Analyzing the title

[Theodosia of the Fathomless Hall]

I loved Nick ;). He was rather likable, despite not being very well fleshed-out.
Good point "at first" is right! Maybe tricky--On the subject of Gatsby, despite not being too bad a person actually, he would like it that way.

[Kelsey]

Karen wrote: "Christine wrote: "Of course Jay Gatsby is great! He is a rags to riches transformation, the American Dream."

By any means necessary? He didn't earn his money by honesty. The title is the trick of ..."

I agree with this Karen! The whole novel is talking of the so called "American Dream" but if one reads closely, you'll see that what Fitzgerald was really getting at was the fact that the American Dream is a grandiose falsehood. It can be achieved, but at what costs? And can everybody achieve it? I always believed that Fitzgerald was critiquing the American Dream, and did so through the ironic character of the great Jay Gatsby.

[Karen]

Kelsey wrote: "Karen wrote: "Christine wrote: "Of course Jay Gatsby is great! He is a rags to riches transformation, the American Dream."

By any means necessary? He didn't earn his money by honesty. The title is..."

Yep- and the falsehood attached to wealth

[Geoffrey]

And yet there are so many people who do earn their superwealth by honest means.

[Leslie]

Geoffrey wrote: "And yet there are so many people who do earn their superwealth by honest means."

Oh there's a challenge...name one... ;)

[mkfs]

Warren Buffet?

I just finished reading JR, which is a much more scathing (and many times more funny) indictment of the American Dream.

Instead of a young solider returning from the war, it's an eleven-year-old boy trying to create a financial empire, and dragging many of his dysfunctional schoolteachers with him.

[Dawn]

I don't think the title is being ironic at all. Greatness is relative, and in the novel, in Nick's world, Gatsby achieved 'greatness' by holding fast to a romantic ideal; the most obvious being the dogged pursuit and absolute loyalty to one woman, however much she did not deserve it, but more importantly to the romantic notion that one could recapture the losses of the past through sheer willpower and almost a childlike, innocent, faith in the world and in other people.

[Karen]

Dawn wrote: "I don't think the title is being ironic at all. Greatness is relative, and in the novel, in Nick's world, Gatsby achieved 'greatness' by holding fast to a romantic ideal; the most obvious being th..."

I think the irony of the title could be that Gatsby, rather than being great himself, achieved his wealth through illegal means, pursued Daisy no matter the cost (she was married) and no matter what we think of Tom, it was sleazy. His pursuit of her was more of a childish obsession rather than love.

[Dawn]

Karen wrote: "Dawn wrote: "I don't think the title is being ironic at all. Greatness is relative, and in the novel, in Nick's world, Gatsby achieved 'greatness' by holding fast to a romantic ideal; the most obv..."

While an individual reader may see it that way, I think in Nick's eyes, while Gatsby represented everything Nick normally abhorred, Gatsby redeemed himself through his romantic idealism which ultimately led to his death.

With only Nick's point of view as a reference, Fitzgerald seems to want the reader to understand that Gatsby, in the end, achieved both redemption and honor--something that no other person within that circle of wealth/society achieved. I see the ending as Nick pointing out that it was Gatsby's chasing after a false ideal, by whatever means necessary, that brought him down, yet it was his own sense of idealism and innocence that elevated him.

[Karen]

Dawn wrote: "Karen wrote: "Dawn wrote: "I don't think the title is being ironic at all. Greatness is relative, and in the novel, in Nick's world, Gatsby achieved 'greatness' by holding fast to a romantic ideal..."

I never said I disagreed with you on that take, only that I don't think Daisy was less deserving than Gatsby-both were unsavory people. If you're interested you can look at my review.

[Geoffrey]

Karen
I agree. There was no irony in intent. It's that as reader we don't buy into Jay's greatness and see unintended irony in the title. This has been one of my major complaints about the book in that SF's own moral code is a bit suspect.

[Dawn]

Karen wrote: "Dawn wrote: "Karen wrote: "Dawn wrote: "I don't think the title is being ironic at all. Greatness is relative, and in the novel, in Nick's world, Gatsby achieved 'greatness' by holding fast to a r..."

Karen,

I liked your review; very thoughtful. You make a lot of good points. It's always been one of my favorite books as well and I've always found the friendship between Gatsby and Nick interesting. Co-dependent? I don't know. Do they feed off of each other to an extent? Yes; but, I see Nick more as a spectator, never fully engaging but yet unable to completely disengage himself from Gatsby's world until Gatsby’s death; sort of entranced yet repulsed. It seems like Fitzgerald sets Gatsby up as the antihero and it appears to be reflected in the way Nick never fully condemns Gatsby at the end; the others, yes--Daisy and Tom most definitely-- but not Gatsby, not entirely.

[Gary]

There was a real air of flippancy in the era that Fitzgerald was describing. I think some of that tone could very well be in the title regarding his use of "Great."

But like a lot of that 20's affected disdain it masks a whole undercurrent of very serious social dynamics. Take Daisy's description of what she wants for her daughter: "And I hope she'll be a fool – that's the best thing a girl can be in this world, a beautiful little fool."

Calling misguided parvenu Jay Gatsby "great" is ironic... but it has a core meaning behind the irony that Nick states outright when he tells Gatsby that he's "better than the whole bunch." Gatsby's greatness is in his heroic nature, and heroic nature always comes with a fatal flaw.

[Karen]

Dawn wrote; "Karen,

I liked your review; very thoughtful. You make a lot of good points. It's always been one of my favorite books as well and I've always found the friendship between Gatsby and Nick interesting. Co-dependent? I don't know. Do they feed off of each other to an extent? Yes; but, I see Nick more as a spectator, never fully engaging but yet unable to completely disengage himself from Gatsby's world until Gatsby’s death; sort of entranced yet repulsed. It seems like Fitzgerald sets Gatsby up as the antihero and it appears to be reflected in the way Nick never fully condemns Gatsby at the end; the others, yes--Daisy and Tom most definitely-- but not Gatsby, not entirely."

Yes I agree, and I see Nick as both a spectator and engaging, and thank you for the compliment. The Gatsby-Nick relationship is so interesting to me that I can read it again and again, the only way to tell this story and make it fascinating.