Michaelis - Key to Understanding TGG

[Monty J]

Michaelis’s role in the novel is three-fold:

1) eyewitness to Myrtle’s murder,
2) comforter-adviser to Wilson during his time of grief and
3) narrator concerning Wilson's behavior and activities.

In Michaelis's role as narrator it is essential that the reader trust Michaelis's word because Nick has to. Without Michaelis, Nick would have nothing to say about the events surrounding the accident after he left the scene. Michaelis is in fact more reliable than Nick because he’s not involved with Gatsby and the others; he simply runs the café next door to the Wilsons.

So when Michaelis testifies under oath at the inquest that it was a man driving, we have no reason whatsoever to doubt his word. He was a responsible, successful businessman. He had not been drinking. The Wilsons had been having a loud argument, so Michaelis’s was on alert (adrenaline pumping) when Myrtle escaped and began running toward the road. His eyes were no doubt riveted on her at the instant of impact when the car hit her. At the inquest he testified it was a man driving a “light green car,” which wasn’t far off because Gatsby’s car was a “rich cream color” with a green interior.

Why would a reader ignore the sworn testimony of Michaelis over Gatsby’s absurd
notion that Daisy was driving, an assertion supplied by Nick? Michaelis’s testimony is backed up by Wilson, a co-eyewitness. Gatsby's history of lying and criminal activity and motives for lying impugn him as a witness. A prosecutor would destroy him on the witness stand. Consider also the biblical implications of the name “Michaelis”.

Fitzgerald was raised as a Catholic and had written a lengthy story, "Absolution," about the religious ramifications of truth (a story that his editor cut from the novel's original draft.) Michaelis’s namesake is archangel Michael (mentioned in Thessalonians, Jude and Revelations.) Per Wikipedia:

In the Roman Catholic teachings Saint Michael has four main roles or offices. …He is viewed as the angelic model for the virtues of the spiritual warrior, … .
In his second role, Michael is the angel of death, carrying the souls of all the deceased to heaven. In this role Michael descends at the hour of death, and gives each soul the chance to redeem itself before passing; …

Michaelis was present in the hour of Myrtle’s death, fulfilling the biblical implications of his name. He furthermore exhibited angelic virtue in ministering to Wilson in his hours of extreme suffering. Furthermore, the name Michael means, “Who is like God.”

With these credentials, it should be clear that Fitzgerald intended Michaelis’s status in the realm of truth to be unparalleled in this novel, yet, readers irrationally persist in believing Gatsby, a swindler for whom Nick supplied the lame alibi that Daisy was driving.

Why believe Gatsby over Michaelis? Because narrator Nick believes him. And who is Nick, but Gatsby’s devoted gay crush?

It shocks and astounds the rational mind that even though Nick and Gatsby were corrupt and had motives for lying, readers believe them over clean-living, angelic Michaelis. What could cause so many readers to behave so irrationally?

One possibility could be fear of ridicule. When a great work of literature has been seen one way (Daisy was driving) for nearly a hundred years, who is going to have the nerve, the courage, to see it differently? Even when the evidence is staring them right in the face, many people are simply cowards when it comes to standing up to the crowd.

Another possibility is monoclonal thought patterns. You automatically adopt the thought pattern of someone powerful in society, such as an autocratic leader. Academic group think is an example. There's a huge disincentive to think outside the box, so people will leap at any flimsy excuse to not think another way.

But the overriding reason, I suspect, that many readers are in denial about Gatsby driving is homophobia. Accepting that Gatsby was driving means accepting that Nick's gay crush on him is what led Nick to offer that "Was Daisy driving?" alibi in the Buchanan's garden the night of Myrtle's death. The homophobic literary world of the 1920s would not allow such an interpretation of the novel, so it gained no traction. The question now is how far we have come in a hundred years.

Curb your homophobia. Nick was gay and Gatsby was driving. This "intricately patterned" extraordinary novel is about the corruption of the American Dream cast within a love triangle--Daisy, Gatsby and Nick.

[Geoffrey]

By your own words, Michaelis eyes were riveted on Myrtle. So, if so, how is it that he happened to see the gender of the driver? How is it at the inquest, Jay's culpability was never ascertained? And why would Tom and Daisy set off back to the Midwest? No, Monty, Daisy has no interest in being reminded of her crime and is off back to their previous place of shame.

[Monty J]

Geoffrey wrote: "By your own words, Michaelis eyes were riveted on Myrtle. So, if so, how is it that he happened to see the gender of the driver?

Anyone focusing on Myrtle couldn't help but see the car and it's contents at the moment of impact.


" How is it at the inquest, Jay's culpability was never ascertained?"

We've covered this as well. There wasn't a sign on the car saying, "Jay Gatsby!" Michaelis, like Wilson, didn't have a name to go on, which is why Wilson had to go to Tom.

Gatsby's name came up during questioning of Catherine, Myrtle's sister (IX, 171-2) [Nick narrating]:

When Michaelis's testimony at the inquest brought to light Wilson's suspicions of his wife I thought the whole tale shortly would be served up...but Catherine, who might have said anything, didn't say a word. She showed a surprising amount of character about it too--looked at the coroner with determined eyes under that corrected brow of hers and swore that her sister had never seen Gatsby, that her sister was completely happy with her husband, that her sister had been into no mischief whatever. She convinced herself of it and cried into her handkerchief as if the very suggestion was more than she could endure. So Wilson was reduced to a man "deranged by grief"...

so Gatsby's ghost skated through the inquest with flying colors, thanks to Catherine's dramatic performance. (Maybe she should take up acting.)


"...is off back to their previous place of shame."

Actually, the novel doesn't say where they went--only that they had left with baggage and no address. Since Nick runs into Tom later in New York, the implication is they only took a trip and returned. Which is curious, because in Blooms Guides: The Great Gatsby some grad student, no doubt, states they went off to Europe. Someone else said they went back West. People fill in what they don't know with suppositions and we end up with a fictional kluge.

[Harry]

Your "under oath" emphasis is misplaced, A witness cannot be charged with perjury for testifying mistakenly.

Where do you read that Michaelis said a man was driving? And under oath, Michaelis testified that the car that struck Myrtle was light green. Like so many eye witnesses, the man was not reliable.

Tom had been driving the yellow car earlier, and at that time told Wilson that the car was his. He raced down to Wilson's to assure him that the car was not his--it was Jay Gatsby's. '

Fitzgerald later makes clear that Daisy and Tom were conspiring to keep her responsibility from being exposed. FSR, in fact, uses that very word "conspiring." No author includes that scene, where Nick spies on the Daisy and Tom talking at the table, other than to suggest they were working out a story.

It's not much of an ending if the person who struck Myrtle and fled the scene ends up being killed. It's the mistaken identity--Gatsby being killed for a death he did not cause--that makes Fitzgerald's ending tragic.

Daisy was driving.
I promise,

[Monty J]

Harry wrote: "Where do you read that Michaelis said a man was driving? And under oath, Michaelis testified that the car that struck Myrtle was light green. Like so many eye witnesses, the man was not reliable."

Here's the relevant passage containing Michaelis' testimony (VII, 143-5) [Nick, narrating]:

The young Greek, Michaelis, who ran the coffee joint beside the ash heaps was the principal witness at the inquest.

…The "death car" as the newspapers called it, didn't stop; it came out of the gathering darkness, wavered tragically for a moment, then disappeared around the next bend. Michaelis wasn't even sure of the color--he told the first policeman that it was light green.

Note Nick's misleading prejudiced tone ("wasn't even sure".)

Michaelis got the color almost right. The car was a cream color commonly referred to as "yellow." It was a moving open roadster with green upholstery. Cream is a neutral color and the green would have stuck in his mind. The mistake was minor and doesn't impugn Michaelis's testimony. The driver's gender would be far more noticeable than a slight color issue.

Michaelis' conclusion about the gender of the driver isn't cited outright in this passage; it must be derived second-hand from two other passages where he witnesses the cop saying "the son-of-a-bitch [a male pejorative] didn't even stopus car" and later Michaelis doesn't correct him when Wilson says it was a man (VII, 166) [Wilson]:

"He murdered her."
"It was an accident, George."
"I know," he said definitely. "I'm one of these trusting fellas and I don't think any harm to nobody, but when I get to know a thing I know it. It was the man in that car. She ran out to speak to him and he wouldn't stop."
Michaelis had seen this too but it hadn't occurred to him that there was any special significance in it.

During this exchange, Wilson says it's a man driving, and Michaelis fails to correct him. If Michaelis had seen a woman behind the wheel of the "yellow" car, this was the time to make make an issue of it. He did not, so Michaelis's silence means he agreed it was a man behind the wheel.

Furthermore, Fitzgerald's use of the phrase, "special significance," could be his way of pointing out to the reader that this passage does in fact have "special significance," for it screams that Gatsby was driving.

In summary, Michaelis witnessed the accident first-hand, and three times he witnessed others (the cop and Wilson) say it was a man driving, never objecting nor correcting them, which he would surely have done if it were a woman. Add this to the clumsy way Gatsby stumbled out his agreement in the garden with Nick, and it's a convincing pile of evidence.

Why would Fitzgerald throw confusion into the mind of the reader without a good reason? He wanted the reader to ponder whether Gatsby was lying, ---again.


"Tom had been driving the yellow car earlier, and at that time told Wilson that the car was [I assume you mean "wasn't"] his. He raced down to Wilson's to assure him that the car was not his--it was Jay Gatsby's. "

Tom did not at that time identify the car's owner. He only said it wasn't his. (VII, 148):

"Listen," said Tom,shaking him a little. "I just got here a minute ago, from New York. I was bringing you that coupe we've been talking about. That yellow car I was driving this afternoon wasn't mine, do you hear? I haven't see it all afternoon."

Only the next day, at gunpoint, does Tom divulge it was Gatsby's car.


"Fitzgerald later makes clear that Daisy and Tom were conspiring to keep her responsibility from being exposed. FSR, in fact, uses that very word "conspiring." No author includes that scene, where Nick spies on the Daisy and Tom talking at the table, other than to suggest they were working out a story."

They could have just as easily been planning their trip out of town. The scene shows they had reconciled and that Gatsby drove. If she had been driving she would be in tears. She was a witness and by failing to report the crime she became accessory to vehicular manslaughter. Daisy had become a criminal, the same as Gatsby. Getting out of town quick was paramount.


"It's not much of an ending if the person who struck Myrtle and fled the scene ends up being killed. It's the mistaken identity--Gatsby being killed for a death he did not cause--that makes Fitzgerald's ending tragic."

Gatsby's death make perfect sense, whereas for him to die as a result of mistaken identity would be meaningless. His death is just because he dies as a direct result of his corrupt behavior, the killing of Myrtle, only Nick refuses to accept the truth, making him arguably the most unreliable narrator in American literature. How could Nick accept the worst in a man who was "gorgeous" and whose smile faced "the whole external world for an instant, and then concentrated on you with an irresistible prejudice in your favor."

From stem to stern, this novel is about corruption (exemplified by "foul dust" and the ash heaps) in the American Dream (exemplified in Jay Gatsby). Tom sums it up nicely (IX, 187):

He threw dust in your eyes just like he did in Daisy's but he was a tough one. He ran over Myrtle like you'd run over a dog and never even stopped his car."

Nick represents the gullible public, and Tom's "dust in your eyes" alert is an injunction to consider how we, the reader, may also have been fooled by Gatsby.

If so, the novel is a fascinating tour de force in social satire. If not, it's just a ho-hum latter day Romeo and Juliet.

[Geoffrey]

by any means, mistaking the color of the car in any age would make a testimony suspect. This is not a minor point unless you are color blind.

The inquest failed to pinpoint Jay as the driver, as per your contention.

[Monty J]

Geoffrey wrote: "by any means, mistaking the color of the car in any age would make a testimony suspect. This is not a minor point unless you are color blind."

A mere matter of opinion. Perry Mason could deal with it easily.


"The inquest failed to pinpoint Jay as the driver, as p..."

Fitzgerald gave us a snippet, not the entire transcript of Michaelis's testimony, omitting the topic of gender. He's not going to spoil the story by spelling it out for us. Part of the fun in this novel is figuring it out. (After all, Dashiell Hammett was one of Fitzgerald's favorite authors.)

Michaelis could only have testified in a manner consistent with his behavior at the scene and later when Wilson said it was a man driving. Michaelis's silence in both cases, points the accusing finger at Gatsby.

Wilson then follows up by shooting the man he saw kill his wife, a final confirmation that it was Gatsby. If Daisy were behind the wheel he'd not have gone looking for a man.


Furthermore, there is ZERO evidence corroborating Gatsby's absurd assertion that Daisy driving. Who would allow anyone in an emotional state drive their car? Daisy was chauffeured everywhere since marrying Tom. And Gatsby had to lie because getting investigated could have drawn attention to his illegal sources of income.

Also, the controversy over who was driving was foreshadowed earlier in the novel in a scene with the "owl-eyed" man, when he exited his car after it had been wrecked outside Gatsby's gate (III, 59):

"You don't understand," explained the criminal. "I wasn't driving. There's another man in the car."
The shock that followed this declaration found voice in a sustained "Ah-h-h!" as the door of the coupe swung slowly open. The crowd--it was now a crowd--stepped back involuntarily... ."

This scene is a throwaway unless Fitzgerald wanted to plant the notion in our heads about the faulty assumptions we can make about who is driving.

All the drivers in this novel are male except a flashback to five years earlier when Daisy drove a white car at age 18. So if a woman were driving, don't you think someone besides Gatsby would have noticed?

Gatsby's flimsy story just doesn't hold up. With an impartial jury, I would destroy him in a court, and I'm not even a lawyer.

What is astounding is that, despite the mountain of evidence against Gatsby, everyone still wants to believe him. What a testament to the way readers were infected with Nick's prejudice!

People lose sight of the fact that Nick is the implied author. This is his memoir. Fitzgerald is behind the scenes pulling strings, and Nick is just another character. We never hear from Fitzgerald, only Nick, one of his puppets. It is up to the reader to step back and assess Nick's reliability.

[Morsk]

I agree with Harry. :) Daisy and Tom were agreeing to say it was Gatsby who drove the car. Or Tom was saying and Daisy was silent and stupid. Didn't like Daisy at all. :D

On the identity of the driver- don't forget that Wilson was in shock, he was paranoid about every man already beforehand and sure it was the mysterious lover who killed her wife. I don't even remember if it's said he saw the accident at all, since she ran out, he was still inside.
Anyhow, he wasn't reasonable and calm in his actions afterwards so we can't really read into them, he didn't plan anything, he just went and did, like a broken robot.

Also, so weird how if a man likes another man, there's a gay thing there, for sure. :D I think it was just a slight bromance, Nick wishing he was as cool as Gatsby, at the same time not wanting to like him because he was so rich and presumably shallow.
But that's just my opinion. :) A truly great book.

[Monty J]

Morsk wrote: "Also, so weird how if a man likes another man, there's a gay thing there, for sure."


The case for Nick's gender ambiguity is much stronger than that. Here's a link to the full analysis: https://www.wattpad.com/58007976-gay-...

A straight guy doesn't wipe shaving cream off a "feminine man" 's cheek--a man whom he just met at a party--then leave his date behind and follow the "feminine man" down to his apartment and end up in his bedroom looking at pictures next to the "feminine man" in bed "in his underwear" after midnight.

Maybe in some people's book he would do those things, but not in mine. And when you put this together with the vast array of Nick's other gender-related mannerisms, the case is pretty strong that Fitzgerald wants the reader to question Nick's sexuality.

But in Puritanical America, we've been programmed to be tone deaf to such realities. It's too hard to grasp, too high a hurdle. Such a lifestyle is so beyond comprehension that we cannot bear the discomfort that even the suggestion entails. The Mormon's even have a gay de-programming department to "straighten-out" the wayward.

[Morsk]

Well, I can't read the whole analysis since I this theme doesn't really interest me that much but ... The date was almost forced on him, there was horrible drama going on in the apartment, he just wanted to leave, and... I've gotten the impression that he was somewhat meticulous (I've taken a loose hair off a stranger's shoulder because it bothered me, didn't make me a Lesbian, maybe he was just the same with that shaving cream...) and enjoyed a quiet time more than the others in there, so no wonder he chose to escape the first chance he got. And they were drunk, drunk and adrift, just stumbling through to whereever. Drunk people keep undressing all the time. :D Only that guy took his pants off, to sit on his bed and show Nick the pics. Which were rather tedious, at least that's the idea I got. :) of course it could've been left open to imply that other stuff happened, I get you.
But... I, for one, didn't question Nick sexuality during reading. That doesn't mean I'm wrong, or that you're wrong. We just got different ideas. Nothing wrong with that. Everything in life (and art) could be interpreted in at least a hundred different ways. And it's always interesting to read other people's take on things.

Same thing with the driver of the killer-car. :) Most books mirror the reader, so everyone finds their own "poetic justice" and main theme. Unless it's a poorly written book. Then everything is black and white, and nothing much is open to readers' own ideas.

Thanks for the link though, if I have more time I'll read it. :)

[Geoffrey]

When a man praised another man's physicality in glowing terms as Nick did with both Jay and Tom, the little red flag immediately goes up somewhere in one of my cranial cavities....there is too much evidence as Monty says.....He is somewhat attracted to Jordan, who has masculine traits....he sits up to 2 am. with Mckee in his pajamas...the list goes on and on......pretty clear to me he is attracted to men....whether or not he does the deed is irrelevant.

[Morsk]

Maybe it's to do with the fact that where I'm from men sit til wee hours in saunas, stark naked, and nobody suspects their sexuality. :)
But how could the author make us "see" those guys, he had to describe them somehow. For me, I kept imagining F.S.F. as Nick, kind of fragile, boyish and shy, looking at men with muscles and strength with awe. That could just be respect and admiration, or... Not?
Let the guy be gay then, alright. :D (I'll still secretly think he's not. :P )

[Monty J]

Morsk wrote: "Maybe it's to do with the fact that where I'm from men sit til wee hours in saunas, stark naked, and nobody suspects their sexuality. :)
But how could the author make us "see" those guys, he had t..."

A) A sauna is not a bed. B) McKee is described as "a feminine man" from whose face Nick wipes a spot of shaving cream, then follows into the elevator, where he engages in a coded conversation and then C) ends up next to McKee in bed and disrobed. The signals could not be much clearer without tipping off the censors who would have kept the book from being published.

[Monty J]

Morsk wrote: "Drunk people keep undressing all the time. :D Only that guy took his pants off, to sit on his bed and show Nick the pics. Which were rather tedious, at least that's the idea I got. :) of course it could've been left open to imply that other stuff happened, I get you. "

He was in bed and between the sheets, not onthe bed. (II, 42)

I was standing beside his bed and he was sitting up between the sheets, clad in his underwear, with a great portfolio in his hands.

There's a big difference.


Morsk wrote: "But... I, for one, didn't question Nick sexuality during reading. "

You are not alone. I didn't get the McKee scene either until I started copying the book as a daily warm-up exercise before I started my own workday, hoping some of Fitzgerald's magic would rub off on me. It was only during this close second reading that things started popping out that I hadn't noticed before.

Soon it became clear that Fitzgerald was using Nick not just as a narrator but as another character, a prism through which the reader was forced to absorb the reality of a Jazz Age warped by the corruption and decadence that caused the Crash of '29 and the Great Depression.

What better way to emphasize decadence than have a narrator who is himself, in the vernacular of the milieu, "decadent."

The genius of Fitzgerald's characterization of Nick is phenomenal, but was too avant garde even for the literary critics (and certainly academia), who daren't go near that third rail of literary analysis--homosexuality. Not in the Puritanical USA, where Joyce's Ulysses was banned as pornographic, not to mention Lawrence's The Rainbow, both having been published in the few years prior to 1922 when he began TGG.

We have come a long way since then. Now it is time to evaluate the novel as it was written.

[Monty J]

Morsk wrote: "On the identity of the driver- don't forget that Wilson was in shock, he was paranoid about every man already beforehand and sure it was the mysterious lover who killed her wife. "

Wilson was also highly motivated, more so than anyone, to be on high alert and record what was happening.


Morsk wrote: " I don't even remember if it's said he saw the accident at all, since she ran out, he was still inside."

They were in the throes of a heated argument. Why would he stay inside? (VII, 144)

"Beat me!" he [Michaelis] heard her cry. "Throw me down and beat me you dirty little coward!"
A moment later she rushed out into the dusk, waving her hands and shouting;

[Geoffrey]

Pretty hard to spot the gender of a driver in the dusk, wouldn't you say. As for the rest of what you have written, spot on!

[Monty J]

Geoffrey wrote: "Pretty hard to spot the gender of a driver in the dusk, wouldn't you say. As for the rest of what you have written, spot on!"

Depends on time of year (mid-August), speed of the car and the attentiveness of the observer. Dusk is the latter-dimmer part of twilight, so the street lights and property lights would likely have been illuminated. The car was reported as going 30-40 miles per hour. The two observers, Michaelis and Wilson, would have been hyper-attentive because of the heated argument that was ensuing just prior to the accident.

It was an open roadster, so both occupants would be visible from the shoulders up from a maximum distance of 50 feet. From my apartment stoop to the parking lot is about that far, and I'd have no trouble at all discerning the gender of someone at the wheel a convertible with the top down.

At 40 miles an hour, the car is covering 58 feet per second. At a full run, Myrtle could cover the 50 feet to the road in about five seconds, during which the car would cover 290 feet. Myrtle would have the full attention of both observers, and even more so because of the impending threat of the car. Each second can be divided into a thousand milliseconds, during which the human eye can spot and the brain register something. Three pair of eyes would have been cycling back and forth between Myrtle and the car as the distance between them closed (Wilson, Michaelis, and Myrtle.)

Daisy typically wore white. We know Gatsby was wearing a pink suit because Nick remarked about the way it glowed in the moonlight a couple of hours later in the Buchanan's garden.

Three people agreed that it was a man driving--Wilson, Michaelis and Myrtle (Myrtle because if a woman were behind the wheel, she would have at least hesitated. Wilson and Michaelis backed each other up. Furthermore, if a woman were driving, Wilson would not have gone looking for a man to kill.

A week or more Later, Tom says Gatsby "ran over Myrtle like you would a dog." Daisy had plenty of time by then to have confessed that she was driving had that been the case. I cannot think of a reason why she would have kept such a vital bit of information from her husband. Therefore Daisy's version (undisclosed to the reader) backs up Tom's conclusion that Gatsby was the driver.

So now you have four witnesses ostensibly agreeing it was Gatsby driving (Wilson, Michaelis, Myrtle and Daisy.) And none of these witnesses had a motive for lying.

Gatsby is the only witness who said it was Daisy behind the wheel, and he had multiple motives for saying it wasn't him, plus he had a well-established history of untruthfulness.

It is illogical for Fitzgerald to have Gatsby's death be a case of mistaken identity. That would be meaningless, whereas having Wilson kill him makes perfect sense because Gatsby's death would be punishment for his corruption.

The case is overwhelming that Gatsby was driving, not Daisy.

[Geoffrey]

where does it say it was a roadster. I thought both vehicles were coupes. which have roofs.

And then again for the umpteenth time, why didn't the inquest establish that it was Jay driving? You say it was an open and shut case and you weren't even there.

[Monty J]

Geoffrey wrote: "where does it say it was a roadster. I thought both vehicles were coupes. which have roofs."

The car is introduced early in Chapter IV (IV, 68)

At nine o'clock one morning in late July, Gatsby's car lurched up the rocky drive to my door and gave out a burst of melody from it's three-noted horn.
...I'd seen it. Everybody had seen it. It was a rich cream color, bright with nickel, swollen here and there in it's monstrous length with triumphant hat boxes and supper boxes and toolboxes and terraced with a labyrinth of windshields that mirrored a dozen suns. Sitting down behind many layers of glass in a sort of green leather conservatory we started to town.

A conservatory has a glass or tarpulin roof--hence, a convertible.

The so-called "death car" had to be a roadster for one very important reason. In chapter seven, when Myrtle looks down from a second-floor window over the garage, she sees Tom with Jordan in the front seat when they stop for gas on the way to the Plaza Hotel. (VII, 131)

So engrossed was she that she had no consciousness of being observed and one emotion after another crept into her face like objects into a slowly developing picture. Her expression was curiously familiar--it was an expression I had often seen in women's faces but on Myrtle Wilson's face it seemed purposeless and inexplicable until I realized that the eyes, wide with jealous terror, were fixed not on Tom but on Jordan Baker, whom she took to be his wife.

Such a two-way study, Nick of Myrtle's face and Myrtle of the car's occupants, would not be possible if the car were a sedan or coupe.


Geoffrey wrote: "And then again for the umpteenth time, why didn't the inquest establish that it was Jay driving?

A coroner is empowered to conduct or order an inquest into the manner or cause of death, and to investigate or confirm the identity of an unknown person who has been found dead.Determination of who was driving was not within the coroner's purview. That's a separate investigation.

An inquest is "a judicial inquiry to ascertain the facts relating to an incident, such as a death," according to Webster. According to Wikipedia,

In the United States, inquests are generally conducted by coroners, who are generally officials of a county or city. These inquests are not themselves trials, but investigations. ...Statutes may also regulate the requirement for summoning and swearing a coroner's jury. Inquests themselves generally are public proceedings, though the accused may not be entitled to attend. Coroners may compel witnesses to attend and give testimony at inquires, and may punish a witness for refusing to testify... The effect of a coroner's verdict at common law was equivalent to a finding by a grand jury, whereas some statutes provide that a verdict makes the accused liable for arrest.

Who was driving wasn't the issue. The issue was the cause and circumstances of death. No one was on trial.



Geoffrey wrote: "You say it was an open and shut case and you weren't even there."

No one was "there". It's just a made-up story that I've studied since 2012, off and on. But I've defended every position I've taken with text from the book.

The undeniable fact is, no one, not even ration itself, supports Gatsby's claim that Daisy was driving, whereas multiple credible witnesses contradict him. It was no accident that Fitzgerald put these "facts" down on paper. All I've done is point them out and draw logical conclusions.

The facts speak for themselves.

[Morsk]

:D it is also very clear that this thread actually isn't a discussion. So.. I'll just let it be. Happy reading! :)

[Harry]

Not one person--not one--either said or implied
that a man was driving.
No one.
I have read the book at least six times,
twice in the last 12 months.
There is not a single fact that says or suggests
a man was driving the car.

The day after the accident,
Daisy and Tom fled East Egg.
When asked where they went, no one knew.
They left no forwarding address, no forwarding phone number.

Gatsby stayed behind.
Guilty people flee, to escape investigation.
A guilty person is foolish to stay behind, as Gatsby did.
But that isn't the key point here.
Not a single person said that a man was driving.
Not Michaelis or the pale negro man who passed the car
some time later, and said only that it was a yellow car.

Your invocation of res ipsa loquitor is ridiculous.
If a judge heard that--I clerked for a federal judge my
first year out of law school--my judge would say,
"Please counselor, you are going to have to give me more credit for
sophistication in these matters,"

And not least of all, it's a crappy story if Gatsby was driving.
Guy kills woman, gets his due,
Poor Tom and Daisy--those careless people
who destroyed things and left others to clean up the mess,
to paraphrase the author--
just up and leave.
That's a godawful ending.
This story is only poignant if it's the classic theme:
innocent man dies for an act he did not commit.

But one more time:
No one saw a man driving the car.
The only person to link Gatsby to the car was Tom,
who told Wilson that Gatsby killed Myrtle--
Tom, whom Nick and the author despised,.

All of these facts speak for themselves;
res ipsa loquitor.

Speaking of law, I may go seek a cease and desist order.




for an act her did not commit.

[Monty J]

Harry wrote: "There is not a single fact that says or suggests
a man was driving the car."

Sigh...,

First Witness:
Four times in a row here, Wilson said it was a man driving (VII, 166) [Wilson]:

"He murdered her."
[Michaelis] "It was an accident, George."
"I know," he said definitely. "I'm one of these trusting fellas and I don't think any harm to nobody, but when I get to know a thing I know it. It was the man in that car. She ran out to speak to him and he wouldn't stop."
Michaelis had seen this too but it hadn't occurred to him that there was any special significance in it.

Second Witness:
"Michaelis had seen this too", means that Michaelis agrees with Wilson, who said repeatedly, four times, that it was a man driving. If Michaelis had seen a woman, he would have corrected him. Michaelis's silence means he agreed. After all, he was right there when it happened.

Here's Michaelis' testimony at the inquest (VII, 143-5) [Nick, narrating]:

The young Greek, Michaelis, who ran the coffee joint beside the ash heaps was the principal witness at the inquest.

…The "death car" as the newspapers called it, didn't stop; it came out of the gathering darkness, wavered tragically for a moment, then disappeared around the next bend.

Michaelis was deemed credible enough to be the principal witness at the inquest, and no one impugned his testimony. Michaelis could only have testified that a man drove the death car because he was there and saw the same thing Wilson did, that a man was driving. His silence when Wilson said so, means he agreed.

Gatsby, and only Gatsby, says it was a woman driving. Gatsby is a proven liar. Gatsby is a criminal. Compared to Michaelis, Gatsby's testimony is worthless.


Harry wrote: "innocent man dies for an act he did not commit."

Gatsby innocent? Did we read the same book?

>Gatsby stole by selling worthless bonds to innocent partygoers.
>Gatsby broke the law as a bootlegger.
>Gatsby was in business with a mobster and tried to recruit Nick into his gang.
>Gatsby lied about his name, his family background, his education and the source of his wealth.
>Gatsby ran over Myrtle like a dog in the street and failed to stop.

These are the facts.

Res ipsa.

Gatsby's about as innocent as Al Capone.

[Morsk]

:D Harry, there's no point, you see. :D Monty knows everything. :D

Monty, innocent of murder.
Monty, a person who is arguing and suspecting his wife of cheating isn't more clear- headed and rational, vice versa, Wilson was everything but paying attention. Also, he didn't KNOW the driver was a man, he just assumed it. His grief and shock was so great that his brain was just trying to make some sense of it all, so his mind blamed the man he already hated, the mysterious lover.
Michaelis was just trying to calm Wilson at that point, he saw that Wilson was winding himself up.
People say all kinds of things when they are emotional, it isn't a police report full of facts.

[Monty J]

Morsk wrote: "...innocent of murder."

This is merely an assertion, not a fact. Let us look at the character of the man you say is innocent of murder. First, the facts:

>Gatsby stole by selling worthless bonds to innocent partygoers.
>Gatsby broke the law as a bootlegger.
>Gatsby was in business with a mobster and tried to recruit Nick into his gang.
>Gatsby lied about his name, his family background, his education and the source of his wealth.
>The oft-repeated rumor that Gatsby "killed a man."
>Nick's observations on three occasions that Gatsby displayed a certain look, "as if he had killed a man."

These are facts put in evidence by the author for the reader to evaluate Gatsby's character. What do these facts suggest if not that Gatsby is capable of lying and committing murder and that Gatsby had strong motives for lying about not driving to avoid a police investigation into his affairs.

How can we defend taking the word of a person of such low repute over the word of two honest, upstanding citizens like Wilson and Michaelis? How can we not have sympathy for a man like Wilson, who has been betrayed and victimized by both his wife and Tom Buchanan? What does that say about us and our values, that we accept the word of the Jay Gatsbys of the world over the likes of Wilson and Michaelis?


Morsk wrote: "...a person who is arguing and suspecting his wife of cheating isn't more clear- headed and rational, vice versa, Wilson was everything but paying attention."

Your "everything but" assertion has no basis in fact. Fitzgerald gave us no indication whatsoever that Wilson was impaired in any way at the moment the car hit Myrtle. He did just the opposite; he gave evidence that Wilson's senses were highly aroused because of his heated argument with Myrtle. He wasn't cowering in the corner of his garage office; he was highly engaged in the argument with his wife of 12 years who had just insulted him and run out of the apartment.


Morsk wrote: "Also, he didn't KNOW the driver was a man, he just assumed it."

Another conclusion without factual basis and is actually controverted by what Fitzgerald put on the page, Wilson's words: "....when I get to know a thing I know it." Here, Fitzgerald is assuring us that Wilson had complete confidence in his memory of what he saw. Furthermore, he made this statement with calm self-assurance, not some wild emotional rant.


Morsk wrote: "His grief and shock was so great that his brain was just trying to make some sense of it all, so his mind blamed the man he already hated, the mysterious lover."

Who would not blame the "mysterious lover for his wife's murder"? But why would that matter except to motivate Wilson to find the guy and punish him? What matters is finding the man he saw behind the wheel. He knows what he looks like because he saw him. All he needs is his identity, which is eventually supplied by Tom at gunpoint. If Fitzgerald had wanted us to see Wilson as deranged or incapacitated, he would have supplied evidence of that, such as thrashing violently about to the point of harming himself (as Holden Caulfield did in The Catcher in the Rye when Ailee died.) Instead, Fitzgerald showed Wilson as normally grief-stricken, angry and motivated to take action. He was certainly rational enough to make his way to Tom's mansion and extract Gatsby's name at gunpoint; then on to Gatsby's.


Morsk wrote: "Michaelis was just trying to calm Wilson at that point, he saw that Wilson was winding himself up."

Another conclusion contradicted by facts on the page. Nick said: "Michaelis had seen this too, but it hadn't occurred to him that there was any special significance in it." If Fitzgerald wanted us to think Michaelis was placating Wilson with his silence he would have instead supplied us with some indication of this, which he did not. He did just the opposite. He told us that Michaelis had "seen this too."


Morsk wrote: "People say all kinds of things when they are emotional, it isn't a police report full of facts."

This is true. It is a novel, where the author supplies text (and subtext) to guide the reader. Readers are fallible. Readers will notice or ignore what an author puts right in front of their noses. Readers will also insert things and draw conclusions based on their own needs and preferences. All I have done is draw attention to what Fitzgerald put on the page and asked readers to consider how they've been interpreted, by Hollywood in particular.


I will end with Fitzgerald's own words: "...that of all the reviews, even the most enthusiastic, not one had the slightest idea what the book was about."

[Geoffrey]

Monty J wrote: "Harry wrote: "There is not a single fact that says or suggests
a man was driving the car."

Sigh...,

First Witness:
Four times in a row here, Wilson said it was a man driving (VII, 166) [Wilson]:..."

And yet michaelis never gave testimony to a second person in the ar, nor did anyone else. He was so observant to note a man at the wheel, but couldn't attest to the car's true color nor to a passenger.
Yeah, right, give me a break.

By having both Myrtle and Jay killed off, the 2 most ambitious characters trying to escape their lowly social beginnings,SF, lays to rest the american dream of social mobility.

[Monty J]

Geoffrey wrote: "And yet michaelis never gave testimony to a second person in the ar, nor did anyone else..."

We are not privy to Michaelis's actual testimony, but neither are we given the slightest indication that Michaelis said anything contrary to what was revealed elsewhere as to the gender of the driver, which was 100% male except for Gatsby's assertion Daisy was driving.

The cop said "son-of-a-bitch didn't even stopus car." That's a male pejorative. If it had been a woman driving he would have said, "The bitch didn't even stop her car."

Cops are trained to get accurate eyewitness accounts. He was taking meticulous notes. Michaelis and Wilson are the only possible sources of the cop's determination because they were the only ones watching Myrtle at the time of the accident.

For the record, here again is the text (VII, 147):

"She ran out ina road. Son-of-a-bitch didn't even stopus car."
"There was two cars," said Michaelis. "One comin', one goin', see?"
"Going where?" asked the policeman keenly.
"One goin' each way. Well, she--" His hand rose toward the blankets but stopped half way and fell to his side, "--she ran out there an' the one comin' from N'York knock right into her goin' thirty or forty miles an hour."

Notice the detailed coherency of Michaels's account. He is alert and observant, noting the death car's speed and direction of travel. He heard the cop refer to the driver as: "son-of-a-bitch." If Daisy had been driving, Michaelis would have corrected the cop, right there on the spot.

At the scene, Michaelis clearly agreed it was a man driving, so he would not have testified otherwise at the inquest.

Gatsby is the only eyewitness who claims the driver was a woman, and Fitzgerald has left a trail of evidence that he is lying. Yet people insist on taking the word of a lying criminal with multiple motives for saying Daisy was the driver.

It makes a novel boring when an author has to spell everything out for the reader. It is beneath Scott Fitzgerald's dignity to stoop that low. But Hollywood has leaped into the gap and twisted Gatsby into a folk hero instead of the deeply flawed anti-hero Fitzgerald created. And academia went along with it because they were afraid to dirty their hands with the tabu subject of homosexuality that explains Nick's adulation for Gatsby that underlaid his blurting out, "Was Daisy driving?" Gatsby's adopted alibi.

It makes a novel boring when an author has to spell everything out for the reader. It is beneath Scott Fitzgerald's dignity to stoop that low. So Hollywood leaped into the gap and twisted Gatsby into a folk hero instead of the deeply flawed anti-hero Fitzgerald created. And academia went along with it because they were afraid to dirty their hands with the tabu subject of homosexuality that explains Nick's adulation for Gatsby, the reason he blurted out, "Was Daisy driving?"—Gatsby's adopted alibi,

[Geoffrey]

Interesting take but fallacious/ so you, perkins and sf were the only enlightened ones. Again nick never mentioned any testionyto a passenger?
So let's back track.....how did the hit and run occur. myrtle was running towards the car. she would not have crossed the dividing line or she would have run smack into the vehicle. the driver must have swerved out of lane right into myrtle. more likely a hystrical daisy, neurotic and high strung inadvertedly took her eyes off the road and crossed the line, killing her adversary. or maybe just subconsciously knew who the woman was. she gets rid of myrtle, her husband finishes jay off, the counterpart to the first death and complete elimination of the infidel tryst thence nicks observation that they spoil others lives, a truism whether daisy was driving or not.

tom and daisy make a fast exit from eggland. pretty suspicious wouldn't u say? shades of o. j. simpson? give the rest of us some credit for intelligence. don't insult us just because you have invented a highly original take

[Monty J]

Geoffrey wrote: "tom and daisy make a fast exit from eggland. pretty suspicious wouldn't u say? shades of o. j. simpson?"

The hasty exit is important because Daisy is an Accessory to Vehicular Manslaughter by being in the car and failing to report the crash to the authorities. Plus, their reputation was at stake because of their mere association with Jay Gatsby, whom Tom had publicly exposed as being a bootlegger involved with a mobster who'd caused Walter Chase, one of their acquaintances, to spend time in prison. They needed to get out of town for a while to avoid being questioned about Gatsby, whom they both knew had killed Myrtle.

Tom and Daisy reacted unethically to protect their reputations and avoid investigation and or prosecution, as many people would after participating in a hit-and-run murder, especially when they were aware that acquaintance was a pal of a mobster. Most people would go to the cops, but the Buchanan's made themselves scarce to avoid being questioned.


Geoffrey wrote: " so you, perkins and sf were the only enlightened ones. "

It's not about being enlightened; it's about not being tied to academic monoclonal group think.

I'm sure plenty of academics got it, but kept quiet because of the homosexuality tabu. Remember, this was 100 years years ago, and by the time the tabu had eased up, the "Daisy was driving" interpretation had become entrenched.

In order to believe Gatsby, anyone who can read has to ignore that both Wilson and the cop said a man was driving and Michaelis heard them and was silent, effectively agreeing with them that a man was at the wheel when Myrtle's life was taken.


Geoffrey wrote: ".how did the hit and run occur. myrtle was running towards the car. she would not have crossed the dividing line or she would have run smack into the vehicle. the driver must have swerved out of lane right into myrtle. more likely a hysterical daisy, neurotic and high strung inadvertently took her eyes off the road and crossed the line, killing her adversary. or maybe just subconsciously knew who the woman was. she gets rid of Myrtle..."

Myrtle had to be coming from the car's right because Gatsby said "Daisy" had first swerved away from Myrtle toward the oncoming car, choosing, in effect, to hit the pedestrian to avoid a potentially suicidal head-on collision. (Replace "Daisy" with "I" and you have the full picture.)

We can suppose all we want, but there's not a shred of support in the text for the notion that Daisy was driving except Gatsby's word, for the little that is worth. And there's a pile of evidence to the contrary.

[John]

Monty J wrote: "Morsk wrote: "Also, so weird how if a man likes another man, there's a gay thing there, for sure."


The case for Nick's gender ambiguity is much stronger than that. Here's a link to the full analy..."

I don't know about that. Nick's gender is clear: he is a man. I think that anyone trying to read more into it than that has a political agenda. Nick's sexual preference literally has nothing to do with the story. It reminds me of the flakes who try to argue that Abraham Lincoln was gay based on the weakest, flimsy "evidence." Come on.

[Monty J]

John wrote: "Nick's gender is clear: he is a man. "

Yes, a gay man, or at least a man with homosexual inclinations. The evidence is undeniable: https://www.wattpad.com/58007976-gay-...

Nick's infatuation with Gatsby is essential to a clear understanding of the novel. It explains why Nick ignores Gatsby's flaws such as lying about his family background, his education and his swindling. Nick even suggests an alibi--that Daisy was driving--to shield Gatsby from the consequences of murdering Myrtle.

[Monty J]

Monty J wrote: "Michaelis’s role in the novel is three-fold: 1) eyewitness to Myrtle’s murder,
2) comforter-adviser to Wilson during his time of grief and
3) narrator concerning Wilson's behavior and activities...."

In short, Michaelis is the one redeeming character in the entire book, the only character unsullied by "the foul dust that followed" in Gatsby's wake. As implied by his name, he is god-like in his compassion and devotion to the grieving Wilson and his witnessing of Myrtle's murder. Taking Gatsby's word over the that of Michaelis borders on sacrilege.