The Great Gatsby
discussion
What Was The Purpose of McKee?
Here's a brief character summary from this blog: https://crossref-it.info/textguide/th...Chester McKee
Nick’s first description of Mr McKee notes that he is a ‘pale feminine man from the flat below’. He is married to Lucille McKee and is in the ‘artistic game’, which is revealed as his work as a photographer. He is also asking for Tom’s support to develop his business: ‘All I ask is that they should give me a start.’
As with his relationship with George, Tom seems to mock the attempts to make money by these poorer men, and he deflects Mr McKee’s request by suggesting that Myrtle should help him. Tom’s suggestion insults her too, but this is not noted by anyone, apart from Catherine redirecting attention to the theme of unhappy marriages.
Mr McKee leaves the party with Nick and the brief ensuing episode has gained critical attention as a possible homosexual liaison, although the references are indirect, being based on innuendo. This has prompted some critics to question the representation of sexuality elsewhere in the novel, notably with reference to Nick, Jordan, Catherine and Gatsby.
Geoffrey wrote: "Why, if Nick is writing this book, bothering to put this confessional in the novel. It doesn't add anything to the story. Or does it? Confirmation on his latent homosexuality? SF's attempt to undermine Nick's adoration of a scumbag who may be the hero of aspiring upwardly mobile American readers?But why would Nick write this in? The narrator and author are working at cross purposes in including this scene."In response, here's a quotation from my own blog: https://www.wattpad.com/58007976-gay-...
Part of Nick's job as an unreliable narrator is to infect the reader with his clouded vision so Gatsby would personify the seduction that lurks beneath material success--a pattern that keeps repeating itself. "So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past."
Given the strictures against homosexuality of Fitzgerald's milieu, the two scenes with homoerotic overtones—Nick's encounters with McKee and later a train conductor--throb with relevance toward the book's main theme of corruption.
On the heels of such sexually charged and controversial novels as DH Lawrence's The Rainbow (1915) and the confiscation by US Customs and banning of James Joyce's Ulysses (1922) for obscenity and the publishing of TS Eliot's elegy "The Wasteland" (1922), it is highly doubtful that someone as accomplished as Scott Fitzgerald would plant two vaguely homo-erotic scenes without a clear purpose. That Fitzgerald dealt with homosexuality in significant detail in his next novel, Tender is the Night is evidence of his more than passing interest in the subject.
...Nick Carraway personifies the clouded vision inherent in wealth envy. Nick's corruption and Jay Gatsby’s narcissism and greed provide the subtle layering Fitzgerald alluded to in his letter to editor Max Perkins. The novel is like a prism. Turn it one way and it is a rags-to-riches romantic tragedy with Gatsby as the hero. Flip it a few degrees and it’s a cautionary tale about the dark shadow that follows the American Dream, with Nick as the main character.
In summary, Nick's sexual ambiguity makes him the ideal unreliable narrator--a pair of rose colored glasses through which Gatsby, representing the grandiose dream of material success, is viewed. McKee's main purpose is to cast doubt on Nick's character and make the reader question his grandiose assessment of Jay Gatsby.
Thank you Monty. We are in agreement about your last paragraph. I wasn't going to answer out of cowardice as then I would be marked at the center of the archer's target.The dilemma for SF was twofold. First to write a novel obliquely critical of the rampant materialism of the 20's and its Horatio Alger myth, the second his homosexuality in an age extremely intolerant of its persistent presence.
As SF was no political idealogue such as Upton Sinclair or even the milder liberal of almost the same name Sinclair Lewis, he was not capable of writing a novel that addressed social ills at its foreground. SF was astute enough to sense the growing malaise of the get rich quick American adoration of wealth and its attendant "American Dream" of upwardly mobility. He, himself, although upwardly mobile, was never fully accepted to the society he sought, most probably for the several reason arising from his own deficient character. He was married to a very unstable woman, was a lush and a closet homosexual. Little wonder he was so disillusioned by that dream.
I believe no one has noted the strange diction both SF's characters use and his own. This is a recurring problem for me in the novel. When Daisy speaks of her daughter's future, she employs the words "sophisticated" and "fool". my conjecture is that she fully expects her daughter to follow in suit to the mother and marry a philanderer like Tom.When Nick breaks up with the Jordan, their angry conversation is hardly relevant to the real issue of the breakup. Jordan accuses him of being dishonest and his response misses the mark and clearly reveals their speaking at cross purposes.
There is considerable conversation spoken in code as when Nick first meets with Daisy and she talks about the butler's nose and when Tom hesitates in discussing their Nordic ancestries.
And then there's the orgiastic future. Give me a break. Where does kinky sex come into the equatio_ This is but an example of SF's attempt at sensationalizing his own narrative.
'
Monty J wrote: "Here's a brief character summary from this blog: https://crossref-it.info/textguide/th...Chester McKee
Nick’s first description of Mr McKee notes that he is a ‘pale feminine ma..."
And keep in mind that the Jordan woman is androgynous in appearance. which raises the question as to why he is breaking up with her. Was he not particularly attracted to her in the first place and is bailing out of a relationship that was hardly satisfying to his dream of an "orgiastic" future? Was he just getting ready to cut all his ties to the east and return to the mid west.? Or was he so disgusted having been played the patsy by her to reunite Daisy and Jay that he didn't want anything more to do with her? I suspect all three were factors to his motives but which was ascendant?
Geoffrey wrote: "...arising from his own deficient character. Well said overall, but I am a bit more sympathetic toward Fitzgerald as a person. He didn't ask to be born the way he was or choose his parents. He played his DNA/heritiage cards the best he could and did amazingly well. He had a brilliant mind, a gift for writing and wanted to be admired by the world the way his mother admired him. He created a novel that we're still talking about a hundred years later.
Geoffrey wrote: "He was married to a very unstable woman, was a lush and a closet homosexual..."What evidence do we have that Fitzgerald was gay?
Geoffrey wrote: " Was he just getting ready to cut all his ties to the east and return to the mid west?"I think this was it. It mimics what Fitzgerald himself did after a stint in New York writing ad copy. New York city was likely a brutal experience for a naive, innocent young college dropout from the midwest. He gave it up and went back west. Mommy let him come home, and he wrote a highly successful first novel, This Side of Paradise.
Scott's personal experience in NY was most likely the source of the TGG's west-east culture theme. East = sophistication/corruption. West = naivete/innocence. But the East Egg/old money (the Buchanans) vs West Egg/New Money (Gatsby) seems to contradict the corruption/innocence paradigm because Gatsby's "new" money was gained by criminal means. So the east/west theme gets convoluted.
At the end of the book, Nick directly addresses the East-West theme (IX, 184):
I see now that this has been a story of the West, after all--Tom and Gatsby, Daisy and Jordan and I, were all Westerners, and perhaps we possessed some deficiency in common which made us subtly unadaptable to Eastern life.In a nostalgic aside, Nick portrays the "middle west" as an idyllic place of his innocent youth--long snowy winters, sleigh bells, holly wreaths, stable neighborhoods. During his summer in the East Nick encountered corruption at every turn, so he gave up and headed home--west, where he felt more comfortable."
Christine wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "He was married to a very unstable woman, was a lush and a closet homosexual..."What evidence do we have that Fitzgerald was gay?"
Hemingways statement of commiseration to SF as to his sexual identity.
Christine wrote: "What evidence do we have that Fitzgerald was gay?"I would say virtually "none," but if you mean bisexual, we have a large body of circumstantial evidence (people have been convicted on less) such as the time he posed very convincingly made-up as a woman for Princeton's school newspaper. That alone is of course insufficient, but enough to raise eyebrows. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZzCA...
Caveat: we cannot, of course, actually "know" unless Fitzgerald admits it, which never happened.
It's a composite of what he wrote, what he did and what others close to him have said. The clincher for me was what Hemingway wrote in his diary right after reading The Great Gatsby:
“When I had finished the book I knew that no matter what Scott did, nor how he behaved, I must know it was like a sickness and be of any help I could to him and try to be a good friend.Hemingway should have been raving about the book, not expressing grave concern for the author. Given the context, that response can only mean that he picked up on Nick's gayness and attributed it to Scott himself.
Hemingway was very close to Fitzgerald during his Paris years--a confidante. Here's a conversation Hemingway relates in his memoir, A Moveable Feast that takes place in a Paris restaurant, Michaud's
[Scott] “Zelda said that the way I was built I could never make any woman happy and that was what upset her originally. She said it was a matter of measurements. I have never felt the same since she said that and I have to know truly.”Hemingway goes on to say the size "in repose" isn't what's important. Fitzgerald's invitation seems like a come-on. I know I wouldn't invite another male to render an opinion on my genitalia, no matter how close we were. But what a pick-up line to use in a bar (should one be so inclined.)
“Come out to the office,” I said.
“Where is the office?”
“Le water,” I said. [le water is the men's room]
We came back into the room and sat down at the table.
“You’re perfectly fine,” I said. “You are O.K. There’s nothing wrong with you. You look at yourself from above and you look foreshortened. Go over to the Louvre and look at the people in the statues and then go home and look at yourself in the mirror in profile.
“Those statues may not be accurate.”
“They are pretty good. Most people would settle for them.”
So, two citations, straight from a friend and confidante to add to the pile of comments already made here on Goodreads.
We will never know conclusively, and it would take time to build an exhaustive case. But suggestion upon suggestion ad infinitum tells us if Fitzgerald wasn't bisexual, he certainly had a great interest in homosexuality.
The real issue is whether we need to know an author's sexuality to enjoy or appreciate his work. As far as TGG goes, I don't really care very much. It's interesting background, but I don't need to know it to understand or appreciate the novel. If Fitzgerald were gay, I would still have enjoyed the book. What matters is how real the characters feel to me.
For a fuller treatment of the topic of Nick Carraway's gayness, here's a link to my Wattpad.com essay on the subject that's earned over 60,000 hits and ranks in the top 0.5 percent of all nonfiction on the site: https://www.wattpad.com/story/1885462...
Geoffrey wrote: "And then there's the orgiastic future. Give me a break. Where does kinky sex come into the equatio_ This is but an example of SF's attempt at sensationalizing his own narrative."I didn't accept the sexual connotations of the term, but thanks for making me think about it from that angle. I agree with the Cambridge Dictionary, "An orgiastic activity involves wild, uncontrolled behaviour and feelings of great pleasure and excitement." Webster has similar synonyms*
Let's turn again to the full quote (IX, 189):
Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgastic future that year by year recedes before us. It eluded us then, but that's no matter--tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms farther. ...And one fine morning---Here the book ends with another (of many) references to time.
So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.
With Gatsby's pursuit of Daisy, he was living out of a desire to recreate a happy past. With the wealth he had attained, he assumed that he had earned the right to have her, even though she was married and his wealth was illegally attained, revealing poor character on his part. His corrupt behavior eventually led to the loss of Daisy and death.
If we all followed Gatsby's example we'd be going in circles, unable to live in the present, and ultimately fail.
It's okay to have a dream, even an obsession, as long as it's a healthy one. Gatsby's proved to be otherwise. Maybe that's the moral to the story: be careful how you manage your dreams.
*debauched, wild, riotous, wanton, abandoned, dissolute, depraved, bacchanalian, Bacchic, saturnalian, Dionysiac, Dionysian - a place remarkable for its wild parties and orgiastic festivals.
Orgastic is likely a neologism mixture of orgiastic and orgasmic.
Monty J wrote: "I would say virtually "none," but if you mean bisexual, we have a large body of circumstantial evidence (people have been conv..."Thanks Monty! Interesting links and analysis. I had never seen that picture of FSF in drag. (Not an absolute indication that he would be bi or gay, as I have seen straight men dress as women for Halloween, or for the movies, but still interesting, and enough to raise some questions...)
I agree that in relation to the work itself, it does not matter about FSF's sexual preferences... BUT, it also to me seems pretty likely that he was trying to express an idea of bisexuality or homosexuality in Nick. And maybe in Jordan too.
Monty J wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "Why, if Nick is writing this book, bothering to put this confessional in the novel. It doesn't add anything to the story. Or does it? Confirmation on his latent homosexuality? SF's..."Your response begs the question. We know why SF put those scenes in the book, but considering that it is Nick who is doing the writing, why would he admit to homosexuality. He is writing this a year or two after the murder of Jay. Is he planning on publishing the book? Or is he just trying to make sense of this terrible summer in Eggland?If he has no plans to publishing the book then he has nothing to worry about.
Another thing, Monty. If it's so conclusive that it was Jay behind the wheel, why didn't the inquest resolve that? There is conflicting testimony as the Greek couldn't get the color of the car right and he said the car was travelling 30 to 40 mph. The well dressed Negro added 20 miles to that speed.
Geoffrey wrote: "Your response begs the question. (Etc., see below)"Good points. I will take them in order.
We know why SF put those scenes in the book, but considering that it is Nick who is doing the writing, why would he admit to homosexuality. He is writing this a year or two after the murder of Jay. Is he planning on publishing the book? Or is he just trying to make sense of this terrible summer in Eggland?If he has no plans to publishing the book then he has nothing to worry about.
It is puzzling why Nick would be so forthcoming about himself unless he's merely writing a journal or diary for self benefit, trying to make sense of something that had deeply affected him. As every Catholic knows, there's something cleansing about confession. Here, Nick is confessing to himself these intimate details about his private life. Plus, a diary is the one place where a closeted gay person can be entirely honest about him/herself without fear of consequences.
There's no indication in the text that I recall that indicates an intent to publish. In truth, I think it's the godlike hand of Fitzgerald the author, using Nick as a narrative tool. Nick is, after all, a fictional character, not a real person. Perhaps Fitzgerald failed to consider this angle.
"Another thing, Monty. If it's so conclusive that it was Jay behind the wheel, why didn't the inquest resolve that? There is conflicting testimony as the Greek couldn't get the color of the car right and he said the car was travelling 30 to 40 mph. The well dressed Negro added 20 miles to that speed."
It must be assumed that Michaelis ("the Greek") testified at the inquest consistently with what he said at the accident scene--that it was man behind the wheel and didn't/couldn't identify the driver, so the investigators had nothing else to go on. They went looking for a green car owned by a male. True to his nurturing nature, Michaelis was the first person to reach Myrtle's mangled body, further traumatizing himself, and trauma has a solidifying effect on memory.
Michaelis' testimony that it was a man driving was backed up by the cop, who had interviewed Wilson, who also said it was a man.
The increase in the car's speed would be the consequence of "flooring it" after the crash, in Gatsby's words, except it was he who sped up the car, not Daisy, to escape getting caught.
I see the testimony of Michaelis and "the negro" as complimentary, not conflicting. And getting the color slightly wrong in dim light doesn't bother me. The street lights had probably come on, and artificial light can do strange things with colors. The text established that the seat covers were green and it was an open roadster. That particular model of Rolls Royce was a cream color, not bright yellow, and the street light bouncing off the grey of the ash heaps mixed with the green seat covers could account for the mixup. Blue and yellow make green.
Here's Nick's actual description of the car (IV, 68):
“a rich cream color, bright with nickel, swollen here and there in its monstrous length with triumphant hat-boxes and supper-boxes and tool-boxes, and terraced with a labyrinth of wind-shields that mirrored a dozen suns.”
People can see colors differently. (For example, colors look slightly different to me when I close one eye.)
Another thing that bothers me about Gatsby is the way Nick allows himself to be used by him. By confessing to Nick that he was even in the car when it hit Myrtle made Nick an accessory after the fact to murder. That Nick didn't report what he knew makes him a criminal too. At least Nick had the good sense not to accept Gatsby's proposals to work for him, which would have mean jail time for certain.
Christine wrote: "Thanks Monty! Interesting links and analysis."You're welcome. It's a pleasure anytime I get to dig deeper into this great novel.
Monty J wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "Your response begs the question. (Etc., see below)"Good points. I will take them in order.
We know why SF put those scenes in the book, but considering that it is Nick who is do..."
you wouldn't be able to see seat covers from outside when the seats are inside. Again, why didn't the inquest identify Jay. He was dead by the time of the inquest. Anyone afraid of retribution would have no worry.
And so despite the fact that they were paying attention to the fleeing Myrtle chasing after the green or yellow car with green seat covers they would not have been able to see in a roadster that was travelling at 30 or 60 mph, they were able to ascertain that the driver was a man in the fraction of a second that the car passed wilson's garage. Hardly likely. Women usually didn't drive cars in 1922. that's why their assumption was it was a man. But Daisy was pretty plucky wasn't she? anyway, we could go back and forth on this on this one forever, monty. You don't do seances, do you. We could conjure up perkins or SF.
Geoffrey wrote: "...you wouldn't be able to see seat covers from outside when the seats are inside."The car was a roadster, a convertible, obviously driven with the top down on such a hot day. You'd have to be quite short not to be able to see inside a convertible, even from a distance. Plus, the cafe and garage apron where Michaelis and Wilson were standing would logically be elevated a few feet above the road, allowing an even better angle. Plus, earlier that afternoon, Michaelis could have gotten a close-up view inside the car when it stopped at Wilson's for gas, and that green interior stuck in his mind.
In any event, the blending of colors I mentioned explains the confusion over color. The ambient light was after sundown, typically with a blue hue, and the surrounding terrain of grey ash heaps would also be in the blue spectrum. The street light could have had a blue hue if it was gas. The car was a cream color, practically neutral, not bright yellow. Blue and yellow make green. People can get confused about color in dim light. Here's Nick's initial description of the car: (IV, 68)
“a rich cream color, bright with nickel, swollen here and there in its monstrous length with triumphant hat-boxes and supper-boxes and tool-boxes, and terraced with a labyrinth of wind-shields that mirrored a dozen suns.”But the real issue is not car color; it's the gender of the driver. Wilson and Michaelis were reliable, successful, sober businessmen with no reason to lie and no history of lying, whereas Gatsby had several motives to lie about who was driving and had lied to Nick on other occasions about his personal history. Plus he was a swindler that consorted with a mobster. How can anyone take Gatsby's word against reliable witnesses?
"...why didn't the inquest identify Jay. He was dead by the time of the inquest. Anyone afraid of retribution would have no worry."
I thought I addressed that. The investigators went looking for a damaged green car. No one identified the driver until Tom fingered Gatsby to Wilson, who was dead within a couple of hours of finding out.
Two other people could have fingered Gatsby had they been observant--the taxi driver who took Gatsby home from the Buchanan's garden that night and the cop, if it was the same motorcycle cop who stopped Gatsby's car earlier in the novel. They knew Gatsby had a yellow car because it was used for ferrying partygoers to and from the train station, as was the taxi. But the newspapers said a green car.
The green interiors stuck in his mind but the color of its exterior did not. I doubt it Monty.
No one is questioning Wilson or Michaelis's honesty. We are questioning their observance. Again, the assumption in 1922 would have been that the driver was a male as so few women were behind the wheel. A car speeding by at fifty miles per hour when the eyes were upon the fleeing woman would hardly reveal the gender of its driver at its wheel.Cafes were not raised in garages. Cite evidence to the contrary. But that is still a moot point as the car was travelling to fast to identify its occupants. And wasn't the car serviced at Wilson's garage. Why wouldn't either man know Jay.
Regarding who was driving, the real question is -- do we believe that Jay was "noble" enough to take the fall for Daisy? The assumption is that in his obsessive love for Daisy, he fully intended to save her by falsely claiming that he had been driving. OR -- if we think Jay was driving -- after all his finagling to GET Daisy in the first place -- would Jay have coldly dismissed her off to jail?
But if we believe Jay was driving, the assumed "lie" he tells Nick gets WAY too complicated...
This involves more (bizarre!) finagling on Jay's part. His story would then be this:
"I was really driving, but I will allow a brief leak to Nick that Daisy was actually driving, so Nick will get the idea of Daisy driving.... then I will tell Nick that I am willing to lie that I was driving so that Nick thinks I am a good guy taking a fall for Daisy (or something like that...) "
By this line of reasoning, Jay thinks that the inquest would somehow sympathize with him through his lie (which was actually true) that he was driving, but really Daisy was driving, but Jay was lying to take the fall for Daisy...
So then the inquest would think that Jay was a good guy and let him go free and Daisy would get jail time. Thus Jay's dream of marrying Daisy would be sunk. Unless of course part of the plan was that Tom would divorce Daisy -- now a jailbird -- and Jay is free to marry her... (Not likely. Tom's $$ millions would have bailed Daisy out in a heartbeat. She would never do time. Jay, a savvy gangster, obviously knows this.) Hmmm.
Also the testimony of the Greek and Wilson would have to agree that Daisy was driving and Jay was trying to cover for her. Which FSF tells us it does NOT.
Nah, too complicated. I think Daisy was driving.
spot on, Catherine.
Geoffrey wrote: No one is questioning Wilson or Michaelis's honesty. We are questioning their observance.Michaelis's sworn testimony backs up Wilson's observance, and he was subject to questioning at the hearing. No one found a hole in it. Getting the color slightly wrong is easily explained, therefore leaving the rest of their testimony intact.
Besides, I'll take the observance of two honest, reliable, hardworking businessmen over rich Gatsby's proven dishonesty and multiple motives to lie. Why readers are so willing to take the word of a proven lying swindler over honest successful businessmen is beyond my comprehension. Did Gatsby throw dust in their/your eyes too? More likely, they/you accept Nick's inflated vision of Gatsby and forget that he's just another flawed character, one with a supercharged imagination.
Fitzgerald said he wanted to write "something extraordinary and beautiful and simple and intricately patterned." Intricately patterned means paying close attention, especially to dashes and ellipses, like when Nick was with McKee and when Gatsby agreed Daisy was driving.
Geoffrey wrote: "Again, the assumption in 1922 would have been that the driver was a male as so few women were behind the wheel."
All the more reason for people to notice if it was a woman driving if that were true, and no one did. One-hundred percent of eyewitnesses said it was a man. Not one backed up Gatsby.
Geoffrey wrote: "A car speeding by at fifty miles per hour when the eyes were upon the fleeing woman would hardly reveal the gender of its driver at its wheel.."
Not fifty at the scene. You seem to be forgetting what you said in an earlier post about the car doing 30-40 mph when it hit Myrtle and only later it was seen going 50-60, (supported by Gatsby's comment about "flooring it.")
Geoffrey wrote: "Cafes were not raised in garages. Cite evidence to the contrary."
What?? No one said that.
What I said was both structures would likely have been elevated. You made the assumption that witnesses couldn't see into the car well enough to see the upholstery. It is more likely that they could because building codes universally (except maybe in the Arizona desert) require living quarters to be built on raised ground to prevent seepage and mold. (Happy to research New York building codes if you insist.)
Geoffrey wrote:" But that is still a moot point as the car was travelling to fast to identify its occupants."
Redundant. See above answer.
Geoffrey wrote: "And wasn't the car serviced at Wilson's garage. Why wouldn't either man know Jay."
Interesting thought. First, it isn't in the text that Gatsby traded at Wilson's garage. But Tom did, and he was driving Gatsby's car earlier that day on the way to the Plaza when he stopped at Wilson's for gas, which is when Myrtle got a look at Daisy, connecting her with the yellow car.
Besides, Gatsby's chauffeur probably handled car servicing.
Christine wrote: "...would Jay have coldly dismissed her off to jail?."Of course he would. Better her than him. Gatsby could not afford to attract attention of the law because of his crooked dealings. The bond scam was in full swing. Long court appearances would mean being unavailable for phone calls, particularly from "Chicago."
It's one thing for Gatsby to say he would take the rap for Daisy, but actually doing it is another matter. In the moment, he looked heroic to Nick, whom he had been grooming for months to sell his illicit bonds. But it was an empty promise with little chance of being tested.
Besides, what had Gatsby ever done for Daisy? He told Nick in reflecting on five years prior that he "was surprised to find he loved her," but to our knowledge had never said those words to Daisy, nor had he bought her any expensive gifts, as Tom had, even when they met for the first time in five years. Okay, he bought a lot of flowers and had Nick's lawn mowed and let her wallow in his shirts. Big deal, nothing of significant or lasting value. Not even a small memento. Daisy was to be his trophy, not someone to cherish.
Christine wrote: "...then I will tell Nick that I am willing to lie that I was driving so that Nick thinks I am a good guy taking a fall for Daisy (or something like that...) "
It was Nick who offered the idea that Daisy was driving, not Gatsby. Gatsby merely went along with it. The idea might not have even occurred to him otherwise.
Christine wrote: "I think Daisy was driving."
She was a bag of nerves after the Plaza confrontation. The last thing she would do would be to get behind the wheel of an unfamiliar car with standard shift. Gatsby's assertion that she drove "to settle her nerves" was as laughable as the time he said San Francisco was in the Midwest or that he had toured Europe looking for rubies.
In the text, the last time we see her driving is when she was 18. If Daisy were comfortable driving, why did she have the chauffeur "Ferdie" drive her when she met Gatsby at Nick's place? Tom was not to know about the meeting. "Don't bring Tom," Nick had said. "Who's Tom?" she replied. So she knew it was to be a secret meeting, all the more reason to drive herself if she could do so. Instead, she was chauffeured, prompting Nick to make that silly joke about gasoline and Ferdie's nose, code for "this is to be a confidential matter."
Monty J wrote: " First, it isn't in the text that Gatsby traded at Wilson's garage. But Tom did, and he was driving Gatsby's car earlier that day on the way to the Plaza when he stopped at Wilson's for gas, which is when Myrtle got a look at Daisy, connecting her with the yellow car. ..."No -- it was actually JORDAN that Myrtle got a look at -- remember Nick and Jordan were in the yellow car with Tom. Myrtle would never have seen Daisy nor Gatsby, but it does not matter -- it was the car she was after, associating it with Tom from when he had stopped earlier for gas. But this further makes the point that no one could see who was driving.
Monty J wrote: "It was Nick who offered the idea that Daisy was driving, not Gatsby. Gatsby merely went along with it. The idea might not have even occurred to him otherwise.l..."Not true. It was first GATSBY who blurted out that he tried to swing the wheel:
"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..."
Swing the wheel is up for interpretation. More specifically "tried to" swing the wheel -- because if he was driving he COULD have definitely swung the wheel.
I still think it is an elaborate, 6th dimensional chess game of a lie for Gatsby to have thought up to make up a story of Daisy driving. I think he was too distraught to think that far.
Monty J wrote: "She was a bag of nerves after the Plaza confrontation. The last thing she would do would be to get behind the wheel of an unfamiliar car with standard shift. Gatsby's assertion that she drove "to settle her nerves" was as laughable as the time he said San Francisco was in the Midwest or that he had toured Europe looking for rubies. ..."Yes, that is all true, but also Daisy was a neurotic, unpredictable live wire -- who knows what she would do next? I could see her insisting upon driving.
BUT, as I said before, I think the whole question is whether or not we believe there is any chivalry or nobility in Gatsby -- whether or not we can believe he truly loved Daisy and would take the fall for her. I know you don't Monty, haha! But most readers do.
It gets down to whether or not this novel has any true romance in it.
But consider this: If Gatsby just wanted some "trophy wife" and Daisy did not matter to him in the least, why did he go to such outrageous lengths to get her?? How do you explain it? If any rich woman would do, why did he not go for some other rich woman, whom he surely would have been able to lure with his $$millions? I mean, his parties were full of smarmy rich women. He could have nailed Jordan for that matter. Why Daisy? I say because he loved her.
Monty J wrote: "Besides, what had Gatsby ever done for Daisy? He told Nick in reflecting on five years prior that he "was surprised to find he loved her," but to our knowledge had never said those words to Daisy, nor had he bought her any expensive gifts, as Tom had,..."OK Monty, I have to take this on! First of all GATSBY WAS POOR!! Of course he could not afford expensive gifts for Daisy when they first met!! But when he acquired the money, he did everything to impress her -- the massive roses, the elaborate tea meeting, his insistence upon showing her his house.
Gatsby rose up the ranks in any way possible in order to impress and win Daisy.
If he did not love her, he would not have been so terribly nervous at the tea meeting -- remember he almost cancelled it and Nick had to talk him into staying. He is described as having circles under his eyes -- he had not slept for worry about Daisy's reaction.
We do not see the new courtship of Daisy and Gatsby, so we do not know if he gave her any elaborate gifts. But he offered her marriage.
I agree with you that in the end, Daisy chose Tom because it was obviously safer to choose the stability of Tom's "old money" than it would have been to get involved in Gatsby's gangster-thug life. Daisy figured that out. But I think it does not diminish the fact that Gatsby really loved Daisy.
I think part of the novel's unwavering popularity is that it asks the (very troubling!) question -- How far should one go for love?
Along with this -- the equally troubling question -- if one has been denied the American Dream, is it okay to get involved in gangster-thug life to obtain it?
In Gatsby's case, he risked everything, rose to the top, then lost everything. But I still say it is about love -- irrational, obsessive love.
Christine wrote: "Monty J wrote: " First, it isn't in the text that Gatsby traded at Wilson's garage. But Tom did, and he was driving Gatsby's car earlier that day on the way to the Plaza when he stopped at Wilson's..."Right about Jordan, but I don't accept your conclusion about the wheel swinging.
"I tried to swing the wheel." sounds like what anyone would say who was driving and failed to steer safely away from a crash. Sure, he/they tried, but he/they failed.
The incident was complicated by an oncoming car. "This woman rushed out at us just as we were passing a car coming the other way. ...at first Daisy turned away from her, but she lost her nerve and turned back." Replace "she" with "I" and you have Gatsby's outright admission of guilt.
Christine wrote: " why did he go to such outrageous lengths to get her?"Please tell me what outrageous lengths Gatsby went to for Daisy, or for that matter, anyone.
The parties were part of a criminal enterprise, not to "solely to attract Daisy," a myth asserted by Harold Bloom and perpetrated by academia. The flimsy basis for that preposterous idea is a single offhand speculation by Jordan.
He says he "bought" (probably rented) a place directly across the bay from Daisy's, but that could have been a mere coincidence. He simply wrote checks. He didn't build it.
Christine wrote: "But when he acquired the money, he did everything to impress her -- the massive roses, the elaborate tea meeting, his insistence upon showing her his house. "
Everything to impress her?? A room full of flowers set him back, what, $500, whereas Tom bought her a $5 million necklace. Gatsby showed her his house and shirts? That's no better than Tom bragging to Nick about his mansion, "I've got a nice place here," he said, his eyes flashing about restlessly." (I, 12)
"I think part of the novel's unwavering popularity is that it asks the (very troubling!) question -- How far should one go for love?"
...Along with this -- the equally troubling question -- if one has been denied the American Dream, is it okay to get involved in gangster-thug life to obtain it?
What?? Why is that even worth even a millisecond of hesitation? Is corruption so ingrained in American society that we would contemplate the disgrace of a criminal lifestyle?! Blackening the family name for future generations? Please tell me that Bernard Madoff and his ilk are aberrations and not role models!
I don't know about you, but my family name is not for sale at any price.
Actually, now that I think about it, the novel DOES fleetingly pose the unstated question, from Daisy's perspective, of whether to partner-up with a criminal. And it's a question she answers without hesitation, on the spot at the Plaza. When Tom exposes Gatsby as a common criminal, she immediately pulls back from him.
The meaning of the novel reverberates in Daisy's rejection of corruption.
Could lit be that Daisy instinctively understood that a criminal mind is incapable of loving. Obsession, yes, but anyone capable of stealing people's life savings has not a fraction of the empathy and self-sacrifice that love entails.
Christine wrote: "Monty J wrote: "She was a bag of nerves after the Plaza confrontation. The last thing she would do would be to get behind the wheel of an unfamiliar car with standard shift. Gatsby's assertion that..."And I agree .why he could have made a play for Jordan. But then he had had a real love affair with this young woman who represented his ideal of conviviality. Having gone through a tortuous war and under constant danger, memories of his affair would have been the
beam of green light to cherish when the bullets whizzed over his head. She would have been his beacon of light throughout the worst time of his life.
No, he was obsessively, blindly, in love with her. And yes, she would have been a trophy wife, but something many forget, is that we human beings are psychologically complex and quite often do things out of multiple motives.
You're padding the bill, Monty. The necklace did not cost $5 m. where in the world did you get that? As for buying the place, if it was Wolfies men then it was probably W. doing the rent as well. Who knows what Jay's cut was. The bond sounded like a three way transaction
Geoffrey wrote: "You're padding the bill, Monty. The necklace did not cost $5 m. where in the world did you get that? As for buying the place, if it was Wolfies men then it was probably W. doing the rent as well. W..."Exaggeration is not my style. It's actually $7,580,306.03, according to the web site that does inflation calcs (inflating $350K from 1917, when the baubles were bought, to 2019 at a average annual rate of 3.06%. (Earlier had used 1922, but 1917 is the correct date.):
https://www.dollartimes.com/inflation...
Early in the novel, Nick states the place rented for $15,000 a month. Later Gatsby says he "bought it" because it was directly across the bay from Daisy. (The problem with a liar is once you know they've lied to you, you never know when to believe them (sort of like today's Trumpov.)
I'm sure Wolfie was involved in acquiring the mansion, as it and the parties were key in the success of the bond scam.
Geoffrey wrote: "No, he was obsessively, blindly, in love with her."I'm sure we will agree that being "in love" is not the same as loving someone. We've been talking about two different things.
"In love" is a state of temporary insanity triggered by overstimulated hormones. Loving someone is truly caring about their wellbeing.
No one in this novel, nor any other story by Scott Fitzgerald that I have read, exhibits the capacity for love like you would see in say, Wuthering Heights or Jane Eyre for example.
Gatsby had a superficial obsession triggered by Daisy's "voice full of money." This, I suspect, Fitzgerald was very familiar with, judging from his works that I have read. Fitzgera'd's doppleganger, Amory Blaine in This Side of Paradise, had a series of affairs with beautiful young debutantes. Scott pursued them in real life, eventually marrying one, Zelda--who as we well know was the basis for Daisy--after being spurned by another, Ginevra King, for William Mitchell, a wealthy Chicagoan.
So, if you want to say Gatsby was madly, obsessively "in love," I agree, but Gatsby never loved anyone but himself. If he truly cared about Daisy he'd have asked Nick how happy she was with Tom before approaching her.
But no, it was all about what Gatsby wanted. And his comment about her "voice full of money" makes me wonder if his interest had something to do with the bond scam and access to Tom and his friends' fortunes.
Geoffrey wrote: "No, he was obsessively, blindly, in love with her. And yes, she would have been a trophy wife, but something many forget, is that we human beings are psychologically complex and quite often do things out of multiple motives...."Spot on, Geoffrey, my take too. I especially like how you add "psychologically complex". Yes, humans have several motivations!
Jordan could have been a great trophy wife too, without the messy complications of Tom and Pammy. So we just can't get past it. The obsessive, irrational, complicated love he had for Daisy.
Monty J wrote: "What?? Why is that even worth even a millisecond of hesitation? Is corruption so ingrained in American society that we would contemplate the disgrace of a criminal lifestyle?!..."Well, corruption is pretty far ingrained in American society. Not into everyone, but into those that are in power. If it were not so, we would never have had the crash of 2008, nor the Great Depression, nor the rise of the Mafia, nor the steady maintenance of the 1%.
I am NOT saying that it is good or right, just saying that IT IS.
I am also saying that it typically fascinates Americans. Hence the popularity of Gatsby, The Godfather, Goodfellas, etc.
And yes, it leads to a bad end -- hence Gatsby's bad end. But it still fascinates people.
I think we have to consider Gatsby's life. A poor North Dakota farm boy who did everything he could to improve himself. (Remember the list of self improvement?) With all good intentions, he goes to work for Dan Cody -- only to be jilted out of a $25,000 inheritance by the gold digging Ella Kaye. Joins the army, serves his country nobly -- even gets some medals and a chance to study at Oxford. But returns to New York City so poor he has literally only the army uniform on his back. Then he runs into Wolfsheim.
The American consciousness has a soft spot for that sort of jilted anti-hero. And most readers do sympathize with Gatsby. So yes, I do think they are legitimate questions raised by this book.
Monty J wrote: "No one in this novel, nor any other story by Scott Fitzgerald that I have read, exhibits the capacity for love like you would see in say, Wuthering Heights or Jane Eyre for example...."Well now, if we want to make a comparison with Heathcliff, I'd say there is a direct one to be made!
A poor Gypsy boy is adopted into a wealthy family. He does everything he can to improve himself. But then he is jilted out of his inheritance by his evil step brother. Heathcliff then pursues a life of crime and corruption in order to win back the estate, at the same time pursuing Cathy, whom he can never have. He ruins many lives in the process.
It is the same kind of obsessive, Gatsby-esque love.
Christine wrote: "Well now, if we want to make a comparison with Heathcliff, I'd say there is a direct one to be made!"There are similarities, but an enormous difference. Heathcliff died of a broken heart. Gatsby died as a direct result of his corrupt way of living after his "love" rejected him for being a crook.
But I'll accept that there is a thread of cultural sickness in American society that makes heroes of corrupt power-craving protagonists. Programs like The Sopranos and Deadwood turn my stomach. I never watched more than a small piece of either. I saw The Godfather and never went back for a sequel. What the hell is wrong with people!
And that's precisely what I think Fitzgerald was saying with The Great Gatsby.
Christine wrote: "The American consciousness has a soft spot for that sort of jilted anti-hero. And most readers do sympathize with Gatsby. So yes, I do think they are legitimate questions raised by this book."It's this misplaced sympathy that both fascinates and worries me because I've seen evidence that the full truth of the novel has been deliberately suppressed, by Hollywood and by academia, by people with a vested interest in keeping people ignorant and naive.
Wall Street needs individual investors to be trusting and gullible, just as Nick was trusting and naive, even blind toward Gatsby's corruption. A film that properly showed Gatsby's criminality would make people wary of Wall Street, therefore Fitzgerald's plot and characters had to be massaged.
Four films have been made of TGG and not one has told the truth about his bond scam, a truth that Fitzgerald put right there in plain sight. The Slagel scene erased. Why? It was one of the most important scenes in the novel because it proved what Tom said about Gatsby, that he was in on a swindle to steal money from widows and orphans by selling worthless bonds.
I take exception to the last sentence, Monty. The bonds wouldn't have been in the purchaser's names, so their worth would be the same if stolen.
Geoffrey wrote: "I take exception to the last sentence, Monty. The bonds wouldn't have been in the purchaser's names, so their worth would be the same if stolen."The term "widows and orphans" is meant as an ironic euphemism. Bonds are regarded in the securities industry of which I was once connected professionally, as primarily the domain of "widows and orphans" because it was considered low risk and boring in comparison to stocks and commodities.
The fact is, that trust departments and estate managers (who controlled the vast majority of investments on behalf of widows and orphans) preferred bonds because they could buy them and essentially forget them except for periodically clipping the interest coupons for redemption.
But yes, it makes no sense to steal or counterfeit anything but "bearer bonds" (bonds not made out or endorsed in the name of a particular holder). Whoever hands them "over the counter" (or sells them to another investor) can receive cash for them.
(There is no registered owner's name printed on the face of a bearer bond, allowing interest and principal to be paid without hesitation to anyone tendering a bond certificate.)
From Investopedia:
Bearer bonds have historically been the financial instrument of choice for money launderers, tax evaders and others trying to conceal business transactions.
...In one famous case in the late 1920s, German banks backed by provincial governments and the government of Prussia issued tens of millions of dollars in bearer bonds, ostensibly as part of a program to improve Germany's agricultural sector. The bonds were to mature in 1958 and were payable in New York, but to this day neither the interest nor the principal has been paid.
But your explanation still begs the question. You've successfully evaded the question as to how widows and orphans would be cheated.How were the bonds worthless?
you're assuming the bonds to be worthless. Even if these were the bogus German bonds, how were they worthless in 1922?We only know them to be worthless because they couldn't be reimbursed in 1958. They could and were sold many times before that date.
Geoffrey wrote: "But your explanation still begs the question. You've successfully evaded the question as to how widows and orphans would be cheated.How were the bonds worthless?"
Counterfeit or stolen bonds, when presented for redemption, would not be paid because the serial numbers would be checked against a list of "hot" (stolen) items.
If a "small-town" bank's trust department bought Gatsby's bonds, Gatsby would get paid, but when the department submitted interest coupons for redemption, they would not be paid. And the widow/orphan would go hungry and get evicted.
Here's the citation from the text:
Young Parke's in trouble . . . They picked him up when he handed the bonds over the counter. They got a circular from New York giving 'em the numbers just five minutes before.The "circular from New York giving 'em the numbers" refers to a list of stolen or counterfeit securities. The standard practice for most banks' trust departments (or securities firm or transfer agents) is to maintain such a list and add to it as such notices are received. Anything new incoming would be checked against the hot list unless it was from a known and trusted source.
Monty J wrote: "the full truth of the novel has been deliberately suppressed, by Hollywood and by academia, by people with a vested interest in keeping people ignorant and naive. ..."I agree! Not only with Gatsby, but with many other issues, there is a vested interest in keeping people ignorant.
Probably most folks don't understand enough about bonds or the financial world, to pick up on the truth about Gatsby's bond scheme.
Most folks think Gatsby earned his money through bootlegging. Most folks think bootlegging is not that bad of a crime. This is because Prohibition was a dumb law that did not work. So most Americans think bootlegging is OK. Also, everybody in TGG is drinking all the time, even though booze is illegal. Someone has to be supplying them. (Of course, if Gatsby had made his entire fortune through bootlegging, he would be like the Pablo Escobar of alcohol. But still, folks think this is OK.)
The bond scheme angle of the story is important, and it was necessary that Nick be a bond salesman. Otherwise SF could have given Nick any occupation.
Monty J wrote: "Four films have been made of TGG and not one has told the truth about his bond scam, a truth that Fitzgerald put right there in plain sight. The Slagel scene erased. ..."
Monty, have you seen this one?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK226...
Watch on youtube for free. It is a 2000 made for TV. They DO included the Slagel scene and address the bond scheme. If you watch it, I am curious to know what you think! (Hint -- they still have Nick's loyalties with Gatsby, despite everything...)
Christine wrote: "Probably most folks don't understand enough about bonds or the financial world, to pick up on the truth about Gatsby's bond scheme. Most folks think Gatsby earned his money through bootlegging. Most folks think bootlegging is not that bad of a crime. This is because Prohibition was a dumb law that did not work. So most Americans think bootlegging is OK. Also, everybody in TGG is drinking all the time, even though booze is illegal. Someone has to be supplying them. (Of course, if Gatsby had made his entire fortune through bootlegging, he would be like the Pablo Escobar of alcohol. But still, folks think this is OK.)
The bond scheme angle of the story is important, and it was necessary that Nick be a bond salesman. Otherwise SF could have given Nick any occupation."
Fully agree. The most important aspect of the novel has been carefully removed from essentially all the film versions and the mainstream of academia. This is no accident.
"have you seen this one?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK226... "
Yes, the Slagel phone call is there! Finally! And the film does make the bond scam more prominent, but I would have liked Nick to reflect briefly on the widows and orphans that financed Gatsby's opulent lifestyle.
It's great to see the book more honestly reflected on screen. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
I got the strong impression that the Slagel deal was a new development and that no transactions had as of yet been initiated but were about to be. As for the 350,000 dollar necklace, Jay would not have been to come anywhere close to matching it. He was but a front man with a bit of pocket change. Wolfsheim more than likely paid rent on the mansion and the salaries for his henchman at the house.
Geoffrey wrote: "I got the strong impression that the Slagel deal was a new development and that no transactions had as of yet been initiated but were about to be."I had that feeling too, until I reflected on some of the phone calls from Chicago, one of which (during Daisy's first visit to his mansion) entailed Gatsby reprimanding someone (V, 99):
"...I said a small town. ...He must know what a small town is. ...Well, he's no use to us if Detroit is his idea of a small town."The implication here is that a salesman had either gone to Detroit to sell bonds or proposed going there.
"As for the 350,000 dollar necklace, Jay would not have been to come anywhere close to matching it. He was but a front man with a bit of pocket change."
Very possibly.
"Wolfsheim more than likely paid rent on the mansion and the salaries for his henchman at the house. "
Yes, Gatsby deferred heavily to Wolfsheim. He even ferried Nick downtown to meet him so Wolfsheim could size him up as a potential candidate for the sales team, and it was Wolfie who chose the mansion staff, a family of rough characters, after Daisy was in hand and the parties had stopped.
The parties are clearly intended for sales prospecting, as Nick noted during his first event, and the observation by the owl-eyed man in Gatsby's library that the books hadn't been read and that "most people were brought" supports the notion that the library was merely there to impress people. (It, too, could have been rented, along with the furniture.)
Shutting down the parties meant the sales team had prospects running out their ears. There would have logically been two classes of customers, small banks and high net worth individuals. The sales effort had been underway since before Nick's first party.
By the time of his affair with Daisy, the rent on Gatsby's mansion was probably about to expire. It had served its purpose--to attract "casual moths." This "moths to the flame" symbolism carries a sinister suggestion that Gatsby's guests were intended victims.
And who knows if only the bonds were marketed. Perhaps stolen jewelry and cars would be sold on the black market to these upper class fence enablers.Come one, come all. Jay has a lot up for sale.
But Jay probably persuaded Wolfie in setting up the fence in Eggland because he had the antsy to meet up with Daisy.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
"And let's discuss McKee. What is the purpose of this? Is this but an oblique effort on SF's part to expunge his homosexual guilt. Why, if Nick is writing this book, bothering to put this confessional in the novel. It doesn't add anything to the story. Or does it? Confirmation on his latent homosexuality? SF's attempt to undermine Nick's adoration of a scumbag who may be the hero of aspiring upwardly mobile American readers?But why would Nick write this in? The narrator and author are working at cross purposes in including this scene.
"