What was Fitzgerald talking about, really?

[James]

Question: Was Fitzgerald condemning the people who were successful at taking advantage of the greed of the twenties (criminally or not) or of the people who worshiped the winners, went to the parties (but not the funerals) who leached on like blood suckers to be a part of it? Or was he just writing a story of failed love, where such "success" couldn't even get the girl, couldn't overcome class distinctions? Where moving east from the west did not solve the problems of those running away (i.e., all of the main characters in the book)? Where vigilante murder is overlooked because the victim is considered "unsavory"? I am interested in other opinions. What did you take away from the book?

[Karen]

AnnLoretta wrote;
". Then again, how many of us don't live in a climate that is morally ambiguous, how many of us don't forgive almost every day, or choose to take one interpretation over another in our relationships? Imagine Gatsby on that float in the pool, thinking, wondering."

Isn't this why we, as humans, can call this a beautiful book? And identify with it and read it again and again? I think so! The human struggle of moral ambiguity is for me, fascinating. And a novel that does not point out who the villains are or does not make judgments- we are left to wonder and therefore identify with Jay Gatsby. Thanks AnnLoretta.

"I don't think there are "answers." There so rarely are.
Posting on this book is always a mistake. But I've enjoyed your comments, James, so here you are."

Not a mistake! Wonderful!

[Jim]

We thought to banish the Aristocracy, but, after the country got rich AND urban, we discovered all the sins of the Aristocracy returned, but now, it lacked a handy label.
Brett Ellis, I think, sought to continue on the theme of the...not vacuous, not morally inferior, not "wrong', but, the theme of the East Class Establishment...who clearly were the pinnacle of what being American was or is...yet whose moral sense...and this is what Fitzgerald was hammering on without ambiguity, the moral compass was more difficult to be reminded off as so much other possibility was there for the taking.
Man, finally released from the degradation and toil, instead settled into murder, possessiveness, narcissism, decadence, selfishness.
Gatsby came from gangsters and many, many wealthy people do. Which implies a ruthless pursuit without any morality, especially in the home!
...the kind of morality Solzhenitsyn painted in the first chapter of "Notes from the Underground" (wait a minute...is that right?), or Hesse portrayed in "Journey to the East"; the person who thought of others to the point of self sacrifice and worked dedicated to the community. The true communist, and not the apparatchik...I think it was Solzhenitsyn.
I read Gatsby, on my own initiative, in 6th grade. Then, in my senior year of High School (we had an excellent English Department), and then my Junior year, or fifth year in college, in pursuit of a English BA. Loved it everytime.

[Monty J]

Jim wrote: "...we discovered all the sins of the Aristocracy returned, but now, it lacked a handy label.."

Nicely put.

[Monty J]

AnnLoretta wrote: "Imagine Gatsby on that float in the pool, thinking, wondering. Young Gatz, pondering. Young Gatsby, who lived aboard a yacht, who knew, ultimately, that a green beacon was the boundary of the navigable waters, not an invitation."
Interesting thought.

AnnLoretta wrote:"I don't think there are "answers." There so rarely are. ."
But we live the questions, day by day.

[Geoffrey]

No, James, Gatsby did not come from gangsters. His father was a hardworking farmer from the Teton Mountain area, Montana I believe. Jay, in his unbridled ambition to jump the classes and become super rich, becomes Wolfie's right hand man in a criminal empire.

[Geoffrey]

Karen wrote: "AnnLoretta wrote;
". Then again, how many of us don't live in a climate that is morally ambiguous, how many of us don't forgive almost every day, or choose to take one interpretation over another i..."

But the book does make judgments. Nick praises Jay to high heaven. He dismisses Tom and Daisy with the words, "they were careless people, Tom and Daisy-they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together". It took him hundreds of pages and two years of considering before he finally arrives at that judgment.

[Jim]

Monty J wrote: "Jim wrote: "...we discovered all the sins of the Aristocracy returned, but now, it lacked a handy label.."

Nicely put."

I think in the College class someone said, most likely the professor, "where were the lawyers?"
The spirit of law lives not in the great beyond of wealth and desire.
Does that sound Fitzgeraldian?

[Karen]

Geoffrey wrote: "No, James, Gatsby did not come from gangsters. His father was a hardworking farmer from the Teton Mountain area, Montana I believe. Jay, in his unbridled ambition to jump the classes and become sup..."

You mean Jim- different person from James, who started this thread.

[Karen]

Geoffrey wrote;
"But the book does make judgments. Nick praises Jay to high heaven. He dismisses Tom and Daisy with the words, "they were careless people, Tom and Daisy-they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together". It took him hundreds of pages and two years of considering before he finally arrives at that judgment."

But the book doesn't ask US to, there is no preaching in it.
And I wonder how anyone who reads literature like this can loathe a fictional character- that is so puzzling to me.

[Monty J]

AnnLoretta wrote: " What did you take away from this book?"

I can't explain it any better than what I have already, at length, in my topic, "Gatsby, by the Numbers," referenced here: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Gatsby makes me think of crooks like Bernard Madoff, a guy who was so charming and did such a good job of "looking good" (throwing parties) and hiding his scam of stealing millions (or was it billions?) from trusting retirees that the scam went undetected for years.

Gatsby knew what he was doing, but he put on such a mesmerizing show that his scam went undetected until the very end when Parke was picked up. Nick represents the starry-eyed gullible enablers that the Gatsbys of the world use and depend upon.

By presenting Gatsby's criminality as subtext, Fitzgerald masterfully mimicked the real world, where corruption goes on behind the scenes, undetected in a culture too focused on the brass ring to pay attention.

AnnLoretta wrote: "You have only quantified and qualified the responses of others."
Apparently you've not read many of my posts.

[James]

AnnLoretta wrote: "One of the difficulties with this book is that until the end, one isn't allowed access to its beginnings. You have to forgive me, I'm working from memory, I read it a few months ago again, but I do..."

Very well said!

[James]

Geoffrey wrote: "No, James, Gatsby did not come from gangsters. His father was a hardworking farmer from the Teton Mountain area, Montana I believe. Jay, in his unbridled ambition to jump the classes and become sup..."

(This should be written to Jim BTW. This is not my comment.)

And you know this how? Never heard of an abusive farmer father? Why would you assume such a thing?

[James]

Monty J wrote: "AnnLoretta wrote: " What did you take away from this book?"

I can't explain it any better than what I have already, at length, in my topic, "Gatsby, by the Numbers," referenced here: https://www.g..."

This is the first interesting post I have seen of yours.

[Geoffrey]

Karen wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "No, James, Gatsby did not come from gangsters. His father was a hardworking farmer from the Teton Mountain area, Montana I believe. Jay, in his unbridled ambition to jump the class..."

Mea culpa, all you James sound alike.

[Geoffrey]

Karen wrote: "Geoffrey wrote;
"But the book does make judgments. Nick praises Jay to high heaven. He dismisses Tom and Daisy with the words, "they were careless people, Tom and Daisy-they smashed up things and c..."

I do all the time. The worst is the MFer in the movie CHINATOWN. I still fantasize about being Jack Nickolson and plugging the John Huston character. I am just as much surprised that you don't react to the infamy of fictional characters.

[Geoffrey]

Monty J wrote: "AnnLoretta wrote: " What did you take away from this book?"

I can't explain it any better than what I have already, at length, in my topic, "Gatsby, by the Numbers," referenced here: https://www.g..."

The figure I've read was 50 Billion and yes, there were quite a few non profit organizations that did substantial amount of investing in his mutual. He was investigated by the SEC in 2006 and given a clean bill of health. I would like to know how much he paid off the investigator. That has never come out, nor how the Bush administration so adroitly scuttled business regulation to the greatest extent since the 20's.

The truly amazing fact is that he never had a prospectus. How could anyone in his right mind make an investment without a prospectus in mind truly astounds me and yet I have seen a small limited list of some of his investors and they were well known people who one would think had more savvy.

[James]

Geoffrey wrote: "Monty J wrote: "AnnLoretta wrote: " What did you take away from this book?"

I can't explain it any better than what I have already, at length, in my topic, "Gatsby, by the Numbers," referenced her..."

I suspect that many of his investors knew exactly what he was doing and played along out of unfettered greed. The kind of returns he was giving were unreasonable. They just never suspected he would fail in their lifetime. Hard to feel sorry for them, such victims, I mean.

[James]

"Geoffrey wrote: "Mea culpa, all you James sound alike."

I actually laughed out loud when I read this. Thanks for that!

[James]

Jim wrote: "Gatsby came from gangsters and many, many wealthy people do. Which implies a ruthless pursuit without any morality, especially in the home!"

Really? He came from gangsters? How do you know this? And what is your morality? Especially at home!

[James]

Monty J wrote: "Gatsby makes me think of crooks like Bernard Madoff, a guy who was so charming and did such a good job of "looking good" (throwing parties) and hiding his scam of stealing millions (or was it billions?) from trusting retirees that the scam went undetected for years."

And yet any intelligent human being knew his returns were "unbelievable." Those who were invested in Madoff without their knowledge were victims. The others were willing participants who simply believed he would not be caught in their lifetime. Greed was their driver. Who is the more disgusting individual? Bernie? The people who enabled him? He's in a comfy prison. Why is he not in max security? The answer is simple. his color (and collar) is white. Talk about that. Talk about how fucked up society is. Gatsby is dead. You should be happy? Madoff is alive. You should be sad? Talk about that. Reality is much more fucked up than fiction. Isn't it?

[Monty J]

James wrote: "Reality is much more fucked up than fiction. Isn't it? "

Far worse. I can't write about some of the things I know without getting whacked. Trust me, it's a corrupt society we live in. And most, I venture, is done quietly, out of sight, by ugly people like Wolfsheim with corrupt pretty people like Jay Gatsby fronting for them.

[James]

Monty J wrote: "James wrote: "Reality is much more fucked up than fiction. Isn't it? "

And most, I venture, is done quietly, out of sight, by ugly people like Wolfsheim with corrupt pretty people like Jay Gatsby fronting for them."

Back to this. Another assumption that is not about the book. Are you really arguing that ugly people are the root of evil and pretty people their front men? Seriously? I suspect many a women found Madoff a handsome man. Who was his pretty front man?

Still, you don't seem upset Madoff is not dead, as that is what his corruption warrants, according to you.

[Karen]

Geoffrey wrote;
"I do all the time. The worst is the MFer in the movie CHINATOWN. I still fantasize about being Jack Nickolson and plugging the John Huston character. I am just as much surprised that you don't react to the infamy of fictional characters."

How do you know I don't react? I just don't react the way I would if it was real life- there is a distinction.

[Geoffrey]

Then I misconstrued your comments, Karen. You asked how one can loathe a fictional character. I took that to mean you don't like, dislike or hate any fictional characters.

[Monty J]

James wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Are you really arguing that ugly people are the root of evil and pretty people their front men?"

I was being metaphorical. Another assumption/judgment on your part. Jeese...

[James]

Monty J wrote: "James wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Are you really arguing that ugly people are the root of evil and pretty people their front men?"

I was being metaphorical. Another assumption/judgment on your part. J..."

"And most, I venture, is done quietly, out of sight, by ugly people like Wolfsheim with corrupt pretty people like Jay Gatsby fronting for them."

Your words. Not mine. Again, I see no reason to continue this conversation either. Points have been made. No need to go back over them.

[Karen]

Geoffrey wrote: "Then I misconstrued your comments, Karen. You asked how one can loathe a fictional character. I took that to mean you don't like, dislike or hate any fictional characters."

Okay, no problem.

[Jim]

James wrote: "Jim wrote: "Gatsby came from gangsters and many, many wealthy people do. Which implies a ruthless pursuit without any morality, especially in the home!"

Really? He came from gangsters? How do you ..."

Mistake in reading. Although I read it three times, the last time I read Gatsby (never saw the movies) was in 1988.
Gangsters are born in all classes.

[James]

Jim wrote: "Gangsters are born in all classes."

That they are.

[Nour]

I believe that the novel is a love story, but not in the way that we'd think. It's a love story in the sense that Gatsby fell in love with the IDEA of Daisy and not Daisy herself. He fell in love with the wealth, opulence, and glamour that Daisy embodied. In a sense, it's quite an ironic love story as it represents the corruption within the American Dream which was initially based on hard work and good morals. The corruption is excellently displayed through Daisy's empty love for her husband and daughter (she is incredibly dismissive with her child, and prays she becomes a "beautiful little fool" because she thinks class is the most important thing), as opposed to her passion for material goods (she cries over Gatsby's expensive shirts). Gatsby's "love" for Daisy, although flamboyant, is just as empty as her love for anyone. It's all for show, just like the library he built in his home which was left untouched. My favorite thing about the book, however, is the title. The Great Gatsby, like the Great Houdini. Gets me every time, I swear. :')

[Gary]

James wrote: "Was Fitzgerald condemning the people who were successful at taking advantage of the greed of the twenties (criminally or not) or of the people who worshiped the winners, went to the parties (but not the funerals) who leached on like blood suckers to be a part of it? Or was he just writing a story of failed love, where such "success" couldn't even get the girl, couldn't overcome class distinctions? Where moving east from the west did not solve the problems of those running away (i.e., all of the main characters in the book)? Where vigilante murder is overlooked because the victim is considered "unsavory"? I personally found the book a delightful read and see all of the characters as frail humans.

But I am interested in other opinions. What did you take away from the book?"

Do you know the story of Trimalchio, James? That story or, rather, that character, in Patronius' Satyricon is the inspiration for Jay Gatsby, and I'd argue that in broad strokes FSF was engaged in a retelling of that story and a recontextualization (in an American context) of that character. That is, Satyricon presents Trimalchio as a vulgar parody of the nouveau riche/social climber. It's set in the 20th century, of course, but in the broad sense it's not about the 20s at all. The 20s are the backdrop, but the social dynamics remain the same.

With that in mind, I don't think FSF's target was the greed of the period per se. Rather, it was what is sometimes called Society (capital S) in other works of literature: the aristocracy or Old Money.

Fitzergerald was himself something of an outsider to Society, who danced (literally and figuratively) around it, but from the outside. He's probably more sympathetic to Gatsby in that sense, so we get a version of Trimalchio who is less vulgar than Patronius' character, and FSF's commentary is more about the nobility and futility of attempting to "break in" to that circle.

Regarding the funeral: part of Satyricon is Trimalchio describing his own tomb which he's having constructed, and acting out his own funeral at one his his lavish parties. I think FSF was giving us the emptiness of that gesture in his update/retelling. With that in mind, people who attend Gatsby's party are much like the nominal unwashed "mob" of ancient Rome. He was being critical, to be sure, but that aspect of his story is not the major conflict or theme.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "James wrote: "Was Fitzgerald condemning the people who were successful at taking advantage of the greed of the twenties (criminally or not) or of the people who worshiped the winners, went to the p..."

Nour wrote: "I believe that the novel is a love story, but not in the way that we'd think. It's a love story in the sense that Gatsby fell in love with the IDEA of Daisy and not Daisy herself. He fell in love w..."

You both have excellent points. Regarding Trimalchio, Gary, wasn't there one more bit? Wasn't he a freed slave? I've always had that in the back of my mind, and I'm too tired to go look it up, but to me that aspect of Trimalchio always spoke to me of young Gatz having liberated himself from the life his father's farm would have thrust upon him. I might be misremembering. Time for wine. speaking of Trimalchio.

[Gary]

AnnLoretta wrote: " Regarding Trimalchio, Gary, wasn't there one more bit? Wasn't he a freed slave?"

Yup. The "lowest of the low" as it were.

[[deleted user]]

Oh, good. The older I get, the more I remember that isn't there (I don't forget things like most old people, I just make things up).

It is absolutely a romance. A romance with Gatsby and Daisy at its center. He's freed himself (he thinks, poor, poor country boy) and she's a slave to the trappings of privilege. Doomed. (Yes, I've had a little wine. Doom closes in!)

[James]

Gary wrote: "James wrote: "Was Fitzgerald condemning the people who were successful at taking advantage of the greed of the twenties (criminally or not) or of the people who worshiped the winners, went to the p..."

Thanks for this, Gary. I have not read the story of Trimalchio, though I am aware that Fiztgerald wanted Trimalchio to be the title of the book or at least an integral part of it. This is a fascinating take on The Great Gatsby that hits home with my own feelings on first reading it. Gatsby desperately escaping a life that had been set out for him seemed so clear to me. And it strikes me now that this may be in line with all of the midwestern characters going east, perhaps not running toward something, after all, but running away from something. I really want to give your comments a lot more thought. Again, thanks for posting them.

[Gary]

"Romance" is one of those techy words.... When I see the word, I always think of the Romantic poets first, and that whole rigimorale. Then, of course, there's the literary genre "Romance" that has its own little formula. There's the the "romance" in the sense that I think most people use the term to denote love.

I get more of a Romantic poetry sense out of Gatsby than the other two. That is, Gatsby is a Romantic in the tragic sense. High emotions, a fatal flaw, heroic journey, etc. Of course, it's clearly not a Romance as in "Romance novel" as it doesn't tick those boxes, but it does tick a few. Probably more than would be the case for something like The Grapes of Wrath....

As for the last one, "romantic love" I'm not so sure. I don't see a lot of love there. On Gatsby's side there's ambition, ego, and a monumental amount of naivete and nostalgia. On Daisy's side, ego again, arguably some weakness/lack of character, maybe a little nostalgia, but she's a lot more in touch with reality than Gatsby is. But "romance" in general? Not so much.

[James]

AnnLoretta wrote: "Oh, good. The older I get, the more I remember that isn't there (I don't forget things like most old people, I just make things up).

It is absolutely a romance. A romance with Gatsby and Daisy at..."

In that sense, the story is equally about Daisy as it is about Gatsby, as individuals, in addition to the romance - an emotional relationship as Fitzgerald states in his letters. And Nick is the perfect person to tell it, an objective bystander, but he comes from where they come from, thus, perhaps, more able to understand the situation, the ramifications of what is happening. More food for thought! Thanks!

[Gary]

James wrote: "Thanks for this, Gary."

Very welcome, James. I'd be happy to hear what you come up with.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "James wrote: "Thanks for this, Gary."

Very welcome, James. I'd be happy to hear what you come up with."

James wrote: "AnnLoretta wrote: "Oh, good. The older I get, the more I remember that isn't there (I don't forget things like most old people, I just make things up).

It is absolutely a romance. A romance with ..."

What wonderful thoughts from both of you. I've written on other threads (and I often delete my posts for fear of being quoted by trolls), of how Gatsby might have grown from his experience, who Daisy might have ended up being, a faded and legendary. lonely beauty in old age, That's why this is fiction, because while the written text is the written text, the readers evolve and wonder.

[Karen]

Ann Loretta wrote;
"What wonderful thoughts from both of you. I've written on other threads (and I often delete my posts for fear of being quoted by trolls), of how Gatsby might have grown from his experience, who Daisy might have ended up being, a faded and legendary. lonely beauty in old age, That's why this is fiction, because while the written text is the written text, the readers evolve and wonder."

That's interesting AnnLoretta; for me, as much as I love this story I could not do that. The end was it- I loved the tragedy of the romance.

[[deleted user]]

Karen wrote: "Ann Loretta wrote;
"What wonderful thoughts from both of you. I've written on other threads (and I often delete my posts for fear of being quoted by trolls), of how Gatsby might have grown from his..."

Oh, Karen, I've always imagined a tragedy of Daisy at 50, which we think of now as young, but then it wasn't. I have this image of her, living on whatever inheritance she may have had and alimony from Buchanan, living in a suite in a a not-quite-the-Plaza hotel, receiving young men, giving them drinks, giving forth of herself as the ever-beautiful Daisy nee-who-knows-what Buchanan, lost in her own fantasies of her youthful beauty, while these young men have a martini or two at her expense, and leave her alone with her maid, and these young mean promise to come again, "Yes, dear Mrs. Buchanan, thank you, it's been such a pleasure, thank you," and when the hotel suite door closes behind them, they collapse in laughter against each other, against the hotel's faded wallpaper, in ridicule of the aged no-longer-beauty who's just started out their evening with a couple of free drinks. Tragedy outlives beauty, and beauty never forgets.

[Karen]

well AnnLoretta- at least she got rid of Tom!

[[deleted user]]

Karen wrote: "well AnnLoretta- at least she got rid of Tom!"

Cold comfort. My aging Daisy always awakens in the night from the cold... I'm such a romantic, it's absolutely untenable.

[Karen]

AnnLoretta wrote: "Karen wrote: "well AnnLoretta- at least she got rid of Tom!"

Cold comfort. My aging Daisy always awakens in the night from the cold... I'm such a romantic, it's absolutely untenable."

She needs a Gatsby

[[deleted user]]

Karen wrote: "AnnLoretta wrote: "Karen wrote: "well AnnLoretta- at least she got rid of Tom!"

Cold comfort. My aging Daisy always awakens in the night from the cold... I'm such a romantic, it's absolutely unten..."

I wish there was a computer keyboard sequence to convey my deep, appreciative chuckle! Thanks for that!

[Gary]

AnnLoretta wrote: "What wonderful thoughts from both of you. I've written on other threads (and I often delete my posts for fear of being quoted by trolls), of how Gatsby might have grown from his experience, who Daisy might have ended up being, a faded and legendary. lonely beauty in old age, That's why this is fiction, because while the written text is the written text, the readers evolve and wonder."

I've never quite worked up the energy to write up my slash fanfic novel, Son of Gatsby: The Revenge.... Maybe someday.

[Karen]

AnnLoretta wrote: "I wish there was a computer keyboard sequence to convey my deep, appreciative chuckle! Thanks for that!"

Haha! I hope I don't come across as speaking for all women (I certainly would not want to be accused of that, I'd be a hypocrite), BUT there is a sizable number of us who romanticize Gatsby to the point where his shady dealings don't matter so much....those shirts and pink suits! That childlike optimism! That car, the mansion- one can just imagine his virility! The empathy we could give him....
Okay that's enough.

[Geoffrey]

AnnLoretta wrote: "Karen wrote: "Ann Loretta wrote;
"What wonderful thoughts from both of you. I've written on other threads (and I often delete my posts for fear of being quoted by trolls), of how Gatsby might have ..."

And I can see her on midnight cruises in the Mediterranean off the Sicilian coast, walking the decks and seeking some young man to rendezvous with and perhaps another fortune seeking social climber making his moves on this superficial, self centered wealthy heiress.

[James]

A significant difference exists between interpretation as a tool of book criticism and interpretation that claims it is only reporting on the text written by the author. The first should be closely examined for an underlying code that may cloud its judgment. The second is despicable.

Susan Sontag was really onto something here:
By interpretation, I mean here a conscious act of the mind which illustrates a certain code, certain “rules” of interpretation.

Against Interpretation by Susan Sontag

(I posted this on another thread and thought it worthwhile to re-post here.)