down this detour of yours. No one 'new to Gatsby' should have this convoluted theory of yours clouding their simple, genuine reaction to the romance which is THE plot of this tale. Your detective work is one thing--all well and good-- but let's not try to brainwash anyone eh? No re-writing of the tale. I'd make the same suggestion to anyone in the 'Gatsby is a gay icon' camp.

Rina, to find a non-bitter ending to the story has nothing to do with Gatsby's supposed crookedness. The wealthy don't care about chicanery, (as we well know). The alternative ending --the 'Hollywood ending'--would have been that Daisy might have accepted Gatsby overlooking his humble class origins. It is *that* which forms the obstacle between the lovers. Their backgrounds. This is therefore a romantic tragedy--a type of story which never has a cheerful ending. But even if we can imagine Daisy being achievable to Gatsby, we might then have wound up with something like Theodore Dreiser's 'An American Tragedy'--another story where the crime itself (a capital offense: murder!) does not even eclipse the romance.

Thus--whatever happened in this narrative--the wealthy and established tycoon that Gatsby was, would never have wound up in a clink for some trifling bond racket. You would find that ending ...well, not even in the cheapest pulp crime yarn. A comfy, white-collar prison is not how the handsome, leading-man in a novel ever winds up.

[Monty J]

Feliks wrote: "...No re-writing of the tale."

I have rewritten nothing. On the contrary, I have assiduously supported my position directly from the book, bringing to attention what has been widely overlooked.


I just submitted my essay on the topic to Penn State's F.Scott Fitzgerald Review. We will soon see what they think about what I have brought to light.

http://www.psupress.org/journals/jnls...

[Geoffrey]

Monty J wrote: "Rina wrote: "I didn’t like its kind of bitter ending."

So you think that Daisy should have overlooked the fact that Gatsby was a crook?


"I was shocked that Gatsby wasn’t deserved anything."

Do ..."

Worthless bonds? I thought they were stolen??

[Monty J]

Geoffrey wrote: "Worthless bonds? I thought they were stolen??"


Stolen or counterfeit, which isn't made clear. Either way they're worthless to the buyer. (The only person to whom a stolen bond has value at redemption time is the owner of record.)

[Karen]

Feliks wrote: "Monty, please. This is a newish reader, taking the story in square, even, face-frontal terms the way everyone always has done. She's unfamiliar with literary hobbyhorses of the kind you enjoy ridin..."

You are absolutely correct in this post Felix. And Rina, if you enjoyed The Great Gatsby you may like to explore some reviews of the book. I am a bit proud of mine, if you would like to read it. I also suggest reading the novel again- a second reading will help you see more in the novel, I have read it three times, it is one of my favorites!

[James]

Monty J wrote: "Do crooks deserve anything but jail? Did you overlook, as others seem to have, the fact that Gatsby was stealing from innocent people in small towns by selling them worthless bonds?"

I have to say the answer to this question is not as black and white to me as it appears to be to you. Circumstances play a big role as to why people do what they do. We do not know all of the things that shaped Gatsby's life, so the answer to this question is not available to us, in my view. In a world that is inherently fair, it would be easy to judge those who are "crooks." But the world is no such place, and I would even venture to say that all people have inherently bad traits that are worthy of the same kinds of judgment you thrust upon Gatsby (Racism, classism, dishonesty, acting on feelings of religious superiority are all behaviors that come to mind that take something away from other people.)

Gatsby being a crook does not preclude him from deserving anything. If that were the case, then none of us would deserve anything.

[Monty J]

James wrote: "Gatsby being a crook does not preclude him from deserving anything. If that were the case, then none of us would deserve anything.."

There is a gargantuan difference between leading a life of crime that includes robbing people of their life savings versus getting a ticket for running a stop sign.

[James]

I agree. And I never made such a comparison. I made other points you chose not to address.

[Monty J]

James wrote: "We do not know all of the things that shaped Gatsby's life, so the answer to this question is not available to us, in my view."

All criminals have reasons for crossing the line into a life of crime. They still must be held accountable.


James wrote: "In a world that is inherently fair,...

The scale of behavior goes from utter selfishness to complete altruism. Each person chooses where they fall along that scale. Fairness is a matter of individual opinion.


James wrote: "... it would be easy to judge those who are "crooks."

And so we must, to establish and maintain order.


James wrote: "...all people have inherently bad traits that are worthy of the same kinds of judgment you thrust upon Gatsby (Racism, classism, dishonesty, acting on feelings of religious superiority are all behaviors that come to mind that take something away from other people.)

The book is about Gatsby, Nick, Tom, Daisy, Jordan, etc., and by reflecting on those characters, people may see themselves and be enlightened. Or not. We judge them all, or we don't.

This is to me the best thing about literature; it accords us an opportunity for self examination. But it does not twist our arms. We either do or we don't (examine ourselves after reading a novel.) But how we react says more about us than the characters in the book.

If we fail to hold Gatsby accountable for his criminality, what does that say about us? Wilson held him accountable. But why do so many readers let him off the hook?

Think what a society we would have if our courts treated all criminals the way a vast number of readers do Gatsby. I suspect they've been heavily influenced by Hollywood renditions, which have exploited the romantic aspects and downplayed his criminality, making it melodrama almost, especially the 2013 version by Baz Lurhmann.

[James]

Monty wrote: All criminals have reasons for crossing the line into a life of crime. They still must be held accountable...

Hi Monty,

I don't think we disagree that criminals should be held accountable. But I don't agree that it is a simple black and white issue. Motives are taken into account when punishment is decided. Motives can be complicated. The world can be complicated and extremely unfair. Fairness is not simply a matter of individual opinion, as you say. It can be objectively measured in many situations. We take all of these things into account when we decide a punishment, what someone "deserves."

If jail is the punishment we choose then that is the punishment. That is what society has decided is enough. To say that a criminal deserves nothing more goes beyond the decided upon punishment, and it is an expression of your personal tastes regarding the matter. ("Do crooks deserve anything but jail?")

Furthermore, I see no reason to conflate crime and love. As well as being a criminal, Gatsby is a person. And I can see why readers have empathy for his character in terms of love and losing his life for something he did not do. It is not contradictory to feel empathy for him as a person despite his crimes. It all depends on the person and the situation. And, indeed, the individual experiences of the readers.

[James]

Monty J wrote: "But it does not twit our arms."

BTW. I am not familiar with this phrase. What does it mean?

[Monty J]

James wrote: "Monty J wrote: "But it does not twit our arms."

BTW. I am not familiar with this phrase. What does it mean?"

Should be "twist."

[Monty J]

James wrote: " But I don't agree that it is a simple black and white issue. Motives are taken into account when punishment is decided. Motives can be complicated."

Exactly. It is "black-and-white" reasoning I am attempting to avoid by bringing to light the criminality that seems so frequently overlooked, as the OP, Rina, seems to be doing here, ("shocked that Gatsby wasn't deserved anything".)

Gatsby killed Myrtle, or was at the very least complicit in her murder by not stopping his car and rendering aid. Gatsby stole from innocent people. These are serious crimes against humanity which scream for justice. Daisy was an eyewitness to Myrtle's murder, if not the cause, and she had witnessed Gatsby's unmasking by Tom at the Plaza Hotel as a criminal bootlegger and more . She turned her back on Gatsby as would any sensible woman. For Daisy to have overlooked Gatsby's criminality would have been illogical and irrational.

In typical mercenary fashion, Hollywood has manipulated the public consciousness, whitewashing Gatsby in downplaying his criminality. By bringing it to light, I merely offer balance, straight from the pages of the book.

[James]

Monty J wrote: "In typical mercenary fashion, Hollywood has manipulated the public consciousness, whitewashing Gatsby in downplaying his criminality"

What is wrong with Hollywood depicting Nick's romantic version of Gatsby? This is, after all, Nick's story. He certainly doesn't see Gatsby as a crook who deserves nothing but jail. It is his take that colors all of the "facts" at play, is it not?

[Monty J]

James wrote: "Monty J wrote: "In typical mercenary fashion, Hollywood has manipulated the public consciousness, whitewashing Gatsby in downplaying his criminality"

What is wrong with Hollywood depicting Nick's ..."

The films were not true to the book. It's Fitzgerald's story, not Nicks. Nick is only a character in the story.

[James]

Monty J wrote: "It's Fitzgerald's story, not Nicks. Nick is only a character in the story. "

Fitzgerald wrote a story about a narrator who romanticizes Gatsby. Hollywood made movies that romanticize Gatsby. The book does not portray Gatsby as a crook who deserves nothing but jail. It paints a much more complex portrait. Yet you seem to think that the movie should portray Gatsby in your own less complex moral terms.

[Monty J]

James wrote: "Yet, you seem to think that the movie should portray Gatsby in your own less complex moral terms. "

I'm just quoting from the book and asking a few questions that no one, as yet, as been able to answer. Fitzgerald didn't put those words I've cited in the book in hopes they would be overlooked. He put them there for a reason.

You can't just take part of a book and ignore the rest, like Hollywood did, and remain loyal to the author.

[James]

Monty J wrote: "James wrote: "Yet, you seem to think that the movie should portray Gatsby in your own less complex moral terms. "

I'm just quoting from the book and asking a few questions that no one, as yet, as ..."

You most certainly are not. You just claimed that Hollywood has manipulated the public consciousness. That is neither a quote nor a question.

[Monty J]

James wrote: "You just claimed that Hollywood has manipulated the public consciousness. That is neither a quote nor a question. "

Now you're just arguing to argue. I won't respond further to such nonsense.

My full position is presented here: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

[James]

Monty J wrote: "James wrote: "You just claimed that Hollywood has manipulated the public consciousness. That is neither a quote nor a question. "

Now you're just arguing to argue. I won't respond further to such ..."

Fine. We disagree. Let's leave it at that.

[Geoffrey]

So, Monty, what we see is a conflicted SF whose own moral compass is wavering but is troubled by the public glorification for the booze runner tycoons and gangsters of the day and attempts to write a novel seemingly extolling their exploits but actually undermining popular acclaim with a secondary subtext that subtly highlights their illicit and antisocial behaviour, and at the same time, in a full swoop, highlights the moral decadence of high society, white supremacy and racism permeating everywhere, and goodness knows what else.

I agree with you concerning Jay's immoral or amoral behaviour. And yes, Hollow wood junked that aspect to create a more palatable story. After all, that's what they do. And yes we must keep in mind as to their treachery as well.

[Karen]

James wrote: "Fine. We disagree. Let's leave it at that."

Smart move James, because there is no other view point than Monty's.

[James]

Karen wrote: "James wrote: "Fine. We disagree. Let's leave it at that."

Smart move James, because there is no other view point than Monty's."

Yeah. That part shows through pretty clearly.

[Monty J]

Geoffrey wrote: "After all, that's what they do. And yes we must keep in mind as to their treachery as well. "

H-wood routinely goes for the low-hanging fruit because it costs so much to make a film. The investors have to be paid. It' s a business, first, then art. They want to tell the story that will sell the most tickets with the least investment.

Authors have no shareholders to answer to.


Goeffrey wrote: "seemingly extolling their exploits but actually undermining popular acclaim with a secondary subtext that subtly highlights their illicit and antisocial behavior, and at the same time, in a full swoop, highlights the moral decadence of high society.."

So it seems, except don't forget that Myrtle, a working class gal, cheated and was killed off by Fitzgerald; so it can be said that it was decadence at all levels of society that he exposed.

I'm still not sure that there isn't a key to the novel that no one's yet found. Something involving Nick. And if I keep looking, it will spring out at me.

[Geoffrey]

If some of Nick is SF's character, perhaps the answer lies therein. Sorry, but I am writing a magazine article for an American art magazine in the next two months as well as a scholarly article about Mexican education, so my input will be somewhat limited in the future.
Plus, I start a mural on Saturday at an art center, so my plate is more than full.
Stop applauding my future absence please, detractors.