The Great Gatsby
discussion
Jay Gatsby, the Inverted Frog Prince
Yes, perhaps in an attempt at making the novel a bestseller SF emphasized the romantic interest of the story and subliminated the truer themes into a subtext. Had he instead written a book a la THE JUNGLE, perhaps he would have had a more immediate public response.Sorry, Monty, this is where we part company. I found Upton's novel vastly more interesting, and better written. I am a bit surprised he hasn't lasted and SF has, but then again, as soon as the feds excellently addressed the issues Sinclair raised, then his image faded from the public. We are no longer concerned with health issues in regards to food production as government so well monitors those issues.
That may be to SF's credit in that he directed the main text between a poor boy and a rich girl and their unconsummated love affair. No wonder the movie TITANIC was so popular as it addressed inter class romance.
Geoffrey wrote: " No wonder the movie TITANIC was so popular as it addressed inter class romance. "As did Pretty Woman. Hugely successful.
To me, class conflict as the reason for Daisy's rejection of Gatsby doesn't hold water. You won't find it supported in the book.
No, she rejected him because of his criminality. That is pretty apparent.But in the movie, when renewing their romance, Jay asks Daisy why she didn't marry him before the war and she tells him,
''Rich girls don't marry poor boys."
The script writer had tried to make sense as to why their romance was initially doomed. That was never explained, as you say, in the novel. Later, when they are engaged in their extramarital tryst, Tom's revelation of the dirt his private eye has dug up on Jay discourages Daisy in her love affair. Whether it be the prospect of future insecurity of living with a criminal subject to arrest at any moment, the ignominy of attachment to a bootlegger when one is a member of the upper crust, or whatever....is a bit unresolved. One can ascribe any number of motives on Daisy's part.
I do recall an earlier comment I believe Baker made about Daisy that unlike so many other females in her social circle, Daisy was careful to avoid scandal.
Geoffrey wrote: "Daisy that unlike so many other females in her social circle, Daisy was careful to avoid scandal. "Yes, Nick makes a comment in Ch 1, after alluding to Tom's affair in Santa Barbara, that Daisy had kept her reputation intact despite the fast crowd she and Tom ran with. To me, this elevates her a bit above most of the other wealthy characters, making her brief "descent" into adultery with Gatsby stand out. Remember, the name "Daisy" in Victorian vernacular means "best of class." Daisy slides, then redeems herself by rejecting Gatsby and returning to Tom, who has been redeemed through public confession and his promise to reform.
Gatsby, on the other hand, was a scoundrel from the beginning. (Ch VI, p. 98) [Nick narrating]
He knew women early , and since they spoiled him he became contemptuous of them, of young virgins because they were ignorant, and of the others because they were hysterical about things which in his overwhelming self-absorption he took for granted.Fitzgerald puts us on notice here that Gatsby's character has been questionable from early on. A player he was. Serial taker of virgins, the young Gatsby was like Holden's roommate Stradlater in J.D. Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye.
(Ch VIII, p.149) [Nick again]
He took what he could get, ravenously and unscrupulously--eventually he took Daisy one still October night, took her because he had no real right to touch her hand.
He might have despised himself, for he had certainly taken her under false pretenses. ...he let her believe that he was a person from much the same stratum as herself--that he was fully able to take care of her.
Unscrupulous scoundrel he was, and in contrast with Daisy and Tom, Gatsby (and Myrtle) do nothing to redeem themselves. Hence, they must die.
Geoffrey wrote: "That may be to SF's credit in that he directed the main text between a poor boy and a rich girl and their unconsummated love affair.""Post-nupial" love affair, I assume you mean, because they did of course "consummate" before Gatsby left for war.
I stand corrected. I never noticed the part that they had sex prior to her marriage. Thanx for pointing that out.
Monty wrote;"Unscrupulous scoundrel he was, and in contrast with Daisy and Tom, Gatsby (and Myrtle) do nothing to redeem themselves. Hence, they must die."
Yep- good old Tom, the woman beater.
I agree with you on this Karen as Daisy and Tom do nothing to redeem themselves. The finale is not about just reward by is a social indictment on the futility of social mobility. Both social climbers in the novel, Myrtle and Jay suffer the ultimate punishment.Jay does deserve punishment for his crimes but they are not so immense as to deserve death. As for Myrtle, hers is but a minor misdemeanor. She succumbs to the attentions of the landed gentry having been set aside as the cast off wife by Wilson.
Monty J wrote: "in contrast with Daisy and Tom, Gatsby (and Myrtle) do nothing to redeem themselves. Hence, they must die...."Come on now Monty! How do you possibly see Daisy and Tom as 'redeeming themselves'?? Because they 'wisely' leave town? Because they snuff out the past, sweeping it under the rug as if it never happened? How is that redeeming?
Everyone KNOWS what happens to Tom and Daisy!!! They continue on in their loveless, pathetic marriage. Tom continues to have affairs and physically abuse women (including Daisy.) Daisy continues to long for what she gave up and despise the gilded cage she put herself in.
Christine wrote: "How do you possibly see Daisy and Tom as 'redeeming themselves'??"In the post-Victorian mindset, marriage was sacrosanct. Returning after "straying" to rebuild the "God-blessed" marriage, no matter how bad, was seen as heroic, not hypocritical, especially if true love had to be sacrificed.
Tom had protected his marriage by having Gatsby investigated,.k Then he heroically confronted and "faced-down" the criminal interloper, publicly confessed his transgressions against Daisy and vowed to reform.
On the other hand, Gatsby, in that same meeting, gloated over having an affair with Daisy while Tom "didn't know " and confessed to being a criminal cohort of Wolfshem without the slightest hint of guilt of remorse or concern about the marriage he had tried to wreck for his own self gratification.
Compare Tom and Gatsby. One gloats and shows no remorse while the other confesses and vows to reform.
Daisy redeems herself by accepting Tom's public confession and vow and returning to rebuild the marriage. Again, we're talking about the strict post-Victorian milieu, not today's standards.
The novel must be evaluated according to the prevailing standards of its milieu.
Monty J wrote: "we're talking about the strict post-Victorian milieu, not today's standards...."Yes, but in the 1920's the country was questioning the Victorian mindset, even abandoning it completely -- as was evident in fashion, dress, dance, politics, all cultural phenomena -- and literature too.
You don't mean to suggest that Tom and Daisy were Victorians??
Christine wrote: You don't mean to suggest that Tom and Daisy were Victorians??
I'm no anthropologist, but I consider it likely they had Victorian influence, as those standards persisted well into the 1950s in some sectors of the US, according to my personal experience and reading. Social norms are slow to change.
An example is John O'Hara's From the Terrace, a 1930s-era novel about a war vet who married a philandering socialite and went into investment banking, then did the unthinkable, (view spoiler)and divorced his wife for true love.
Christine wrote;"You don't mean to suggest that Tom and Daisy were Victorians?"
LOL!!!!
Monty wrote;"Compare Tom and Gatsby. One gloats and shows no remorse while the other confesses and vows to reform."
Okay LET'S! Tom vows to reform, so he must be better! He's going to stop punching women in the face! Wow, should we bring up how you condone this?
We have spent a lot of time comparing faults of Gatsby and Tom. Let's compare virtues! Gatsby's Virtues:
1) Self Starter/ Ambitious
2) Disciplined
3) Generous
4) Protective
5) Optimistic
6) Passionate
Tom's Virtues:
?????????
1) 'Vows' to reform?
2) Oh yeah-- he 'cries' over Myrtle's dog biscuits. This (I think) means he is 'sensitive' :/ Too bad he was not 'sensitive' when he broke her nose...
Christine wrote: "Tom's Virtues:
?????????
1) 'Vows' to reform?
2) Oh yeah-- he 'cries' over Myrtle's dog biscuits. This (I think) means he is 'sensitive' :/ Too bad he was not 'sensitive' when he broke her nose... "
Lol. Everyone knows dog biscuits are more important than women Christine!!
LOL!! Since we are doing a 'close read' I daresay F Scott was in on this joke too.
Finally. Some actual real discussion on Gatsby, getting into the depth of the characters, and with humor, too. Thank you, Christine and Karen.
Christine wrote: "We have spent a lot of time comparing faults of Gatsby and Tom. Let's compare virtues! "I've already done this comparison, here: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
But to your point:
Gatsby's Virtues
1) Self Starter/ Ambitious -- okay
2) Disciplined --Where is this shown in the book?
3) Generous --Where is this shown in the book?
4) Protective--Where is this shown in the book?
5) Optimistic--Delusional might be a better fit.
Tom
1) He publicly confessed and vowed to reform.
2) He had Gatsby investigated and exposed him as a criminal.
3) He showed compassion for Myrtle, sobbing while driving away from her mutilated body.
4) He kept his head during the cop's investigation, giving Wilson emotional support and directing attention to Myrtle's probable killer, Gatsby.
5) He again showed compassion when he broke into tears on seeing the soggy dog biscuits on the sideboard at Myrtle's apartment.
6) He bravely confronted Wilson when he showed up asking the owner of the yellow car, Gatsby, with his hand on a gun, then quickly got his family away to safety.
7) The nose breaking was an accident. He didn't know his strength, which was well-established early in the book.
For the rest I refer you to my link.
Monty, your link is a list of their rap sheets, not virtues! To answer your questions:
2) Disciplined --Where is this shown in the book?
-- The list his father showed Nick proves Gatsby's discipline. 'Rise from bed, 6 AM. Dumbbell exercise and wall scaling 6:15 - 6:30,' etc. etc.
3) Generous --Where is this shown in the book?
-- He had all those parties! I know you are going to say the parties were to con prospects for the bond scam. However, PLENTY of people attended who had no link nor interest in bonds. People (like Jordan) were enjoying Gatsby's generosity -- food, drinks, swimming, dancing, etc.
4) Protective--Where is this shown in the book?
-- He was protecting Daisy the whole time -- from Tom, from her possible manslaughter conviction. I know, I know, you are going to say Gatsby was driving, but I am not convinced of that either.
5) Optimistic--Delusional might be a better fit.
-- No, it is Gatsby's unwavering optimism that makes him stick in his pursuit of Daisy. He really BELIEVES he will re-create the past! That is what makes this a great book! His relentless belief that he will change his social class, change his destiny and win Daisy.
FYI -- characters in great novels are REQUIRED to be over the top and larger than life. These are the qualities that make Gatsby so unforgettable!!
Tom
1) Vows to reform
-- Yeah, he's a true model of Victorian chastity :/
2) He also sobs while driving away from Myrtle's mutilated body.
-- A paragon of sensitivity. Too bad he was not more upset when he broke her nose.
Christine wrote: "Monty, your link is a list of their rap sheets, not virtues! To answer your questions:"
Informative, Christine. Thank you.
Christine wrote: "Monty, your link is a list of their rap sheets, not virtues! To answer your questions:
2) Disciplined --Where is this shown in the book?
-- The list his father showed Nick proves Gatsby's dis..."
Go Christine!
Furthermore, let's not forget the humor in this book- the way Fitzgerald describes the people at the party where Tom broke Myrtle's nose. I laughed out loud. The names of some of the guests at Gatsby's parties-Mr. Mumble, The Leeches, the Hornbeams, and Edgar Beaver- who's hair turned cotton-white one winter afternoon for no good reason at all.
Christine wrote: "LOL!! Since we are doing a 'close read' I daresay F Scott was in on this joke too."Yes I am sure he was.
Karen wrote: "Furthermore, let's not forget the humor in this book- the way Fitzgerald describes the people at the party where Tom broke Myrtle's nose. I laughed out loud. The names of some of the guests at Gats..."The Leeches. Now there's a subtle condemnation of the people whose crime is attending a party. Gee, I wonder what Fitzgerald was trying to say here?
James wrote;"I think he was poking fun at the types of people who were attending his parties. The Leeches were hangers-on I think, there to be seen among all the wealthy. Like zealot fans with rock stars.
Christine wrote: "Too bad he was not 'sensitive' when he broke her nose... "Let's see, one guy accidentally breaks Myrtle's nose. The other guy accidentally kills her. But the first guy's worse for..., uh, what reason was that exactly?
Monty J wrote: "Christine wrote: "Too bad he was not 'sensitive' when he broke her nose... "Let's see, one guy accidentally breaks Myrtle's nose. The other guy accidentally kills her. But the first guy's worse f..."
It was not an accident Monty- Tom struck her on purpose, but she may have egged him on- so it was justifiable, right?
Just because Tom didn't mean to break her nose does not mean he was not guilty of abuse.
When Tom hits Myrtle, it is because she has mentioned Daisy's name. Thus he is exercising some double standard -- Myrtle is good enough to be the lover on the side, but Tom will act violently if he is even REMINDED of his own actual philandering. Tom is the type of man that probably does not think of abuse AS abuse. In another incident he has 'casually' bruised Daisy's wrist.
Christine wrote: "When Tom hits Myrtle, it is because she has mentioned Daisy's name. Thus he is exercising some double standard -- Myrtle is good enough to be the lover on the side, but Tom will act violently if he..."Yes he is one of those, you're right!
Monty, it is a question of Haves and Have-Nots. Tom -- bad guy who cheats, beats his wife, has never worked a day in his life and makes smarmy racist comments.
Gatsby -- gallant romantic who has clawed his way to the top, singularly pursuing the American Dream which to him is Daisy Buchanan.
Readers (many readers, anyway) are NOT going to feel any sympathy for Tom. He is a silver-spoon kid, born to entitlement, and he has apparently become more entitled as time went on. He is 'entitled' to marry Daisy, because of his rank. He is 'entitled' to keep Myrtle, also because of his rank. He is 'entitled' to rule the world because he is 'Nordic'.
This kind of stuff was preposterous enough in 1922, or at least in 1942. Today? Forget it.
Gatsby, on the other hand, is self made. He came up the ranks by his own sweat and toil. Boat boy, yes. Shady connections, yes. Yes, yes, I get that he is a criminal! But I have said before on these threads that America loves a great gangster!! Case in point Michael Corleone, Tony Soprano, etc. This is the stuff of fabulous story telling!!
So see, Monty, you cannot win this one! At least not with the majority of readers.
Karen wrote: "Go Christine! ..."Thanks Karen and James for the back up!
:) :) :)
Christine wrote: "So see, Monty, you cannot win this one! "It's not, and never has been, about winning anything. It's about expressing and understanding. For the umpteenth time, everybody has a right their own opinion; I just want to understand how people get to theirs.
I do it by asking probing questions and positing theories. I can take any side of any issue and argue for or against it. The idea is to flush out how people think. (You're my lab rats, pardon the expression.)
Monty wrote;"I do it by asking probing questions and positing theories. I can take any side of any issue and argue for or against it. The idea is to flush out how people think. (You're my lab rats, pardon the expression.)"
You don't ask probing questions. I don't think you care what others have to say about this book- only when it gives you the opportunity to state YOUR opinion of it. And we are not your anything.
Karen wrote: "Monty wrote;"I do it by asking probing questions and positing theories. I can take any side of any issue and argue for or against it. The idea is to flush out how people think. (You're my lab rats..."
He sets the moral bar. He pushes his own ideas as bulletproof in content and logic, he asks other people not what they think, but why they don't think a certain way. And he acts put upon when called on his nonsense. I have to say, me thinks he abuses his lab rats a little bit.
Karen wrote: "And we are not your anything. "You don't get to control my mind. I can make you whatever I want.
Monty J wrote: "Karen wrote: "And we are not your anything. "You don't get to control my mind. I can make you whatever I want."
Lol! Now this is getting funny.
Monty J wrote: " everybody has a right their own opinion; I just want to understand how people get to theirs.r..."Well then, I have spelled it out for you, how I got to my opinions :D
Christine wrote: "Monty J wrote: " everybody has a right their own opinion; I just want to understand how people get to theirs.r..."Well then, I have spelled it out for you, how I got to my opinions :D"
You're the first. You get five gummy bears. :)
Christine wrote: "Monty, it is a question of Haves and Have-Nots. Tom -- bad guy who cheats, beats his wife, has never worked a day in his life and makes smarmy racist comments.
Gatsby -- gallant romantic who ha..."
It´s not about what the majority of readers think. Granted, most of us don´t subscribe to Monty´s unusual ideas, but at least give the man his soapbox. I, for one, don´t think that Jay was driving the car when Myrtle was struck, nor do I think that Jay was a worse man than Tom, but give each his due. I think everyone protests too much. There is too much a horrified reaction to Monty´s idea. I actually think he makes a strong case, albeit erroneous for his ideas. But then what do I know, I am but a visual artist whose literary conceits occasionally get published.
Christine wrote: "Monty, it is a question of Haves and Have-Nots. Tom -- bad guy who cheats, beats his wife, has never worked a day in his life and makes smarmy racist comments.
Gatsby -- gallant romantic who ha..."
And yet Gatsby is not so much the hero. SF undercuts the illustrious part of his person with the admission that he was a serial deflowerer of virgins and broke many a heart with nary a second thought. This is a man who has not empathy for women. Pox on the whole crew. They´re all a bunch of miscast, social detritus. The only person who comes close to spanky clean is Mr. Gatz.
Geoffrey wrote: "most of us don´t subscribe to Monty´s unusual ideas, but at least give the man his soapbox. ..."Oh, we have given Monty AMPLE soapbox, I'd say!
Christine wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "most of us don´t subscribe to Monty´s unusual ideas, but at least give the man his soapbox. ..."Oh, we have given Monty AMPLE soapbox, I'd say!"
Yes we have
Geoffrey wrote: "SF undercuts the illustrious part of his person with the admission that he was a serial deflowerer of virgins and broke many a heart with nary a second thought. This is a man who has not empathy for women. Pox on the whole crew. ..."The virgin thing is mentioned only once. And this occurs at a time when Jay is like, seventeen years old. The reader can grasp the story line of a seventeen year old boy, who then becomes a man, and becomes infatuated with Daisy. The mature Jay Gatsby is not portrayed as a person who has no empathy for women. His actions show otherwise.
Here's the pathology at work with Monty: he holds up an abusive, racist monster complicit in Gatsby's murder as being redeemed by the end of the novel when there's absolutely no evidence of it. And he attempts to spread his misreading of the novel on threads all over GoodReads.It's not just piss poor reading; it's evidence of mental illness.
Petergiaquinta wrote: "Here's the pathology at work with Monty: he holds up an abusive, racist monster complicit in Gatsby's murder as being redeemed by the end of the novel when there's absolutely no evidence of it. And..."It's not just piss poor reading; it's evidence of mental illness."
I too think there is a problem, and the defense of Tom Buchanan bothers me the most, as I wonder where it is coming from.
Well, there is a difference between the long-respected soapbox and Lebenstraum. I'm afraid our "host" is obsessed; today Poland, tomorrow Czechoslovakia.
It's somewhat unclear to me why we all, including myself, continue to appease him, interact with him.
None of us is Monty. That will always be our basic failure.
It's somewhat unclear to me why we all, including myself, continue to appease him, interact with him.
None of us is Monty. That will always be our basic failure.
I am stuck on interacting, HELP!!!
But seriously maybe we are justified in interacting. I think F Scott says one thing, Monty claims another. The author cannot speak for himself, so we must lay out our interpretations, as we see fit. Right?
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Frog-Prince transformation alludes to a universal duality in human nature--everyone (regardless of gender) has a polished public persona that is different from the shadow side to their personality that they only expose in private, if at all.
With criminals, the gap between public and private persona is magnified. Every criminal keeps his shadow/criminal activity well hidden. He/she would be apprehended if otherwise. So Gatsby puts on a big show with parties at his mansion, his unread library, his gaudy shirts, pink suit and yellow Rolls Royce. Even buys an expensive cocktail dress for one his guests, earning the remark, "There's something funny about a fellow that'll do a thing like that, ... He doesn't want any trouble with anybody."
Gatsby dare not stop his car after Myrtle is hit because he can't withstand the scrutiny that would ensue. (Cop hypothetically asks, "And what line of work are you in, Mr. Gatsby, that you can afford this brand-new Rolls Royce?" Gatsby: "Ah.., ah-h, well, I used to be a bootlegger, but now I sell stolen bonds, counterfeit bonds, whatever." There were no Miranda rights in the Twenties.)
By treating Gatsby's criminality largely as subtext, Fitzgerald presents a realistic rendition of how a bootlegger/con artist running a bond scam would appear to the general public. Nick's gullible ambivalence toward the clues of Gatsby's criminality maintains this realism. There are rumors, but no one actually puts the pieces together.
The problem with this restrained emphasis on Gatsby's shadow side* is that readers can be lulled into thinking the criminal origins of Gatsby's wealth aren't all that important, when Gatsby's criminality speaks to the very core of the book--corruption, which is explained in detail under the previous topic: "Gatsby, by the Numbers."
*When we fail to address and accept the shadow side of ourselves, we end up as only half a man (or less). --Robert Bly