The Great Gatsby
discussion
Review ''The Great Gatsby"
message 1:
by
Chi
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Nov 09, 2015 07:19PM
When I read "The Great Gatsby" at first time, I thought Daisy and Gatsby love each other. We can see how a lovely girl Daisy is, and Gatsby knows that what kind of person he want to be because he found his dream. Because he wants to follow his dream, he can change his name, and he can make a lot of friends who are selfish and cold.When I read second time, I realized when Gatsby come back American, he is not actually love Daisy, and he just wants to accomplish his dream, which is having Daisy because he never get her. If Daisy choose him, it represents a power. It means he also can become old money, and that is his goal, but because of his dream, he lost his life. Also I think Nick is a really good person, and a very nice friend. He likes to help Gatsby, and he don't need Gatsby to pay back even though he is not really rich. After Gatsby dead, he tries to contact his family and friend.When nobody wants to come his funeral, he also very sad and angry.these all are prove he is a kind of person. Finally, in my opinion this is really good novel, and we can some things from it, so I suggest people who are not read this book to read it. You will find out some interesting things.
reply
|
flag
Chi wrote: "...because of his dream, he lost his life."Actually, Gatsby destroyed his dream by being corrupt. Daisy didn't reject him until Tom exposed Gatsby to be a criminal.
Gatsby's criminality also led to him being in the yellow Rolls Royce when it killed Myrtle, which led to his murder by George Wilson. He needed the Rolls (and the castle) to impress potential buyers of his worthless illicit bonds. So it wasn't so much the dream that killed him, but the corrupt way he managed his affairs.
But Gatsby's dream is tied to his corruption- and ultimately the combination killed him.
I don't think the message is that Gatsby's corruption is what killed him. His naivete? Maybe. But really it is Daisy & Tom's corruption (mostly Daisy's) that killed him. Yes, Gatsby's corrupt in that he launders money for bootleggers, but he's murdered by George because George thinks Gatsby not only was the man having have affair with Myrtle (when it was Tom) because Daisy killed Myrtle, and Gatsby naively allows her to pass that blame on to him. He dies trying to protect the truth about Daisy--who killed her husband's lover in an "accident."
Gary wrote: "I don't think the message is that Gatsby's corruption is what killed him. His naivete? Maybe. But really it is Daisy & Tom's corruption (mostly Daisy's) that killed him. Yes, Gatsby's corrupt in th..."But it was Gatsby's dream that caused him to be involved with those people; all these factors, including his naïveté ultimately killed him.
Karen wrote: "But it was Gatsby's dream that caused him to be involved with those people; all these factors, including his naïveté ultimately killed him."Which is, again, based on Daisy. Gatsby is infatuated with Daisy--or, at least, what she represents regarding his youth--who sucked him in early on, and almost immediately betrayed him.
On the scale of "fault" having a dream isn't much of a prime cause. Gatsby's fault, really, is that he aspires to be an idealized version of the thing that destroys him. He fails to see Daisy & Tom for what they are, fails to recognize them as just as vicious killers as any of the bootleggers with whom Gatsby associates--but Tom/Daisy are, arguably, worse. They work in nefarious ways. Tom has sex with another man's wife, then uses that same cuckold to murder his rival. Daisy cheats on her husband, then allows him to take the blame for her own killing (reckless homicide?) of her husband's lover.
Gatsby's crime? He wants to recreate the love of his youth. Sure, that's naive, but on the scale of human faults being naive is surely much less of a crime than the way Tom & Daisy's actions and behavior have an actual body count.
Gary wrote: "...because Daisy killed Myrtle, and Gatsby naively allows her to pass that blame on to him."Except Daisy wasn't driving. Gatsby lied about that to curry favor with Nick so he would join his sales team. It was Nick who offered the suggestion that Daisy was driving; Gatsby, after a pause, merely agreed with him.
Nick's ONLY source for believing that Daisy killed Myrtle was a backhanded statement by Gatsby, a proven liar and thief, while other credible eyewitnesses stated it was a man driving and the car never stopped.
Nick has a history of believing Gatsby's lies about inheriting wealth and investing in rubies. Despite knowing that Gatsby consorts with Wolfsheim--a man who admits to consorting with men who engage in gunplay in the streets and who rigged the 1919 World Series--he does nothing to check Gatsby's outrageous avowed history. If Gatsby said the moon was green cheese, Nick would believe him.
There's not a shred of credible evidence that Daisy was driving. There's impartial credible sworn testimony that it was a man behind the wheel, and the only man it could have been was Jay Gatsby, a man who even lied about his own name.
As any sensible woman would have done, Daisy rejected Gatsby when she learned he was a criminal. Losing Daisy was not Daisy's fault; it was due to Gatsby's own corruption. Gatsby's no victim; he's the perpetrator.
He deserved jail, but not death. His death was due to him running down Myrtle. Even if Daisy were driving, he could have stopped the car--as he said, but pulling on the emergency brake--and rendered aid, an opportunity to apologize to Wilson and assuage somewhat his loss. Having failed do so makes Gatsby an accessory to involuntary vehicular manslaughter at the minimum. He's not only a criminal but a coward, not a hero.
Tom had no way of knowing Wilson would kill Gatsby when he told him the yellow car wasn't his. Later the next day at his house, he was forced to reveal it was Gatsby's car or risk getting shot. It wasn't as though he had some plot to kill Gatsby.
Tom showed humanity when he cried over Myrtle. He wept in the car on the way home from the accident and he wept again later when he saw the dog biscuits at Myrtle's apartment. He bought Myrtle a little puppy and set her up with a nice apartment rather than dragging her from hotel to hotel. Tom had the good sense to have Gatsby investigated, thereby salvaging his marriage, yet he's been vilified for having the audacity to expose Gatsby. At the hotel confrontation, Tom vowed to reform and treat Daisy better.
Tom was careless, but his actions hurt only a few people--Daisy and the Wilsons, whereas Gatsby's bond scam hurt hundreds, if not thousands of people. There was no way of knowing George would commit homicide until it was too late. Tom was guilty adultery and carelessness. Gatsby was guilty of adultery, vehicular manslaughter, securities fraud and grand theft by deception. He never showed concern for anyone but himself and Daisy.
Monty wrote;"Tom showed humanity when he cried over Myrtle. He wept in the car on the way home from the accident and he wept again later when he saw the dog biscuits at Myrtle's apartment. At the hotel confrontation, Tom vowed to reform and treat Daisy better."
Tom Buchanan- committed adultery and punched a woman in the face. Then he vowed to reform- that's what men who beat women do. And Gatsby showed no humanity? But Tom did. Okay, right.
Karen wrote: "...and punched a woman in the face"That Tom is a thoughtless brute who doesn't know his own strength was established in chapter one when Daisy called him out in front of Nick for accidentally bruising her hand.
Everyone at Myrtle's party was drunk, and she goaded him after he warned her to shut up about Daisy. He didn't punch her; he reflexively slapped her. She was partly to blame by inflicting mental torture. Breaking her nose was clearly an accident.
But my point is that there's more than one dimension to Tom. He has a good side the same as Gatsby, but, curiously, everyone looks at Tom as strictly an upper class villain who exploits the lower classes, including academics and literary critics. And filmmakers. Not one of the two films I saw showed Tom's vulnerable side.
For Tom to be painted as a uni-dimensional villain is inconsistent with what is in the text; that's all I'm pointing out.
Stop and take a broader look at Tom. He's shown far more humanity than Gatsby, who has shown no concern for others except Daisy, certainly none for her daughter, five-year-old Pammy, and certainly, pathologically, none for the people he's defrauding in the bond scam. If you see some evidence of Gatsby's humanity, please present it.
Viewing Gatsby as a victim of Tom and Daisy is untrue to the book.
Monty J wrote: "Karen wrote: "...and punched a woman in the face"That Tom is a thoughtless brute who doesn't know his own strength was established in chapter one when when Daisy called him out in front of Nick for accidentally hurting her arm. Everyone at Myrtle's party was drunk, and she goaded him after he warned her to shut up about Daisy. He didn't punch her; he reflexively slapped her. She was partly to blame by inflicting mental torture. Breaking her nose was clearly an accident."
I stand corrected- in the book it says "making a short deft movement, Tom Buchanan broke her nose with his open hand." Hmm.. He did it skillfully and quickly, "by accident" which is better than breaking her nose with his fist. And she was partly to blame by inflicting mental torture ha? We are done here.
Ellen wrote: " And it's such a popular crime, assaulting women, I can't even remember, off hand, how many cases we've got in our office right now. Women ask for it. Everybody knows that.
But get those booze sellers and counterfeiters. They're the real threat to society."
Thanks Helen. :)
Monty J wrote: "Viewing Gatsby as a victim of Tom and Daisy is untrue to the book."Wait... You were serious with post #8? I thought that was a joke--a send up of Deconstruction & contemporary sophistry. You're just doubling down on the satire, right?
Gary wrote: "You're just doubling down on the satire, right?"Throughout history people have demonstrated a preference for the popular lie over the painful truth. (The stock in trade of politicians and Madison Avenue.) I'm just pointing out what's in the book. What people want to take from it is up to them.
Monty J wrote: "Throughout history people have demonstrated a preference for the popular lie over the painful truth. I'm just pointing out what's in the book. What people want to take from it is up to them."Hokay then. Good luck to you.
Karen wrote: "And she was partly to blame by inflicting mental torture ha?"Okay, the text, (ch 2, p.37), Nick narrates:
Sometime toward midnight, Tom Buchanan and Mrs. Wilson stood face to face, discussing in impassioned voices whether Mrs. Wilson had any right to mention Daisy's name.
"Daisy! Daisy! Daisy!" shouted Mrs. Wilson. "I'll say it whenever I want to! Daisy! Dai---"
Making a short deft movement...
Given the amount of alcohol consumed and the late hour, it was enough to make Tom momentarily lose control. There's no evidence that he goes around beating women.
But clearly, Myrtle was goading him. Elsewhere the text shows she was used to bullying her passive husband George and getting away with it. This time it backfired. She is partially culpable in her own injury. To blame? No, but partially responsible. Tom would not have struck out had she not been goading him.
Ellen wrote: "When is it okay to hit your mother?"When she is hitting you. Anyone being hit can defend him/herself. This INCLUDES when a woman is threatening or assaulting a man.
When it it okay to hit your child?" Never.
Why does Tom Buchanan have to be morally superior to Gatsby? Why does that matter to you?
No one said Tom had to be superior. All I've done is lay out what's in the text.
You're hijacking this thread with your obsession over domestic violence. Please, let's stick with the book and avoid personal attacks.
Monty J wrote: "Ellen wrote: "When is it okay to hit your mother?"When she is hitting you. Anyone being hit can defend him/herself. This INCLUDES when a woman is threatening or assaulting a man.
When it it okay..."
And yet you called me to the mat when months ago I said that Tom was more of a lout than Jay. You were outraged that I thought that a mastermind criminal who sells counterfeit or stolen bonds, lies about his past and is a bootlegger was more loathsome than a racist male surpremacist who beats up on women. Cḿon Monty, it is not justifiable to beat a woman, no matter how loathsome her goading behaviour be. You just walk away, from the relationship if need be.
Ellen wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Ellen wrote: "When is it okay to hit your mother?"When she is hitting you. Anyone being hit can defend him/herself. This INCLUDES when a woman is threatening or assaulting a man.
..."
About 90 percent of spousal abuse has the male as the perp.
Ellen, can you rewrite that last line. It doesn´t make sense.
Geoffrey wrote: "Cḿon Monty, it is not justifiable to beat a woman, no matter how loathsome her goading behaviour be. You just walk away, from the relationship if need be."I never said Tom was justifiied. I merely pointed out Myrtle's complicity as a factor.
Geoffrey wrote: "About 90 percent of spousal abuse has the male as the perp."Jeese, can we get back to the topic?
Geoffrey wrote;"And yet you called me to the mat when months ago I said that Tom was more of a lout than Jay. You were outraged that I thought that a mastermind criminal who sells counterfeit or stolen bonds, lies about his past and is a bootlegger was more loathsome than a racist male surpremacist who beats up on women. Cḿon Monty, it is not justifiable to beat a woman, no matter how loathsome her goading behaviour be. You just walk away, from the relationship if need be."
Thank you again
Geoffrey wrote: "About 90 percent of spousal abuse has the male as the perp."Stating the obvious doesn't negate the exception. If you want to go that route, 80 percent of men in prison for domestic violence were beaten by their mothers as children. What goes around comes around, sooner or later. Doesn't justify it on either side, but there's always a broader picture.
No one's denying that Tom was wrong in what he did. But my citing domestic violence is incomplete without addressing Myrtle's aggressive behavior. Fitzgerald wouldn't have written it that way if he didn't consider it relevant.
I would have to disagree with you again on that Monty. I would aver that 80 percent of men in prison for domestic violence were beaten by their fathers as children.
Geoffrey wrote: "I would have to disagree with you again on that Monty. I would aver that 80 percent of men in prison for domestic violence were beaten by their fathers as children."Perhaps so, but the study that I read reported the beatings by mothers.
The arguments that have been made in this thread remind me of this (obviously a parody) video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_Gz_...
Nicely played, Gary-san...
I need a giant gong in my house to acknowledge acknowledgments.
Ellen wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "Ellen, can you rewrite that last line. It doesn´t make sense."I meant to say we would have divorced this couple and we wouldn't have a murderer to defend right now. But who can s..."
He, who, which couple? Who would have shot whom? Please clarify, I am trying to understand and it is very late and I don´t have the patience to figure it out as I am nodding off.
Ellen wrote: "'You did it, Tom,' she said accusingly. 'I know you didn't mean to, but you did do it. That's what I get for marrying a brute of a man, a great, big, hulking physical specimen of a– ''I hate that word hulking,' objected Tom crossly, "even in kidding.'"
In your own quote, you overlook the obvious clues provided by the author that: a) it was an accident and b) Daisy was kidding--clear evidence that you're twisting the book to fit your personal agenda. If Daisy were some kind of victim she wouldn't be making light of it. She probably wouldn't even bring it up.
No, Monty you are way off again on this one. Her manner is that of one who is kidding because to make that charge seriously would possibly have elicited the same response Tom had to Myrtle.This is what weak women with brutal husbands do to handle the situation of a spouse who is exceedingly difficult. It´s not a matter of agenda although Ellen may very well have one. But then again she may have legitimate gripes.
This issue is a difficult one and sometimes eludes men, but women are usually the weaker sex and they have to use subterfuge in the ¨war of the sexes¨ Daisy´s ploy was exactly that.
In a previous post you apparently half apologised on Tom´s behalf for striking Myrtle. I don´t see anything that she did or said merited that reaction. Yes, I have met obnoxious females who do goad their male partners to violence, but it is incumbent on the men to either refrain, or evade the situation entirely. No spouse deserves assault, and if you check the meaning of that word carefully in law, it also entails provocation to violence. That is to say if I enter a bar, go up to you and call you a fucking asshole, that is assault. Your response, if physical is battery.
I recall two occasions in which women I did not know but with whom I had the slightest of contact, provocatively attempted goading me into physical violence. And yes, my responsibility was to withdraw from contact entirely.
Geoffrey wrote: "No, Monty you are way off again on this one. Her manner is that of one who is kidding because to make that charge seriously would possibly have elicited the same response Tom had to Myrtle.This is ..."Thank you again Geoffrey. It's scary that you HAD to post your response.
Ellen wrote: "... I just don't see the point in ranking the transgressions of the two men."This is simply an exercise in character analysis. Contrasting Gatsby and Tom is a way of isolating the details for examination. We examine Gatsby by comparing him with Tom. Tom has been drawn with a great deal more clarity (on the page) than Gatsby. Gatsby is smoke and mirrors from Nick's imagination. Fitzgerald himself said that he lost sight of Gatsby halfway through and "filled him out with my own emotional life."
I've cited a string of examples where the author showed Tom's humanity, whereas he showed comparatively little on the part of Gatsby. Tom's humanity seems ignored by readers, while Gatsby's is imagined by Nick because Nick wasn't present to witness it. It's heresay, an interpretation of what Gatsby told him, without any corroboration.
On the negative side, Tom has received a thorough pounding while Gatsby's sociopathic (criminal) behavior seems to go unnoticed, particularly by Nick. How so many readers can be willing accept the uncorroborated word of a confirmed liar and thief is beyond my comprehension. From what well springs such a high level of trust, especially on something as crucial to the novel as who killed Myrtle?
I'm just curious why this is the case. Are readers being influenced by Nick or is it something else? How much of it is due to jealousy because Tom is uber wealthy? How much is because Gatsby is so idolized by Nick?
As far as I can see, Gatsby doesn't earn it through deeds or dialog. Fitzgerald doesn't show him actually performing laudable deeds or saying anything heroic. If you see something, please present it, but bear in mind that if it’s something where Nick wasn’t actually present, it---don’t---count--(near as) much because that’s Nick INTERPRETING/IMAGINING, not Gatsby acting or talking.
This is a perfect opportunity to examine how much Hemingway's Iceberg Principle is at work. How much of Gatsby's popularity/character is due to reader imagination and what, specifically, triggers it? How much of Tom's villainy comes from what Fitzgerald actually wrote and how much is evoked in reader imagination?
As far as I can see, the lion’s share of Gatsby's popularity comes solely from Nick's near worhipful descriptions of him. Nick’s flowery depictions of what Gatsby might have thought or done are to me more a statement about Nick than Gatsby.
Is this a major weakness in the novel or a sign that Fitzgerald wanted us to pay more attention to Nick than we have?
It's a fascinating phenomenon, the way Gatsby and Tom are portrayed OUTSIDE the novel. WITHIN the novel is another matter. The Iceberg Principle at work.
"Gatsby? What Gatsby?"
Ellen: Otherwise why mention his indiscretion in California or why the couple left Chicago?
He's a philaderer. That was never in contention.
Ellen wrote;"In terms of the "hulking" incident, this was a public conversation (Nick and Jordan are present), not a private one, so I agree, Daisy speaks jokingly, and yet apparently wishes to send a public, if subtle, message to Nick and Jordan. I don't think saying that is reading into the text. At the very least, she was unconcerned if Nick and Jordan knew that Tom had bruised her, intentionally or unintentionally is not stated."
I agree- Daisy does want to send that message, Tom obviously has a temper, bruised Daisy, and we don't know if it was accidental or not and we can infer that he does not know his own strength and has done this before.
"I find it somewhat difficult to believe that Fitzgerald wanted me to see Tom Buchanan simply as a regular guy with an occasional temper who didn't know his own strength. I think enough is revealed to understand Tom has a history of some sort. Otherwise why mention his indiscretion in California or why the couple left Chicago?"
Yep, enough is revealed. And ofcourse we all know Tom was a philanderer, and an abuser of women.
Monty J wrote: "Actually, Gatsby destroyed his dream by being corrupt. Daisy didn't reject him until Tom exposed Gatsby to be a criminal..."Monty! You really have an overweening grudge against Jay Gatsby, the only pure and true character in the story. Holy hannah. I respectfully ask you, what good is this stringently jurisprudent perspective if it can't be accurately attached to the characters in the tale? No one in the story sees Jay in this strange legal limelight you're shining on him.
Tom Buchanan far was worse. Worse, by-a-country-mile. Jay Gatsby's only real crime compared to that disgusting capitalist is not having come from the same class. Tom is the kind of plutocrat who would have blithely maintained a lakeside cabin in Johnstown PA. That's simply not the stamp of Jay Gatz, who strives to 'read more books' and 'not talk back' to his old man.
Next: Daisy. Do you really profess to believe that dizzy, idiotic Daisy could detect --or care--about a 'criminal taint' in either men? If so, I disagree. What she could (only) discern is class. The kind of money each man enjoyed (and offered her), rather than the way they might have made it. She would not leave her class for Jay's class, that's the only point where she shirks and retreats. His 'criminality' doesn't figure in her simplistic mind at all.
Next: Nick of course, is a prevaricating moral dud; and George Wilson is a murderer. Who else: the women? Women in this novel are all exploitative floozies of their men, in one way or another. The whole lot of them are 'careless people' just like Nick stated to Jordan (the golf cheat).
So how does Jay Gatsby --a man who simply climbed determinedly up the rungs of the already-corrupt American economic system--rank less in character than these wastrels? He hasn't got the character of a racketeer and you know it. He's selfless, rather than selfish. He would throw away his fortune if it meant a chance to permanently obtain Daisy. So he doesn't fit the term 'corrupt' at all. He is rather the least corrupted figure, Apollo-like/Orpheus-like, just as FSF drew him. Descending into the underworld (playing along with erstwhile companions) in order to retrieve his love.
Ellen wrote: "the woman he was philandering with who broke her arm in his car wreck in California"Here's the text (Ch.4, p.77) [Jordan narrating]:
...Tom ran into a wagon on the Ventura road one night and ripped a front wheel off his car. The girl who was with him got into the papers too, because her arm was broken--she was one of the chambermaids in the Santa Barbara hotel.So from this are you suggesting that Tom broke her arm in some way other than the car accident?
Ellen wrote: "Think of me standing across the water from where you live, watching the green light at the end of your dock. I'm obsessed by your knowledge of this novel and humble before you."Lol.
There's a problem with this thread from the beginning (after Chi's review).Daisy doesn't reject Gatsby because Tom reveals his corruption. She rejects him for the same reason she doesn't wait for him during the war. He cannot offer her the lifestyle she feels entitled to. It's all related to class; she can't marry him back during the war, and now after the war it's the old money/new money thing. It doesn't matter how wealthy he's become. She isn't leaving Tom for the noveau riche Gatsby even if he is legit, and Tom knows this. And what would bother Daisy about Gatsby's shady dealings? She knows about Tom's indiscretions and sticks with him. A dalliance with Gatsby, sure, but it's not going any further than that, and Tom knows it and thus he can speak with such confidence and even allow his wife to ride home from New York with Gatsby. In his arrogant self-assurance, he knows Daisy will stick with him in the long run.
And Gatsby's Rolls and castle have nothing to do with impressing "potential buyers of his worthless illicit bonds." It's all for Daisy, as is everything that he's done since the day he met her. Gatsby's a criminal, for sure. He's a liar. And he's a fool. But I don't think you understand his motivations for what he is doing throughout the novel, Monty.
It is a romantic novel, after all. Gatsby's childish motivation. And Ellen, I didn't mean to make light of your posts with my Lol post.
Monty, I believe you and I haven't followed the thread of reasoning far enough. We are both in agreement that it is Wolfsheim who is behind Jay's presence in West Egg. It's highly improbable that our hero would have accrued enough capital in 1922 to afford a mansion renting at 15,000 USD per month in less than 2.5 years. Remember, he came out of the war in November 1918 and then spent 6 months on a misguided apprenticeship at Oxford. That may or not be the truth, but in any event, he hadn't sufficient wealth to claim his beloved Daisy then some time 6 months after Daisy gets married which brings it to late spring or early summer of 1919. He still hasn't met Wolfsheim we can safely assume or he would have written that he was on the way to grand wealth in the letter she was crying over at the wedding. So some time between June of 1919 and the end of the year he becomes W.s right hand criminal manipulator. W. sets him up in W. Egg for the purpose of fencing to the wealthy. Who knows, considering that he mentions jewel collecting prior to the war, perhaps that is on his mind as he intends to fence gems in West Egg's high society. The bonds seem to be an afterthought-an opportunity that arose and Wolfsheim seized upon it.Now we have what-a plebian from the wrong side of the tracks with aristocratic airs but the fresh enthusiasm of a frat man who is stationed in W. Egg. What is his cover story? Oh year, right, he's going to say, oh well guys, I am Wolfsheim's agent, I am his fence partner and we are involved in a criminal conspiracy that all of you wealthy can partake of. Diamonds half price, rubies one third off, and oh yes, we can get you some King Henry XIV antiques to go with them.
So no, he concocts a cockamamy story about being independently wealthy and vagabonding Europe before the war in search for gems and jewelry. This is his cover. The fact that he is not very convincing and leaves most people wondering what his story is really tells me he's far from a sociopath. Sociopaths have no guilt in lying and do it well enough with no hesitation. There is no feeling of guilt in their misdeeds. Jay is not convincing on account he is not a sociopath. He's simply an upwardly mobile go getter with an overambitious drive to escape his class and go three better.
Petergiaquinta wrote: "Daisy doesn't reject Gatsby because Tom reveals his corruption. She rejects him for the same reason she doesn't wait for him during the war. He cannot offer her the lifestyle she feels entitled to."I could almost accept that Daisy's reason for rejecting Gatsby is class except for two things. One, why was she so torn between the two in that hotel suite? It wasn't until Tom mentioned that one of their friends had gone to jail because of Gatsby and he blew up at Tom, revealing his heretofore hidden criminal character, that Daisy withdrew from him.
The other thing is that if Gatsby's corruption weren't an issue, why would Fitzgerald paint him that way? It would be a digression, a waste of ink if it weren't intended to mean something. This novel is a river of corruption, starting with the valley of ashes. Why all the corruption symbolism if it doesn't lead somewhere important?
Aside from her "affair" with Gatsby, which could be justified on the grounds of her feelings of despair over Tom's serial infidelities, Daisy is the only character who isn't corrupt. Fitzgerald always dresses her in white, symbolizing purity.
Having Daisy reject Gatsby because of class is ho-hum. Fitzgerald's better than that. Having her reject him because he is corrupt makes a powerful statement about the corruption of the Jazz Age that led to the Crash of '29, in which securities fraud played a major role and led to regulatory reform.
No, Daisy didn't kill Myrtle. I will deal with this element one last time, definitively, in a separate topic.
Not one person has yet answered my question about why readers should accept the word of a mob-connected liar and thief about who was behind the wheel when Myrtle's body was ripped apart. Gatsby lied about it to impress Nick, whom he wanted to join his bond scam.
Gatsby used people. He used Nick to get to Daisy and uses Daisy to get to Nick by lying about her driving.
All of this I will deal with comprehensively in my response to your post on my review, thoroughly documented, including symbolism and overall premise--the story of a dreamer who achieves his dream only to lose it because of his corruption, told by a guy who was profoundly affected by their relationship but missed the main lesson to be learned from it due to his misplaced trust from being too "inclined to reserve all judgments".
Ellen wrote: "and to then impose that answer on everyone around them"No one's imposing anything on anyone. It's just a discussion about a book. There's a myriad of ways a scene can be interpreted, depending on a given reader's experience and psychology. Being presented a different view sometimes enlightens, sometimes not. It's a fluid process.
Ellen wrote: "...(as Zelda said when Scottie was born) "I hope she's a beautiful little fool," or whatever the exact quote is."
It was lifted virtually verbatim from Zelda's diary, according to an essay I read.
(Good observation, btw.)
Geoffrey wrote: "The fact that he is not very convincing and leaves most people wondering what his story is really tells me he's far from a sociopath. Sociopaths have no guilt in lying and do it well enough with no hesitation. There is no feeling of guilt in their misdeeds. Jay is not convincing on account he is not a sociopath. He's simply an upwardly mobile go getter with an overambitious drive to escape his class and go three better."I agree with most of what you say, but aren't you forgetting Gatsby's the kingpin in a bond scam and keeps trying to recruit Nick?
Daisy is corrupt as the rest of them, although I like what Ellen says about a woman not truly having a choice here. But Fitzgerald doesn't present Daisy as pure. That's all Gatsby again, as filtered through Nick. Daisy in white, Daisy the fairy, that's all Gatsby blind to reality staring him in the face. He doesn't acknowledge her as a real human being. She's a fantastic construct that he has concocted over the years. Daisy wears white, sure, but this isn't a medieval allegory. It a highly ironic work of the modern era.And Gatsby befriends Nick to reach Daisy, not to make connections to people in the bond market. Nick has no real ability to influence anyone on Wall Street. Nick doesn't know the first thing about that world. He may be the biggest fool in the book, after Gatsby. I'm sure Gatsby is ready to reward Nick handsomely for playing the pimp, but he misunderstands what a Romantic Nick is and how eager he will become to embrace the role. But there's no indication Nick is part of a securities fraud plan that Gatby is recruiting him into. Again, it's all about Daisy.
In the encounter with Wolfsheim, when Wolfsheim asks if Nick is looking for a business "gonnegtion," Gatsby quickly points out that Nick "isn't the man!"
Petergiaquinta wrote: "In the encounter with Wolfsheim, when Wolfsheim asks if Nick is looking for a business "gonnegtion," Gatsby quickly points out that Nick 'isn't the man!'"This exchange cements Wolfsheim's involvement in Gatsby's bond scam. He's the guy at the top. Anyone Gatsby hires has to be vetted by Wolfie. In a backhanded way, it's a third recruitment offer to Nick.
Monty J wrote: "Petergiaquinta wrote: "Daisy doesn't reject Gatsby because Tom reveals his corruption. She rejects him for the same reason she doesn't wait for him during the war. He cannot offer her the lifestyle..."It goes against our notion of love, no matter how twisted by social considerations and perverse ambition, but the answer to that is that most of us can't accept the fact that a man so much in love, despite his criminality, would stoop so low as to point a misguided finger at his heart's desire. We have to keep in context the reason for Jay's lying ways, Monty, in that he has no other recourse. He can't tell the truth because the truth would debilitate his boss's efforts at fencing among the superwealthy. The fact that he is so awkward in his explanation to Nick as to his alleged search for precious gems in Europe is evidence enough this man is no sociopath. A sociopath is a liar without a conscience who would not stammer, pause or hesitate as Jay did in his soliloquy.
Monty J wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "The fact that he is not very convincing and leaves most people wondering what his story is really tells me he's far from a sociopath. Sociopaths have no guilt in lying and do it we..."No, Wolfsheim is the kingpin. He's the one who had orchestrated the meeting between Jay and the fence which Nick accidentally stumbles on in the restaurant. Wolfsheim is the one pulling the strings on the criminal deals in the story. Jay has some latitude, but W. is the master criminal.
Monty J wrote: "Petergiaquinta wrote: "In the encounter with Wolfsheim, when Wolfsheim asks if Nick is looking for a business "gonnegtion," Gatsby quickly points out that Nick 'isn't the man!'"This exchange ceme..."
We don't know whether Jay has is the one to initiate the bond deal. It is more likely that W. with all his underworld connections is putting the two together. Considering that Nick works for a bond company, Jay sees the possibility that he can make the sale directly to a company in the business, avoiding the possible discovery by any West Egger. And considering that Jay already realizes that he has the loyalty of Nick, he knows well enough that Nick is not going to squeal.
Geoffrey wrote: "No, Wolfsheim is the kingpin. He's the one who had orchestrated the meeting between Jay and the fence which Nick accidentally stumbles on in the restaurant. Wolfsheim is the one pulling the strings on the criminal deals in the story. Jay has some latitude, but W. is the master criminal. "Agreed. I should have said "A" kingpin, not "The" kingpin. He's a field executive. He's got the charm and polish that Wolfie could never have. Wolfie's got the money and the experience and probably the muscle. He's the home office.
It's Wolfie who supplied the rough people--who didn't think anything of the sound of Gatsby's life-ending gunshots--who replaced Gatsby's staff after the parties stop and Daisy's conjugal visits commence.
Geoffrey wrote: "A sociopath is a liar without a conscience who would not stammer, pause or hesitate as Jay did in his soliloquy."Interesting point. Maybe Fitzgerald didn't know that.
To me, anyone who steals from people for a living on a large scale is a sociopath. (Guess that makes half of Wall street sociopaths.)
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
