The Great Gatsby
discussion
Jay Gatsby, the Dreamer in Us All
date
newest »
newest »
I don't think I've been tricked, exactly. Most of my favorite characters in books and movies tend to be the odd ones out. I like Gatsby because he dreams. I dream and I feel a connection in that way. He was so lost, but so...alive, I guess? He was so much of a loner and as I tend to be that too, I guess I relate to that.
Have you ever heard of the Myers-Briggs personality test? Gatsby's probably an INFP or possible an ENFP. The dreamers, healers, or idealists who love so, so much.
I wouldn't say I overlook his criminal behavior. I would say I like Gatsby in spite of that. I cannot forget or overlook, but I can choose to like him anyway.
Would I buy a used car from him? I don't know.
Amanda wrote: "Have you ever heard of the Myers-Briggs personality test? Gatsby's probably an INFP or possible an ENFP. The dreamers, healers, or idealists who love so, so much."Odd that you mention this. I was tempted to refer to Meyers-Briggs profiles as I wrote this. Instinctively I would have said INFP, but now I must check.
Monty J wrote: "Jay Gatsby can be seen as the archetypal entrepreneur, a dreamer whose imagination is easily ignited, who sees possibility at every turn and boundaries as obstacles to be overcome, if they are seen..."Great post! Yes, the first time I read The Great Gatsby he fooled me, the second time he didn't, and the third I felt a fool for being fooled! Of course I was a younger reader the first time I read it, and of course it had to do with charm. And I felt sorry for him, which I still did by the third reading.
No, I was never tricked but I resent SF's attempt to manipulate us readers. Jay is a scoundrel and more of a syncophant lackey than an entrepreneur. He cozied up to the yachtsman and almost gained his riches with the 25,000 dollar inheritance and cozied up to Wolfsheim and struck it rich. Again, I question as to how much an enterprising businessman he is as he never gained anything out of the war. A more enterprising opportunist would have come away from the war with bounty.
Geoffrey wrote: "No, I was never tricked but I resent SF's attempt to manipulate us readers. Jay is a scoundrel and more of a syncophant lackey than an entrepreneur. He cozied up to the yachtsman and almost gained anything out of the war. A more enterprising opportunist would have come away from the war with bounty."Points taken. Delightfully observant.
And in the contrast between Fitzgerald's treatment of Cody and Wolfshiem you bring up a prime example of Fitzgerald's manipulation. He guides the reader's attention toward Dan Cody, elaborately romanticizing Gatsby's worldly five-year education under the tutelage of this elder alcoholic yachtsman, who left him penniless with an unprotected inheritance that was spirited away by his larcenous widow.
But concerning Gatsby's relationship with the gangster Wolfshiem, who "made him" according to Wolfie, Fitzgerald only gives occasional hints. This selective revelation and emphasis is what one would expect more in a mystery novel than general fiction.
Only in the case of the "Oxford man" educational controversy does Nick seriously question Gatsby's character. If Nick doesn't question Gatsby, why should the reader? (And did you notice the comic backhanded swipes that the author, "a Princeton man," took at Oxford University through Wolfsheim's repeated "Oggsford man" references?)
The trickery is in the way Fitzgerald guides the reader's perception toward Gatsby's admirable qualities and success and keeps Gatsby's dark side in the shadows. Through the unreliable narrator Nick Carraway, the author keeps the spotlight on Cody and off Wolfshiem.
Yes, there's trickery galore. SF tells a good tale, maintaining key elements of the story at bay until it serves his purpose to reveal them. The structure of the novel is brilliant and in that I heartily applaud SF. But I have always questioned not only the perverted perception on Jay's character, coming across as some noble creature, but also the credibility of the novel itself. It's too unbelievable for me to take the tale seriously. There comes a time when the suspension of belief that we as readers are exercised at and turns to a suspension of disbelief. Too many facts just don't add up.This was an issue that Perkins himself took up with SF in their correspondence. How could Jay have amassed his huge fortune so quickly? If he was so ingenuous an entrepreneur, how is that he had only one set of clothes by the end of the war, a military uniform if I remember correctly. So many opportunistic servicemen came away with war bounty, ie. scavenging the enemy deads' corpses, poker games, kickbacks from food scams, etc. etc. How is it that our enterprising non commissioned serviceman never availed himself of the opportunities presented in war?
I would liken Jay's depiction to that of Florentino in Marquez's life and Death..both are seriously flawed characters that the author attempts to manipulate our acceptance. The only other novel that comes to mind in comparison is LOLITA. I read it when I was a youngster and was actually taken in at the beginning when Hupert laments Lolita's seductiveness.
Geoffrey wrote: "I have always questioned not only the perverted perception on Jay's character, coming across as some noble creature, but also the credibility of the novel itself. It's too unbelievable for me to take the tale seriously."Agreed. It is almost a parody of the American entrepreneur. It certainly applies today, to the Wall Street bastards who destroyed our economy, and the government bastards, like Alan Greenspan, who sat on their hands and let the Wall Street goons have their way, then rewarded them handsomely.
Wolfsheim lives! (And he works on Wall Street.)
Sorry, but I don't believe Greenspan was the major culprit here, Monty. I believe it was Paulson and his gang, but it was certainly Commerce and SEC who should have seen the dangers. I believe the politicos, Rove et al. probably suspected that there was a dangerous bubble but didn't give a rat's ass as long as the bubble expanded the economy to the Republican's benefit. The GOP has been aware for some time now that the demographics since 2006 has turned against them what with both a growing Hispanic citizen body which trends Democratic and an increasing disaffected white majority that has been increasingly abstaining from casting their ballots. Their efforts to stymie the coming Democratic majority have included gerrymandering and voter surpression.They Bush White House encouraged the bubble as it carried over their slim dominance in electoral politics in the state positions while both parties struggled to get the upper hand during the first decade of the new century. Remember, the subprime mortgage market was 100 billion when Clinton left the WH, 560 billion 8 years later when the bubble finally burst. Actually George W. tried to pressure Greenspan to lower the prime rate even further and G. resisted. Perhaps it all was due to the blindsidedness of those in power. They believe so ardently in their laissez faire economics and easy credit that they are blind to the pitfalls. If I recall correctly, Greenspan's own parent's owned a small textile shop in NYC that went belly up and G. always blamed their inaccessibility to capital as its cause.
Geoffrey wrote: " I don't believe Greenspan was the major culprit here, Monty. I believe it was Paulson and his gang, but it was certainly Commerce and SEC who should have seen the dangers."Former Goldman Sachs' Chairman Henry Paulson was among the top five powers behind the Great Bush Recession, but Alan Greenspan was among the top twelve.
As Fed Chairman he knew about the warped lending practices among the banks he regulated and the growing size of "the problem," and had the power to stop it. He chose not to, citing Ayn Rand's ideology.
"I was wrong," he admitted in congressional testimony. But he didn't apologize, the Randist pig. Greenspan was among Ayn Rand's inner circle, going back to the '60s. (I think Randism is a communist plot: http://www.wattpad.com/58460956-randi......)
As one of GW Bush's top economic advisers, Greenspan also lobbied against regulation of the derivatives market. Credit Default Swaps (CDRs) were the number one cause of the collapse. An estimated $12 trillion of these bets had been placed without oversight or regulation. Some say the figure was far larger. We will never know how much money was bet and made on Bush's Sub-prime Meltdown.
It was as if the top financial minds in the country wanted a major financial collapse and placed bets guaranteeing them huge profits if it happened. Billions in fines have now been assessed and paid proving this. Criminal charges may be filed after the mid-terms this November. George W. Bush awarded Greenspan the Presidential Medal of Freedom. You figure it out.
President Obama is holding aces in this game, and it ain't over. But will he sell out? And at what price?
Here's Greenspan, admitting he was wrong. (Note how the Youtube clip has been mutilated to make it hard to understand.): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWen5...
I certainly hope it's not over. I had expected him to wait until his second term before going after those criminals. Not only did he need to restore business confidence in the first term but he needed to guarantee that they wouldn't gang up on him for the second election. I am a bit disappointed more indictments haven't gotten underway, but at least a few were initiated. I just hope he doesn't wait until after the new senators get sworn in on the 20th.Which is the principal reason I'm voting for Elizabeth in the next presidential primary. Now that's a woman with balls.
Geoffrey wrote: "Which is the principal reason I'm voting for Elizabeth in the next presidential primary. Now that's a woman with balls."I may be with you on that one. She speaks my language.
Monty J wrote: "Former Goldman Sachs' Chairman Henry Paulson was among the top five powers behind the Great Bush Recession, but Alan Greenspan was among the top twelve."Correction, Greenspan's number three on Time's list. Paulson is number six:
http://content.time.com/time/specials...
HMMMMMMM. Interesting, Monty. So one of my MXan students was right.He absolutely loathes Greenspan.
i quote "If you are afraid to dreams or refuse to pursuit your dreams, then your life has end before it ever begin. But for those who dare to dreams and not afraid to pursuit their dreams, your journey has just begun"again i quote "believe it or not, but there's a hidden massage from the future that slipped in our subconsciousness, that we can decipher it within our dreams"
i guess we all at some point in out life trying to reach a bright green light that wink constantly from the other side of the pier, far away beyond our grasp. The green light it represent a promising future that will gave us hope, optimism to pursue it, in Gatsby's case the green light was a girl that he adore so much ... which in the end, ironically his green light is the one that will lead him to his Tragic future ...
Geoffrey wrote: "I certainly hope it's not over. I had expected him to wait until his second term before going after those criminals. Not only did he need to restore business confidence in the first term but he nee..."Elizabeth Warren Buffet? I just heard of her a few days ago, since she was making great waves with her impassioned speech about the Bush Recession and how Citibank was principally responsible for it, and then was then rewarded with a no-strings bailout with which they tightened their stranglehold on the country's financial system. Why am I only hearing about this woman now?
Between her and the slimmer of hope produced by the release of the "Torture Report" it seems that America is revisiting some of the worst crimes that took place in the past decade. Is it too much to hope there will be consequences and repercussions?
Matthew, you have ben out of the loop too long. You need to keep up with American current events. Here I have been here in Southern Mexico for the past 9 years and have kept abreast about her for the last 2.
Geoffrey wrote: "Matthew, you have ben out of the loop too long. You need to keep up with American current events. Here I have been here in Southern Mexico for the past 9 years and have kept abreast about her for t..."Well I'm up here in Canada, where I've always been. And what I hear is too depressing most days so I tend to filter. Nevertheless, I feel I've managed to maintain a modicum of knowledge about the comings and goings of a neighboring country's politics. Still, her name never came up until the other day.
Sorry, Matthew. I thought you were a Yankee. Considering that you're Canadian or an expat like myself living abroad, I understand you're not knowing.
Geoffrey wrote: "Sorry, Matthew. I thought you were a Yankee. Considering that you're Canadian or an expat like myself living abroad, I understand you're not knowing."Yeah, I get that alot. In fact, most of Canucks do, as we tend to watch the same tv and movies. But news, not so much.
Perhaps to the best. We´re not gotten our s--- together lately.
Lee wrote: ""
There's a difference between optimism and megalomania, optimism and blind ambition.
I don't think I've been tricked. I actually didn't like Gatsby all that much. I just sympathized with him because I know what it feels like to want something so badly, and his efforts are rather desperate and painful.I also wouldn't say I overlook his criminal behavior, but I admit it doesn't seem so bad in comparison with the heartlessness of the East Egg people who inherited everything and thus didn't have the need to turn to criminal behavior to get what Gatsby wanted.
i suppose there is a huge difference between those, but i still think that gatsby possess great sense of optimism, even when he was still a little boy. ambitious and optimism ... but when he become so obsess with Daisy he become a different person. but even so, it was his obsession who made him so success, she motivated him to create a better future ... he put daisy in every thoughts, imagination and decision he made.
Soo wrote: " his criminal behavior, but I admit it doesn't seem so bad in comparison with the heartlessness of the East Egg people..."This, I believe to be the point of the book, which satirizes capitalistic society by holding up a mirror so the participants can get a good look at their warts AND their gullibility.
The Buchanans demonstrated that they cared about no one but themselves, except to some extent groupies like Jordan. Gatsby at least remembered his roots and bought his father a house. In Nick's biased mind he was twice the man Buchanan was, "...worth the whole lot of them put together!" because he didn't forget his modest roots.
Gatsby's life was built on deception. He lied about his name and misrepresented to Daisy his wealth and family status. He lied to Nick when he told him he inherited his wealth, then told him a different story. How much are we to believe after he's perjured himself?
Nick bought Gatsby's line about being some kind of war hero on the scant evidence of a medal Gatsby could have bought at a pawn shop and had engraved. Gullible Nick bought everything Gatsby fed him.
Nick is us. We assume people are telling the truth.
Gatsby's blind pursuit of trophy wife Daisy and the success she represents resonates within most American men. But most of us have ethical boundaries that make us draw the line at criminal behavior.
Ethics and a sense of fairness and justice separates the 99 from the 1%. Today we are living with the proof of what Fitzgerald satirized with Gatsby--the "rigged game" as Elizabeth Warren so aptly describes.
Some have to look twice to see it, but Fitzgerald forever personified and lampooned the dark underside of capitalism in Gatsby, the Buchanans, Wolfsheim, Jordan, et. al.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
In war, if we are to believe Gatsby's version of his military service, he was Sgt. York He saw the enemy as just another obstacle and he came away unscathed, wounded neither physically nor mentally, a miracle that calls his credibility into question.
In business, it was similar. Laws and business ethics were boundaries that got in the way of becoming rich. Gatsby was not unique. Every year another crop of business executives goes to jail. Legions more don't get caught or cop a plea and buy their way out of trouble.
Gatsby broke social barriers like they were enemy lines in combat--class distinction, marriage fidelity, political corruption.
But with Daisy his dream ran up against reality. Part of the dream was that she loved only him and would sacrifice her family's reputation to be with him. He was so invested in his dream of being with Daisy, his trophy, that even after she had rejected him so publicly he refused to give up, expecting her to call.
Gatsby was too much of a loner. There was no one to give him a reality check, were that possible.
It is human to dream, but few of us gamble on dreams as heavily as Gatsby. In business we have rare examples like Steve Jobs, who lived by dreaming, creating and bringing to market technologies that made fortunes and changed the way we live.
Dreams can enrich us or ruin us. Dreams can also entertain us, for what is reading a novel but the conversion of words on a page into images, thoughts and feelings that exist only in our minds.
We dream when we sit in a darkened movie theater and our minds interpret what's on the screen and fill in the gaps of what is not shown or said with associations from personal experience, an application of Hemingway's Iceberg Principle.
In addition to being an adulterer, Gatsby was a criminal and consorted with criminals. "I made him," crime boss Wolfsheim said. Gatsby was a bootlegger and was centrally involved in a securities bond fraud scheme that could ruin people's lives, exploit widows and orphans. When Gatsby learned Nick sold bonds he tried to recruit him. More than once someone said they heard he had killed a man. Gatsby was Ivan Boesky, Charles Ponzi, Ken Lay, Dennis Koslowski, Bernie Madoff, Dennis Keating... . The list of corrupt capitalists goes on and on.
Narrator Carraway gives just enough information about Gatsby allowing readers to like him despite his criminality, his sociopathic tendencies. We relate to him because in America we all dream about being wealthy, most of us, and the entitlements that entails. Most of us have had adulterous thoughts.
Fitzgerald is tricking us, using our minds as a movie screen as narrator/director Nick invokes our imaginations to see Gatsby as someone to admire rather than question or judge impartially.
Jay Gatsby illustrates that actions have consequences. Had he acquired his wealth honestly, he might have indeed won Daisy. Taking the low road is what drove her away. You can't pick up just one end of a stick.
Do you feel you have been tricked by Fitzgerald into liking Gatsby? Why do you like him? Do you see yourself or someone you admire in him? Why do you overlook his criminal behavior? Would you buy a used car from him? What kind of world would this be if everyone acted like Gatsby, ignoring laws, morality and social morays in the blind pursuit of self-interest?
There is a difference between optimism and megalomania, optimism and blind ambition.