What was Fitzgerald talking about, really?

[Gary]

Granted, this article (from the soon to be defunct AJA) is more about the economics and politics of the American aristocracy, rather than the social or Society (capital S) that Fitzgerald was addressing, but it's an interesting look at how money, power and politics interact socially. The cliquishness of it--in this case "The Establishment 2.0" bandied about as if it were some sort of backyard clubhouse--drips from it like sweat.

Democracy isn’t supposed to be a vehicle for wealthy people to hedge their bets, but the open secret is that capitalism is more than just an economic regime. It’s a total social system, and it’s ruled by a small class of people, not elected representatives as such. The practices that we think of as making up democracy — like voting, volunteerings, protesting, writing op-eds — are just part of what determines the structure of American social reality, and not a very big part when it comes down to it. Between “money is power” and “all power to the people,” we know which one describes life in the United States.

If we see this as more a commentary about American culture as well as politics, we can put Fitzgerald's work into one of those things that the author of this article throws into his "practices of democracy" and that contextualizes the struggle that he describes in TGG. It's not entirely money in America. Gatsby fails to enter into the cabal. In fact, he breaks the rules of the cabal.

Full article: http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions...

[Monty J]

Gary wrote: "If we see this as more a commentary about American culture as well as politics, we can put Fitzgerald's work into one of those things that the author of this article throws into his "practices of democracy" and that contextualizes the struggle that he describes in TGG. It's not entirely money in America. Gatsby fails to enter into the cabal. In fact, he breaks the rules of the cabal."

Well said. "He turned out all right in the end" and "They're a rotten crowd. ...You're worth the whole damn bunch put together," are both evaluation of Gatsby and indictment of the cabal represented by the Buchanans and Jordan.

In Nick's perception, as bad as Gatsby is, he's better than the others, ostensibly because he was motivated by a dream, had served his country in combat and came from modest roots. They were all corrupt, but Gatsby, in Nick's mind, has sufficiently redeeming qualities.

The reader is left to ponder and make up his/her mind to what extent he/she agrees with Nick.

For me, it's the social commentary of TGG that rings loudest. Romance is the vehicle bearing the message--the wrapping, not the gift.

[James]

Gary wrote: "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 suppose I keep going back to my first impressions of The Great Gatsby. The book is less character driven or plot driven than it is the voice of Nick, our narrator who speaks volumes about becoming disillusioned after setting out on an adventure only to return back to where he started from, something important taken from him. He watches as other people who come from the same place as he (the midwest) all see their dreams shattered in one way or another, or, rather, the thin but rather opaque veil that protected them from reality has been lifted and there is no going back. For me, it is this voice that resounds in the book. The characters, relationships, and situations, they all sit in the background, completing the picture, but in no way encroach on center stage.

[[deleted user]]

James wrote: "The characters, relationships, and situations, all sit in the background, completing the picture, but in no encroach on center stage. ."

Very succinct. I love it when others can cut to the heart of the matter while I'm still feeling for a pulse. I just found something that interested me, posted at https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/....

[James]

AnnLoretta wrote: "Nick cries out, "You're worth the whole bunch put together." In the first chapter of The Love of the Last Tycoon, one character writes to another "You are the best of them

... where nobility is found in ambiguous circumstances..."

The idea that where there is real life, real living, well, as Fitzgerald himself says about The Great Gatsby: "those illusions that give such color to the world that you don't care whether things are true or false as long as they partake of the magical glory.”

(also copied this over to the moderated discussion)

[Gary]

James wrote: "For me, it is this voice that resounds in the book. The characters, relationships, and situations, they all sit in the background, completing the picture, but in no way encroach on center stage."

Nicely put.

One of the discussion points for TGG is the inspiration for Gatsby, and there are several candidates, including Fitzgerald himself. To a certain extent, it's hard to divorce author from character in a work of fiction. Even the most radically different characters are, at some point, the creation of the author and an expression of his/er own character. Tolkien *is* Bilbo Baggins. Arthur Clark *is* HAL. Shakespeare *is* Lady MacBeth. Or vice-versa as one is inclined to see such things.

In this case, I go back and forth between how much of Fitzgerald is in Gatsby, but these days I'm thinking there's more of him in Nick. Or, rather, I think Nick is Fitzgerald giving us a "realistic" picture of himself, while Gatsby is a "fantasy" version of himself. Both characters almost certainly have other influences (Gatsby more than Nick given the nature of that real/fantasy relationship) but the way both characters are outsiders of the Social caste they are touching upon, the ultimate failure of both characters, the dismissal of them not just as men, but as human beings by Tom/Daisy has a lot to do with Fitzgerald's own aspirations and failings.

Further, that thought clarifies Jordan in my mind. I've always wondered about her inclusion in TGG at all. She does have a certain plot/dialogue role, but strictly speaking the character is not necessary. However, if Daisy is in many ways Zelda (or, at least, Fitzgerald's fantasy version of Zelda is Daisy, just as Gatsby can be seen as a fantasy version of himself) then Jordan parallels that character in the same way that Nick does Fitzgerald himself.

[James]

Gary wrote: "then Jordan parallels that character in the same way that Nick does Fitzgerald himself..."

Interesting. I like the idea that Fitzgerald may have split real characters (or near-real characters) into pairs of fictional characters, and lets them play out separately, but not independent of one another.

[[deleted user]]

James wrote: "Gary wrote: "then Jordan parallels that character in the same way that Nick does Fitzgerald himself..."

Interesting. I like the idea that Fitzgerald may have split real characters (or near-real ch..."

Gary wrote: "James wrote: "For me, it is this voice that resounds in the book. The characters, relationships, and situations, they all sit in the background, completing the picture, but in no way encroach on ce..."

I like this concept very, very much.

[James]

I might also add here that there is a fairly large consensus out there that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to make a movie or stage play about The Great Gatsby that would rival the quality of the book. I haven't seen anything worthwhile. In the book, the characters are blurred, and, except in parts, the plot does not naturally follow into a sequence of scenes. At least it doesn't for me. To visually record a voice is quite the challenge. (I guess this is more evidence for me that the book is primarily about voice.)

[Karen]

James wrote: "I might also add here that there is a fairly large consensus out there that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to make a movie or stage play about The Great Gatsby that would rival the qualit..."

I liked the DiCaprio depiction of Gatsby and thought the movie was well done. That's just me, my take on it. I was surprised I liked it as much as I did.

[Gary]

James wrote: "I might also add here that there is a fairly large consensus out there that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to make a movie or stage play about The Great Gatsby that would rival the quality of the book."

Film-making is always a crapshoot. There are just so many variables that one has little/no control over. Add to that the fact that adaptation is always a problem in that any number of intentions get brought in that may have little or nothing to do with the author's text. Then factor in that a book like TGG so much of the book is narrative, and that's tough to pull off in a visual medium.

It's been an awful long time since I saw the Redford version of Gatsby, and I haven't seen the newer on the DiCaprio. Watching them both might make for an interesting weekend activity.