For Christian parents only, please

[Karen]

And whether Nick is gay or straight has little to do with the story, so why would Fitzgerald write that he was? I don't think he would have. Or should this comment go on that other thread that went on for over a year I think.

[[deleted user]]

This is so extraordinarily amusing. There are two people here, Monty somebody and Peter somebody, exhibiting in their posts, without their knowledge, totally unaware, the very meaning and evolution of the iceberg theory (which, prior to Hemingway, every writer worth her/his salt knew anyway). "Who the hell is Zoe Trodd anyway? Lololo... " Really? She'll be crushed to find she's even something less than a barely perceptible iceberg. (That's a joke, of course, I won't even bother to enlighten her.)

This is why, if I mention GR to people, I mention belonging only to certain groups and not engaging in conversations on open threads. "Beyond here be dragons," I tell my acquaintances, academics and non-academics alike. GR is wonderful with the right precautions, I tell them, to see what people are reading and what they think, one encounters wonderful and thoughtful people who engage in sincere conversation, one can learn new perspectives, but beware of people outside of groups. There are a lot of people waving their swords around, proving what virile readers they are. And yes, any symbolism you care to infer from the preceding sentence was intentional.

I don't particularly care for the cretinous language created by the illiterates who live upon and through electronic devices, but now and again, if one is to be understood, one must return in kind, LOL LOL LOL. Enjoy yourselves. Oh, how silly of me. You are doing so. Carry on, then.

[Monty J]

AnnLoretta wrote: "Enjoy yourselves. Oh, how silly of me. You are doing so. Carry on, then."

Hark. Mother "Superior" has spoken. And having hurled her sexist insult while contributing nothing to the discussion, hoists her panty hose and pointy nose aboard her broom cackling LOL LOL... .

(She can dish it out. Let's see how she takes it.)

Be assured, we will carry on, with or without you.

[Petergiaquinta]

What exactly should we be doing here besides enjoying ourselves, AnnL? Pray tell...

And Zoe Trodd is a black lit prof with loads of expertise in her area, but little experience with Hemingway, so I'm not sure why she's the go-to gal there. But such is the nature of Wikipedia. I suggested we'd be better off consulting some lit crit, but not all of us are as erudite as yourself, I suppose. I doubt Miss Trodd will be crushed by my cavalier comments. If so, I'll send her my apologies.

[Geoffrey]

Monty J wrote: "Cαiтℓуn ~ It's you I'll be fighting for ~ wrote: "I don't see what I want to see. I see what's there."

You didn't remember McKee at all until I pointed him out. We tend to remember what we see as ..."
I never evinced the homosexuality component of the novel until reading the many postings on GR. I am firmly convinced, as Monty is, that it was SF´s intent to slyly introduce the theme to the story. My fault is not with why SF would have done it, but why would Nick, the pretended writer of the novel tantalize the reader with hints of his bisexuality? It surely serves SF purposes as it further solidifies the blind attraction to Jay´s personality, but why in the world would Nick want anyone to know he´s gay? Or does he think it so coded that only his peers would suspect? ¨hello, men of the world who do the Greek, know that I am one of you, but guess what, we can keep it a secret as I just slipped the passage into my book.¨If Nick had intended to publish the book himself, then why go through the trouble of having the most astute recognize his erotic leanings?

[Monty J]

Geoffrey wrote: "...why go through the trouble of having the most astute recognize his erotic leanings?"

A good question. Notoriety might be an objective. Ego. A place in history, as happened with D.H. Lawrence via The Rainbow and Lady Chatterleys' Lover, (which we passed around the dormitory in college fifty years later.)

Book sales might be another. People are drawn to controversy. Has Ulysses ever been out of print? First banned in the US, it became available through Canada via copies printed in Paris and smuggled aboard a ferry: http://literarytourist.com/2013/06/fi...

[Karen]

Geoffrey wrote;
"You didn't remember McKee at all until I pointed him out. We tend to remember what we see as ..."
I never evinced the homosexuality component of the novel until reading the many postings on GR. I am firmly convinced, as Monty is, that it was SF´s intent to slyly introduce the theme to the story. My fault is not with why SF would have done it, but why would Nick, the pretended writer of the novel tantalize the reader with hints of his bisexuality."

Well, I am not convinced at all. I don't mind it being suggested and discussed either, it's a good discussion EXCEPT when it is presented as fact, or that it was definitely Fitzgerald's intent. Or that if we don't accept this view that Nick was gay then it is some type of flaw in ourselves, some psychological block going on that we don't want to look at., or that we have a problem with homosexuality. That's just BS. I can only speak for myself though, and I don't have a problem.

[Monty J]

Karen wrote: "... when it is presented as fact, or that it was definitely Fitzgerald's intent. Or that if we don't accept this view that Nick was gay then it is some type of flaw in ourselves, some psychological block going on that we don't want to look at., or that we have a problem with homosexuality."

Where has this been done? I have never taken the position that my interpretation of the book is the only right one. Quite the contrary; I have maintained repeatedly that there are a myriad of possibilities depending on personal inclination.

And my references to mental filtering and such were offered only as possible explanations for differing views throughout The Great Gatsby, and for that matter, any work of art.

If you think you don't have a mental filter, that you're the only person on the planet operating without one, then that's your prerogative. But it's a position that runs counter to generally accepted psychological theory. As I have said, lawyers depend upon experts in jury selection who can probe for jurors with a favorable bias, such as someone who doesn't "believe" in the death penalty. Such a belief is not a flaw; it's just a way of thinking.

There's nothing flawed about mental filtering; it's a complex defense mechanism that enables us to function, with the side-effect of blind spots. Everyone has these. Discovering your blind spots is a mark of enlightenment. Most people don't care to because life is comfortable without knowing them. But to others of us, it's a fascinating exploration.

I also offered modes of reasoning (inductive vs deductive) as another possible explanation for why certain aspects of the novel have been overlooked, citing Harold Bloom's inductive conflation of Fitzgerald's biography with Gatsby as an example of how reasoning bias can influence an interpretation.

If Bloom wants to believe Daisy wears combat boots because Genevra King wore them, that's his prerogative. But I will look to the text before Bloom to try and understand what Fitzgerald was saying.

[Geoffrey]

I have never read any of Bloom´s material nor do I have plans to do so, but I likewise take exception to many prevailing, accepted academic assertions, whether in literature or art. I have to shake my head at times when reading some analytics, and although many are brilliantly written, often their initial premises are so wide of the mark that the mental construct speaks more of the ability to create an acrobatic ladder of intellectualism than it is to search out the truth.

[Karen]

Monty wrote; "If you think you don't have a mental filter, that you're the only person on the planet operating without one, then that's your prerogative. But it's a position that runs counter to generally accepted psychological theory."

Huh? Where did I say that I didn't have a "mental filter"? Furthermore, I am probably as familiar with psychology as you are.


Monty wrote; "Where has this been done? I have never taken the position that my interpretation of the book is the only right one"
No, you have suggested it however.

Here, below, where you say it is important to look past our own bias- I am pretty sure you were talking about Nick's homosexuality when you wrote the below. It sure looked that way to me, and I don't have a bias.
Monty wrote; "But for some of us it is important to look past our own bias and try to understand more fully what an author is attempting to convey in subtext, to avoid censorship for example."

[Monty J]

Karen wrote: "I am pretty sure you were talking about Nick's homosexuality when you wrote the below."

Nope. I was speaking in general, which does not exclude homosexuality though. And by using third-person, I included myself.

Karen wrote: "I have never taken the position that my interpretation of the book is the only right one"
No, you have suggested it however.

An inference on your part. No such intention exists on my part. People will take away from any work of art what they bring to it. Every experienced author knows that. I speak only for my own interpretation and offer it for discussion.

[notyourfriend]

Monty J wrote: "AnnLoretta wrote: "Enjoy yourselves. Oh, how silly of me. You are doing so. Carry on, then."

Hark. Mother "Superior" has spoken. And having hurled her sexist insult while contributing nothing to t..."

Not for nothin, but for a 70 year old guy, you're pretty rude. Just sayin.

[Petergiaquinta]

So what's this essay by Bloom that's got you so peeved, Monty?

Give me a link or a title.

In general, I don't think the author's biography has much to offer us as we interact with a text. That's maybe nice to know and little extra sumpin sumpin, but in general I don't really care, and if we need to know about the author's life to understand the text, then the text itself isn't doing its job very well.

At the same time, in general again, I have tremendous respect for Harold Bloom. He's smarter than the two of us put together times 10. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss what Bloom has to offer your reading of Gatsby. But he can be overbearing. And he can also be wrong.

And as long as you guys are on this topic of "mental filters," I agree with you, Monty. There's the text; there's the reader; and then there's that ephemeral hybrid creation of what happens each time the reader's brain interacts with the text. But that's reader response theory, not what Hemingway called the Iceberg Theory. And although it might get her panties in a bunch, AnnL is wrong claiming that it's something "prior to Hemingway every writer worth his/her salt knew anyway." Most fiction writers of the nineteenth century took a decidedly different approach from Hemingway to their writing. They threw everything they had and then some into their books. Charles Dickens didn't write 150 pages and then throw away 125 of them and send the manuscript off to the printer. If anything, he'd read his effort and add 20 more pages to the mix and then some. And so would George Eliot, Trollop, the Brontes, Hugo, Balzac, Dumas, Tolstoy, et al. This miminalist approach to the text may not be invented by Hemingway, but it's a product of Modernism and the early Twentieth Century, and if you aren't willing to give Hemingway his propers here then you just don't know much about the way fiction has evolved over time.

[Monty J]

Cαiтℓуn ~ It's you I'll be fighting for ~ wrote: "Not for nothin, but for a 70 year old guy, you're pretty rude. Just sayin."

For what, standing up to AnnLoretta's bullying? She thinks that because she's a woman and men are supposed to be gentlemen, she can get away with it? (Your repeated references to my age are also rude.) I'm just a guy who won't take any crap.

(Sorry, Caitlyn for getting you mixed up with AnnLoretta.)

[Karen]

Monty J wrote: "Cαiтℓуn ~ It's you I'll be fighting for ~ wrote: "Not for nothin, but for a 70 year old guy, you're pretty rude. Just sayin."

For what, standing up to your bullying? You think that because you're ..."

She was not bullying!!! Where in her posts has she bullied? The above, because she called you rude? How is that bullying?

[[deleted user]]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "So what's this essay by Bloom that's got you so peeved, Monty?

At the same time, in general again, I have tremendous respect for Harold Bloom. He's smarter than the two of us put together times 10. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss what Bloom has to offer your reading of Gatsby. But he can be overbearing. And he can also be wrong.

Petergiaquinta wrote: "And Zoe Trodd is a black lit prof with loads of expertise in her area, but little experience with Hemingway, so ..."

Hmm. Zoe wrote her Hemingway article for Bloom. Interesting. Actually, she wrote the original for the Hemingway Society and then enlarged on it for Bloom, I think. (She's also written on Steinbeck, she actually writes of literature of conflict and protest, as well as her concentration on American black experience and literature.)

I don't think there's one aesthetic for white literature and another for authors of color. But I'm sure that's not what you intended.

I do love the iceberg theory. I agree that I was unclear in saying "every writer prior to Hemingway." I was talking, and I apologize, I just assumed we were speaking of more or less modern literature, and I should said that modern writers realized and utilized what Hemingway stated so succinctly. I didn't mean to go back decades and centuries; although I do believe some of the authors you mentioned knew when less was more -- Eliot, for instance had her moments. Apologies. Thank you for your concern for my panties.

[Monty J]

Petergiaquinta wrote: " I have tremendous respect for Harold Bloom. He's smarter than the two of us put together times 10."

I agree. So it's puzzling why he did what he did in his Bloom's Guide: The Great Gatsby ("Summary and Analysis" p.20):

"he [Gatsby] begins to throw enormous parties, solely meant to attract her [Daisy's]interest... .

"Soley" is an exaggeration not supported anywhere in the text. (I've dealt with this in detail under another topic.) It was Jordan [Ch.4, p79] who made the only reference in the text to a purpose for the parties (except in Chapter III when Nick observes the young well-dressed Englishmen who "were selling something, bonds or insurance or automobiles"):

"I think he half expected her to wander into one of his parties,some night..."

"Half-expected" is Jordan's speculation, a far cry from Bloom's "solely."


In "Summary and Analysis" (p. 20) Bloom also says that after Gatsby falls in love with Daisy he

"..leaves then, determined to make his fortune that he may return to marry her and support her in a manner reasonable...

This is true of Fitzgerald's relationship with Zelda, but the text shows that Gatsby was fortune-seeking long before he met Daisy, and there's no text to indicate his ambition was driven by her. If he wanted her so badly, why did he delay five months in Oxford instead of returning straight away after the war? The implication that Daisy was the seed for his quest is another exaggeration.

There are also a number of omissions in the Guide, the combination of which downplays Gatsby's corruption while exaggerating his romantic drive, making him seem more heroic while subtly casting a shadow over Tom and Daisy, more so than is supported in the text. It's almost as if the Guide attempts to spin the book in favor of Gatsby.

Now, this could just be sloppy writing by some grad student, but Bloom is editor and responsible for content.

When my analysis of the Guide is finished I will post a comprehensive review which will address who was driving as well.

[Karen]

"An inference on your part. No such intention exists on my part. People will take away from any work of art what they bring to it. Every experienced author knows that."

I really don't know what your intentions are, I'll have to re-examine mine here as I'm not sure why I keep arguing (for lack of a better word) with you. But that's what insightful people do- we look at and question ourselves and our intentions. ;)

[Monty J]

Karen wrote: " Where in her posts has she bullied?"

Message #52: "There are a lot of people waving their swords around, proving what virile readers they are. And yes, any symbolism you care to infer from the preceding sentence was intentional."

"... the cretinous language created by the illiterates who live upon and through electronic devices..."

[Petergiaquinta]

Monty J wrote: ""Soley" is an exaggeration not supported anywhere in the text"

Yeah, well, that's where we part company...I'm with Bloom on this one. You know I don't support your reading there...it's all for Daisy.

But I get what you're saying...Bloom's Guides are pretty watered down. They're designed with a high school audience in mind, and I don't know how much real effort he puts into that series. But...I hate to keep harping on this...if you're the only guy around who's making these claims, and now you're going to lump Harold Bloom and his grad school lackeys into your list of people who don't understand the true meaning of The Great Gatsby, then you really are a voice crying in the wilderness.

[Geoffrey]

Monty J wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "...why go through the trouble of having the most astute recognize his erotic leanings?"

A good question. Notoriety might be an objective. Ego. A place in history, as happened with..."

And so, if Nick´s intent, likewise SF´s, but unfortunately that trick didn´t work for him. It was so far under the radar and the subtext never became a dominant theme to the novel that there was no mandate for the novel´s initial success.

[Karen]

Monty J wrote: "Karen wrote: " Where in her posts has she bullied"?

Message #52: "There are a lot of people waving their swords around, proving what virile readers they are. And yes, any symbolism you care to inf..."

Caitlyn did not write that, AnnLoretta did

[Monty J]

Karen wrote: "Caitlyn did not write that, AnnLoretta did "

Okay, I modified my post and apologized to Caitlyn.

[Monty J]

Geoffrey wrote: "And so, if Nick´s intent, likewise SF´s, but unfortunately that trick didn´t work for him. It was so far under the radar and the subtext never became a dominant theme to the novel that there was no mandate for the novel´s initial success."

That's about all I can make of it, too. Fitzgerald flubbed, maybe. Or maybe some Johnny-come-lately literary genius will revive interest in this angle and give him the credit I think he's due.

[Monty J]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "...lump Harold Bloom and his grad school lackeys into your list of people who don't understand the true meaning of The Great Gatsby, then you really are a voice crying in the wilderness."

Perhaps, but it's fun as hell, and I'm learning a lot.

(And I'm not saying it's any "true" meaning of the book. Just an interpretation worth considering.)


I just have one simple question: Why do you believe Gatsby when he says Daisy was driving, when you know he's a criminal who lies for a living and you know he's lied about his family origins, even his name.

[Geoffrey]

His job calls for him to lie about his family origins. He has to have some answer as to his presence in the Egg whereas it is Wolfie who is paying the rent for his fence. The fact that he lies so badly contradicts any pathological basis for his lying.

[Monty J]

Geoffrey wrote: "His job calls for him to lie about his family origins. He has to have some answer as to his presence in the Egg whereas it is Wolfie who is paying the rent for his fence. The fact that he lies so badly contradicts any pathological basis for his lying."

His motives may be whatever they are.

But the question is why should the reader believe him when there are so many signals that he may not be telling the truth.

This isn't just a frivolous exercise. I really want to understand why so many people believe him when I had my doubts from the very beginning. He made my skin crawl, the way he manipulated Nick into being his go-between, etc., etc.

[Christine]

Monty J wrote: "I really want to understand why so many people believe him... He made my skin crawl..."

But Monty! You have answered your own question so many times!

1) America loves a good romance.

2) America loves a good gangster

3) Put 'em together and you have an unstoppable novel!

[[deleted user]]

I'm not saying that I ever thought Nick was "taken in" by Gatsby. I think he was kind to a man he knew little of, and was slow to make a judgment, but I do believe he did, in the end. Perhaps had the novel been written later, in the light of the historical events which fell hard shortly after Gatsby's death and Nick's return to the Midwest, we would have a different memoir from Nick.

I don't deny that Nick may have been homoerotically attracted to Gatsby; I'm just not interested. Every first person narrator has their attractions and revulsions toward certain people of whom they speak. Using the first person rather than the omniscient, of course, tells a reader that we are seeing through one pair of eyes only (poor choice of words, given George's "God" of the eyeballs). I have read books narrated by first person females and not quite grasped why they liked and believed whom they did and despised whom they chose to despise.

I'm more interested in why, aside from the familial relationship, Gatsby was drawn to Nick. Or if he was at all.

My answer to your very earnest and honest question, as to why people believe Gatsby (I don't fall in that group), is that perhaps, if they don't pick up on the homosexual overtones as you have, Monty, they may feel that Gatsby was lonely in his artificial world. They may simply sympathize with him, especially at the end of the book, when his own household staff has departed, to be replaced by Wolfsheim's rather creepy lot and the grand house falls into disrepair. They may feel that Gatsby turned to Nick not only as a pimp for Daisy (if they have that sensibility at all), but because he wanted a friend.

Ir may be that simple. I'm not saying that this type of reading is as deep or defensible as yours, I'm just saying that it's possible. In some ways, this is a bad time to be reading this book for the first time. So many people feel estranged, and vulnerable. Not at all the feeling readers may have had prior to the events of late 1929. And so many people know so many people, even if not intimately, who are doing something shady to get by.

Readers are lonely, these days, too. And while this is a simplistic series of thoughts, and not meant to be an in-depth analysis of the book, it's just a few thoughts. I hope you'll take them in the spirit in which they're offered.

[Monty J]

Christine wrote: "Monty J wrote: "I really want to understand why so many people believe him... He made my skin crawl..."

But Monty! You have answered your own question so many times!

1) America loves a good romance.
2) America loves a good gangster
3) Put 'em together and you have an unstoppable novel!"

So all a guy has to do to get a bunch of people to believe him while he steals them blind is cop a romantic gangsta' pose? Is this what Ivan Boesky and Bernie Madoff did?

Maybe that's the answer. People are so mesmerized by Gatsby's superficial essence as seen through Nick's eyes that they don't actually LOOK at his deeds and words on the page.

But I want people to tell me if that's what it really is, rather than me supposing.

[Nastassja]

I didn't read the entire thread, so I don't know if someone mentioned this already themself, but in addition to reading the book yourself, one thing you can always do with questionable material instead of shielding them from it, is to have discussions with your kid as he's reading it. In your particular case, you'd probably focus on how the Christian morals (and lack thereof) in the book affect the characters' situations, and what might have been more Christian ways to deal with the situations.

[Petergiaquinta]

AnnL has pointed out an important aspect of the novel that doesn't get much discussion...why does Gatsby warm to Nick? At first, he reaches out to Nick for the same reason he has done everything since meeting Daisy...Nick is a go-between, a means to this great end that Gatsby has built up in his mind over the years. He lies to Nick and uses Nick, as he has been lying and using others to gain the wealth and the access to this world previously forbidden to him. But by the end of their short relationship, the dynamics have changed. That last night, Gatsby opens himself up to Nick and tells him things that he has never told anyone else before. There is a genuine honesty and vulnerability there that needs to be acknowledged. Ann is right; Gatsby is profoundly lonely and this helps to humanize his character and explains some of the reasons that many readers feel sympathy for him.

Gatsby isn't Madoff...he's not preying on old people's pensions to personally enrich himself. He is a thief, for sure, but he's no kingpin as Monty wishes to portray him. He's using Wolfsheim in the same way he is using Nick and Jordan Baker and everyone else...and it all has this one end in mind, Daisy, which is why Monty's theory about Gatsby blaming Daisy for driving holds absolutely no water.

As I type this, and think about the title of this thread, that night that Gatsby unburdens himself to Nick is Gatsby's "passion," something that hasn't struck me until today. This reading helps play out the Gatsby is God concept running through the novel, and this is part of the potentially blasphemous aspect of the novel that could trouble fundamentalist parents. But this reading is even more obscure than the homoerotic one and will go over the heads of most high school students.

[Lillian]

Mary wrote: "I'm not a member of this site until today.

My son is 14 and will be 15 in the spring. His curriculum has just been released, and the Great Gatsby is one of the books for his English class in the ..."

I'm fifteen now and I read this book when I was fourteen. (I'm home schooled too!) I think that although parts of it were mildly disturbing, none of it was too adult; for me, at least. I hope your son gets to read this book because it is really interestingly written and F. Scott Fitzgerald influenced Ernest Hemingway in a lot of ways. If he is reading any Hemingway in would be really valuable to read this first, I think.
I hope that was mildly helpful!

[[deleted user]]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "AnnL has pointed out an important aspect of the novel that doesn't get much discussion...why does Gatsby warm to Nick? At first, he reaches out to Nick for the same reason he has done everything si..."

Very interesting.

[Karen]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "That last night, Gatsby opens himself up to Nick and tells him things that he has never told anyone else before. There is a genuine honesty and vulnerability there that needs to be acknowledged. Ann is right; Gatsby is profoundly lonely and this helps to humanize his character and explains some of the reasons that many readers feel sympathy for him."

Yep- also the first time Gatsby saw Daisy at Nick's cottage, when he was almost incapacitated by boyish nervous anticipation. That left him vulnerable to readers sympathies too.

[[deleted user]]

Karen wrote: "Yep- also the first time Gatsby saw Daisy at Nick's cottage, when he was almost incapacitated by boyish nervous anticipation. That left him vulnerable to readers sympathies too."

That's right, I didn't connect that. That was a highly sympathetic moment, and gave credence to Gatsby's feelings for Daisy, and her reaction to Gatsby immediately created a Gatsby about whom the reader, to that point, knew nothing. That was so skillfully and tautly written. Don't you think it must have been Fitzgerald's intent that the reader's reaction to Gatsby swing widely throughout the story, that his character, meaning his moral character, be questioned, that allegiances be toyed with? Isn't that a great part of the tension of the entire novel? A good novel can't be created, Iris Murdoch wrote, out of entirely good people, the boredom would be impenetrable. (Or words to that effect, I just read it recently, but can't put my finger on it.)

[Karen]

I think you are exactly right AnnLoretta- that is what makes this novel so interesting to me- the mixed feelings I had for Gatsby, added on to Nick's growing apprehension, and the beautiful language of Fitzgerald, makes this one of my favorite books.
And Murdoch was right.

[shelsel.lh]

I loved it. It is not a sin

[Christine]

AnnLoretta wrote: "A good novel can't be created, Iris Murdoch wrote, out of entirely good people,..."


Well that is a cool quote! And so true. I'll have to remember that one.

[Monty J]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "Gatsby isn't Madoff...he's not preying on old people's pensions to personally enrich himself."

Ahh, excuse me, but who do you think buys more bonds that anyone else, by far--pension funds. In many cases, over half the investments are bonds--corporate bonds, municipal bonds--because they're considered to be much safer than stocks.

And whom, other than himself, might he be striving to enrich by selling worthless bonds?

Petergiaquinta wrote: "That last night, Gatsby opens himself up to Nick and tells him things that he has never told anyone else before. There is a genuine honesty and vulnerability there that needs to be acknowledged. Ann is right; Gatsby is profoundly lonely and this helps to humanize his character and explains some of the reasons that many readers feel sympathy for him."

Now that you mention it, other than buying his father a house and his notes in Hop-along Cassidy, this is the one scene where Gatsby shows some humanity. Not that he's concerned for anyone but himself, but he shows vulnerability by opening up to Nick, much in the same way Daisy did in Chapter I. It doesn't exactly melt my heart, but it shows that even criminals can get lonely.


What did evoke a bit of my sympathy was that Gatsby died in a very unheroic manner. There's no honor in being shot while prone on an air mattress. When people stayed way in droves from Gatsby's funeral and even the ungrateful dog Wolfsheim refused to come, it bothered me a little. But not much. Because I figured Gatsby got what he deserved for going bad. My sympathies have limits. I can't see Gatsby the way Nick did. My sympathies are with the victims of his crimes.

[Monty J]

AnnLoretta wrote: "...they may feel that Gatsby was lonely in his artificial world. They may simply sympathize with him, especially at the end of the book, when his own household staff has departed, to be replaced by Wolfsheim's rather creepy lot and the grand house falls into disrepair. They may feel that Gatsby turned to Nick not only as a pimp for Daisy (if they have that sensibility at all), but because he wanted a friend."

Good point. I can see where this would evoke sympathy, especially during the holiday season.

The motif of loneliness comes up in the titles to his photos when McKee is viewing his portfolio: "Beauty and the Beast," "Loneliness," "Old Grocery Horse" and "Brook'n Bridge" and is repeated when he stays up until dawn with Nick, when he dies alone in his pool, unnoticed by even his staff until Nick arrives, and when people, especially Daisy, ignore his funeral in droves.

When I think of Gatsby alone in his mansion I see Charles Foster Kane muttering,"Rosebud," alone in his castle just before he dies.

[Monty J]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "...he's no kingpin as Monty wishes to portray him."

Then how do you account for the string of evidence I supplied in granular details under the topic: "Jay Gatsby's Criminality, in particular the phone call from Slagel intended for Gatsby that Nick intercepts in the last chapter? Fitzgerald seeded these clues into the novel for a reason. (See following topic, "Fitzgerald's Challenge to Nick's View of Gatsby.")

[Petergiaquinta]

Monty, as you told someone earlier on the thread, you see what you want to see. Gatsby is a criminal. We all know it. The text supports it on the most obvious of levels. Gatsby is involved in bootlegging and financial fraud on Wall Street. And probably other bad, bad things. You don't need to supply "granular" detail for all that. It's there. We get it.

But what you don't seem to get is why Gatsby is doing all this...it's not to enrich himself for personal gain beyond his quest to attain Daisy. It's not to create a web of organized crime to elevate his status and power within the criminal underworld. It's to open the doors into a moneyed society that he can only gain access to with the financial gains he achieves through his criminal activity.

Gatsby is no kingpin. He's working for Wolfsheim, not the other way around. He has embraced criminal activity as a way to quickly elevate his position in society, as historically many have. But the difference here between Gatsby and your garden variety criminal who rises from poverty to great riches (El Chapo, for example, or Vito Corleone), and the difference that you can't seem to wrap your head around, is Gatsby's motivation for doing so, that single-minded desire of his to win Daisy no matter what, to turn back time, to erase the past, to do whatever it takes.

This is why Nick (along with many readers besides yourself) is so enamoured with Gatsby. It's the fascinating purity of his vision in contrast to the corrupt means he goes about pursuing it.

You seem to want to read this book in the sharpest of blacks and whites, but that approach isn't going to work with this novel or with any other literary work of complexity.

[Karen]

Petergiaquinta wrote; "But what you don't seem to get is why Gatsby is doing all this...it's not to enrich himself for personal gain beyond his quest to attain Daisy. It's not to create a web of organized crime to elevate his status and power within the criminal underworld. It's to open the doors into a moneyed society that he can only gain access to with the financial gains he achieves through his criminal activity."

Yep

"You seem to want to read this book in the sharpest of blacks and whites, but that approach isn't going to work with this novel or with any other literary work of complexity."

And yep

[Monty J]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "Gatsby is no kingpin. He's working for Wolfsheim, not the other way around."

You're misinterpreting what I said. I've always maintained that Gatsby worked for Wolfsheim. I said he's "a" kingpin, not "the" kingpin. A kingpin is a key player, not the top dog:

"Did you start him in business?" [Nick asked Wolfsheim]
"Start him! I made him."

Gatsby was no mere foot-soldier for Wolfsheim. Foot-soldiers don't make enough money to own mansions and Rolls Royces. He had a high level position managing others, evidenced by the telephone call from Slagel.

Petergiaquinta wrote: "...why Gatsby is doing all this...it's not to enrich himself for personal gain beyond his quest to attain Daisy."

Fair enough, then show is where your conclusion is supported in the text.

[Petergiaquinta]

Uh...now you're playing a bit fast and loose with definitions of words, but okay. Just don't let Wilson Fisk know there are multiple kingpins in a criminal organization...

[Geoffrey]

Allow me to add a few stray words to this dialogue that addresses the notion of the Lost Generation. WWI was the war intended to end all wars. We entered it with the greatest of expectations and its virulence was heart wrenching in a way much beyond of any other. Chemical warfare, aerial bombing, trench battles, and an agonizing loss of life with little gain for either side. As a war weary serviceman, Jay would hearken back to those bucolic summer eves at the end of Daisy´s steet, courting this pretty, perky socialite of the moneyed classes after going through the dispiriting year of fighting in Montenegro.

The books current popularity was guaranteed as TGG was standard issue to the servicemen fighting WWII. The theme of innocence lost, hearkened to an entire generation of GIs whose innocence preceded their onset to the European or Pacific war theaters. So many had sweethearts left back home, or newly married spouses and so there was a strong resonance to JG´s Sisyphean quest for an age of innnocence.

[Geoffrey]

As for Wolfsheim being ungrateful, although that is how Nick sees it, he has limited empathy to Wolfie´s position. The cops are closing in on the fencing operation, and yes, he would have tilted his hand in showing up at the funeral if the police had been there.

[Geoffrey]

Karen wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Cαiтℓуn ~ It's you I'll be fighting for ~ wrote: "Not for nothin, but for a 70 year old guy, you're pretty rude. Just sayin."

For what, standing up to your bullying? You think that..."

AnnLoretta called all of us ¨illiterates who live upon and through electronic devices¨, and you defend her? Have you no pride?

[Karen]

Geoffrey wrote: "Karen wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Cαiтℓуn ~ It's you I'll be fighting for ~ wrote: "Not for nothin, but for a 70 year old guy, you're pretty rude. Just sayin."

For what, standing up to your bullying? ..."

I wasn't referring to her, read more carefully