The Great Gatsby
discussion
Jay Gatsby, the Inverted Frog Prince
date
newest »
newest »
Mine were driven out by the Bolsheviks, they had money and got out just in time!
Geoffrey wrote: "Please clarify this comment..."I am merely saying that we do not know what FSF was thinking. We cannot be 100% sure. We can speculate, offer theories, etc. but none of us knows with 100% certainty. All we know is what WE get out of the book.
So, he might be writing about things he would not do himself, or maybe he had actually done a few of these things! Maybe he does not think the things are so bad. Maybe he thinks they are despicable! Who knows?
Novelists might write about all kinds of things that have nothing to do with their own morality.
Monty has a thought process that goes like this: FSF thought bond scams were BAD!!! Therefore FSF wrote a novel about how BAD bond scams are!!!
But then 99.9% of the people that read the book do not even notice bond scams.
I could just as easily say: FSF thought clawing one's way to the top was GOOD!!! So he wrote a novel about clawing one's way to the top!
But see, I do not know what FSF thought.
Neither can I. But Monty is trying his hardest to decipher it. I don't think it's possible but I give him credit for dreaming the impossible dream. His ambition in this matter may exceed his or anyone's talents in deciphering SF's moral compass. I, for one, have questioned it, but I simply don't know for sure. It's possible that SF is setting up the reader for a fall, just as Nabokov did, or it could be that he shares Nick's enthusiasm for Jay but for different reasons obviously. Nick is physically attracted to Jay and Nick can't refuse anyone who opens up their hearts to him, both of which are irrelevant in SF's case. Unless of course, if good old Scott thought that Jay was real. Hanh, now that's a laff.
Geoffrey wrote: "Neither can I. But Monty is trying his hardest to decipher it. I don't think it's possible but I give him credit for dreaming the impossible dream. His ambition in this matter may exceed his or any..."Nobody can. I wonder if the title didn't include the word Gatsby (a title Fitzgerald did not like and his own suggested title did not include) if anyone would even think that Jay Gatsby was the main character. Because, as written, the book is about a narrator who packs his bags, goes east looking for something, becomes disillusioned based on the series of events he recounts, not even in real time, but a couple of years after they happen, after he has given them a lot of thought, after he packs his bags and goes back to midwestern Minnesota. His name is Nick. And it begs the question, why were all these characters (Tom, Gatsby, Daisy, Jordan and Nick) from the midwest setting their dreams on the east? Didn't the american dream spread westward, after all? Why go to NY, why not Chicago? Chicago is hinted to be the center of the criminal enterprise in the book. Why talk about underlings in NY if the book is really about criminality? Why not host it at its source? That is how open ended this book is, how complex its characters and story. Take what you will from it, but it is probably best to refrain from aggressively telling everyone else what it is really about. Because that is not trying to decipher the author's moral compass, but imposing your own.
After all, Monty J himself wrote: This may have been Gatsby's dream, but not mine, nor the religious people I know. For us, life is a gift, breath by breath, and it's about how much we give, not take. I think Fitzgerald wanted us to see that Gatsby epitomizes..." blah blah blah
Is this not starting from a conclusion, rather than an objective analysis of the book? Enough said.
Monty wrote;"After all, Monty J himself wrote: This may have been Gatsby's dream, but not mine, nor the religious people I know. For us, life is a gift, breath by breath, and it's about how much we give, not take. I think Fitzgerald wanted us to see that Gatsby epitomizes..." blah blah blah."
Yes, this statement was a turn-off. Why even state you are religious in the first place when it has nothing to do with the book. As if non-religious people don't give? What was the point here.
Christine wrote: "I am merely saying that we do not know what FSF was thinking. We cannot be 100% sure. We can speculate, offer theories, etc. but none of us knows with 100% certainty. All we know is what WE get out of the book. "Exactly, which is why it is doubly important to pay close attention to what he wrote, for therein lies the answer to what he meant. Disregarding some of what he wrote because it doesn't neatly fit a particular (and popular) notion is a failure in perception.
All I have done is to bring disregarded text into the light for examination and tried to make sense of it. The bond scam is just one example. If FSF had not written a bond scam into the novel, I wouldn't have mentioned it.
Christine wrote: "Monty has a thought process that goes like this: FSF thought bond scams were BAD!!! Therefore FSF wrote a novel about how BAD bond scams are!!!
No, Monty's thought process is just as I described. You're emulating Feliks, distorting my posts, then throwing darts at the verbal Voodoo doll you, yourself, created.
If you want to examine thought processes, examine Feliks' aversion to the simple reality of what Fitzgerald put on the page because what is in his mind makes a better story. Just like Stephen Glass: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1fcF...
Stephen Glass new how to entertain readers, even if he had to fabricate to do so in a non-fiction medium.
Feliks demonstrates the same pattern here on Goodreads in the way he distorts my comments so he can criticize them. Conflict creates drama. Feliks gets paid by Goodreads to inflate activity so they can charge more for advertising.
Feliks' reason for being here is to create cyber-theater. He's good at it. But his methods are not good for principled literary analysis.
Literary analysis is not supposed to be fiction. But Feliks' mission here is something other than that. He does what fattens his paycheck, at a cost (to others.) He does what creates value for Jeff Bezos, not what advances knowledge and understanding of literature.
James' comment an hour ago is significant and points to where the simple "criminality" interpretation of the book is flawed. This is not a simplistic whodunnit crime novel where evil is punished. Neither is it simply a doomed romance story. It's not even a story about Gatsby, although plenty of readers mistakenly call him the main character. It is the story of Nick and the story of America, and the story of the corruption of the once great dream those Dutch sailors has, a story that includes romance and crime because they are integral to the bigger story that Fitzgerald is telling here.So here's Monty on the far western edge of the continent...farther west than all of us, growing up with hard knocks, making something of himself. But somehow he's missing what Gatsby represents and, prolly more than all of us, it represents folks like him moving up and past his origins reaching out to something better, although being horribly let down by it in the end. And instead of seeing that, he finds in the brutish, violent Tom Buchanan (ever think about that last name?) a sympathetic figure, even though Tom is most representative of the corruption of the dream. His wealth is used to lure and oppress others, the working class; it gives him license to harm other people and never be held responsible for it.
Monty's focus on crime and corruption is fine; it's all a part of the weave of the story. But he's lost himself in the details and somehow misconstrued the bigger picture. It would be like somehow, to go to one of Monty's other favorite authors, after reading Of Mice and Men seeing Curley as a victimized innocent or Lennie as a hulking menace that deserved lynching. It would be like deciding that Cathy Ames is the moral center of East of Eden.
Gatsby is a story about America more than anything; it's a story, as Nick tells us, of the West.
Petergiaquinta wrote: "...So here's Monty on the far western edge of the continent...farther west than all of us, growing up with hard knocks...Personal attacks (yawn), while selfishly self-gratifying to you, do nothing but reveal a desperate need on your part to divert attention from the weakness of your argument. You delude yourself if you think, for an instant, that I give an ounce of rat feces what your opinion is of me in order to avoid facing what Fitzgerald wrote.
The topic at hand, despite your efforts to avoid them, is not me, it's The Great Gatsby.
That's not a personal attack at all. That's just more about the book's fabric as a whole that you are too blind to see. (Now that last part was a tad personal...albeit true.)
James wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "Neither can I. But Monty is trying his hardest to decipher it. I don't think it's possible but I give him credit for dreaming the impossible dream. His ambition in this matter may ..."
This is such an interesting perspective. Thanks. It is Nick's tale to tell. And since it is his memoir, and in the infamous Chapter 2, he says he'd been drunk only twice in his life and this occasion was the second, and the McKees come, and Nick dreams of leaving, getting out, walking, McKee is so drunk he's sleeping, Nick looks at his watch and it's 9;00, looks again and it's 10:00, McKee awakens from his sleep, goes for the door, it's around midnight, with a "short, deft movement", Buchanan breaks Myrtle's nose, Nick takes his hat, seizing the opportunity to leave, the drunk and dozing McKee leans on the lever in the elevator to hold himself up, and Nick sobers up somewhat in McKee's bedroom where the photographer is ensconced going through his portfolio, and then Nick's asleep in the station waiting for the 4:00 a.m. train.
If it's Nick's memoir, and it's occurred in 1922 and he's writing in 1923 (in his introductory remarks, Nick speaks of having returned to the Midwest "last autumn"), and he's a young man from the Midwest, and he's writing as honestly as he can recall events, if he were gay and had a homosexual encounter with McKee, or even if he feared or suspected that he had, would he have written of the bedroom scene at all if the oddity of it bespoke anything other than his drunkenness?
Honestly, I've been wondering about the homoerotic content, because I can be as naive as the next person, but I just don't think it's there. I don't dismiss anything out of hand. If Nick were gay, why wouldn't he have demobbed in Paris and lived his life there? I am honestly trying not to miss anything here. But the homoerotic angle feels forced to me.
And I have read all the posts about it, and Monty's website article, although I tried to reread it and it wanted my email address this time, and I don't give that out, so I must have read it somewhere else, or Monty's own synopsis of it.
I know Monty won't believe me, or credit that I'm in earnest, but I am. And there's the genuine, albeit "I know this isn't going anywhere," pleasure Nick takes from his embrace of Jordan.
Anyway after a lot of though (and reading Chapter 2 over and over and over), that's where I land.
The entire 4th paragraph of the book seems to set Nick soundly in the ranks of well-raised, run of the mill, middle class young men of his time, a young man with nothing to hide. This is also where Nick says Gatsby is everything of which Nickis scornful, yet he goes on to write of Gatsby's other side, his extraordinary gift of hope. There's the "negative capability" component, the two battling opposites.
Fitzgerald was so good at writing of corruption that runs just below the surface. He wrote magazine articles about it (one to an imaginary son in 1934 in one of the women's magazines of the time), where he talks about subliminal dishonesty. While I see the perspective from which Monty speaks of Chapter 2, I can't personally adopt it or even, to be quite honest, find enough in the text to mention it as other than a sometimes sidebar to the analysis. And of course, the analysis and the book are two different things.
I'm not being confrontational, I have sincerely tried not to miss something out of carelessness.
And frankly, I'm tired to death of the potshots being taken here. So this is my take on it, take it or leave it, and that's all I have to say about that.
This is such an interesting perspective. Thanks. It is Nick's tale to tell. And since it is his memoir, and in the infamous Chapter 2, he says he'd been drunk only twice in his life and this occasion was the second, and the McKees come, and Nick dreams of leaving, getting out, walking, McKee is so drunk he's sleeping, Nick looks at his watch and it's 9;00, looks again and it's 10:00, McKee awakens from his sleep, goes for the door, it's around midnight, with a "short, deft movement", Buchanan breaks Myrtle's nose, Nick takes his hat, seizing the opportunity to leave, the drunk and dozing McKee leans on the lever in the elevator to hold himself up, and Nick sobers up somewhat in McKee's bedroom where the photographer is ensconced going through his portfolio, and then Nick's asleep in the station waiting for the 4:00 a.m. train.
If it's Nick's memoir, and it's occurred in 1922 and he's writing in 1923 (in his introductory remarks, Nick speaks of having returned to the Midwest "last autumn"), and he's a young man from the Midwest, and he's writing as honestly as he can recall events, if he were gay and had a homosexual encounter with McKee, or even if he feared or suspected that he had, would he have written of the bedroom scene at all if the oddity of it bespoke anything other than his drunkenness?
Honestly, I've been wondering about the homoerotic content, because I can be as naive as the next person, but I just don't think it's there. I don't dismiss anything out of hand. If Nick were gay, why wouldn't he have demobbed in Paris and lived his life there? I am honestly trying not to miss anything here. But the homoerotic angle feels forced to me.
And I have read all the posts about it, and Monty's website article, although I tried to reread it and it wanted my email address this time, and I don't give that out, so I must have read it somewhere else, or Monty's own synopsis of it.
I know Monty won't believe me, or credit that I'm in earnest, but I am. And there's the genuine, albeit "I know this isn't going anywhere," pleasure Nick takes from his embrace of Jordan.
Anyway after a lot of though (and reading Chapter 2 over and over and over), that's where I land.
The entire 4th paragraph of the book seems to set Nick soundly in the ranks of well-raised, run of the mill, middle class young men of his time, a young man with nothing to hide. This is also where Nick says Gatsby is everything of which Nickis scornful, yet he goes on to write of Gatsby's other side, his extraordinary gift of hope. There's the "negative capability" component, the two battling opposites.
Fitzgerald was so good at writing of corruption that runs just below the surface. He wrote magazine articles about it (one to an imaginary son in 1934 in one of the women's magazines of the time), where he talks about subliminal dishonesty. While I see the perspective from which Monty speaks of Chapter 2, I can't personally adopt it or even, to be quite honest, find enough in the text to mention it as other than a sometimes sidebar to the analysis. And of course, the analysis and the book are two different things.
I'm not being confrontational, I have sincerely tried not to miss something out of carelessness.
And frankly, I'm tired to death of the potshots being taken here. So this is my take on it, take it or leave it, and that's all I have to say about that.
Petergiaquinta wrote: "(Now that last part was a tad personal...albeit true.)"
Yes, it must be painful and depressing to be bested by someone as inferior as I, who doesn't click his heels and salute.
You mention Lionel Trilling, and in the next breath I cite a quote from Trilling supporting what I've been saying about Fitzgerald's moralizing and satire in TGG, along with its connection with Eliot's The Wasteland.
Terrifying, isn't it, that an overpriced education cannot insulate you from people who care more about literature and knowledge than degrees?
AnnLoretta wrote;"Honestly, I've been wondering about the homoerotic content, because I can be as naive as the next person, but I just don't think it's there. I don't dismiss anything out of hand. If Nick were gay, why wouldn't he have demobbed in Paris and lived his life there? I am honestly trying not to miss anything here. But the homoerotic angle feels forced to me."
You're not naive, I don't see it either, the argument for it is just too weak. This part reads like just another drunken party, where it is so common to wake up not knowing where you are or what happened, a drunken blackout.
Geoffrey wrote: "Neither can I. But Monty is trying his hardest to decipher it. "I do not have a problem with anyone deciphering things. I object when it goes into close-mindedness, name calling and belittling.
Christine wrote: "I object when it goes into close-mindedness, name calling and belittling. I've apologized. And I apologize again. But Felix's blasts brought out the worst in me.
At some point, you have to stand up to a bully and bloody his nose. I warned him repeatedly. I don't take any crap.
If he wants to clean up the pig pen he created, I'm ready and willing. But it's up to him.
James wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "Neither can I. But Monty is trying his hardest to decipher it. I don't think it's possible but I give him credit for dreaming the impossible dream. His ambition in this matter may ..."It may have started out as an analysis and came to a conclusion. We are seeing the conclusion as the process has already taken place. That's how I see it.
As for Monty's feelings about Feliks, mine are the same. Feliks and I tangled some years back and he was abusive. I flagged him. He got into trouble, I am sure with the fellers over there at FB. Monty should have done the same when F. went after him with a sledge hammer and called him a dilettante without a literature degree among other comments. I thought that was a low blow. Whether or not one has a degree doesn't attest to the ability to literary analysis. And yet Feliks disparaged Monty. Tsk, tsk. If he is in GR's employ, he especially needs to temper the personal criticism.
I am not calling Feliks names or making a personal attack with this post but simply questioning his tactics. That I believe is fair.
Geoffrey wrote: "James wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "Neither can I. But Monty is trying his hardest to decipher it. I don't think it's possible but I give him credit for dreaming the impossible dream. His ambition in th..."Ok. Regardless of what is going on between Felix and Monty J, I clearly view Monty J differently from you, based on my own short and very unpleasant experience with him. He's said he would block me, and I have blocked him. That part is done. I'm not interested in talking about him anymore.
Monty, you can quote from Trilling all you like. You might want to read him while you're at it. Your selective approach to his essay is similar to the way you approach Gatsby. As long as you cling to your view that Gatsby was driving, Tom is redeemed, and Fitzgerald wrote with the hand-wringing moralistic outlook of a blue-haired old lady, you'll be wrong no matter how many critics you cherry pick. I expect that next you'll be lining up some choice quotes from Professor Bloom to prove that Gatsby was serving illegal alcohol at those big parties of his!
If I read M. correctly he cited Trilling as a rebuttal to Bloom. Yes, the rest of his assertions, as you noted, are highly suspect.
Petergiaquinta wrote: " You might want to read him while you're at it."What do you think I did, a Google search? (Another assumption.)
I own the Hoffman book I quoted. I read it before I read Bloom. You want me scan the pages with my underlining to prove it?
Jeese, you guys and your arrogant assumptions. Anyone you disagree with has to be "wrong."
Monty, I'm glad you're looking at lit crit, but I don't know how well you are reading or comprehending Trilling if you think he supports your skewed understanding of the novel.If, on the other hand, your reading of Trilling and others is allowing you to modify and change your understanding of the book, then that's great. That is exactly what Feliks is talking about when he urges you to take a more academic approach to your reading. You don't start with a conclusion already in mind; you start with an open-minded sense of inquiry.
But you can't read Trilling and say he supports your narrow view of Gatsby. For starters, Trilling is very much interested in the love/romantic aspects of the book. He calls Gatsby a "hero" on more than one occasion, and he is fascinated by the "tragic" aspect of Gatsby's character and the novel as a whole, and, as I've encouraged you to think harder about, he is very much interested in Gatsby as a representative figure of America, as a neo-Platonic entity, as a quasi-Christ figure.
Trilling's approach is the opposite of yours. Instead of reducing the novel and projecting upon it, Trilling opens the novel up to a rich and vast interpretation of its possibilities. Instead of ignoring the weave and fabric of the whole and focusing on specific details in isolation as you do, Trilling listens to the voice of the author and urges you as the reader to do so as well.
Trilling spends a great deal of time in the essay linking the author and his creation, not something that would make sense if we were just to view Gatsby as a crook who deserves to die for defrauding others and running over Myrtle. There's nothing in Trilling's essay to suggest the kind of reading you are looking for here.
Here's the crux of the matter, though. In your rush to blame Gatsby and your inability to see the complex, textured nuances of his character being created by Fitzgerald, you do exactly what Trilling says Fitzgerald refused to do: "He really had but little impulse to blame, which is the more remarkable because our culture peculiarly honors the act of blaming, which it takes as the sign of virtue and intellect."
That's a pretty powerful sentence Trilling gives us there. Read it again.
Petergiaquinta wrote: "Trilling spends a great deal of time in the essay linking the author and his creation, not something that would make sense if we were just to view Gatsby as a crook who deserves to die for defrauding others and running over Myrtle. ...... you do exactly what Trilling says Fitzgerald refused to do: "He really had but little impulse to blame, which is the more remarkable because our culture peculiarly honors the act of blaming, which it takes as the sign of virtue and intellect."
I strongly agree! That may be the whole gist of this argument, in a nutshell!
Many of us have stated that what we love about the novel is the absence of moral judgement.
AnnLoretta wrote: "James wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "Neither can I. But Monty is trying his hardest to decipher it. I don't think it's possible but I give him credit for dreaming the impossible dream. His ambition in th..."I've commented the same about the irregularity of Nick's inclusion of the McKee episode. I believe it to be subtly homoerotic as I do Nick's description of both Tom and Jay. I don't question that he was latent homosexual but I do question as to why SF would make him so, why Nick would write such a revealing scene and why above all how it fits in with the novel. This is but another stray, impertenant part of the novel that doesn't develop the story unless it undermines Nick's glorious statements about Jay, in tandem with undermining the heroic aspect of Jay's stature. I find the ambiguity disconcerting and can't even resolve whether SF deliberately, consciously put the passage in the book to that effect or whether he was so unaware of his unconscious ramblings. I am troubled by my own interpretation, and everyone else's about this.
Christine wrote: "Petergiaquinta wrote: "Trilling spends a great deal of time in the essay linking the author and his creation, not something that would make sense if we were just to view Gatsby as a crook who deser..."And yet Nick does at the end when he casts his vote against Tom and Daisy about their destructive behaviour. Or do you take it that it isn't judgmental for him to say what he did?
There is still little impulse to blame. 'They were careless people.' He is not knocking you over the head. Nick's cards are stacked slightly in favor of Gatsby but it is subtle.
Reductio ad absurdum (and I don't mean that in the Latin sense, I mean that all of these Monty threads are ludicrous). There's simply no robustness in any theory which has to descend to this level of hair-splitting to make its way. Convoluted theories about pragmatic, everyday life are invariably wrong; simple explanations overwhelmingly ring true. This whole campaign is pseudo-deep and extremely narrow; a ruckus raised by someone obsessed with the penny-ante minutiae of American literature. "What Steinbeck ate for breakfast", "what cheroot Scott Fitzgerald smoked". Third-rate charlatanry: "I know Fitzgerald better than the rest of you". That's the scope of it. A horse-laugh. One on us I suppose: 155 books and 667 books? Between each of them? Hilarious.
As for my avatar and name, I wouldn't have it any other way. It's fully appropriate seeing as I ever find myself exterminating the pretensions of internet fops and random lunatics online. Two, two hundred, or two million. I don't care. Don't spread information and BS when I'm around. This Gatsby bushwaa goes nowhere as long as I stand in the way.
There's no limit on posting of course, people are free to post what they want. The question is, does it stand up? Not on these Gatsby threads, that's for sure. In the past few days someone's reputation for integrity and intellectualism has been ruined. And it wasn't mine.
Bury the hatchet? Are you kidding me? I turn my back on those who don't earn my respect. That's the ultimate insult I can give in a polite environment like this. I don't aim to get banned from this site for the sake of high-school attention-mongers. Some people are just not worth talking to seriously.
Like I said originally: Monty can do what he likes, but he is not browbeating anyone around here in future. That's all I care about. We'll all step in to ensure that never occurs again.
Christine wrote: "There is still little impulse to blame. 'They were careless people.' He is not knocking you over the head. Nick's cards are stacked slightly in favor of Gatsby but it is subtle."If in comparison to what you or I might have done in Nick's stead, yes, I agree that he's nowhere judgmental. He's hitting them with a wet feather.
Nick says as much in the first couple of pages of the book. I'm not inclined to take everything there he says at face value, but he does want us to believe that he is non-judgmental.
Hoot! @ 'bloodied my nose'. Sheesh. Poor deluded fool. Monty, you lost your argument badly in that thread--all 400+ posts long-- and resorting to Jewish slurs kinda put the nail in your own coffin. In this thread, you actually brag about it? You glory in the fact that you showed yourself a rank amateur in dialog and debate? I directed several outside observers to the melee when we were in the thick of it and they all described you as a flip-flopper extraordinaire. As time goes on, more and more people will visit-- and infamy will grow.
The whole thing about publishing your opinions. You got a polite letter of acknowledgment from the effin Penn State Gazette. Undergrad, right? Went to your head, apparently.
I can tell you point blank you wouldn't last ten minutes at the graduate level. You'd be sliced and diced. First semester. I saw it dozens of times. Anyone who brings an agenda like you have-- into a graduate program--is quickly humiliated.
Bah, I'm outta here... this is pointless...
Feliks wrote: "I don't aim to get banned from this site for the sake of high-school attention-mongers. Some people are just not worth talking to seriously. "Another schoolyard diarrhea post from Bowel-brain.
"Bowel-brain." I crack myself up. I haven't had this much fun since Marine Corps boot camp. The DIs' thought they were being tough, and I was laughing every minute. Tough? They didn't have a clue.
You? You're just an hors d'oeuvre.
You see, Feliks, the difference between you and me is every time anyone takes a poke at me I get stronger. Every time you open your mouth you hand me a club to beat you with.
Feliks wrote: "Anyone who brings an agenda like you have-- into a graduate program--is quickly humiliated."Grad school? You went to graduate school? And here you are, a monkey on Jeff Bezos' leash selling advertising, hiding behind an avatar, too embarrassed to show your face, being shown up by someone as uneducated as me.
What new theories have you proposed about literature? What have you submitted for publication?
Christine wrote: "When Tom hits Myrtle, it is because she has mentioned Daisy's name."Actually it was because Myrtle committed verbal assault by taunting him repeatedly after he warned her.
[Definition from USLegal.com: "Verbal assault usually involves threatening physical violence on someone, although sometimes yelling or aggressively using words to offend or attack someone can constitute verbal assault. "]
Christine wrote: "I think F Scott says one thing, Monty claims another."I've supported all of my claims with text. Fitzgerald's words, not mine.
Monty J wrote: "Christine wrote: "When Tom hits Myrtle, it is because she has mentioned Daisy's name."Actually it was because Myrtle committed verbal assault by taunting him repeatedly after he warned her.
[Def..."
So Christine, Tom couldn't help himself because he was taunted. Poor Tom!
Karen wrote: "So Christine, Tom couldn't help himself because he was taunted. Poor Tom!..."Oh yes, he was driven to it by that evil taunting Myrtle. How dare she!! She had been WARNED :-O
The plot thickens as we consider the possibility that Myrtle is pregnant.
Free wrote: "Goodreads management, which in case you didn't know owns this thread, has found the dialogue here sufficiently mentally ill to encapsulate it in a book. We see it as a comical update of Cocteau's "..."Goodreads' management freeloads off content like mine because they don't have staff talented enough to produce it.
And while "free" speech gives idiots who hide behind avatars a voice, readers will decide for themselves what is important.
Sock puppet much?
I suppose no one is holding you hostage on a discussion thread, so I'm not sure what your point is...but I did notice you didn't address the sock puppet issue.
I can only imagine that you must have been institutionalized in some way or another over these past months. Seek help, Sock Puppet, and stop spreading your filth in GoodReads.
Hahahahaha...."Free Willy" just made his account private after being exposed as a pathetic sock puppet. Here's hoping he keeps his hostile rantings equally "private."
Petergiaquinta wrote: "Hahahahaha...."Free Willy" just made his account private after being exposed as a pathetic sock puppet. Here's hoping he keeps his hostile rantings equally "private.""
I flagged him too. (Probably Feliks, posing as himself.)
Why am I not surprised
Bizarre...it's all gone now, including his odd comments on the photos at my profile.
Petergiaquinta wrote: "Bizarre...it's all gone now, including his odd comments on the photos at my profile."Potential fun
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Mine got it from the White Army and Cossacks. They got out away from Brest-Litovsk and never talked about it.