Bright Young Things discussion
Group Reads Archive
>
The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald (Moderator's Choice Jan & Feb 2017)
Mod
Is there anything in your own life that you'd want to go back and change?
I think there's a point in the story when Nick tells Jay that he and repeat what has past and Jay says that of course you can.
What do you think?
You can't change what happened. Even if you think you have changed, the odds are that you are wrong. Because you cannot substantially change what is inside of you. We all try to change or evolve, but no one really changes all that much.I always hope I've changed or adapted to situations but I probably haven't really moved the bar that much.
We all have things in our past that we like to change usually the missed opportunities to maximise our potential. Hindsight can be a curse as well as a stimulus to make the future what we want it to be.The first things I'd change are the negative things, a bit the premise of the TV programme 'My name is Earl' where he tries to balance karma.
If we change those things in the past, would we be happier the answer is we don't know, for instance I could have married Miss X but that may have turned out to be a terrible decision. So I tend not to worry about stuff like that.
Would I have met my partner? We have actually discussed this, as on the face of it, we would not have been the people we are now as life does change us and we would not have been at the same places so it is doubtful we would have met. But maybe fate intervenes?
Anyway, we are where we are. We need to shape our lives best we can and those things which we have no control over learn to accept and deal with the way the suits who we are.
Do we change, yes we evolve and adapt as Jan said.I believe we can change to be the polar opposite, all it requires are a particular set of circumstances. People change their political/religious beliefs isn't that apart of who we are?
We are moulded by our surroundings and experiences. The very strong willed or those with power change their surroundings to suit who they are.
Most people do this by choosing their circle of friends or join local clubs where common interests are shared, so in that way our personal world is built around ourselves.
Going full circle, is the narrative style about Nick's self-exploration of who he is and where he fits in by as Ally said by creating his own moral compass .I have yet to read the whole book I wonder if he changes through his experiences.
A quick prelude - I've had to edit my recent posts, I was using my phone and I find it difficult to write a cohesive narrative and there is no edit facility either. Back to the book.We've now met Tom's 'Myrtle', who it seems is nothing quite like Daisy and is a social climber. She uses Tom for her own ends it seems. Her husband is aware of her and Tom's relationship but it submissive to the high ranking Tom, does Mr Wilson really care for Myrtle, what will he do about the 'broken nose' plus the two black eyes that always come with. Nothing is my guess.
Tom treats her as a guilty pleasure, love I think isn't a word Tom is used to and wouldn't use it in reference to Myrtle. She is the object Tom shouldn't have so he wants it. If both were single Tom wouldn't marry her nor would his peers allow it. Tom we know is a bully but so is Myrtle, she knew Tom's crumble button 'Daisy' which she shouted and continued to shout pressing the button until she got a reaction. Was that the reaction she expected or needed to see? She can now control him.
Why did Tom react so, was frustration that he has a weakness or that he feels trapped in a relationship he no longer needs or wants or simply protection of Daisy - I'll wait and see.
The party at Gatsby's, is Gatsby a loner or a people watcher (we all do that whether in coffee shops or waiting for a train or where ever). Is he just judging where he fits in and with whom.
The summer months from Nick centre on the parties and alcohol fueled meetings. The car crash outside Gatsby's where the driver/occupants were unaware of the crash, at first I though really as if....then I recalled being knocked over by a taxi and thinking I'd only slipped....yes I'd had more than a small sherry that evening and the taxi had more damage than me. So yes it can happen I suppose.
Chapter 4 awaits.
Mod
I always saw Myrtle as a victim. Of Tom, but also of life, of class and money, of domestic drudgery. I can't bring myself to blame her for being dazzled by someone like Tom who shows an interest, who blows fairy dust onto a dull and mundane existence and who offers, if not a way out, at least some distraction. To maintain his interest leads her to hyperbole, panic, jealousy and clinginess.
Tom, equally, seems to lust after escape but comes at it from another direction. He wants to 'slum it' for a while to escape the restrictions of his own class and the expectations on him. He seems restricted by expectation and acts out in disgraceful ways, not least of all in relation to another female 'victim', his wife. I'd almost say that if he had 'free reign' he would possibly choose to end up with Myrtle...if his was a different life. She represents a sort of Freedom to him and is also a little needy...she needs him and that is intoxicating. Daisy doesn't seem to need him.
I wonder how our other members see Tom & Myrtle ???
Tom is someone who plays around because he can, and, as noted above, is careless. Including that he doesn't care who he walks over or uses, but he won't do it with someone of his class. Only with waitresses or other people supposedly from the other side of the tracks. Not someone he would normally mix with.Myrtle, not too bright, believes the things that Tom says, probably believes she can get Tom to leave Daisy (much like Gatsby believes Daisy will leave Tom). Otherwise why would she run toward the speeding car?
A lesson in not mixing of the classes.
Yes there is a lot of class issues here. Ally referred to them, indeed all of us are trapped within our social class with little choice and as a result we are all victims.I'm not convinced by Tom & Myrtle's relationship. The first question I asked myself was, are they running towards each other? It didn't seem so. Therefore it was more likely they are running away from their spouses or lifestyle. For Tom it is very much on his terms can and will probably drop Myrtle when a new infatuation comes along. For Myrtle is it Tom she 'loves' or what Tom provides, so if Tom was a garage owner would she feel the same about him? No I guess as that is not 'her' American Dream.
It's small book and so I attached significance to everything written, why else are we told such things. I guess we rank the significance of the evets Nick's narrative differently. Our own personal life and experiences makes us form those views and opinions so no wonder we gather and rank the same information differently.
Why did Myrtle want a puppy and where is it? Was it a test for Tom.
I've not got to the part why Myrtle run's headlong towards a car, I shall look forward to it, was it done because she lost her love or her dream?
Mod
Dwelling on Tom a little more...
Nick's description of Tom is of a "sturdy, straw-haired man of thirty with a rather hard mouth and a supercilious manner. Two shining, arrogant eyes had established dominance over his face, and gave him the appearance of always leaning aggressively forward … you could see a great pack of muscle shifting when his shoulder moved under his thin coat. It was a body capable of enormous leverage—a cruel body."
It's safe to say, therefore, that Nick doesn't like him. BUT...Nick is not an objective narrator. He is a family member of Daisy's who seems to be enthralled - Jordan tells us "If he left the room for a minute she'd look around uneasily, and say: "Where's Tom gone?" and wear the most abstracted expression until she saw him coming in the door. She used to sit on the sand with his head in her lap by the hour, rubbing her fingers over his eyes and looking at him with unfathomable delight." - Nick may be afraid for his cousin. Tom has too much power over her (...over everyone?). Nick is also fairly fond of Gatsby and may therefore support his pursuit of Daisy.
So, if Nick is not a reliable narrator the we probably need to think a little more about Tom.
The fact that he has 'old money' and lots of it gives him a real sense of self-worth and entitlement which manifests itself in outrageous behaviour that most readers (and the narrator) find totally unacceptable. His sense of superiority over everyone in the whole cast list is obvious but he's unlikely to see anything wrong with this - he doesn't have the self-awareness needed for that kind of analysis. He plays games and usually wins, not just because of his money and social standing but also because of his sportsman physique (wasn't he an American Football player?).
With all of that in mind, isn't it an affront to Tom that Daisy has a past, that Gatsby presents a challenge. With Tom it seems to be all about ownership and not about any great feeling of love.
Tom's relationship with Myrtle is more complicated. It's definitely still about entitlement. (The way she describes their meeting on a train and being bundled into a taxi is quite disturbing). But she's vivacious and uninhibited...something different to the 'rules' that exist within his own class and status. I do think that this represents a kind of freedom to Tom but accept that its also bound up with his sense of being entitled to whatever he wants.
We have the benefit of knowing our inner selves and therefore judge ourselves more on our intentions than on the outcomes of our behaviours. When we look at others we can't know their motivations, thoughts and feelings. All we see is the outcomes of their behaviours and our judgements are very harsh sometimes as a result. Does Tom know that he's a terrible person? what are his motivations? what are his inner thoughts?
Also - one more thing about Myrtle...it could be argued that both Gatsby and Nick are looking to improve their social class just as Myrtle is but somehow Fitzgerald portrays their dreams of social climbing differently to Myrtles. She is portrayed , as Jan says, as not too bright, as grasping and a little (or a lot) ridiculous. Is this just a reflection of the time the book was written?...why is it 'greedy' for Myrtle to want better but from a place of 'love' when Gatsby does it or 'aspiration' when Nick does it?
I think nobody actually likes Tom, maybe Tom is aware of this. Tom knows right from wrong but entitlement through his background fogs this, such that he justifies any actions.With power, any kind of power, comes responsibility, Tom sees that as being responsible to whom actually? He can always justify his actions to himself.
We have not touched on the fact that Tom dished some serious domestic violence on Myrtle. He should just simply left , leaving her to the life above the garage shop. Instead he no doubt justifies it due to extreme provocation.
Nick did nothing, best not get involved I guess.
At this point I did feel for Myrtle and it is sad that she continues to see Tom, which re-enforces his power and dominance over her.
Daisy does love Tom, but when asking where he is, is she missing him so mistrusting him.
Everybody has aspirations and wants to better themselves. It is our methodology that we question. May I might be a little harsh on Myrtle with my initial thoughts, but felt that she would attach herself to any rich connected man, just happened to be Tom, I do concede as I write that Tom did the 'bungling into the taxi' not Myrtle, and I am seeing Myrtle more of a victim than a opportunist.
On a personal note I've never had to worry about being used by social climbers as I appear to be the polar opposite of Tom!! Maybe that's why I dislike him. Maybe we identify differently with each character.
Mod
Certainly as a literary device that is undoubtedly true.
Unfortunately we do meet Tom's equivalent in real life and they aren't so one-dimensional...what motivates and drives a character like Tom? what are their hopes and fears? and are some people just awful and without redemption? do they know it? - I don't suppose that anyone sets out in life thinking 'I'm going to be awful today' or do they? A character like Tom in this novel does allow us to ponder human nature, its cruel and base elements and our reactions to it.
I think because we meet people like Tom in everyday life, although they not rich, entitled or otherwise, we accept Tom for what he is. Simon & Garfunkel wrote in their work El Condor Pasa 'I'd rather be a hammer than a nail', a cry from those who are down trodden, used and abused.
The 'me' society is more prevalent today, and as globalisation is to be followed by the contractions inwards inside our own countries and the increase of the defence of our borders, and in some cases walls, there will be whole swathes of people consigned to the 'they are not one of us' category and treated as lesser mortals.
Redemption I fear I'd not at hand nor will many seek it until it is too late.
Is there any character trait of Tom we have or would like? Is he really 'all' bad, or has the author through the eyes of Nick closed that possibility.
I'm now halfway through the book for the first time.Jay and Daisy have now met...so I see how Daisy has been unhappy just before her wedding day but somehow came to love Tom and lost that love.
How both Jay & Daisy deal with this I have yet to find out.
As you gather I'm on a journey of discovery with this and my posts are 'in the live' so to speak. So my opinion's well change as I find more out about the characters.
Nick I fear is beginning to feel a sense of loneliness.
I'm with Ally on Myrtle. As for Tom, he is what he is. To society at that time, he wouldn't be seen as being terrible. Even though not everyone shares his views, his ideas, where not that out of place for some. He has position in society.
Is Tom bad? Most of the characters are not particularly likeable, not just Tom.
Tom is just a vehicle, a device. All American stud, wealthy and sporty. A challenge to Gatsby who wasn't born wealthy.
I first read this in high school and loved the prose. I really think you should read it every 5 years because at every point in your life, different scenes will resonate. My favorite "set piece" has to be the glasses in the valley of ashes but...Daisy and the pile of shirts is the scene that I ponder the most. My favorite take on it is that she is overwhelmed by the whole experience and just blurts that out because she doesn't really want them to think she is taking the day that seriously.Also, in the words of my 16 year old son, "that tom guy is a total jerk." When I was in high school, I was more shocked by Tom's nastiness than by his affairs. My English teacher liked us to read about uplifting characters. Also-she said you should always pick a character to see the world of the book through (not the one the author picked) and so I always identify with Gatsby, although Daisy was very popular
Connie wrote: "Nick seems to be both an outsider and voyeuristic. He can't identify with Tom and Daisy Buchanan, or Jordan, but is fascinated with them at first. He's young and doesn't come from their social clas..."This is how I felt. These people simply made him sick - the narcissism and sense of entitlement. They represent the morally retarded.
To add my two cents about Jay vs. Tom, I find myself thinking about the implications of the rivalry often.
Obviously Fitzgerald has a lot to say about what wealth does to the person and to the soul (as all his works allude to), but Gatsby always gets me thinking about the larger implications. Given that "Socialism" is now being discussed rather openly here in the states, it made me think often of the ending of Fitzgerald's first novel, This Side of Paradise, in which Amory Blaine (based on Fitzgerald himself) seems to declare himself a socialist at the end of the novel.
So that being said, our author seemed well aware of Socialism and worked it into one of his works. If we agree there's socialist influence in Paradise does it exist in Gatsby as well?
Jay and Tom and certainly symbolic class struggles against each other, and how the rich (aka Tom) through their determination to stay at the top of society continuously push down those who don't come from their lot in life.
Now this all being said - I'm just bringing it up as a theory, haha. I always consider F. Scott's works in those lenses to see if any new ideas come up there. But this all being said, this novel really was the first novel in my life where I realized what a novel could be. That it was more than just words on a page. Heck, I wouldn't be on this site right now or anywhere I am in life if it weren't for this book.
Obviously Fitzgerald has a lot to say about what wealth does to the person and to the soul (as all his works allude to), but Gatsby always gets me thinking about the larger implications. Given that "Socialism" is now being discussed rather openly here in the states, it made me think often of the ending of Fitzgerald's first novel, This Side of Paradise, in which Amory Blaine (based on Fitzgerald himself) seems to declare himself a socialist at the end of the novel.
So that being said, our author seemed well aware of Socialism and worked it into one of his works. If we agree there's socialist influence in Paradise does it exist in Gatsby as well?
Jay and Tom and certainly symbolic class struggles against each other, and how the rich (aka Tom) through their determination to stay at the top of society continuously push down those who don't come from their lot in life.
Now this all being said - I'm just bringing it up as a theory, haha. I always consider F. Scott's works in those lenses to see if any new ideas come up there. But this all being said, this novel really was the first novel in my life where I realized what a novel could be. That it was more than just words on a page. Heck, I wouldn't be on this site right now or anywhere I am in life if it weren't for this book.
Riley, I really like your words about the novel. I think of Nick as a "reliable narrator" if only because many novels NEED these. If we cannot trust Nick, who can we trust? It Nick sometimes seems voyeuristic, it's because we need all of the details.
I also think that Fitzgerald wants readers to share in Nick's assessments and, in general, to see him as credible. Nick is a part of Daisy's family, yet he's also a bit of an outsider, like Gatsby--they are both midwestern.
Tom and Gatsby are opposites in many ways. If you think of the diversity of the people who go to Gatsby's parties in contrast with Tom's narrow concept of a party: taking Myrtle to a hotel and abandoning her and a puppy after he breaks her nose. Tom reads a book about white supremicism. Tom not only has a cold-hearted affair with Myrtle, he leaves George twisting in the wind about the fate of the blue coupe car he suggests he will sell to him. Tom says that George is "so dumb he doesn't know he's alive".
The novel is almost 100 years old and it's sad that so little has changed in society if you view Tom and Daisy in contrast with the Wilsons.
Mod
Obviously Fitzgerald has a lot to say about what wealth does to the person and to the soul (as all his works allude to), but Gatsby always gets me thinking about the larger implications. Given that "Socialism" is now being discussed rather openly here in the states, it made me think often of the ending of Fitzgerald's first novel, This Side of Paradise, in which Amory Blaine (based on Fitzgerald himself) seems to declare himself a socialist at the end of the novel.
So that being said, our author seemed well aware of Socialism and worked it into one of his works. If we agree there's socialist influence in Paradise does it exist in Gatsby as well?..."
Interesting question. Does it depend on the definition of Socialism?
My initial thoughts are that there is no concept here of any kind of 'redistribution of wealth' or of a need for equality of experience and opportunity for all regardless of class and status. Gatsby has 'made it' in terms of the American Dream and I'm not sure that there is any overt criticism of this in the novel. (...Or is there?). The novel feels very Glamourous and hedonistic in places, Gatsby's position still an aspiration for others to look up to (or down on if you're from 'Old Money').
However, there is a lot of implicit comment, mainly through Nick's moral compass. There is certainly a portrayal of the American Dream as less than Dream Like. Is this perhaps more a criticism of Capitalism rather than being a lesson in Socialism?
I don't know...but this is a good article for those who want to think that question through a little more: http://crossref-it.info/textguide/The...
As a slight aside, you said that Socialism is being openly discussed in America? For our American members...does this feel very different from political debates of years gone by? What do you think is driving those conversations? and how do you feel that it is being received by the wider American public? Also - are there any parallels between this and the types of conversations that might have been had back when Fitzgerald was writing?
...I'm very interested in this subject as it feels like the political centre ground in America is quite a long way to the right of the centre ground here in the UK. For example the UK has the National Health Service (NHS) free at the point of need, paid for through taxes and available from the cradle to the grave and introduced by a Socialist government shortly after WWII. The news I hear from the US is that the Affordable Healthcare introduced by President Obama might be withdrawn by President Trump, which baffles me as someone from the UK.
I have to agree with Ally.This is my first reading of the book and it so far it has centred on the excesses of the well to do and the 'establishment' claiming rites over others.
I recall the during the 1980s that the USSR was being referred to a Socialist in an attempt to align and discredit the UK Labour Party. With what was happening in the USSR, it is debatable where the USSR actually was politically.
I guess the rank and file US and UK citizens would have a different definition of Socialism.
Not agreeing with the establishment or Capitalism does not make you Socialist.
Maybe Riley was referring to the late political campaign for president. One of the candidates, Senator Sanders, is a self-described socialist who was running on the Democratic ticket but didn't get the nomination. He was successful in getting several things on the platform that I guess bordered on socialism - college education without going into debt for the rest of your life. Our current president and Congress look like they want to undo all the good the last president did, especially regarding healthcare. So we're probably going back to the '50s.
Hello everyone,I read this a long time ago. The Marxist interpretation was interesting. I am not sure whether Fitzgerald was a socialist or not. He may have disapproved of the way in which Gatsby rose above his background by crooked means and his lies about it, rather than if he had been successful in an ethical way.
Mod
You do get the impression that Gatsby is dressed like a 1920s prohibition era gangster but maybe that was just the fashion? And there are suggestions of links to crime as mentioned earlier in our discussions with Wolfsheims involvement in fixing the World Series.
The idea of achieving the American Dream via unscrupulous means and whether this is 'deserved' or not is a very interesting question to explore.
I even read an article that compares Gatsby to Al Capone.
However, I can't remember the book dwelling on this aspect that much so is it speculation on the part of other characters? Part and parcel of looking down on 'new money' which is somehow bound to be less respectable.
What do you think...is there enough evidence?
By the end of chapter 6 there is speculation as Ally says but nothing more.The most obvious indication of Gatsby's means is ill gotten is that there is speculation, the fact that none of the well to do or connected know the answer suggests his wealth isn't legal.
As for Gatsby's dress sense, I don't think I'm that far into the book. Did mobsters stand out for their dress sense? Capone & Colosimo, Lansky, Luciano and Seigel all dressed differently. One thing will by true - I bet the clothes were not cheap.
Charlie 'Lucky' Luciano is credited is saying 'There is no such thing as good money or bad money. There is just money'.
There is speculation on Gatsby's wealth yet no one says no to the the parties. Is Luciano right about money.
Is he a gangster? The suggestion is that he is involved in "drug" stores - frequently a place to get alcohol, especially in bootleg/Prohibition days. Plus, there is some question about his "bond" business. As to whether it is legit or not.The money itself doesn't have a conscience or guilt. It is just money. The guilt or innocence as to how it was obtained is in the eye of the beholder.
Mod
When I first read this book I was a teenager. At that time I just read it as a glamourous, decadent, romp through the parties of the rich. I was pretty impressed and I wanted to go to those parties. When I've re-read this book at a slightly older age (I'm now in my late 30s) I'm no longer impressed by those people. I'm actually a little disgusted (...and I worry a little about the values for my younger self!).
We read things differently at different points in our lives. The brutal selfish nature of the novel comes through more now than it did when I first read it.
Mod
Ally wrote: "So was Gatsby a Gangster?You do get the impression that Gatsby is dressed like a 1920s prohibition era gangster but maybe that was just the fashion? And there are suggestions of links to crime as..."
All inference but yes i tis very likely Gatsby is a gangster. If he had made his fortune legally, he would have already been well known .
I've finished the book, this is the first time I've read it, my age...29 (with 19 years experience)!!Well, Gatsby...mobster he was connected to but may have been the 'white collar' financial kind into fraud money laundering etc.
His dress sense may hold more to 'Hey look at me I've made it' rather than a mobster uniform.
He was a lonely character his funeral showed that, but he was calculating and what he wanted he saw no reason why he shouldn't just go out and get it.
Tom too, in the end, was a lonely character he may have had what looks like the full package but emotions were too conflicted with his social status and expectation. Daisy was also lonely.........there seems to be a theme of loneliness throughout this novel basis on the expectations of one's social class.
Myrtle was killed by a tragic accident, following the argument with her husband, did she intend her husband to find the dog leash and collar to force a show down? Otherwise it seems somewhat careless.
Nick is of course the author, was it a critique of the social structure or do we detect a twinge of envy. There is little about social justice or socialism contained in the book, just a pointing finger highlighting how bad and self-centred those 'privileged' people are! As if this doesn't happen in the lower strata of society.
As for the question about Jordan, the author needed a close female friend for Daisy with whom she would confide. The author can use her as a narrator for Daisy. Jordan has to be privileged but independent and trying to have a self-identity which isn't defined by marrying another member of the privileged classes, so therefore single. This provides Nick with a slight love interest knowing that Daisy would be unobtainable.
The question is, what was the intention of the author when this was written and was it achieved, are there other books with achieved that purpose better?
It seems like it was the intention of the author to use many of his own experiences in writing "The Great Gatsby". I read the book Z: A Novel of Zelda Fitzgerald a few years ago, and Zelda would not marry Scott until he had some money and was a success. Like Gatsby, Scott got into a partying lifestyle both in New York City and in Europe. But Scott and Zelda were not happy in spite of the conspicuous consumption. He became an alcoholic and she had mental illness.The book seems to portray the Roaring Twenties/the Jazz Age. It had a fun facade, but did not always bring happiness.
Mod
Mod
I think Gatsby only allows people to see what he wants them to see. We only see a tiny piece of him.Earlier in the novel Gatsby told Nick that he had intended to make his acquitance earlier. He already knew that Nick was involved on Bonds and in the last chapter we find that there was a slightly dubious transaction involving bonds, so was Gatsby being neighbourly to Nick or just lining up a business contact. Yes Gatsby became lonely after leaving Daisy for the first time and I think you are right Ally that he became faceless later.
In an earlier post I wrote that I thought Myrtle wa's a social climber. Now I've finished the novel I find all that Myrtle wanted was the man in her life to be strong and be in control. It was that which she saw in Tom not his money.
Having lost the love of his life does anyone else think Gatsby's actions on his final day that he expected revenge and that he accepted it.
This discussion is A+. To amend my earlier statement, I don't mean to say Fitzgerald was pushing a "redistribute the wealth" statement. I should clarify to mean perhaps it's a harsh critique of capitalism. Fitzgerald, based on his earlier writings, had been a critic of capitalism.
As a slight aside, you said that Socialism is being openly discussed in America? For our American members...does this feel very different from political debates of years gone by?
Discussion of socialism in the states, from my understanding, changed rapidly and was a common discussion point up until the Russian Revolution and certainly became even more criticized as we drove into the Cold War. At the time of Paradise and even to Gatsby, such things could be discussed. From my understanding, the USSR and their tactics in establishing their state really hurt western understanding.
I just think it is interesting to read Gatsby as less of a critique of the American dream, and more of a critique of Capitalism and what it does to people - the very best of human nature. Love, friendship, loyalty, all eroded by the blind pursuit and definition of money.
As a slight aside, you said that Socialism is being openly discussed in America? For our American members...does this feel very different from political debates of years gone by?
Discussion of socialism in the states, from my understanding, changed rapidly and was a common discussion point up until the Russian Revolution and certainly became even more criticized as we drove into the Cold War. At the time of Paradise and even to Gatsby, such things could be discussed. From my understanding, the USSR and their tactics in establishing their state really hurt western understanding.
I just think it is interesting to read Gatsby as less of a critique of the American dream, and more of a critique of Capitalism and what it does to people - the very best of human nature. Love, friendship, loyalty, all eroded by the blind pursuit and definition of money.
Ally wrote: "I did wonder about how much of the book reflected Fitzgerald and Zelda. Does Daisy and/or Jordan have characteristics similar to Zelda?"
Ally, from my understanding Daisy is actually based on Generva King (has she been brought up in this conversation before? I apologize, I haven't checked), a Chicago socialite and heiress whom Fitzgerald was head-over-heels for. She, however, rejected him despite loving him because of his financial standing. It became a staple in his writing and many of his female characters are based off of her.
Ally, from my understanding Daisy is actually based on Generva King (has she been brought up in this conversation before? I apologize, I haven't checked), a Chicago socialite and heiress whom Fitzgerald was head-over-heels for. She, however, rejected him despite loving him because of his financial standing. It became a staple in his writing and many of his female characters are based off of her.
Mod
The issue I'm struggling with is that this book doesn't stand alone. Can what we understand of this novel be derived from the novel itself or does it require understanding of other works or the author's life, if it requires further reading does then the book fail because it is incomplete.
As we are told at school write about what you know, Fitzgerald wrote about his failed love and blamed the establishment. I dare say each character is based on a real person. We know he was not a great success whilst alive, was this to owe much to that.
What do we know of his political views during his life did they change and were they attributable to any or series of events.
I can't help think he wrote out of not out a sense of socialism, capitalism, anti-establishment from a social view point but simply "I've not been able to join their club", so I I'll write about how unfair it is all is.
It's a bit controversial bit but does stand alone as a single piece of powerful literature?
Apologies for butchering her name, haha.
Reportedly she was aware. Her and him met at a bar in 1937 in Los Angeles, and she asked him which character was based on her. He replied "Which bitch do you think you are?"
So there is that story. What a shame. Many aspects of her life came up in his works - mysterious, wealthy women whom reached for what they wanted and then retreated backwards, seeing themselves before family and friends. I've always been fascinated by this subject. She's almost identical to Daisy - and Fitzgerald was possibly projecting how he felt through Gatsby.
He aspired for her, longed for her, changed himself to be with her and make himself more appealing. Yet her father spoke to him some telling words: "Poor boys shouldn't think of marrying rich goals."
Amazing how one line uttered to another may have led to one of the most important works of literature.
Reportedly she was aware. Her and him met at a bar in 1937 in Los Angeles, and she asked him which character was based on her. He replied "Which bitch do you think you are?"
So there is that story. What a shame. Many aspects of her life came up in his works - mysterious, wealthy women whom reached for what they wanted and then retreated backwards, seeing themselves before family and friends. I've always been fascinated by this subject. She's almost identical to Daisy - and Fitzgerald was possibly projecting how he felt through Gatsby.
He aspired for her, longed for her, changed himself to be with her and make himself more appealing. Yet her father spoke to him some telling words: "Poor boys shouldn't think of marrying rich goals."
Amazing how one line uttered to another may have led to one of the most important works of literature.
I think it does stand alone. I believe that we attach what we know of the life Fitzgerald led to this particular novel. He had been a success prior to TGG. His first effort, This Side of Paradise was very successful and put him "on the map". The Beautiful and the Damned was lesser so, but kept him in the spotlight along with his short stories. The Great Gatsby was not successful and began his fading from view....
Michael wrote: "The issue I'm struggling with is that this book doesn't stand alone.
Can what we understand of this novel be derived from the novel itself or does it require understanding of other works or the a..."
This is a great observation. It was the first Fitzgerald I ever read and it blew me away and brought beauty to my life. For me, personally, it stood alone with brilliance. Learning the reality of it's creation and the stories behind it only enhanced it for me.
That being said, it may not be the same case for everyone.
Can what we understand of this novel be derived from the novel itself or does it require understanding of other works or the a..."
This is a great observation. It was the first Fitzgerald I ever read and it blew me away and brought beauty to my life. For me, personally, it stood alone with brilliance. Learning the reality of it's creation and the stories behind it only enhanced it for me.
That being said, it may not be the same case for everyone.
Thank for your comments.For me the novel didn't give any more insight to class divide than I already had.
If I read it in my youth I may have had a different opinion, having said which knowing me as I do I had a grasp of social class divide from an early age.
How does this novel compare with literature on similar topics from around that time or earlier?
Also as this is an American author with American audience in mind does it lack resonance or impact to a UK or other audience ?
Just a thinking out loud.
Mod
The language is stunning and lyrical in placed without ever wandering into 'purple passages' or being unnecessarily ornate. It's a deceptively easy read given the subject matter explored and it works on so many different levels from a superficial reading to one that is more forensic.
For me the action could just have easily taken place in London as in New York just replace West Egg with one of the English Country houses. The themes of class, 'old money' etc. work equally well in British as in US history.
The only character I wonder about is Jordan. What is her importance? what would the book lose if she was not there?
Ally wrote: "For me this book does stand alone. In fact, I'd go as far as to say it's almost a 'perfect' novel. - I'm always impressed with how much nuance is packed into what is a very short novel...the discus..."So agree with your post Ally.
For some reason, I really identify with Nick Carraway. An outsider who became an insider and at the end wished to be outside again....I think Jordan's character was a bit similar to Nick's, being on both the inside and in a way the outside. At the end her grasp on Nick was not tight enough to keep him being on the inside where she decided to stay....It has been such a long time since I've read it. Will need to go back there soon....
Bright Young Things
Books mentioned in this topic
Z: A Novel of Zelda Fitzgerald (other topics)The Great Gatsby (other topics)
To see superiority/inferiority. Hmm? Perhaps this is almost instinctive and how we help ourselves to survive? In the same way that some animals leave their young behind if they think they are weak and the family are under threat. Is what your seeing, experiencing a Trojan horse or a gift? : )