The Great Gatsby
discussion
What was Fitzgerald talking about, really?
James wrote: "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."Freudians call it "projection" I'm told. At least, it would be the literary equivalent. And the term is loaded in that it has not only the sense of putting one's own values onto someone (something else) but also that it is a separate and distinct thing; a "project" or invention of the reader, sometimes unconnected to the original in any meaningful sense. I even imagine a reader holding a book and speaking to its pages. "Oh, you dirty Communist, Jay Gatsby!" Or somesuch non sequitur. It's the kind of thing that reminds me of the scene in A Fish Called Wanda in which "Wanda" is correcting "Otto" about his reading: "The central message of Buddhism is not 'Every man for himself.'"
At a certain point, I think what Sontag was going for (if I might actually be so bold as to interpret her critique of interpretation) is methodology in interpretation. A Marxist reading of The Great Gatsby, for instance, is very different from how, say, a Deconstructionist like Jacques Derrida might go about interpreting the same work. A reading that focuses on Jungian archetypes would come up with a third, also very different reading. None of those interpretations may be wrong per se, but one has to wonder how useful they are to understanding the piece of work they are parsing.
And the problem isn't so much that those readings are wrong as that they are inherently limiting. The work in question is like a slide on a microscope--the microscope being the literary interpretation methodology. You may or may not learn something about the subject by putting it under a microscope, but it misses the bigger picture. If one ONLY has a microscope the view of the world is very, very particular, and very likely not the kind of thing that's going to lead to comprehension.
Gary wrote: "James wrote: "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 sho..."
Gary, that's such a cogent statement. I think the other thing that has to be taken into account is that the various stances you mention (Freudian, Deconstructionalist, Jung) also pre-date the validity we now accord to the experience each reader brings to the text. I think that's where you're leading, I may by wrong, when you say the microscope can't be used alone.
Someone else's comments I really admire are Janet Winterson's. In her Art Objects: Essays on Ecstasy and Effrontery, the first essay is about how lax we've become in the face of art. The whole essay is wonderful, but there's a capsulized version of it here: http://www.jeanettewinterson.com/book...
If art is a triangular experience, which I think it is (artist, object, viewer; or writer, text, reader, whatever) then everyone in the process has a responsibility.
In a sense, of course, someone has to teach some methodology of reading, of interpretation. But after that, I think it's like jazz or interpretive dance, or painting. I think the reader (who at some point doesn't have to please an advisor or a thesis committee, at some point will read simply to engage with the art) has to be allowed a place in the equation. Yes, this may lead to misreadings based on the reader's experience, sometimes general knowledge, skill, and prejudices. But unless you want to breeze through a 90-second tour of art as Winterson describes, a good reader wants to become a better reader, and just as she speaks of sitting for an hour in front of the Mona Lisa (I've done that, but not the Mona Lisa, just sat and sat and sat in a museum), a good reader is a re-reader (I'm not the first to say that!!)
I still sometimes read Nabokov's Essays on Literature, people like Sontag and Winterson, Henry James, essays by Fish, et al. Yes, the dissection sometimes makes me crazy, but it also teaches me, to the degree I'm willing to be taught, what I may have missed. So like an actor, like a dancer, I think a reader needs to "take class" now and again, to keep the tools in good repair.
I do think we're finally on a cusp of leaving New Criticism behind. I find that very exciting. I want something more personal, something that involves women, non-Western civilization, people of color, people of the myriad genders we are discovering we are. I think it's an amazing time to be a reader.
Now, looking back over what I've written, I'm not ready to let go of Jung. I keep Man and His Symbols next to me at all times (when reading that is; it just gets in the way in the office...). I find it deeply moving, explicative, revealing, it adds one more facet to my thoughts. And Jung so respected the artist.
What a lovely essay you've written. Thanks.
Gary, that's such a cogent statement. I think the other thing that has to be taken into account is that the various stances you mention (Freudian, Deconstructionalist, Jung) also pre-date the validity we now accord to the experience each reader brings to the text. I think that's where you're leading, I may by wrong, when you say the microscope can't be used alone.
Someone else's comments I really admire are Janet Winterson's. In her Art Objects: Essays on Ecstasy and Effrontery, the first essay is about how lax we've become in the face of art. The whole essay is wonderful, but there's a capsulized version of it here: http://www.jeanettewinterson.com/book...
If art is a triangular experience, which I think it is (artist, object, viewer; or writer, text, reader, whatever) then everyone in the process has a responsibility.
In a sense, of course, someone has to teach some methodology of reading, of interpretation. But after that, I think it's like jazz or interpretive dance, or painting. I think the reader (who at some point doesn't have to please an advisor or a thesis committee, at some point will read simply to engage with the art) has to be allowed a place in the equation. Yes, this may lead to misreadings based on the reader's experience, sometimes general knowledge, skill, and prejudices. But unless you want to breeze through a 90-second tour of art as Winterson describes, a good reader wants to become a better reader, and just as she speaks of sitting for an hour in front of the Mona Lisa (I've done that, but not the Mona Lisa, just sat and sat and sat in a museum), a good reader is a re-reader (I'm not the first to say that!!)
I still sometimes read Nabokov's Essays on Literature, people like Sontag and Winterson, Henry James, essays by Fish, et al. Yes, the dissection sometimes makes me crazy, but it also teaches me, to the degree I'm willing to be taught, what I may have missed. So like an actor, like a dancer, I think a reader needs to "take class" now and again, to keep the tools in good repair.
I do think we're finally on a cusp of leaving New Criticism behind. I find that very exciting. I want something more personal, something that involves women, non-Western civilization, people of color, people of the myriad genders we are discovering we are. I think it's an amazing time to be a reader.
Now, looking back over what I've written, I'm not ready to let go of Jung. I keep Man and His Symbols next to me at all times (when reading that is; it just gets in the way in the office...). I find it deeply moving, explicative, revealing, it adds one more facet to my thoughts. And Jung so respected the artist.
What a lovely essay you've written. Thanks.
Gary wrote: "At a certain point, I think what Sontag was going for (if I might actually be so bold as to interpret her critique of interpretation) is methodology in interpretation."AnnLoretta wrote: "But after that, I think it's like jazz or interpretive dance, or painting...I want something more personal, something that involves women, non-Western civilization, people of color, people of the myriad genders we are discovering we are. I think it's an amazing time to be a reader."
Well, I couldn't be happier to see these responses to what Susan Sontag had to say. I couldn't agree more. And I think it moves us all in a direction where looking at a work of art, be it painting, music, or writing, or whatever, that allows all of us to discuss more openly how we all feel about a piece of art.
Gary wrote: "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.
"
I've given this part of your response a bit of thought, Gary. It brings into focus one question I have always had. Why did the people from the midwest (Gatsby, Daisy, Tom, Jordan, Nick) come east rather than go to, say, Chicago. If the book is about the allure of aristocracy and old money, rather than the american dream, then it answers this question. The american dream was spreading west at the time, so I never quite got that interpretation of the story. It also might explain why Gatsby was going for the "easy" money (easy meaning getting more quicker, not necessarily easy to do). He thought he could fit into the eastern aristocracy if he was rich enough and lived in the right place. And he could get somebody like Daisy. But in the end, he wasn't one of them (from old money) and Daisy was always aware of that, so he never really had a chance with her. In the end, his real dream was one that was not even possible, yet he spent his life trying to reach it. That is what makes him such a tragic character.
This brings to mind the real life story of Truman Capote. He desperately wanted to be part of east cost Society and Old Money and managed to make his way into their good graces through his personality and art, then acquired some of his own money after the success of In Cold Blood. He reached the apex with his Black and White party in the late sixties that had all the aristocracy salivating at his doorstep. He was seemingly in. He was grinning ear to ear, with Sinatra at his elbow and money knocking at his door. He thought he had managed to become one of them. But in the end, he learned the hard way that he was nothing more than an accessory, an amusement, and was never a real part of anything. Another dreamer. Another tragedy.
I personally don't get the attraction of society with a capital S and money (old or new), but I can empathize with a dreamer who chases an impossible dream and it ends in tragedy.
Then you have empathy for Monty? As for Truman, I always thought him to be a bit creepy. After all the glitter and fame, people thought him fake. I recall a big blowout between him and Jackie O or was it her sister, Lee.? Live for the fame, get sliced by the press. That's the cesspool for being in the public eye.
AnnLoretta wrote: "I'm not ready to let go of Jung. I keep Man and His Symbols next to me at all times (when reading that is; it just gets in the way in the office...). I find it deeply moving, explicative, revealing, it adds one more facet to my thoughts. And Jung so respected the artist. "Jung did tap into something universal, so he's hard to let go, and may be a good one to hold onto.... There is an issue with any sort of psychological/psychiatric reading of a novel in that one can't actually interact with the characters in a way assumed by those methodologies, so a reading becomes a second hand session. But Jung used an awful lot of literary/historical standards as part of his method, making it the most apt to use as a reader. Freud might be the most apt to use as a writer, but that's a whole 'nother can of mindworms.
I was very much into Deconstruction back in the day--in that embarrassing college student kind of way. And I still give the macro ideas a lot of credence. Though--if I can continue my metaphor--it is a bit like looking at slide on a microscope through a prism.
I hadn't really thought of it like this before, but I suppose the whole idea of interpretation is to project the self into a piece of literature in the hope that it'll line up with the author's intent. The method is really incidental. Hmmm.... Reflection may be necessary to flesh that out a bit.
James wrote: "I've given this part of your response a bit of thought, Gary. It brings into focus one question I have always had. Why did the people from the midwest (Gatsby, Daisy, Tom, Jordan, Nick) come east rather than go to, say, Chicago. If the book is about the allure of aristocracy and old money, rather than the american dream, then it answers this question."
Interesting....
I remember reading a description of San Francisco that called it "a city that was never a town." What they meant is that it sprang up, seemingly out of nowhere, due to the influx of people from the gold rush, and as a result the social dynamics are invented and installed by the people who built it rather than developed over time. Chicago has a very similar urban context. And both places probably are influenced by the fact that they burned down and had to be re-invented at some point.
New York has arguably always been America's old money cultural capital. Boston and Philadelphia could argue the point, but I think those cities have their own cultural character, and don't work nearly as well as analogues to Rome, which was FSF's target given the Trimalchio inspiration. When I think of the American version of Rome I get a combination of NYC and Las Vegas, and the book pre-dated the gangster era that built the latter. (If he were to write the book in the 21st century, though, I can't help but wonder.)
Nonetheless, it'd be a very different book if set in some other city.
Gary wrote: "AnnLoretta wrote: "I'm not ready to let go of Jung. I keep Man and His Symbols next to me at all times (when reading that is; it just gets in the way in the office...). I find it deeply moving, exp..."
Gary, I love hearing your ideas on this. One thing about that Jung book (only the first section is by him, of course, the rest are commentators, but that first section is amazing, and it's the last thing he wrote before he died) is that the references are so good, it sends you to the source material, and I love source material.
I love your sense of interpretation, projecting the self. It's almost an exercise in empathy, maybe, good reading? Of course, some people read to have their own views reinforced, and I suppose that's fine, I'm nobody's reading police (I hope), but I like to be challenged.
So interesting about San Francisco. It is so freeing to pick up and be somewhere where nobody asks "Who are her people?", which was what was constantly asked where I grew up. (Where I live now, I'm just a Yankee, so who my people are is of no interest to anyone, but here, too, everybody knows everybody else's people.) And somebody in the room always knew who everybody's people were. And while New York certainly had its own Brahmins , they had sort of faded into the safety of their own haunts under the weight of the Americans and immigrants flocking to the city, so you could come in and "start over," unknown.
Your comment about FSF writing in the 21st century (or even the latter part of the 20th) has me musing...
Gary, I love hearing your ideas on this. One thing about that Jung book (only the first section is by him, of course, the rest are commentators, but that first section is amazing, and it's the last thing he wrote before he died) is that the references are so good, it sends you to the source material, and I love source material.
I love your sense of interpretation, projecting the self. It's almost an exercise in empathy, maybe, good reading? Of course, some people read to have their own views reinforced, and I suppose that's fine, I'm nobody's reading police (I hope), but I like to be challenged.
So interesting about San Francisco. It is so freeing to pick up and be somewhere where nobody asks "Who are her people?", which was what was constantly asked where I grew up. (Where I live now, I'm just a Yankee, so who my people are is of no interest to anyone, but here, too, everybody knows everybody else's people.) And somebody in the room always knew who everybody's people were. And while New York certainly had its own Brahmins , they had sort of faded into the safety of their own haunts under the weight of the Americans and immigrants flocking to the city, so you could come in and "start over," unknown.
Your comment about FSF writing in the 21st century (or even the latter part of the 20th) has me musing...
AnnLoretta wrote: "Your comment about FSF writing in the 21st century (or even the latter part of the 20th) has me musing... "I can see the smoke from here 8-)
In one of his letters Fitzgerald wrote this about The Great Gatsby:The worst fault in it, I think is a BIG FAULT: I gave no account (and had no feeling about or knowledge of) the emotional relations between Gatsby and Daisy from the time of their reunion to the catastrophe. However the lack is so astutely concealed by the retrospect of Gatsby’s past and by blankets of excellent prose that no one has noticed it— though everyone has felt the lack and called it by another name.
It appears to me that the emotional relationship between Gatsby and Daisy is critical to the story, but within the time frame that the book takes place, Fitzgerald only alludes to it, seemingly thinking it was unnecessary because the backstory was supposed to make it apparent.
I am particularly interested in the phrase and had no feeling about or knowledge of. I'm not really sure what he means by this.
Any thoughts on this?
James wrote: "In one of his letters Fitzgerald wrote this about The Great Gatsby:
The worst fault in it, I think is a BIG FAULT: I gave no account (and had no feeling about or knowledge of) the emotional relati..."
Strange you should mention that. I just took the Life in Letters book out of the library this weekend AGAIN. I went there to have internet in comfort (have none at home, have to perch in the windowsill and borrow it from our little airport), and I wanted to work on the FSF site I'd like to build, but I couldn't connect to the library's internet. What did Snidely Whiplash used to say? Foiled again?
Anyway, it is a very interesting thing for him to say, "no feeling about or knowledge of" their emotional relations. I don't know enough about Gineva from his childhood (more or less), but I do believe she was older than he. I do know, in regard to his relationship with Zelda, as you all do, too, she was drawn to him, engaged to him against her family's wishes, broke it off when it sounded like he wasn't going to be rich, etc., etc. It makes me wonder how genuine his own experiences had been if he had nothing to draw on. He and Zelda reunited and married, but only after he'd demonstrated that he had money in the bank. ("Her voice sounds like money.") He wrote fast and hard and carelessly -- the act itself, I mean. My impression is that he left open vast areas and filled them in as Perkins requested him to.
I have avoided the Sheila Graham years simply for no reason at all. You probably know more than I did, but my impression is that she mothered him.
Do you believe it possible that FSF never had a deep emotional involvement with a woman upon which he could draw for writing? By the time he was with Sheila, his writing life had pretty much broken down.
I think, well, I suspect what I suspect. That with mature love, he was inexperienced.
EDIT: On the other hand, perhaps, while he sees it as a fault, the lack of an explanation for their attraction to each other, their lack of a history, is a, maybe a further reflection of neither one of them living authentic lives - maybe this perceived lack, because I didn't perceive it, God knows, I knew what they were feeling, it was expressed through the tension of that tea at Nick's encounter, in Gatsby's preparations, his working insistently through Jordan, the intensity of the feeling, obviously on both sides, because Nick felt it palpably, it's all there.
No, FSF was worrying about something that wasn't a problem. Everyone noted the lack? This is a romance/love story, and a morality play, and a mystery. Given the little we know about either character, we latch on to their attraction to each other because it's all we're given of their interior lives, with one exception that I can think of, which is Daisy's I hope she's a beautiful little fool line.
No. No. It's perfect the way it's written. An overwhelming, soppy, sentimental love story would completely undercut the delicate puppet shadow theatre of the rest of the book. The entire book is glimpses, hints, maybes, fabrications, lies. Weight it down with "true love" and it would sink to the bottom like a stone.
The worst fault in it, I think is a BIG FAULT: I gave no account (and had no feeling about or knowledge of) the emotional relati..."
Strange you should mention that. I just took the Life in Letters book out of the library this weekend AGAIN. I went there to have internet in comfort (have none at home, have to perch in the windowsill and borrow it from our little airport), and I wanted to work on the FSF site I'd like to build, but I couldn't connect to the library's internet. What did Snidely Whiplash used to say? Foiled again?
Anyway, it is a very interesting thing for him to say, "no feeling about or knowledge of" their emotional relations. I don't know enough about Gineva from his childhood (more or less), but I do believe she was older than he. I do know, in regard to his relationship with Zelda, as you all do, too, she was drawn to him, engaged to him against her family's wishes, broke it off when it sounded like he wasn't going to be rich, etc., etc. It makes me wonder how genuine his own experiences had been if he had nothing to draw on. He and Zelda reunited and married, but only after he'd demonstrated that he had money in the bank. ("Her voice sounds like money.") He wrote fast and hard and carelessly -- the act itself, I mean. My impression is that he left open vast areas and filled them in as Perkins requested him to.
I have avoided the Sheila Graham years simply for no reason at all. You probably know more than I did, but my impression is that she mothered him.
Do you believe it possible that FSF never had a deep emotional involvement with a woman upon which he could draw for writing? By the time he was with Sheila, his writing life had pretty much broken down.
I think, well, I suspect what I suspect. That with mature love, he was inexperienced.
EDIT: On the other hand, perhaps, while he sees it as a fault, the lack of an explanation for their attraction to each other, their lack of a history, is a, maybe a further reflection of neither one of them living authentic lives - maybe this perceived lack, because I didn't perceive it, God knows, I knew what they were feeling, it was expressed through the tension of that tea at Nick's encounter, in Gatsby's preparations, his working insistently through Jordan, the intensity of the feeling, obviously on both sides, because Nick felt it palpably, it's all there.
No, FSF was worrying about something that wasn't a problem. Everyone noted the lack? This is a romance/love story, and a morality play, and a mystery. Given the little we know about either character, we latch on to their attraction to each other because it's all we're given of their interior lives, with one exception that I can think of, which is Daisy's I hope she's a beautiful little fool line.
No. No. It's perfect the way it's written. An overwhelming, soppy, sentimental love story would completely undercut the delicate puppet shadow theatre of the rest of the book. The entire book is glimpses, hints, maybes, fabrications, lies. Weight it down with "true love" and it would sink to the bottom like a stone.
AnnLoretta wrote: "I love your sense of interpretation, projecting the self. It's almost an exercise in empathy, maybe, good reading?"I'm confident Mz. Solnit would agree. ;-)
One of the things I often come back to is that reading/writing is as close as we can get to telepathy in the real world as possible. Other arts have their relative strengths, but spoken language, music or physical arts lack the communicative quality of writing/literature. As in, ideas in their purest form transferred from one mind to another. And, I suppose, that's true of the emotive quality of literature as well, though I usually don't go there. More accurately, I assume that conveying emotional quality of literature is part of the mind-to-mind contact that is the writing/reading experience.
It's also part of why reading a book is better than listening to the reading of it on a recording, but that's yet another can of mindworms.
AnnLoretta wrote: "It is so freeing to pick up and be somewhere where nobody asks "Who are her people?", which was what was constantly asked where I grew up. (Where I live now, I'm just a Yankee, so who my people are is of no interest to anyone, but here, too, everybody knows everybody else's people.) And somebody in the room always knew who everybody's people were. And while New York certainly had its own Brahmins , they had sort of faded into the safety of their own haunts under the weight of the Americans and immigrants flocking to the city, so you could come in and "start over," unknown."
It's hard to look at American politics/leadership and not see a sort of royalty that operate right out in the open. Certain families have been in power for so long and are so entrenched that they are effectively monarchs, and one of the lies of the American meritocracy is that someone can simply break into that class without their consent, and without paying a due amount of tribute, let alone by breaking the mores of that uberculture. (Subculture isn't the right world.) Which is, of course, one of the themes of FSF's work.
James wrote: "I am particularly interested in the phrase and had no feeling about or knowledge of. I'm not really sure what he means by this.Any thoughts on this?"
I've read a couple collections of FSF's letters, mostly with his publisher, but I don't remember reading that one. Where did you get it, if you don't mind me asking?
I think what he's talking about is that he gives us little of the actual emotions of either Daisy or Gatsby in the book. He describes them almost journalistically, and I suspect what he means by "everyone has felt the lack and called it by another name" is that most readers see their relationship as romantic (lowercase R) when it may be more of a product of their respective ambitions. Both characters are very single-minded, and I think Fitzgerald has a much more objective and cynical view of his characters than do most readers. I don't think he was writing them as lovers so much as operators, negotiating their relationship in almost clinical ways. For instance, the way Gatsby tries to proscribe Daisy's emotions (in the scene before she and Gatsby leave and she runs down Myrtle) is very far from romantic.
Gary wrote: "I've read a couple collections of FSF's letters, mostly with his publisher, but I don't remember reading that one. Where did you get it, if you don't mind me asking?"This comes from google books: https://goo.gl/t3yW5M. And a google of the sentence shows up in lots of other places, as well.
I tend to agree. I purposely used Fitzgerald's term "emotional relationship" in my post rather than "romance." I think the term romance works for them but perhaps not in the Romeo and Juliet way. Yet, I can see readers reading more into it and making a real romance out of it. Still, I found it interesting that Fitzgerald said that he "had no feeling about or knowledge of" Gatsby's and Daisy's "emotional relationship" from the time after they reunited until the "catastrophe." I find that an odd choice of words. I like AnnLorettas take on this being directed at Fitzgerald's own relationship experience, and he simply didn't know how it would really work, so didn't write about it. Any thoughts on this?
James wrote: "Gary wrote: "I've read a couple collections of FSF's letters, mostly with his publisher, but I don't remember reading that one. Where did you get it, if you don't mind me asking?"
This comes from ..."
I just edited my original post, which I stand by, for what it's worth, but in relation to the book, I've changed my mind.
This comes from ..."
I just edited my original post, which I stand by, for what it's worth, but in relation to the book, I've changed my mind.
Gary wrote: "James wrote: "I am particularly interested in the phrase and had no feeling about or knowledge of. I'm not really sure what he means by this.
Any thoughts on this?"
I've read a couple collections..."
Yes, yes, yes. You never loved him, tell him so. Absolutely.
Any thoughts on this?"
I've read a couple collections..."
Yes, yes, yes. You never loved him, tell him so. Absolutely.
AnnLoretta wrote: "No, FSF was worrying about something that wasn't a problem. Everyone noted the lack? This is a romance/love story, and a morality play, and a mystery..."I think he was referring to the critics at the time his book was released. He felt all of them saw something lacking, they felt it, but they couldn't put their finger on the problem - they missed the point. He thought the backstory and his own excellent prose hid the real problem, which he states later in the same letter as the emotional backbone missing at the very height of the central story, which the critics thought trivial and anecdotal. And he relates this to his failing to account for the "emotional relationship" between Gatsby and Daisy.
It seems to me that perhaps the critics of the time were looking for a specific structure he did not give them. Now, it seems readers sense this emotional high even though Fitzgerald didn't explicitly account for it. Whether that high is based on lower case "r" romance or ambition might not be so clear.
Gary wrote: "It's hard to look at American politics/leadership and not see a sort of royalty that operate right out in the open. Certain families have been in power for so long and are so entrenched that they are effectively monarchs, and one of the lies of the American meritocracy is that someone can simply break into that class without their consent, and without paying a due amount of tribute, let alone by breaking the mores of that uberculture. (Subculture isn't the right world.) Which is, of course, one of the themes of FSF's work. "
This is so good. I've been dying from the beginning to mention our supremely royal family, which on one side arose from Prohibition (women's first great electoral voice speaks, thank you Carrie Nation) and on the other from a questionable powerful mayoral reign. But I don't want to have that conversation, because, of course, the Kennedys' future was only a gleam in Joe's eye at the time the book was written.
I just deleted a paragraph as off-topic and political, which is inappropriate.
This is so good. I've been dying from the beginning to mention our supremely royal family, which on one side arose from Prohibition (women's first great electoral voice speaks, thank you Carrie Nation) and on the other from a questionable powerful mayoral reign. But I don't want to have that conversation, because, of course, the Kennedys' future was only a gleam in Joe's eye at the time the book was written.
I just deleted a paragraph as off-topic and political, which is inappropriate.
AnnLoretta wrote: "Gary wrote: "It's hard to look at American politics/leadership and not see a sort of royalty that operate right out in the open. Certain families have been in power for so long and are so entrenche..."So bringing this back to Gatsby, the general feeling is that the book is about society with a capital S, the aristocracy in america, which dovetails into the modern day royalty of political families? Is that accurate? Fitzgerald may have been welcome into the Kennedy fold, but would that have been enough? (I'm sure a Bush dynasty would not interest him.)
No, I don't think so. Working, sorry, can't respond. Got off topic. Sorry. No society in this crowd,not in the terms Gary means it, nowhere to be seen. Later. Best to all!
AnnLoretta wrote: "No, I don't think so. Working, sorry, can't respond. Got off topic. Sorry. No society in this crowd,not in the terms Gary means it, nowhere to be seen. Later. Best to all!"Ok. Good. Just means more discussion is on the way! I'm fascinated by the various takes on this book:
1. Society with a capital "S"
2. Manipulation using relationships
3. Romance with a capital R
4. Romance with a small r
5. The american dream
6. The roaring 20s
7. And more!
James wrote: "1. Society with a capital "S"
2. Manipulation using relationships
3. Romance with a capital R
4. Romance with a small r
5. The american dream
6. The roaring 20s
Wednesday night is not my best night. I like to think of myself as gathering material for short stories, but it's hard work. Real criminal law. I guess that's why I have such a problem with Gatsby "getting his due," when we should be grateful to him and his ilk for the FDIC.
I'm going to hold forth, and then have a glass of wine and let you all have your say.
1. "S"ociety - there was no such thing, equal to NY or Boston or Philadelphia terms, in either St. Louis (Daisy) or Chicago (Buchanan). There were hard-earned fortunes from what we now call "entrepreneurism" but was really invention, and property investment, and banking, and insurance. I only know this because my mother came from :"s"ociety in Syracuse, and "s"ociety has much more strict rules than "S"ociety. (Did you know that a great deal of the fortune which supported William and Henry James was based in Syracuse, where I'm from? James St. When I was a child, James St. was still lined with unimaginable mansions. My grandmothers worked there as private duty nurses. Grandfather James, I believe, had heavily invested in "Clinton's Ditch," the Erie Canal, and all the businesses and property opportunities that sprang from it.) Anyway, both St. Louis and Chicago fortunes were new money, not New Amsterdam-descendant wealth. Even when Jordan describes Daisy living in the largest house, it was still simply the largest house. It was a time when society's various strata were separating themselves and identifying themselves and choosing whom amongst them was the greatest of equals. If Buchanan's money were more than one generation old, he would have assumed the outward demeanor of a gentleman and kept his mistress well and secluded. Note that he's not resented amongst his NY acquaintances for having a mistress, but simply for "flaunting" her in the good restaurants. As for Daisy, her solidly upper-upper middle class parents must have realized they had a hoyden on their hands and married her off by arrangement. To new Chicago money, to whom she was perfectly acceptable. Not to mention that she was a beauty in the fashion of her time. Again, if her family had any idea of how things were done in "S"ociety, she would never have been serial-dating officers from the nearby base (as Zelda did, need I mention).
2. Manipulation using relationships. Hmm You mean Wolfsheim had set up his gentile front man, and Gatsby used that to get to Daisy?
3-4 Romance/romance. I think I addressed that above.
5. The American Dream. Hogwash. Yes, I guess it's taken to mean your children are better off than you were because you worked to make them so. Relates to Daisy and Buchanan, not to Gatsby. The American Dream can also mean you do what it takes and don't get caught, a la Tony Soprano. I think that one thing that had happened by 1920 was that the great open spaces, all that room for expansion and in which to work as hard as you could, was a thing of the past. It was, of course, the beginning of the end, the introduction of the validity of the phrase, "When I was a boy...." The opportunities for individual achievement and enrichment, pre-tech, pre-Cold War, were pretty much used up; you had to go to work for someone else, as FSF's father did, and get fired. And move back west to Minneapolis.
6. Roaring 20's? You're going to have to explain to me, James, how they differed from any other time in history when extravagance and profligance (is that a word?) reigned in any society. That sort of cultural icon usually is a signal to get off at the next stop because Nero's about to start fiddling, doesn't it?
Sorry, I'm not much fun. The thing I'm most interested in is your earlier question about FSF's sense that he'd miswritten the relationship, when I think it's perfect. That is fascinating.
Now, a glass of wine and The Gold Bug Variations. Which is beginning to feel punishing, but Powers has always come through for me in the end. Oh, the suspense!
Gary, I allowed a young woman who claimed to be a post-gender non-feminist to "silence" me on that Lolita thread of yours, as a sort of empirical theatrical proof that silencing exists, but she never picked up on it. I am deeply disappointed, but she's only a child, so I'm going to let her be. When I'm old and she's a young doctor in my nursing home or hospital, I'm going to overturn my bedpan on her.
2. Manipulation using relationships
3. Romance with a capital R
4. Romance with a small r
5. The american dream
6. The roaring 20s
Wednesday night is not my best night. I like to think of myself as gathering material for short stories, but it's hard work. Real criminal law. I guess that's why I have such a problem with Gatsby "getting his due," when we should be grateful to him and his ilk for the FDIC.
I'm going to hold forth, and then have a glass of wine and let you all have your say.
1. "S"ociety - there was no such thing, equal to NY or Boston or Philadelphia terms, in either St. Louis (Daisy) or Chicago (Buchanan). There were hard-earned fortunes from what we now call "entrepreneurism" but was really invention, and property investment, and banking, and insurance. I only know this because my mother came from :"s"ociety in Syracuse, and "s"ociety has much more strict rules than "S"ociety. (Did you know that a great deal of the fortune which supported William and Henry James was based in Syracuse, where I'm from? James St. When I was a child, James St. was still lined with unimaginable mansions. My grandmothers worked there as private duty nurses. Grandfather James, I believe, had heavily invested in "Clinton's Ditch," the Erie Canal, and all the businesses and property opportunities that sprang from it.) Anyway, both St. Louis and Chicago fortunes were new money, not New Amsterdam-descendant wealth. Even when Jordan describes Daisy living in the largest house, it was still simply the largest house. It was a time when society's various strata were separating themselves and identifying themselves and choosing whom amongst them was the greatest of equals. If Buchanan's money were more than one generation old, he would have assumed the outward demeanor of a gentleman and kept his mistress well and secluded. Note that he's not resented amongst his NY acquaintances for having a mistress, but simply for "flaunting" her in the good restaurants. As for Daisy, her solidly upper-upper middle class parents must have realized they had a hoyden on their hands and married her off by arrangement. To new Chicago money, to whom she was perfectly acceptable. Not to mention that she was a beauty in the fashion of her time. Again, if her family had any idea of how things were done in "S"ociety, she would never have been serial-dating officers from the nearby base (as Zelda did, need I mention).
2. Manipulation using relationships. Hmm You mean Wolfsheim had set up his gentile front man, and Gatsby used that to get to Daisy?
3-4 Romance/romance. I think I addressed that above.
5. The American Dream. Hogwash. Yes, I guess it's taken to mean your children are better off than you were because you worked to make them so. Relates to Daisy and Buchanan, not to Gatsby. The American Dream can also mean you do what it takes and don't get caught, a la Tony Soprano. I think that one thing that had happened by 1920 was that the great open spaces, all that room for expansion and in which to work as hard as you could, was a thing of the past. It was, of course, the beginning of the end, the introduction of the validity of the phrase, "When I was a boy...." The opportunities for individual achievement and enrichment, pre-tech, pre-Cold War, were pretty much used up; you had to go to work for someone else, as FSF's father did, and get fired. And move back west to Minneapolis.
6. Roaring 20's? You're going to have to explain to me, James, how they differed from any other time in history when extravagance and profligance (is that a word?) reigned in any society. That sort of cultural icon usually is a signal to get off at the next stop because Nero's about to start fiddling, doesn't it?
Sorry, I'm not much fun. The thing I'm most interested in is your earlier question about FSF's sense that he'd miswritten the relationship, when I think it's perfect. That is fascinating.
Now, a glass of wine and The Gold Bug Variations. Which is beginning to feel punishing, but Powers has always come through for me in the end. Oh, the suspense!
Gary, I allowed a young woman who claimed to be a post-gender non-feminist to "silence" me on that Lolita thread of yours, as a sort of empirical theatrical proof that silencing exists, but she never picked up on it. I am deeply disappointed, but she's only a child, so I'm going to let her be. When I'm old and she's a young doctor in my nursing home or hospital, I'm going to overturn my bedpan on her.
AnnLoretta wrote: "James wrote: "1. Society with a capital "S"2. Manipulation using relationships
3. Romance with a capital R
4. Romance with a small r
5. The american dream
6. The roaring 20s
Wednesday night is no..."
Hi AnnLoretta. Enjoy your wine. I will just clarify the points I listed so if we want to continue discussing them we can. If not, I'm happy to move onto other things or go deeper into Fitzgerald's idea of what failed in his book. Here goes:
1. Society with a capital "S"
I think this refers to those who suggest that Gatsby and the others came to New York with the misbegotten notion that they could attach themselves, and, indeed, become a part of the NY aristocracy, perhaps a new branch, but part of the aristocracy nonetheless. (And the book is about that.)
2. Manipulation using relationships
This refers to those who don't see the romantic angle between Gatsby and Daisy, but rather that they are using one another to get something, nothing more. Also all of the other manipulating being done in the book by various characters. (And the book may be about those things.)
3. Romance with a capital R
True love. A tragic pairing of Gatsby and Daisy that is doomed to fail. (And the book is about that.)
4. Romance with a small r
I think this goes back to the idea of an emotional relationship (as Fitzgerald calls it on one of his letters) rather than a romantic one. (And the book is about that.)
5. The american dream
Going to NY to become wealthy and famous, and how corrupt that can make some people. (And the book is about that.)
6. The roaring 20s
My understanding of the roaring 20s is as a combination of money, opulence, rejection of strict morals, creativity, and a resounding rejection of prohibition that conflate to create a party atmosphere that leads up to the Great depression. A social upheaval not to happen again until the 1960s. Many people are critical of the time. (And the book is about that.)
These are just points I have seen made by others on this board. There are, of course, other viewpoints that have been raised, but I have left them out because they have been beaten like a dead horse - to put it mildly. I guess I am just interested in what you and others think about these points. Or any other points you might want to bring up.
James wrote: "AnnLoretta wrote: "James wrote: "1. Society with a capital "S"
2. Manipulation using relationships
3. Romance with a capital R
4. Romance with a small r
5. The american dream
6. The roaring 20s
1. Society with a capital "S"
I think this refers to those who suggest that Gatsby and the others came to New York with the misbegotten notion that they could attach themselves, and, indeed, become a part of the NY aristocracy, perhaps a new branch, but part of the aristocracy nonetheless. (And the book is about that.)
Again, I think I did this above. A parallel society which grew up because our original, aristocratic notion of society was impenetrable.
2. Manipulation using relationships
This refers to those who don't see the romantic angle between Gatsby and Daisy, but rather that they are using one another to get something, nothing more. Fitzgerald himself calls their relationship emotional, not romantic in his letter. Also all of the other manipulating being done in the book by various characters. (And the book may be about those things.)
I can't discuss this without getting personal. When I was growing up, I dated a man well known to my brother. I should not have dated this man. My brother knew that. When I asked him why, he said it was none of his business. I was nostalgic for the time when it was part of a family's responsibilities to see that its women were properly introduced to appropriate men. I am old enough to remember that feeling. One takes introductions seriously, as validations. Was Jay afraid Daisy would not remember him? Did he feel Jordan (Jordan?) was capable of making him the young officer in Louisville again, and not the mysterious, murderous, criminal Gatsby of West Egg? Jay had no entre' to Daisy at all. He either manipulated relationships (including his with Wolfsheim) to get him reunited with Daisy or he let her go.
3. Romance with a capital R
True love. A tragic pairing of Gatsby and Daisy that is doomed to fail. (And the book is about that.)
4. Romance with a small r
I think this goes back to the idea of an emotional relationship rather than a romantic one. (And the book is about that.)
Well, to answer 3 and 4 together, I'm not certain Daisy and Jay were in love together as much as they were struck dumb by the immovable pathos of nostalgia. Each had, between the time the first knew each other and the moment they were reunited in Nick's house for tea, made devastating decisions. They were both very young (as was FSF) to have that realization. Did the Jay of 1922 see himself, a younger Jay, in Daisy's eyes, and did Daisy see Jay or herself as she used to be, before she conformed to societal patterns? I don't know what FSF's intentions were, but either scenario works for me, they are in love with the love they knew or they are pierced by who they no longer are. Daisy is so easily swayed by Tom's intimations that Jay s beneath her that she abandons Jay immediately. Which, by the way, is the reason I believe she was driving the car. Forced by Buchanan to return in Gatsby's car, a man she must now despise or abandon all she values, she insists on the smallest thing she can, that she drive and be in control in this small way. Couple this with the fact that Jay had nothing to gain by choosing not to hit an oncoming car to avoid Myrtle, and there's no reasonable point to believe Jay was driving.
5. The american dream
Going to NY to become wealthy and famous, and how corrupt that can make some people. (And the book is about that.)
Didn't I answer this? I believe it was a time not of merging with existing "S"ociety, which would not permit such miscegenation, but the development of a parallel society with rules that emulated to an extreme that of "S"ociety.
6. The roaring 20s
My understanding of the roaring 20s is as a combination of money, opulence, rejection of strict morals, creativity, and a resounding rejection of prohibition that conflate to create a party atmosphere that leads up to the Great depression. A social upheaval not to happen again until the 1960s. Many people are critical of the time. (And the book is about that.)
Yes, the book is about all of this, Tell me what I'm missing.
First, yes, I agree that the book is about all the things you've posted. I talked about society above. I don't think people today understand the sea change that occurred by the end of the 19th Century. there were no more "Oklahoma land grabs" or things to be had by exertion and hard work, and wholly owned by the individual. Yet, and I think Fitzgerald didn't fail in any way, be he may be too subtle for us, nearly 100 years later, to understand, yet, we had all these young men returning from their anguished labors in WWI expecting the opportunities that were available to their fathers and grandfathers. Those were gone. The "ROAR" of the '20's may well have been one of anger and disappointment and disenfranchisement. Think of pre-Hitler Berlin, Isherwood.
EDIT: F'ing italics.
2. Manipulation using relationships
3. Romance with a capital R
4. Romance with a small r
5. The american dream
6. The roaring 20s
1. Society with a capital "S"
I think this refers to those who suggest that Gatsby and the others came to New York with the misbegotten notion that they could attach themselves, and, indeed, become a part of the NY aristocracy, perhaps a new branch, but part of the aristocracy nonetheless. (And the book is about that.)
Again, I think I did this above. A parallel society which grew up because our original, aristocratic notion of society was impenetrable.
2. Manipulation using relationships
This refers to those who don't see the romantic angle between Gatsby and Daisy, but rather that they are using one another to get something, nothing more. Fitzgerald himself calls their relationship emotional, not romantic in his letter. Also all of the other manipulating being done in the book by various characters. (And the book may be about those things.)
I can't discuss this without getting personal. When I was growing up, I dated a man well known to my brother. I should not have dated this man. My brother knew that. When I asked him why, he said it was none of his business. I was nostalgic for the time when it was part of a family's responsibilities to see that its women were properly introduced to appropriate men. I am old enough to remember that feeling. One takes introductions seriously, as validations. Was Jay afraid Daisy would not remember him? Did he feel Jordan (Jordan?) was capable of making him the young officer in Louisville again, and not the mysterious, murderous, criminal Gatsby of West Egg? Jay had no entre' to Daisy at all. He either manipulated relationships (including his with Wolfsheim) to get him reunited with Daisy or he let her go.
3. Romance with a capital R
True love. A tragic pairing of Gatsby and Daisy that is doomed to fail. (And the book is about that.)
4. Romance with a small r
I think this goes back to the idea of an emotional relationship rather than a romantic one. (And the book is about that.)
Well, to answer 3 and 4 together, I'm not certain Daisy and Jay were in love together as much as they were struck dumb by the immovable pathos of nostalgia. Each had, between the time the first knew each other and the moment they were reunited in Nick's house for tea, made devastating decisions. They were both very young (as was FSF) to have that realization. Did the Jay of 1922 see himself, a younger Jay, in Daisy's eyes, and did Daisy see Jay or herself as she used to be, before she conformed to societal patterns? I don't know what FSF's intentions were, but either scenario works for me, they are in love with the love they knew or they are pierced by who they no longer are. Daisy is so easily swayed by Tom's intimations that Jay s beneath her that she abandons Jay immediately. Which, by the way, is the reason I believe she was driving the car. Forced by Buchanan to return in Gatsby's car, a man she must now despise or abandon all she values, she insists on the smallest thing she can, that she drive and be in control in this small way. Couple this with the fact that Jay had nothing to gain by choosing not to hit an oncoming car to avoid Myrtle, and there's no reasonable point to believe Jay was driving.
5. The american dream
Going to NY to become wealthy and famous, and how corrupt that can make some people. (And the book is about that.)
Didn't I answer this? I believe it was a time not of merging with existing "S"ociety, which would not permit such miscegenation, but the development of a parallel society with rules that emulated to an extreme that of "S"ociety.
6. The roaring 20s
My understanding of the roaring 20s is as a combination of money, opulence, rejection of strict morals, creativity, and a resounding rejection of prohibition that conflate to create a party atmosphere that leads up to the Great depression. A social upheaval not to happen again until the 1960s. Many people are critical of the time. (And the book is about that.)
Yes, the book is about all of this, Tell me what I'm missing.
First, yes, I agree that the book is about all the things you've posted. I talked about society above. I don't think people today understand the sea change that occurred by the end of the 19th Century. there were no more "Oklahoma land grabs" or things to be had by exertion and hard work, and wholly owned by the individual. Yet, and I think Fitzgerald didn't fail in any way, be he may be too subtle for us, nearly 100 years later, to understand, yet, we had all these young men returning from their anguished labors in WWI expecting the opportunities that were available to their fathers and grandfathers. Those were gone. The "ROAR" of the '20's may well have been one of anger and disappointment and disenfranchisement. Think of pre-Hitler Berlin, Isherwood.
EDIT: F'ing italics.
AnnLoretta wrote: "James wrote: "AnnLoretta wrote: "James wrote: "1. Society with a capital "S"2. Manipulation using relationships
3. Romance with a capital R
4. Romance with a small r
5. The american dream
6. The r..."
Thanks for the detailed reply. I'm not sure I agree that the book is about all of these things, but these are certainly things that other posters have raised and thought them interesting points.
The only things that are clear to me are the things laid out for us: the book is about a group of midwesterners that head east either running from something or looking for something or both. Nick, who I still see as the central character in the story, packs his bags, goes home, and after enough time has passed decides to relate the story after much time to think about it. A midwestern perspective of an aspect of the east coast during prohibition for sure. For me, that's plenty to keep my mind busy thinking about this book. Gary has added the myth aspect, which I find fascinating, and will continue to look into. And I think you're take on the Gatsby/Daisy relationship is also fascinating.
James wrote: "AnnLoretta wrote: "James wrote: "AnnLoretta wrote: "James wrote: "1. Society with a capital "S"
2. Manipulation using relationships
3. Romance with a capital R
4. Romance with a small r
5. The amer..."
Yes, it has to be Nick's story. That is the only thing that makes it memorable, important, the impact it has on Nick and will have on Nick for the rest of his life. In a sense, his experience with Gatsby saved Nick from breaking his heart on The American Dream. Who hasn't had The American Dream? It's crushing.
2. Manipulation using relationships
3. Romance with a capital R
4. Romance with a small r
5. The amer..."
Yes, it has to be Nick's story. That is the only thing that makes it memorable, important, the impact it has on Nick and will have on Nick for the rest of his life. In a sense, his experience with Gatsby saved Nick from breaking his heart on The American Dream. Who hasn't had The American Dream? It's crushing.
James wrote: "AnnLoretta wrote: "James wrote: "AnnLoretta wrote: "James wrote: "1. Society with a capital "S"
2. Manipulation using relationships
3. Romance with a capital R
4. Romance with a small r
5. The amer..."
I'm going to say this again. I sensed it was Nick's story, for decades I've sensed it was Nick's story, but until you said it, I didn't assimilate it. Saying that was a gift to me.
2. Manipulation using relationships
3. Romance with a capital R
4. Romance with a small r
5. The amer..."
I'm going to say this again. I sensed it was Nick's story, for decades I've sensed it was Nick's story, but until you said it, I didn't assimilate it. Saying that was a gift to me.
James wrote: "AnnLoretta wrote: "James wrote: "AnnLoretta wrote: "James wrote: "1. Society with a capital "S"
2. Manipulation using relationships
3. Romance with a capital R
4. Romance with a small r
5. The amer..."
Finally, it's FSF's story. He never matured as a writer, as Gatz never matured into whatever he believed was out there for him. FSF died floating on a clear blue pond of his past achievements. I can't think of another writer one can't read and observe growth, maturity, or at least change, at least an opening from the closely held view of child's universe to the open arms of an adult saying he doesn't know what it's all about. Why is that? Reading his magazine articles, throwaway stuff, things that don't ring true, which are assembled in a bastard of an old book called "Autobiography" of FSF, there's a cynicism and bitterness that's palpable. Not his short stories, but throwaway pieces all written to pay his daughter's school bills and Zelda's hospital bills.
What happened to him? It's easy to say "Drink," but that's avoidance or dismissal, or something. I don't know the answer. Apparently easy choices made too early in life? There's nothing in his writings that were left after his death, such as what Wilson compiled in "The Crack Up" to indicate FSF had the ability to rise above himself. Then again, how could he? His financial responsibilities were staggering. I don't know.
2. Manipulation using relationships
3. Romance with a capital R
4. Romance with a small r
5. The amer..."
Finally, it's FSF's story. He never matured as a writer, as Gatz never matured into whatever he believed was out there for him. FSF died floating on a clear blue pond of his past achievements. I can't think of another writer one can't read and observe growth, maturity, or at least change, at least an opening from the closely held view of child's universe to the open arms of an adult saying he doesn't know what it's all about. Why is that? Reading his magazine articles, throwaway stuff, things that don't ring true, which are assembled in a bastard of an old book called "Autobiography" of FSF, there's a cynicism and bitterness that's palpable. Not his short stories, but throwaway pieces all written to pay his daughter's school bills and Zelda's hospital bills.
What happened to him? It's easy to say "Drink," but that's avoidance or dismissal, or something. I don't know the answer. Apparently easy choices made too early in life? There's nothing in his writings that were left after his death, such as what Wilson compiled in "The Crack Up" to indicate FSF had the ability to rise above himself. Then again, how could he? His financial responsibilities were staggering. I don't know.
AnnLoretta wrote: "I sensed it was Nick's story, for decades I've sensed it was Nick's story, but until you said it, I didn't assimilate it. Saying that was a gift to me. "This opens up a whole new discussion. Because one of the most frequently asked questions I come across is this: Is Nick a reliable narrator?
I personally find this a peculiar question. Here's why.
If you are comparing Nick to a third party omniscient narrator, then it seems an odd question on its face. An omniscient narrator can't be a real person, so the question doesn't make sense.
If you are asking if he is reliable because as a participant in the story, sharing what he observes, he may have biases like any other person, then I still find this an odd question. He is reliable in the sense that we will get the story he tells to us. What is important to him becomes important to us. It is his story. What more can we ask of a person? Is he credible? Is he telling the truth? Well, we could never know if he is lying unless we find internal inconsistencies in what he tells us. I, personally, find him to be an extremely reliable and credible narrator. He tells a complex story without any glaring inconsistencies. He might be siding with Gatsby, finding him a person worthy of his empathy. But that's not a problem, because this is his story. If you want a different opinion of Gatsby, you have to listen to someone else's take on the same events. But what we have is Nick's story.
And as you so eloquently put it, it has to be Nick's story. That is the only thing that makes it memorable, important, the impact it has on Nick and will have on Nick for the rest of his life.
James wrote: "If you want a different opinion of Gatsby, you have to listen to someone else's take on the same events. "
And to whom else could you possibly listen? Buchanan? Wolfsheim? Jordan? I've already shared my vision of the aging Daisy. I'm not interested in an omniscient narrator, telling us all the secrets, telling us what to believe.
In a sense, in a sense, and this is a terrible thing to say, in a sense, I can see FSF doing what Hemingway did, had his heart not exploded in his chest. It takes a tremendous ego to live in art and sustain life. It takes Picasso, Dali, or it takes writing impersonally, at a remove, as Nabokov did, albeit beautifully. Which Fitzgerald wouldn't do in his novels. Hmm.
And to whom else could you possibly listen? Buchanan? Wolfsheim? Jordan? I've already shared my vision of the aging Daisy. I'm not interested in an omniscient narrator, telling us all the secrets, telling us what to believe.
In a sense, in a sense, and this is a terrible thing to say, in a sense, I can see FSF doing what Hemingway did, had his heart not exploded in his chest. It takes a tremendous ego to live in art and sustain life. It takes Picasso, Dali, or it takes writing impersonally, at a remove, as Nabokov did, albeit beautifully. Which Fitzgerald wouldn't do in his novels. Hmm.
AnnLoretta wrote: "I'm not interested in an omniscient narrator, telling us all the secrets, telling us what to believe. "I'm not either. Nick makes the story real, not a platform from which to preach.
I think I'm finished with this book now. If someone mentions it some day to me, I'll just say, no, no, never got around to reading it.
Thanks for your company.
Thanks for your company.
AnnLoretta wrote: "I think I'm finished with this book now. If someone mentions it some day to me, I'll just say, no, no, never got around to reading it. Thanks for your company."
Thanks for your input. It's been great.
I've always understood the American Dream to mean one could work to create a better life for one's children, though it seems to mean a Jay Gatsby life for a lot of folks. I guess the American Dream isn't proscribed any more than anything else "American" is, though I'm not sure if that makes The Great Gatsby a critique or proponent of the idea.As odd as this is, Gatsby is a kind of pre-figure for Larry Flynt. Or, maybe, Flynt is a later 20th century version of Gatsby--right up to getting shot. The latter day version of Gatsby, of course, lives as a cripple as a sort of purgatorial version of himself: the living satire of the satyr satirized as the Post-Modern satire of Satyricon.
(Clearly, you're not the only one who drinks on weekdays, AnnLoretta....)
AnnLoretta wrote: "Gary, I allowed a young woman who claimed to be a post-gender non-feminist to "silence" me on that Lolita thread of yours, as a sort of empirical theatrical proof that silencing exists, but she never picked up on it. I am deeply disappointed, but she's only a child, so I'm going to let her be. When I'm old and she's a young doctor in my nursing home or hospital, I'm going to overturn my bedpan on her. "
Heh. Yeah, there's an awful lot of clueless folks contributing to that thread.... Lolita is one of those books that seems to bring them crawling out of the woodwork. A tribute to Nabokov in some way, no doubt. I mulled over whether I should address the posts in that thread, most of whom are from people I ignore, but the substance of which I've gleaned from your contributions. In the long run I think it's better for them to run themselves out in some form/forum or another. It's that "should you wake a sleepwalker?" issues. My policy is to let them alone as long as they aren't shuffling towards a cliff, but it is a bit shakier when the sleepwalker is talking in their sleep and insisting they aren't asleep at all....
Gary wrote;"Heh. Yeah, there's an awful lot of clueless folks contributing to that thread.... Lolita is one of those books that seems to bring them crawling out of the woodwork.
My policy is to let them alone as long as they aren't shuffling towards a cliff, but it is a bit shakier when the sleepwalker is talking in their sleep and insisting they aren't asleep at all."
Really? That's interesting!! Tell us more, you seem to know oh so very much.
I've missed the entire meaning of this book. It's all in the first four paragraphs and the last four. Everything in between is the foul dust and the wake.
I'm not dismissing the story Nick tells. I'm saying anyone's story could be bookended by those four and those four paragraphs. If we're lucky enough to have Nick as the narrator of our story.
I'm not dismissing the story Nick tells. I'm saying anyone's story could be bookended by those four and those four paragraphs. If we're lucky enough to have Nick as the narrator of our story.
AnnLoretta wrote: "I've missed the entire meaning of this book. It's all in the first four paragraphs and the last four. Everything in between is the foul dust and the wake.I'm not dismissing the story Nick tells. ..."
Meaning comes after narrative in a good story. Meaning comes before narrative in a good sermon. I'll take a good story over a good sermon any day!
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..."I like this description very much. At first my impression of the characters is that the story is a tragedy because Gatsby and Daisy can't be together, but as the book carries on further and the more i think about it, it's really a tragedy that Gatsby puts so much energy into such a vain and silly person, so then there's a sense of tragedy that he doesn't know himself well enough to seek out a better partner. And then there's the sense that maybe he is himself quite shallow and so the idea is that it is really a stupid and silly love story -- like two high schoolers with crushes on each other -- and the only thing that pulls us in, in their beauty and wealth and so perhaps the tragedy is that we think that the love stories of wealthy and pretty people are more interesting than those of dull and poor people.
Mayor wrote: "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 f..."
You and Nour are right. Except for one thing. I think, being dull and poor, that my own personal love stories are riveting, few and far between, and dull, but ...
No, but you're right. Love stories of the wealthy and pretty. They wear better clothes, their lipstick stays on, even the lighting's more flattering.
You and Nour are right. Except for one thing. I think, being dull and poor, that my own personal love stories are riveting, few and far between, and dull, but ...
No, but you're right. Love stories of the wealthy and pretty. They wear better clothes, their lipstick stays on, even the lighting's more flattering.
AnnLoretta and Nour make good points regarding the nature of the book, but I'd go a step further and say that I don't think The Great Gatsby is a love story. At least, not in the sense that it's about love, really. It certainly has the form of a love story, or a kind of tragic Romance. Think of the knights errant running off in order to do great deeds all in the name of their lady love, and regardless of whether she (or anyone) really ever learns of those deeds. It's got elements of unrequited love that we all feel from time to time.However, I think those are referential more than expressed. That is, I think FSF was using them as an outline for his own story ("his own" both in the sense that he's crafting the story, and in that a lot of the characters are disguised versions of himself and people of his acquaintance) rather than using them to tell yet another love story.
There may be some love shared between Daisy and Gatsby, but that emotion is cast aside in favor of their respective ambitions. Gatsby's insistence that the past can be recreated is nearly delusional, and that makes his emotional connection to the real Daisy questionable. Conversely, Daisy is insincere to the point that she makes it a little religion. Together their "love" is a dubious proposition.
We call it a love story with various twists and turns, but I think that's because we don't really have a vocabulary to describe it with more accuracy. We can only borrow from existing terminology, and maybe tweak it here and there to fit: it's a tragi-/faux-love story, or an anti-heroic journey....
Gary wrote: "AnnLoretta and Nour make good points regarding the nature of the book, but I'd go a step further and say that I don't think The Great Gatsby is a love story. At least, not in the sense that it's ab..."That makes sense, a "love" story in the sense that they are each in "love" with ambition, vanity, and their other ideals.
Mayor wrote: "That makes sense, a "love" story in the sense that they are each in "love" with ambition, vanity, and their other ideals."A fauxmance maybe?
Gary wrote: "A fauxmance maybe?"
That's a wonderful bit of coinage, there. Sad, but wonderful.
That's a wonderful bit of coinage, there. Sad, but wonderful.
Literature is about layers of meaning, I don't think there is only one answer to what this book's about - that's why it's one of my all time favorite and one of literature master pieces
Lara wrote: "Literature is about layers of meaning, I don't think there is only one answer to what this book's about - that's why it's one of my all time favorite and one of literature master pieces"I couldn't agree with you more. What particularly did you like about it?
James wrote: "Lara wrote: "Literature is about layers of meaning, I don't think there is only one answer to what this book's about - that's why it's one of my all time favorite and one of literature master piece..."I first read this book in college: I'm from Brazil and reading a full book in English (even though I was an English major) felt like and accomplishment at the time.
And by reading I mean grasping the symbolisms and coming to realize Fitzgerald wrote something so much greater than a man who got rich to try and win over some shallow rich girl; he tried to portray the 1920s, write a criticism of it and use the full scop of literary devices to do it.
Lara wrote: "...Fitzgerald wrote something so much greater than a man who got rich to try and win over some shallow rich girl..."This is a comment from a letter Fitzgerald wrote in 1940: "I have a novel pretty well on the road. I think it will baffle and in some ways irritate what readers I have left. But it is as detached from me as Gatsby was, in intent anyhow."
From this last comment, I suspect that Fitzgerald was observing more than he was criticizing. A portrait of a time using an observer as a narrator who holds back blanket criticism of the people and situations he observes (which makes Nick such a crucial character in this book). He leaves these observations, multi-layered and meaningful, for the reader to pick up and absorb. A beautiful portrait hanging on the wall of a fine art museum.
That is my take on it, anyway, for what it's worth.
James wrote;"He leaves these observations, multi-layered and meaningful, for the reader to pick up and absorb. A beautiful portrait hanging on the wall of a fine art museum."
NICE!!
James wrote: "This is a comment from a letter Fitzgerald wrote in 1940: 'I have a novel pretty well on the road. I think it will baffle and in some ways irritate what readers I have left. But it is as detached from me as Gatsby was, in intent anyhow.'"Interesting to note that he passed away in December 1940, so that letter is from the last year of his life, well after the success of "Gatsby" at a time when he'd done a lot more living, and he'd have more than a little distance/perspective on the book. I don't know that particular letter off the top of my head, but he's almost certainly referring to The Love of the Last Tycoon, his last, unfinished novel. The protagonist of that book does bear interesting similarities to Gatsby--and interesting similarities with Fitzgerald, which makes his comment there more than a little cryptic, I think.
Gary wrote: "well after the success of "Gatsby"Actually, the real success of the book came well after Fitzgerald's death. Fitzgerald couldn't find any of his books in book stores shortly before he died.
Gatsby got a big boost from a large printing as an Armed Forces Edition during WWII and again later, after Edmund Wilson's reviews and Mizner's biography.
This per Wikipedia:
In 1942, a group of publishing executives created the Council on Books in Wartime. The Council's purpose was to distribute paperback books to soldiers fighting in the Second World War. The Great Gatsby was one of these books. The books proved to be "as popular as pin-up girls" among the soldiers, according to the Saturday Evening Post 's contemporary report. 155,000 copies of Gatsby were distributed to soldiers overseas, and it is believed that this publicity ultimately boosted the novel's popularity and sales.
By 1944, full-length articles on Fitzgerald's works were being published, and the following year, "the opinion that Gatsby was merely a period piece had almost entirely disappeared." This revival was paved by interest shown by literary critic Edmund Wilson, who was Fitzgerald's friend. In 1951, Arthur Mizener published The Far Side of Paradise, a biography of Fitzgerald. He emphasized The Great Gatsby 's positive reception by literary critics, which may have influenced public opinion and renewed interest in it.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Great Gatsby (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
Art Objects: Essays on Ecstasy and Effrontery (other topics)The Great Gatsby (other topics)
Thanks. I haven't read this since God had baby teeth.