The Great Gatsby
discussion
Jay Gatsby, the Inverted Frog Prince
Christine wrote: "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 Tw..."You have completely misunderstood Monty's comments, I hope not deliberately.
Christine wrote: "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 activi..."Geoffrey wrote: "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..."
Regardless of whether the word deflowered was used, we as analyzers of the novel are not restricted to using only those words that appear in the book.
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..."
Exactly. But perhaps especially SF if from reports on this thread as true is that he was seldom articulate.
Geoffrey wrote: "You have completely misunderstood Monty's comments, I hope not deliberately...."Not deliberately, although it is a bit of fun. Monty seems to think that Once Upon a Time, there existed a world in which extra-marital affairs did not happen. One cannot use that as an argument for anything -- in this case he is trying to convince me that Tom and Daisy are Victorians.
Oh yeah, and also to convince me that a seventeen year old boy having sex would be unheard of -- when the truth is, teenagers in every era have been a bag of raging hormones.
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. ..."
The harsh moral judgment on Jay has nothing to do with whether he deserved to die. The two are separate issues.
James wrote: "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 ..."
Why would you imagine that I would?
Christine wrote: "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. "Christine, you and a few others here are either dense as hell or you're playing dumb and deliberately being rude and misconstruing my comments, in which case it makes me think you're being paid by Goodreads to troll honest posters to increase traffic, an unethical practice which enables Goodreads to charge more for advertising. For a while they even experimented with a troll bot, it seemed like. That's what Feliks seems like sometimes, or a hybrid, with his random diarrhea-like posts.
Four years ago, Goodreads offered to hire me for a similar purpose, and I turned them down. I won't be anybody's monkey.
Will anybody admit they're a monkey for Goodreads? I doubt it. So go ahead and make yourselves look dumb. I'll just ignore posts as I see fit. Any post that strikes me as rude or falsely dumb or manipulative, don't expect a respond from me. I won't waste my time or be a party to ripping off honest viewers. Does that smack of a strict moral code? I hope so.
So if you expect a response from me, behave yourself.
Christine wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "You have completely misunderstood Monty's comments, I hope not deliberately...."Not deliberately, although it is a bit of fun. Monty seems to think that Once Upon a Time, there e..."
Cite which Monty post suggests that because I don't see it at all.
Geoffrey wrote: "James wrote: ""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 profes..."
"Oh so you deflower virgins? "
Is that bait of some kind? Would you find me morally repulsive if I slept with a virgin? Because I don't really care what you think about that. My criticism is your comment about all women who haven't had sex yet as incompetent. Do you have a little book of caricatures that you look up to discuss people as a group worthy of sweeping judgment rather than treat them as individuals?
Geoffrey wrote: "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 ..."
"Exactly. But perhaps especially SF if from reports on this thread as true is that he was seldom articulate."
Reports on this thread? Can't you read his letters yourself? He's quite articulate about the character of Gatsby and the big mistake he thinks he made with the book.
Geoffrey wrote: "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 tim..."
The harsh moral judgment on Jay has nothing to do with whether he deserved to die. The two are separate issues.
Really? Have you been reading Monty J's comments?
Monty J wrote: "Christine, you and a few others here are either dense as hell or you're playing dumb and deliberately being rude and misconstruing my comments, in which case it makes me think you're being paid by Goodreads to troll honest posters to increase traffic, an unethical practice which enables Goodreads to charge more for advertising. For a while they even experimented with a troll bot, it seemed like. That's what Feliks seems like sometimes, or a hybrid, with his random diarrhea-like posts.Four years ago, Goodreads offered to hire me for a similar purpose, and I turned them down. I won't be anybody's monkey.
Will anybody admit they're a monkey for Goodreads? I doubt it. So go ahead and make yourselves look dumb. I'll just ignore posts as I see fit. Any post that strikes me as rude or falsely dumb or manipulative, don't expect a respond from me. I won't waste my time or be a party to ripping off honest viewers. Does that smack of a strict moral code? I hope so.
So if you expect a response from me, behave yourself. "
And The Straw Man of 2015 Award goes to Monty J for this beautifully polished turd. Kudos!
Monty J wrote: "in which case it makes me think you're being paid by Goodreads to troll honest posters to increase traffic, an unethical practice. .."Actually, Meyer Wolfscheim hired me. I live in Chicago, you know :D :D
Geoffrey wrote: "Cite which Monty post suggests that because I don't see it at all."Allrighty then. Exhibit A, Tom and Daisy's Victorian morals:
I wrote: "How do you possibly see Daisy and Tom as 'redeeming themselves'??"
Monty's reply:
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.
Monty J wrote: "we're talking about the strict post-Victorian milieu, not today's standards...."
My reply:
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??
Monty's reply:
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.
____________________________________________________________________Exhibit B Sexual habits of 17 year old boys:
I wrote:
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.
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."
Monty's reply:
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.
I am pretty sure the liquor guzzling, adulterous Buchanans did not embrace so called Victorian morals. Although some historians would argue that the 1920's WERE a sexual revolution, I am also pretty sure a 17 year old boy in lust would NOT be concerned about it.
Monty wrote;"Christine, you and a few others here are either dense as hell or you're playing dumb and deliberately being rude and misconstruing my comments, in which case it makes me think you're being paid by Goodreads to troll honest posters to increase traffic, an unethical practice which enables Goodreads to charge more for advertising. For a while they even experimented with a troll bot, it seemed like. That's what Feliks seems like sometimes, or a hybrid, with his random diarrhea-like posts."
Oh, now we are dense and dumb, Felix may be a troll, his posts are like diarrhea, but YOU are just fine. I get it- you are right and everyone else here is wrong. Wow.
Monty J wrote: "Christine, you and a few others here are either dense as hell or you're playing dumb and deliberately being rude and misconstruing my comments..."I can't say that any of your comments haven't been misconstrued, but I see no evidence that anyone is being dense or doing it deliberately. Your comments run in circles. You present a moral bar (it doesn't matter whose bar it is) and you measure Fitzgerald's writing against this bar. This is clear in so many of your posts. Yet, when you are asked to defend the use of this moral bar as a valid measure for what Fitzgerald has to say, you either run in circles or ignore the question altogether.
You fail on every point to make the connection between what Fitzgerald wrote and your conclusions about what he wrote, except to attach them to this moral bar, which many of us, obviously, don't agree is relevant. It is not dumb or rude to point this out.
Still, kudos for the polished turd you presented us to try to circumvent the issue of having to actually clearly explain your dubious claims. (The idea of paid assassins does make the commentary more exciting (like playing with yourself with live grenades), even if it is seemingly irrelevant to the discussion points that are being posted on this board.)
Monty, you do realize there are currently 20 Gatsby discussions on the boards and you have started 9 of them? The ones that you did not start you hijacked. But WE are the trolls? LOLOL!!
Christine wrote: "I am pretty sure the liquor guzzling, adulterous Buchanans did not embrace so called Victorian morals. Although some historians would argue that the 1920's WERE a sexual revolution, I am also pre..."
The 1920's were a sexual revolution, and I wish I had been there for that one instead of the 1970's- the clothes were better.
Christine wrote: "Monty, you do realize there are currently 20 Gatsby discussions on the boards and you have started 9 of them? The ones that you did not start you hijacked. But WE are the trolls? LOLOL!!"One can't hijack a message thread by oneself. If there is a dominant voice, others have the prerogative to ignore it. The fact that most of you have repeatedly responded to Monty on this message thread has given him the hijacker position. Had you simply ignored him, he would have become an insignificant voice.
Simply stated, you have enabled him to hijack the threads, perhaps the reason why Goodreads had offered him that job as he gets the ball rolling. He has provoked you to the extent that there are now 122 postings on a single thread. Hijacked, you bet. But you've ended kindle wood to the fire.
The reason you have done so is because you have taken so much exception to his take on Jay, your hero.
James wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "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 rea..."
I've told you repeatedly that I don't agree with Monty about Jay. Have you been reading my comments carefully. You misconstrue my position with that question.
Geoffrey wrote: "The reason you have done so is because you have taken so much exception to his take on Jay, your hero. "People have stated the reasons they challenge Monty's approach here. This is not one of them. We can ignore him and watch him chase away other contributors who might otherwise have something interesting to say. Or we can call him on his turd polishing. I'd rather call a turd a turd than walk away.
Geoffrey wrote: "James wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "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 ha..."
My comment on that is part of a larger point about moralizing. My point stands.
Karen wrote: "Oh, now we are dense and dumb, Felix may be a troll, his posts are like diarrhea, but YOU are just fine. I get it- you are right and everyone else here is wrong. Wow. "That's right. You seldom provide anything of value. All you do is carp, cheerlead or ask questions you already know the answer to. It may help Goodreads charge more for advertising, but you're a waste of my time. I'm blocking you. And I'll do the same to anyone else who falls in this category.
Monty wrote;"That's right. You seldom provide anything of value. All you do is carp, cheerlead or ask questions you already know the answer to. It may help Goodreads charge more for advertising, but you're a waste of my time. I'm blocking you. And I'll do the same to anyone else who falls in this category."
It's about time, I blocked you awhile ago, after you defended Tom in your ridiculous way.
James wrote: "Or we can call him on his turd polishing. I'd rather call a turd a turd than walk away. "I'm blocking you as well. I'm done with your low class insults, which I have flagged for removal.
Ah, how sweet it is, without the pendejos.
Monty J wrote: "Ah, how sweet it is, without the pendejos."How immature- I could flag this for removal also, but it would not be removed, and neither will the post you flagged.
Geoffrey wrote: "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..."
It doesn't. Why do you keep commenting on it?
Christine wrote: "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 comple..."
No, only those who aspired to be hip and modern discard their Victorian upbringing. But there were vast numbers who did not.
James wrote: "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'..."
But you have your own moral bar. You don't think highly of Tom's character, now, do you. That is to say, we all have our moral bars, it's just that Monty's is tilted in a different direction. I don't agree with it, but I don't vilify it. You, on the other hand, in regards to Monty, are judgmental towards him and his skewed morality. I am too, I am just not harsh like you, but only towards Jay.
Karen wrote: "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 believe that Monty was presenting this not as his own feeling but the reason for which SF eliminated his heroic character.
Geoffrey wrote: "James wrote: "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 peopl..."
If you think what I am doing is the same as what Monty is doing, the equation doesn't hold. I don't walk around with my moral bar and shove it down people's throats with thread after thread of the same assertions, and then state that "I am just asking questions." I don't claim I have a "highly refined moral" outlook. I don't push loaded questions at people, and then refuse to acknowledge that is what I am doing. "What do you think Gatsby deserves?" is a very different question from "Why do you think this criminal deserves anything?" If you can't see that, then you are not really seeing what Monty J is doing. And finally I certainly don't approach this book and these discussions from a this-is-the-correct-moral-judgement-to-make standpoint.
I have nothing in common with Monty J when it comes to conversations about morality. I find his content and approach indefensible and off-putting on so many levels, and at the same time incredibly empty on an intellectual level. To state that a person who lies about his past or has ties to organized crime can't be trusted to ever tell the truth is the lowest form of sophistry. To then use that to firm up a larger assertion is indefensible. He lied about this -> so you can't trust him about anything -> so he lied about the accident that killed Myrtle. When you challenge him on this kind of circular reasoning, he automatically goes on the attack by saying you are deliberately misreading his meaning or you are making assumptions that are unsupportable or that you are dumb. It's all a polished turd and that's what I will continue to call it.
As far as me being harsh, I don't run around calling people dumb or suggesting that they are hired assassins because they don't agree with me. I challenge what I think are thoughtless and insulting comments. And I do it in kind sometimes, because that's what's feels right. If you can't take it, don't dish it out. Then it doesn't happen.
Good answer. Thanks.
Karen wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Ah, how sweet it is, without the pendejos."How immature- I could flag this for removal also, but it would not be removed, and neither will the post you flagged."
Apparently, among all the other things, he doesn't get irony either. Sigh.
Pendejo? Monty, really?? You've been hanging around with Tom Buchanan for too long. The racism is starting to seep through.
Karen wrote: "The 1920's were a sexual revolution, and I wish I had been there for that one instead of the 1970's- the clothes were better...."Karen, I am sure it was an amazing time for women! I too am sorry I missed it. (Although a psychic once told me I had a past life in 1920's Paris, haha!) I found this short clip on women's fashion, you might like it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y0_d...
Geoffrey wrote: "He has provoked you to the extent that there are now 122 postings on a single thread. ..."LOL!! 122 really? Dang! I had not counted.
Anyway, true -- I do object to this idea of throwing Gatsby to the wolves in the name of 'moral superiority'. As I have stated on other threads, I see Gatsby as both a hero and an anti-hero.
However, I STRONGLY object to Monty's ruining this novel for young readers!! Instead of letting them post in peace, he steps in and shoves his theories down their throats, frequently scaring them away (as they are perhaps not as worldly and able to hold up their own viewpoints.) I really think that sucks, to do that to young readers.
I get that Monty is on his way to write some literary criticism that he thinks will out wit Harold Bloom. Fine. It's a free country, he is welcome to do so.
Anyway, these threads are really going threadbare, so I guess we will just wait for Monty's book to come out and then see how the literary world receives it.
It's not a book. It's an article that he's sent to an academic journal. And yes, we are all patiently awaiting its publication or decline. As for the posts, take a look at the heading of each and you will note the message number.
Finally you have written something to which I can make correction!!!
Christine wrote: "Karen wrote: "The 1920's were a sexual revolution, and I wish I had been there for that one instead of the 1970's- the clothes were better...."Karen, I am sure it was an amazing time for women! I..."
The video won't play! But thanks- there are other videos too- I love those fashions! We would have had fun.
Karen wrote: "The video won't play! But thanks- there are other videos too- I love those fashions! We would have had fun. ..."Ehh sorry it won't play! Yes, we would have had great fun! I once had a flapper dress, my school did a play dedicated to 1920's Chicago. (Hence my mobster connections and why I sympathize with Gatsby. It MUST be!!!)
Christine wrote;"Ehh sorry it won't play! Yes, we would have had great fun! I once had a flapper dress, my school did a play dedicated to 1920's Chicago. (Hence my mobster connections and why I sympathize with Gatsby. It MUST be!!!"
Mobster connections- I question your morals
Karen wrote: "Mobster connections- I question your morals .."Yeah, after I started working for Meyer Wolfscheim it's been all downhill ;-)
Christine wrote: "I get that Monty is on his way to write some literary criticism that he thinks will out wit Harold Bloom. Fine. It's a free country, he is welcome to do so."This has nothing to do with Harold Bloom. If his arguments stood on their own, he wouldn't have to attack Harold Bloom. What we have here is an intellectual lightweight pumping himself up by brow-beating readers who want to talk about this book on their own terms and probably have no idea why he is challenging them in such an aggressive way. I know I was surprised the way he responded to my initial post with a dismissive remark about the difference between cheating innocent people out of their retirement and getting a traffic ticket, even though that had nothing to do with my post, which was questioning his own strict moral definitions - aimed at a poster who started a thread called "My point of view." He didn't like being challenged, had no answer, so attacked me with a dismissive comment. I came to this conclusion when I went on to read other posts of his and saw the same behavior.
Felix Dzerzhinsky, head of the Cheka, precursor to KGB, was responsible for the assassination without trial of tens of thousands of political opponents to the Communist regime.
Geoffrey wrote: "Felix Dzerzhinsky, head of the Cheka, precursor to KGB, was responsible for the assassination without trial of tens of thousands of political opponents to the Communist regime."And? Your point is? Oh- you mean to discredit Feliks because you think he is a communist. Okay.
Christine wrote: "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 ..."
Please clarify this comment. Are you suggesting that SF is writing of business practices he would not commit himself or that his moral stance in the novel contradicts his own personal mores?
Monty's use of the word inferring is incorrect usage in that sentence. It should read implying.
Karen wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "Felix Dzerzhinsky, head of the Cheka, precursor to KGB, was responsible for the assassination without trial of tens of thousands of political opponents to the Communist regime."A..."
No. I mean to question his use of the identity of a man who was a mass killer. It's a joke in very bad taste. Consider if he had chosen Idi Imin, Mengale or Son of Sam for his alias. My reaction would be the same and others would share their disdain.
No one here on GR knows Felix's biography. Now if they care to do the research, they can see for themselves. As for our Feliks's credentials, I could care less, card carrying or not. Two of the most influential people in my life were. No, come to think of it, three.
Had he chosen the alias Lenin I would have no objection.
Geoffrey wrote;"Had he chosen the alias Lenin I would have no objection."
Oh really? Another murderer.
The Bolsheviks instructed Felix Dzerzhinsky to commence a Red Terror, an organized program of arrests, imprisonments, and killings.[249] At Moscow, execution lists signed by Lenin authorised the shooting of 25 former ministers, civil servants, and 765 White Guards in September 1918.[250]
I'm sorry I brought it up in post 147. And no, I don't want to discuss it, I heard enough from my grandparents, who were there. :)
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Making ignorant misogynist statements like this brings your professed moral auth..."
Oh so you deflower virgins?