The Great Gatsby
discussion
Jay Gatsby, the Inverted Frog Prince
Right, I hope...I appreciate the way Feliks has stepped up on other threads. As "good readers" on GoodReads, I think it's our duty to respond. The nonsense about Tom Buchanan troubles me, too.You can't point to a dog, say, "That's a cat," and expect folks to nod and smile and say, "Oh yeah, that's a cat. I never realized it until now."
Petergiaquinta wrote: "It's not just piss poor reading; it's evidence of mental illness. ."And yet you keep coming back.
Whats' the attraction?
You could block me and forget me anytime you like. Jealous of all the attention I'm getting? Learning something in spite of yourself? Awestruck by originality?
What is it? A couple of clicks and I'm history. And yet...
"Daisy, Dai-sy, give me your answer, do. ... ."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0r-X...
AnnLoretta wrote: "Private FSF discussion group."See? You can go play with each other.
Oh, eventually I'll stop chiming in. I'll quit on you, and so will everyone else. I promise. No jealousy here, just an obligation to the truth and good literature.I stopped interacting with Cosmic, as did most other folks. It's the same pattern. It'll happen with you.
But I don't know how to run a group. I just want to create a comfortable haven for discussion. Any help would be welcome.
Christine wrote: "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 f..."
Not only are you justified in interacting, I applaud it. I stopped posting because I raised the issues I felt necessary. I doubt I made any impact, but I tried.
And I agree that nobody is trying to take his soapbox away. That would be like saying Fox News doesn't get enough viewer circulation. It's the questionable content rising from that soapbox that is being challenged:
"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."
"The idea is to flush out how people think."
"You don't get to control my mind. I can make you whatever I want."
"And I don't care what you think. I'll call it what I want."
"I'll do as I damn well please. You don't own the Internet."
Now, he has every right to devolve in his commentary like this. But it underscores why people want less of him and more productive discussion from others on this engaging book.
Monty J wrote: "You could block me and forget me anytime you like. Jealous of all the attention I'm getting? Learning something in spite of yourself? Awestruck by originality?
Actually we can't if we want to participate in discussions on Gatsby without wading through a pile of your BS like this polished turd. I say kudos to those with the energy and drive to stay on top of you and not make it easy for you to - as you so aptly stated - do as you damn well please.
James wrote: "Christine wrote: "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 interpreta..."
James, I agree with you, insofar as people choose to divide their energies between interaction and "staying on top of somebody."
If there's any interest in a separate, private group, it will evidence itself. If not, I'll delete it.
It's just an alternative. Sometimes one wishes to chat easily with others without "suiting up."
I think F Scott says one thing, Monty claims another. The author cannot speak for himself, so we must lay out our interpreta..."
James, I agree with you, insofar as people choose to divide their energies between interaction and "staying on top of somebody."
If there's any interest in a separate, private group, it will evidence itself. If not, I'll delete it.
It's just an alternative. Sometimes one wishes to chat easily with others without "suiting up."
AnnLoretta wrote: "James wrote: "Christine wrote: "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 ..."
I think it's worth looking into.
Christine wrote: "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 f..."
You are right, and this is one of my favorite novels- I don't want to see the experience of reading it ruined for first time readers.
Monty wrote;"You could block me and forget me anytime you like. Jealous of all the attention I'm getting? Learning something in spite of yourself? Awestruck by originality?"
Pitiful response, why would anyone here want the negative attention you are getting?
Christine wrote: "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 h..."The age in which that occurred is not mentioned. The leap of belief is predicated on your worship of Gatsby's character.
Christine wrote: "so we must lay out our interpretations, as we see fit. Right? "As long as you can tie them to the book.
Geoffrey wrote: "The age in which that occurred is not mentioned. ..."The age IS mentioned! P. 98, I will paraphrase:
"... he invented just the sort of Jay Gatsby that a seventeen year old boy would be likely to invent... For over a year he had been beating his way along the south shore of Lake Superior... He knew women early and since they spoiled him he became contemptuous of them, of young virgins because they were so ignorant..."
So that actually makes him in the sixteen/ seventeen age range.
OHH NOO I am not worshipping a character, I am MERELY READING WHAT IS WRITTEN ON THE PAGE
Christine wrote: "OHH NOO I am not worshipping a character, I am MERELY READING WHAT IS WRITTEN ON THE PAGE ."Kudos. Finally! Someone actually reads the book! (Careful, or you'll start seeing Gatsby as Fitzgerald wrote him.)
But you're conflating separate quotes that aren't even in the same paragraph. We don't now how old he was when he was deflowering virgins. Or, for that matter, if he ever stopped.
But I don't care if he's 16 or 15, the exploitative pattern is established. Absent any sign of confession and vow to change, once a Lothario, always a Lothario.
But it also reads, Christine, that "he invented just the sort of Jay Gatsby that a seventeen year old boy would be likely to invent, and to this conception he was faithful to the end" So he was faithful to his conception of an non empathetic philandering womanizer? It can be interpreted that he was faithful also to his contemptible use of women's bodies if he was faithful to this new concept of Jay Gatsby. Shades of Nietzsche's Superman?
Geoffrey wrote: "The only person who comes close to spanky clean is Mr. Gatz..."Yet Fitzgerald describes Gatsby's parents this way: "I suppose he’d had the name ready for a long time, even then. His parents were shiftless and unsuccessful farm people — his imagination had never really accepted them as his parents at all. The truth was that Jay Gatsby of West Egg, Long Island, sprang from his Platonic conception of himself. He was a son of God — a phrase which, if it means anything, means just that — and he must be about His Father’s business, the service of a vast, vulgar, and meretricious beauty. So he invented just the sort of Jay Gatsby that a seventeen-year-old boy would be likely to invent, and to this conception he was faithful to the end."
"Faithful to the end" seems to point to his remaking of himself away from the failure he saw in his parents. Not in the context of defiling virgins or mistreating women. This, in part, shows Gatsby as a product of his upbringing and his rebellion against it. It needs to be considered when judging the decisions he made. And it also needs to be considered that Fitzgerald writes the words that Gatsby is the product of shiftless parents. Whether Gatsby is telling Nick the truth, one cannot know for certain, but it must be considered as a possibility when looking at his life as a whole. Fitzgerald also portrays Gatsby later on more as a man who is denied the love he is looking for rather a callous womanizer.
Compared to Tom, Gatsby was the hard-worker, the go-getter, before the illegal scams became a clear part of his life, while Tom was apparently shiftless, floating in his pool of easy money. Why did Gatsby end up a criminal? No way to tell from the book. Who knows the myriad reasons a person makes the decisions he makes?
This, I suspect, is one reason parsing sentences and passing strict moral judgment on Gatsby without looking at the bigger, more complex picture isn't swaying anybody on this board regarding the Gatsby-is-bad-so-he-must-die and Tom-isn't-such-a-bad-guy-so-he-gets-to-live interpretation of this book.
James wrote: "Faithful to the end" seems to point to his remaking of himself away from the failure he saw in his parents. Not in the context of defiling virgins or mistreating women. This, in part, shows Gatsby as a product of his upbringing and his rebellion against it...Right! James, I agree with that.
The so-called 'womanizing' is a very small part of this whole description. Besides, if he was such a 'womanizer' don't you think he'd be busy taking advantage of all the fawning women at his parties? Maybe he would be -- oh I don't know -- going to New York to meet his lover? Where he has her set up in an apartment... and then he would buy her a dog and break her nose or something like that :P
Christine wrote: "The so-called 'womanizing' is a very small part of this whole description. Besides, if he was such a 'womanizer' don't you think he'd be busy taking advantage of all the fawning women at his partie..."You might be interested that I looked up the quote "snippet" about Gatsby being disappointed in his critics about not understanding the book. A read of the full letter tells a different story from what we have been hearing and shows why "snippets" are poor tools when context is removed. The letter seems to show Fitzgerald disappointed in himself (not the critics) for failing to properly convey ("a BIG FAULT") the central theme of the story: the relationship between Gatsby and Daisy from the time of their reunion to the catastrophe, leaving the critics feeling the central story was trivial and lacking (his own words).
I started a new thread called "Fitzgerald's reaction to early criticism of The Great Gastby".
Geoffrey wrote;"that occurred is not mentioned. The leap of belief is predicated on your worship of Gatsby's character."
This IS the most immature thing you have said here.
James wrote;""Faithful to the end" seems to point to his remaking of himself away from the failure he saw in his parents. Not in the context of defiling virgins or mistreating women. This, in part, shows Gatsby as a product of his upbringing and his rebellion against it. It needs to be considered when judging the decisions he made. And it also needs to be considered that Fitzgerald writes the words that Gatsby is the product of shiftless parents. Whether Gatsby is telling Nick the truth, one cannot know for certain, but it must be considered as a possibility when looking at his life as a whole. Fitzgerald also portrays Gatsby later on more as a man who is denied the love he is looking for rather a callous womanizer."
Yes- isn't this obvious to any reader who is looking at the big picture here? Gatsby reinvented himself because he was ashamed of his family. Being a womanizer while very young was just part of his past. I got this on the first read, 30 years ago.
Monty J wrote: "AnnLoretta wrote: "Private FSF discussion group."See? You can go play with each other."
And you can continue to play with yourself.
James wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "The only person who comes close to spanky clean is Mr. Gatz..."Yet Fitzgerald describes Gatsby's parents this way: "I suppose he’d had the name ready for a long time, even then. ..."
I never suggested that Jay decided to die as I would never have thought so. Nor do I think that Tom deserved his easy outcome to the entire fracas. I don't subscribe to Monty's notion that Jay was morally worse than Tom.I've always contended that Tom as a white supremacist, a social parasite, womanizer and woman beater was more loathsome than Jay.
As for the comment to Mr. Gatz's character, that's but the social snobbery of the times speaking. If you recall correctly from American history, the 30 year period at the turn of the century was particularly difficult for Western farmers as the Eastern banks kept loans at very high interest rates, hence William Jenning Bryan's near successful presidential bid and his Cross of Gold speech. They were not shiftless, but hard working. Unfortunately the financial system was stacked against them.
Geoffrey wrote;" never suggested that Jay decided to die as I would never have thought so. Nor do I think that Tom deserved his easy outcome to the entire fracas. I don't subscribe to Monty's notion that Jay was morally worse than Tom.I've always contended that Tom as a white supremacist, a social parasite, womanizer and woman beater was more loathsome than Jay."
This is absolutely true, have to be fair.
Yes, the word "shiftless" seems unfair, as Mr. Gatz is a farmer and as such has roots to the land. That word is a part of Gatsby's own narrative to Nick, and as such may not be entirely accurate. But who hasn't rejected their parents' way of living and sought a better life for themselves? That is a part of the Dream Gatsby embodies at the core of the book. Elsewhere Geoffrey has criticized Gatsby for poor treatment of his father, but like any son who has moved along, Gatsby has kept in touch, sent the photo, told his father his new identity. His father is rightfully proud of his son.And who hasn't deflowered virgins at the age of 17? These aren't horrific character flaws as depicted by FSF. Gatsby changes profoundly during his encounter with Daisy. And again, this shift in behavior is true to life; no doubt everyone here has turned a corner in their own lives. Gatsby's change is nicely described for the reader. I don't think he even consciously intended for it to happen then.
At that point in the novel, however, something significant happens to the Dream. It becomes solely identified with the girl. This moment may be the true Tragedy of the story. Certainly this moment when Gatsby transfers all his beautiful aspirations into the figure of one flawed human being puts Gatsby on the path that leads to Myrtle in the road and the phone call that never comes while Gatsby faithfully and foolishly waits for it in the pool. This is indeed a kind of 20th Century American Tragedy that FSF has envisioned here in the novel.
Geoffrey wrote: "James wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "The only person who comes close to spanky clean is Mr. Gatz..."I was only responding to your comment that Mr. Gatz appears to be spanky clean. Maybe he was. Maybe he wasn't. Maybe he was hardworking and hit hard times. Maybe he was shiftless, lazy, and sat back in his chair and blamed the world for problems he himself created, putting a seed of rebellion in his son. There is no way of knowing. So to make these claims one way or another is really futile. The book will never provide answers. But it does illuminate things about human nature, the human condition that can taken in without a need to judge who is bad and who is good and who deserves this and who deserves that, who is lying and who is telling the truth. Because let's face it, in life few things are ever that black and white. That's what makes the book great, in my view. It really is about life. It doesn't pretend that the earth or just america in the 1920s is a stage for a morality play for the whole universe to watch. It is far more interesting than that. And given Fitzgerald's confusion about the title character he himself created, and then got to know only to a certain extent, evidenced in the writing itself, and in his letters, I suspect he found his own book far more interesting than a morality play. But only he could answer to that. And that's fine with me. That he left behind a book that offered me this incredible experience is more than enough for me. Other people have their own experiences and that has nothing to do with me, except the joy of sharing those varied and positive experiences. The rest is really just noise.
Petergiaquinta wrote: "And who hasn't deflowered virgins at the age of 17? These aren't horrific character flaws as depicted by FSF.... the human condition that can taken in without a need to judge who is bad and who is good and who deserves this and who deserves that, who is lying and who is telling the truth."Actually, given the social mores of early post-Victorian America in which Fitzgerald was writing, this may not be as true as it would otherwise seem. Today, after the "sexual revolution," it's an entirely different matter.
James wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "James wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "The only person who comes close to spanky clean is Mr. Gatz..."I was only responding to your comment that Mr. Gatz appears to be spanky clean. Mayb..."
So allow me to amend my posting. Of all the characters in the book, the only one who might be spanky clean is Mr. Gatz. And of course I would add the witness to Myrtle's death.
Petergiaquinta wrote: "Yes, the word "shiftless" seems unfair, as Mr. Gatz is a farmer and as such has roots to the land. That word is a part of Gatsby's own narrative to Nick, and as such may not be entirely accurate. B..."I for one never deflowered virgins at the age of 17. As a matter of fact, I despite my experiences, have never deflowered a virgin. Their incompetence doesn't attract me. There are those of us who don't have the patience to teach a novice, and I am for one.
Geoffrey wrote: "I for one never deflowered virgins at the age of 17. As a matter of fact, I despite my experiences, have never deflowered a virgin."Nor I. I don't understand the attraction. And the "Stradlater" types that I met made me feel uncomfortable. It seemed predatory.
But back up to the milieu of the novel, and it's a much more stringent set of measurements. This is the barometer that must be applied when attempting to understand what Fitzgerald was inferring with his comments about Gatsby.
If SF himself wasn't the most cogent, articulate writer in real life, then perhaps we can't put much faith on any comments he makes about his own work. Unfortunate, yes, as TGG needed and still needs extensive clarification. Or maybe that is its attraction. It has generated a whole legion of English professors to work on his thesis.Otherwise they would be stuck with too easy to ponder, MY ANTONIA, FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS and THE HOUSE OF MIRTHo
That's a bit strong...Monty, I think in addition to misunderstanding the novel, you misunderstand human sexuality in terms of the past. You have an odd idea that folks started having sex in the Twentieth Century...
Monty J wrote: "But back up to the milieu of the novel, and it's a much more stringent set of measurements. This is the barometer that must be applied when attempting to understand what Fitzgerald was inferring with his comments about Gatsby. "Why? Just because Fitzgerald lived at the time does not mean he adhered to or agreed with the morals of the time (not that I agree with your take on what the morals of time actually were anyway). His letters indicate he didn't want to do what was expected of him as a writer of the time. No reason you should expect him to follow what you may think the morals were at the time.
Geoffrey wrote: "If SF himself wasn't the most cogent, articulate writer in real life, then perhaps we can't put much faith on any comments he makes about his own work. Unfortunate, yes, as TGG needed and still nee..."Don't expect me to replace his comments and judgments about his own work with yours anytime soon.
"Geoffrey wrote: "I despite my experiences, have never deflowered a virgin. Their incompetence doesn't attract me."Making ignorant misogynist statements like this brings your professed moral authority even further into question.
Geoffrey wrote: "James wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "James wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "The only person who comes close to spanky clean is Mr. Gatz..."I was only responding to your comment that Mr. Gatz appears to be span..."
So allow me to amend my posting. Of all the characters in the book, the only one who might be spanky clean is Mr. Gatz. And of course I would add the witness to Myrtle's death.
My comments stand unchanged in response.
Geoffrey wrote;"I for one never deflowered virgins at the age of 17. As a matter of fact, I despite my experiences, have never deflowered a virgin. Their incompetence doesn't attract me. There are those of us who don't have the patience to teach a novice, and I am for one."
Who cares- and that statement of yours also leads me to believe that you are just not that good at it. :)
Monty wrote;"Nor I. I don't understand the attraction."
The attraction might be, (for the dense) that a 17 year old young man is in love (or thinks he is) with a girl who happens to be a virgin.
Monty wrote;"Actually, given the social mores of early post-Victorian America in which Fitzgerald was writing, this may not be as true as it would otherwise seem. Today, after the "sexual revolution," it's an entirely different matter."
Ummm- people have been having sex outside of marriage for tens of thousands of years. There were several sexually loose times in our history.
Monty wrote;"But back up to the milieu of the novel, and it's a much more stringent set of measurements. This is the barometer that must be applied when attempting to understand what Fitzgerald was inferring with his comments about Gatsby."
Why? What does Fitzgerald's moral beliefs have to do with the novel?
Geoffrey wrote: "...we can't put much faith on any comments he makes about his own work."This holds true in the case of any author of creative writing, fiction or otherwise. Take anything said after publishing with a dose of salt.
Monty J wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "...we can't put much faith on any comments he makes about his own work."This holds true in the case of any author of creative writing, fiction or otherwise. Take anything said af..."
You can join Geoffrey here. Don't expect me to replace Fitzgerald's comments and judgments about his own work with yours anytime soon.
Karen wrote: "What does Fitzgerald's moral beliefs have to do with the novel? "You should know the answer to that.
Monty J wrote: "Karen wrote: "What does Fitzgerald's moral beliefs have to do with the novel? "You should know the answer to that."
What kind of response is that?
Petergiaquinta wrote: "Monty, I think in addition to misunderstanding the novel, you misunderstand human sexuality in terms of the past. You have an odd idea that folks started having sex in the Twentieth Century...."LOLOLOL!!!
I will also mention that the word 'deflowered' is not actually used in the book. Implied, yes, yes, implied!! Much in the same way it is implied that Jay is seventeen when he engages in such activity. If we want to talk about squeaky clean, no one is. Nor should they be. That, again, is the stuff of great storytelling.
Monty J wrote: "This is the barometer that must be applied when attempting to understand what Fitzgerald was inferring with his comments about Gatsby. ..."Monty, this might come as a great shock to you, but good fiction writers often write of things that have NOTHING to do with, or are deliberately IN CONTRAST TO, their own personal moral compass.
Karen wrote: "Geoffrey wrote;"I for one never deflowered virgins at the age of 17. As a matter of fact, I despite my experiences, have never deflowered a virgin. Their incompetence doesn't attract me. There are..."
For the good of both our sakes, neither one of us will ever find out. Why does it interest you so much?
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
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 f..."
Christine wrote: "I am stuck on interacting, HELP!!!"
Christine, with all respect, Monty is not teachable. He is capable of imposing,but not of discussion.
I've been thinking of opening an F. Scott Fitzgerald group, with me and anyone else who volunteered as moderator, but not a public group; I was thinking more of one whose membership must be approved by the moderators. I do believe there are people who want to discuss the works without having (...) shoved down their throats.
Is there interest? Obviously, we've all read much Fitzgerald and of Fitzgerald, but open threads are continually hijacked, even those opened by 14-year old students.
Really, if there's any interest, I'll do it. And open any threads within the non-public group people would like. But I would hope someone would assist me.