The Great Gatsby
discussion
The deaths of Myrtle, Gatsby, and Wilson...
date
newest »
newest »
And its flaw. If we can't get to the truth of the matter because the author deliberately confuses the facts, then what are we left with? A novel that is confused at best. Does SF really know what he wants to say with this book?Even though Nick's moral compass is as dented as every other characters, we do know that he sizes up his friends well. He realizes upon meeting Jay for the first time that his identity as a member of the inherited wealth class is false. He sizes up each character but refrains from judging them. I can't think of any instance in which he is naive about the society he keeps. He heeds his father's words and refrains from judging. This doesn't make him naive. It makes him unnecessarily judicious.
So when you argue that he was naive in accepting Jay's placement of guilt for Myrtle's death, I must argue to the contrary.
Stephen wrote: "Nick believes that Daisy killed Myrtle Wilson because Gatsby tells him so, and in fact, Nick actually jumps to the conclusion first.....It's a complexity that seems deliberate and it seems like Fitzgerald never got the credit for it. "
Finally! Someone else gets it!
(Thanks for the detailed analysis. Bravo!)
Stephen: " Obviously, no eye witnesses of the accident claim to have seen a woman behind the wheel."
Yes, and actually an eyewitness quoted by the policeman on at the scene said it was a man driving.
Stephen: " In Chapter One, Daisy says she's heard Nick is "engaged" from "three people," so it must be "true." Nick dismisses it as "libel" and "gossip," but he will later accuse Daisy of homicide on just the word of *one* person. "
Precisely! This showcases Nick's gullibility in all things Gatsby, whose word Nick takes as gospel.
Stephen: " And if Gatsby's intent was to take the blame for the accident, why not stop the car immediately?"
Precisely. Why wait, except due to cowardice (corruption)?
Stephen: " Fitzgerald could have made Gatsby an honest entrepreneur -- a starker contrast to Tom, who inherited his money but did so honestly..."
Yes! Finally again! An objective assessment Tom instead of dismissing him as a wife beater and judging him by the standards of a social milieu 90+ years after-the-fact.
Stephen: "It's a complexity that seems deliberate and it seems like Fitzgerald never got the credit for it. "
Yep. But there's hope as long as devotees like us keep digging.
Geoffrey wrote: "Does SF really know what he wants to say with this book?"Yes. He's saying "wake up, America, to your naive reverence toward the wealthy class and the American Dream, and take hard look at the 'foul dust' (corruption) floating in the wake of that dream."
Geoffrey: " He heeds his father's words and refrains from judging. This doesn't make him naive. It makes him unnecessarily judicious."
Perceiving Nick as naive is vital to the novel's overall objective of holding up a mirror so society can get a good look at how gullible we are in our worship the rich. Nick represents "Everyman," the average American, who is mesmerized by the posturing and the materialistic displays such as Gatsby's "circus wagon."
Through Nick, Fitzgerald is showing us how gullible it is to unquestioningly swallow the idealistic premise that America is some fantasyland of opportunity where anyone can go from rags to riches:
"the old island here that flowered once for Dutch sailors' eyes – a fresh, green breast of the new world. Its vanished trees, the trees that had made way for Gatsby's house, had once pandered in whispers to the last and greatest of all human dreams; for a transitory enchanted moment man must have held his breath in the presence of this continent, compelled into an aesthetic contemplation he neither understood nor desired, face to face for the last time in history with something commensurate to his capacity for wonder.
...So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”
And the novel's message still stands. Look at how many people are lined up to vote for Donald Trump, a charismatic effigy of materialistic success with all the trappings of Jay Gatsby--the mansions--a corporate jet in place of a yellow Rolls--a trophy wife like Daisy--even to rumors of consorting with organized crime.
Monty J wrote;"Yes! Finally again! An objective assessment Tom instead of dismissing him as a wife beater and judging him by the standards of a social milieu 90+ years after-the-fact."
Stephen never defends Tom for being a woman beater though, as you do and have been doing for a long time now.
Reading your comment on how gullible society is and that is your take on the novel, not one intended by SF, Monty. There is no substantiation you can quote directly from the novel as to Nick´s naivete. You are arguing from a priori viewpoint.As for the testimony as to the man driving the car, the witness wasn´t able to identify correctly the car´s color. A little confused there now, nipping at the bottle midday?
Geoffrey wrote: "As for the testimony as to the man driving the car, the witness wasn´t able to identify correctly the car´s color."Actually there were two who said it was a man driving, Michaelis and another one the cop interviewed. There's no indication Michelis had been drinking or was impaired in any way at the time of the accident.
The third witness who saw a man driving was Wilson himself.
The evidence is strong, if not overwhelming, that Gatsby was driving.
Nick's gullibility is established from page one, when he gushes over Gatsby's appearance and is systematically reinforced throughout the novel as Nick overlooks one character flaw after another in Gatsby--particularly his lies about family history, his fake library, his offer of a business "gonnection" in return for Nick's arrangement of access to Daisy, his dealings with a well-known mobster.
Most of all, Nick seems so unaware of Gabsby's corruptive influence on him that, by the time Gatsby kills Myrtle and fails to stop his car, Nick leaps to the conclusion that it was Daisy behind the wheel, not Gatsby.
In Nick's gullible mind, Gatsby is above reproach; so he invents a a "realty" that allows him to escape accountability for vehicular manslaughter.
No political talk for me. And who cares what my political leanings are anyways? Or anyone else's.
Karen wrote: "No political talk for me. And who cares what my political leanings are anyways? Or anyone else's."Agreed. I have enough trouble tuning out the television lol!
Christine wrote: "Karen wrote: "No political talk for me. And who cares what my political leanings are anyways? Or anyone else's."Agreed. I have enough trouble tuning out the television lol!"
I wasn't being political. The analogy holds up regardless of Trump's political engagement.
Karen wrote: "Monty J wrote;"Yes! Finally again! An objective assessment Tom instead of dismissing him as a wife beater and judging him by the standards of a social milieu 90+ years after-the-fact."
Stephen ne..."
In fact, Karen, I think Nick's watching Tom brutally assault a woman and then leaving casually, as though she'd just ended the party by puking on the rug, pretty much obliterates any sympathy I might have for Nick as I get older. He also continues to associate with Tom, which I also find offensive.
I get that it's 90 years ago, but still, the casual approach to the violence is unsettling.
Monty J wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "As for the testimony as to the man driving the car, the witness wasn´t able to identify correctly the car´s color."Actually there were two who said it was a man driving, Michaeli..."
I -- like most modern audiences -- first read GATSBY at a time when the average woman drives regularly. But how likely was it for a woman to drive in the 1920s? My understanding also was that cars were far more difficult to operate than they were now. Jordan drives but Jordan is also very "masculine" in her hobbies. I suppose there's the scene with Daisy behind the wheel of her "white roadster" but really, Daisy likely has never cooked a meal for herself so it does seem odd that Nick would believe she chose to drive a strange car after a major emotional scene.
But Nick not only believes Daisy was driving he believes that Daisy sticks with this story for months, even with Tom (who doesn't appear to be lying when he confronts Nick and still insists that Gatsby was driving).
Daisy couldn't even look Tom in the eye and say she never loved him. But she can look him in the eye and say she wasn't responsible for Myrtle's death?
Stephen wrote: "so it does seem odd that Nick would believe she chose to drive a strange car after a major emotional scene."Now that you mention it, there was an exchange between Tom and Gatsby over whether Gatsby's car was a "standard shift." Standardization of automobile controls in the 1920s was in its infancy; so driving a different make of car could present substantial barriers, especially to someone accustomed to being chauffeured around, particularly in city traffic.
If Daisy werecomfortable driving, why didn't she drive to Nick's to meet Gatsby instead of being chauffeured by "Ferdie," then have to worry about him being nosey.
Stephen: "Daisy couldn't even look Tom in the eye and say she never loved him. But she can look him in the eye and say she wasn't responsible for Myrtle's death? "
Excellent observation.
Stephen wrote;"I get that it's 90 years ago, but still, the casual approach to the violence is unsettling."
It is. I find Nick so interesting because he does witness this, does nothing, and is so conflicted about it. But he continues to hang on.
Yes . Also, the novel could not have been written as it was, without Nick's immense passivity. He barely bats an eyelash at anything. I think this is just the mechanics of the book.
Christine wrote: "Yes . Also, the novel could not have been written as it was, without Nick's immense passivity. He barely bats an eyelash at anything. I think this is just the mechanics of the book."Nick's passivity ends when he arranges for his cousin to have an affair. This is risky because he could earn the wrath of the violent and powerful Tom.
Yes, that is true, but even when he is arranging the affair he is so completely detached. It does not seem to occur to him that it is 'wrong'. This is the deliciousness of the book -- its lack of moral judgement.
Christine wrote: "Yes, that is true, but even when he is arranging the affair he is so completely detached. It does not seem to occur to him that it is 'wrong'. This is the deliciousness of the book -- its lack of m..."Yes!
Christine wrote: "...its lack of moral judgement. "Moral vacuum. The only redeeming character is Michaelis, who became Wilson's caretaker in time of need. Pammy's innocence stands out like gleaming crystal.
Stephen wrote: "Upon a recent re-reading of GATSBY, it occurred to me how much I -- and most readers -- take for gospel the narration of events from Nick Carraway. It's not simply that he's an unreliable narrator ..."your conclusion as to Nick's alleged naivete is flawed. He sizes up Jordan quite early in the friendship and recognizes her to be a pathological liar. He recognizes Jay's lies about running around Europe buying up jewels. In fact,there is nothing to substantiate your claim to his lying about Daisy driving the car. Throughout the first half of the novel, repeatedly we are reminded as to how badly
Jay lies and how savvy Nick is and yet you are convinced as to his guilt. Those attending Jay's galas parrot countless hypothetical conjectures as to Jay's true identity and past as he has been so unconvincing.
Plus the fact that Daisy and Tom disappear immediately after murder hints at her complicity.Tom would have no reason to disappear. He is not criminally liable for Jay's death.
No,if Jay had lied to Nick about his complicity, he would have stammered the falsehood in the same manner he lied about his years in Europe.
If we were to accept guilt on Jay's part,Nick's indictment would have amounted to naught.The entire line about their careless smashing of other people's lives would have had no meaning and the social critique directed to their class would be of negligible import.
Geoffrey wrote;"If we were to accept guilt on Jay's part,Nick's indictment would have amounted to naught.The entire line about their careless smashing of other people's lives would have had no meaning and the social critique directed to their class would be of negligible import."
This above quote is key- and the argument for Daisy driving the car. If anyone disputes this, then why was that line written.
Geoffrey wrote: "Tom would have no reason to disappear."Uh, except to get his family safely away from a madman (Wilson) who'd come to his home with a gun.
Whose intent was to murder the man who killed his wife. But Tom steered him in the right direction now, didn't he? After Wilson left Tom's house for Jay's mansion, what did he have cause to fear? /
Geoffrey wrote: "Whose intent was to murder the man who killed his wife. But Tom steered him in the right direction now, didn't he? After Wilson left Tom's house for Jay's mansion, what did he have cause to fear? ..."
He had no idea when Wilson would return. The safe thing was to skedaddle. I'd have done the same.
Prove it- you can't.
There was no danger to him. He had convinced Wilson of Jay's "guilt"
Geoffrey wrote: "There was no danger to him. He had convinced Wilson of Jay's "guilt""Wilson knew Tom was connected with Gatsby, the owner of the yellow car that killed his wife. Having been at Wilson's garage just after the accident, Tom knew he was extremely upset. The next day Wilson shows up at his door and pushes his way past the butler and up the stairs with a gun in his pocket, demanding to know who it was that owned the car.
I'd have no problem at all giving him Gatsby's name, since I believed (and do) that Gatsby ran over Myrtle and kept going. Then I'd hightail it with my family to a safe place in case Wilson returned for more information if he didn't find Gatsby.
Tom made no effort convincing Wilson who the driver was. At the scene, all he did was make clear that the yellow car he'd been seen in earlier was not his. He did NOT mention Gatsby's name. That's why Wilson showed up at Tom's mansion, to find out who owned the car, to get the name. There's no indication Tom did anything at his house more than cough up Gatsby's name as the yellow car's owner. This is far from trying to convince Wilson Gatsby drove the car.
But Wilson was dead. We have no way of knowing how long it took from the time Tom pointed him in Gatsby's direction to the time he shot Gatsby and himself, but I would think, considering he was on a crazed madman mission -- it took but a few minutes.
It is reasonable to speculate that Tom left after Wilson was dead.
Christine wrote: "We have no way of knowing how long it took from the time Tom pointed him in Gatsby's direction to the time he shot Gatsby and himself, but I would think, considering he was on a crazed madman mission -- it took but a few minutes. "The Buchanans lived in East Egg. Gatsby's mansion was in West Egg. Wilson was on foot. It would have taken a minimum of 3 hours unless he hitched a ride.
I am new to this site but have been a follower for a while. I much appreciate the discussion and all the contribution. It was a pleasure reading it.
I am so relieved that I was not alone in thinking that Gatsby's innocence in Myrtle's death was not as clear as assumed at first. After reading the book, I watched the film (2013 one) and it shows Tom inciting Wilson to go after Gatsby . Obviously, this made it a more practicable and circularly tidy end for the viewer (despite the film also showing a more out of control Gatsby at the Plaza Hotel rendezvous, which would have supported him in a likely state to drive over someone accidentally) but a big deviation from the book. At the end o the day, I think we are all left to our own devices in terms of whether or not to see Nick as gullible or perceptive and, based on that assessment, take his word as gospel.
Hann--UK wrote: "I am so relieved that I was not alone in thinking that Gatsby's innocence in Myrtle's death was not as clear as assumed at first. After reading the book, I watched the film (2013 one) and it shows ..."Nice to see someone reading the novel deeply and questioning the Hollywood-ization of Fitzgerald's work.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Nick believes that Daisy killed Myrtle Wilson because Gatsby tells him so, and in fact, Nick actually jumps to the conclusion first.
"“Who was the woman?” he inquired.
“Her name was Wilson. Her husband owns the garage. How the devil did it happen?”
“Well, I tried to swing the wheel ——” He broke off, and suddenly I guessed at the truth.
“Was Daisy driving?”
“Yes,” he said after a moment, “but of course I’ll say I was. You see, when we left New York she was very nervous and she thought it would steady her to drive — and this woman rushed out at us just as we were passing a car coming the other way."
We believe (as does Nick) that Gatsby hesitates because he's reluctant to implicate Daisy but *why* do we believe this? We don't even see (through Nick's eyes) Daisy in the driver's seat of Gatsby's car at any point. Obviously, no eye witnesses of the accident claim to have seen a woman behind the wheel. And if Gatsby's intent was to take the blame for the accident, why not stop the car immediately?
Gatsby's recount of events seems to fall apart upon examination. First off, cars were not as simple to drive in the 1920s than they are now. We know Daisy had a "white roadster" as a girl, but that doesn't translate into her being able to drive Gatsby's "circus wagon" or, more critically, actually believing that driving it would "steady her."
But our own gender biases perhaps allows us, like Nick, to swallow the idea that it's *Daisy* who is a nervous wreck after leaving the Plaza Hotel rather than Gatsby, whose entire reason for living had just collapsed around him. Nick himself paints a picture of a Daisy who is "withdrawing" into herself. That also matches her mood when he observes her with Tom later that night.... after we're to believe she knows she's killed someone.
Gatsby also claims he's skulking about Daisy's house because he's worried Tom will give her trouble over the "unpleasantness" at the hotel (presumably the revelation of their affair). But while we and Nick know Tom is a violent brute, he is actually remarkably calm after his triumph in exposing Gatsby.
Fitzgerald is very economical with his words in GATSBY. So it's worth examining every scene for clues and foreshadowing. In Chapter One, Daisy says she's heard Nick is "engaged" from "three people," so it must be "true." Nick dismisses it as "libel" and "gossip," but he will later accuse Daisy of homicide on just the word of *one* person. When Nick confronts Tom about Gatsby's death, Tom shows no indication of believing that Myrtle was killed by anyone *but* Gatsby. Daisy could have lied to him, of course, but is she such a master criminal that she didn't break down in front of him in the many weeks after Myrtle's death?
There's also the elephant in the room of Gatsby's criminal career. Modern readers might think that alone would be the reason for Daisy to choose to stay with Tom. But within the context of the times, Fitzgerald didn't have to make Gatsby a bootlegger (and potentially worse) to render his pursuit of Daisy impossible. Gatsby is viewed as a "curiosity" but no one in Daisy's "old money" world accepts him. The Sloanes's dismissal of him in Chapter 6 highlights this. Fitzgerald could have made Gatsby an honest entrepreneur -- a starker contrast to Tom, who inherited his money but did so honestly -- and the overall conflict would have remained the same.
But we learn that Gatsby is a *criminal*. Does Fitzgerald do this to make us question Gatsby's word even if Nick doesn't? Criminals lie, and Gatsby has a pattern of distorting the truth. Fitzgerald also spends a great deal of time introducing us to Meyer Wolfsheim -- he gets almost as much space as the Wilsons! And we have good reason to believe Wolfsheim is a dangerous man -- one who now has his affairs being looked into by a powerful player like Tom Buchanan because of Gatsby's indiscretion.
But we again believe Nick's account that Wilson killed Gatsby.
"The chauffeur — he was one of Wolfsheim’s proteges — heard the shots — afterward he could only say that he hadn’t thought anything much about them. I drove from the station directly to Gatsby’s house and my rushing anxiously up the front steps was the first thing that alarmed any one. But they knew then, I firmly believe. With scarcely a word said, four of us, the chauffeur, butler, gardener, and I, hurried down to the pool."
Again: Why does Fitzgerald remind us again that Gatsby's household is now staffed by criminals? Gatsby fires his legitimate staff and replaces them with Wolfsheim's people to avoid "gossip" (we often interpret that in the benign sense that they are too "loyal' to gossip but it also means that they are "crooked" enough to lie about what they see happening around them). Also, Wolfsheim installs them *after* Tom begins his investigation into Gatsby and perhaps gets too close for comfort.
We presume that Wilson had murder in his heart because Nick assumes it. It's a likely story and, yes, we also don't *see* one of Wolfsheim's men kill Gatsby and then kill Wilson, who might have witnessed it. We don't see Gatsby's murder firsthand at all but there is the Chekhov's gun of Tom's investigation into Gatsby.
“Don’t you call me ‘old sport’!” cried Tom. Gatsby said nothing. “Walter could have you up on the betting laws too, but Wolfsheim scared him into shutting his mouth.”
That unfamiliar yet recognizable look was back again in Gatsby’s face.
“That drug-store business was just small change,” continued Tom slowly, “but you’ve got something on now that Walter’s afraid to tell me about.”
Again: Fitzgerald reminds us that the guy who wears human molars as cufflinks is dangerous. How do you keep a rich prominent guy from digging into your criminal dealings because he's pissed that one of your guys is running around with his wife? Well, you get rid of the guy.
We can accept Nick Carraway's account as gospel *or* we can concede that there is no conclusive evidence that his more romantic account is true at all.
It's a complexity that seems deliberate and it seems like Fitzgerald never got the credit for it.