The Great Gatsby
discussion
worst book ever!
message 951:
by
Melinda
(new)
-
rated it 3 stars
Nov 16, 2013 08:34PM
Agreed that the ending was good. The best part, IMO.
reply
|
flag
I didn't like this book. Not because it was boring, but because it was racist.But either way I know why it is so often assigned for students - F. Scott Fitzgerald had a brilliant way of deftly manipulating the English language, and his phrasing and use of imagery is superb and original which is something that is sadly lacking in most writing today.
I did find it interesting that Daisy was based on his own wife, Zelda. Maybe she didn't cause his demise, but I think she broke his heart.
I actually liked the book quite a bit. One of my friends hated it, and she had a pretty good point--she said the plot wasn't all that interesting. I think it should definitely be taught in schools. After all, even if you didn't like the book, Fitzgerald's an amazing writer, and it's heaven for an English teacher trying to start classroom discussions.
@Jazzy: How is it racist? Sure, Tom has that rant about the "colored races," but that was the opinion of one character.
There were some horribly racist descriptions of both black and jewish people. It's really no wonder the mindset that brought about both segregation and the second world war.
Alice wrote: "I actually liked the book quite a bit. One of my friends hated it, and she had a pretty good point--she said the plot wasn't all that interesting. I think it should definitely be taught in schools..."
Oh yeah, there was Meyer Wolfsheim. It's been a while since I read the book, I forgot about him. That was pretty awful and stereotypical.
There's more than that as well, I think you've just forgotten. But yeah, you see what I mean.
Alice wrote: "Alice wrote: "I actually liked the book quite a bit. One of my friends hated it, and she had a pretty good point--she said the plot wasn't all that interesting. I think it should definitely be tau..."
You're probably right. like I said, it's been a long time since I read it.
i would like to add that it's probably not really aimed at very young people. i remember reading it when I was much younger, and now that i am older I can identify with the characters more. I've had my heart broken, I know what it feel like. I remember in school the teacher asked us to write a paragraph on how we would feel to see an old flame.
Old flame? What's that? I had to ask as I'd never heard that term before.
When it was explained to me I still had no idea how to answer. I'd never had a boyfriend and I'd never been in love. It was like asking a blind man what blue looked like, and it was something I couldn't answer so I said, happy, hoping that was what I was expected to say.
Jazzy wrote: "i would like to add that it's probably not really aimed at very young people. i remember reading it when I was much younger, and now that i am older I can identify with the characters more. I've ha..."I read it when I was 16 and loved it. Reread it this year and I still loved it. Admittedly, there were things I understand more now that went over my head at 16 (ex., Meyer Wolfshiem parts were too subtle for me since I didn't have enough life experience to know what a crime kingpin was.), but I remember the story blowing me away then too. I don't know why. Just from the very first sentence it captured me. I don't claim to be right or wrong since art is just subjective. Period. There is just something with Nick and the way he takes in and describes the world around him that I absolutely relate to on a deeper level than I live my every day life.
I do totally get your point though. "Old flame" point especially. Some teachers are silly that way.
Well, as I said before , I just couldn't get past the disgust at the racist ideas of this book to like it no matter how well F.S.F. painted with words across the page.Both times I read it I was so sickened by the way he described Jewish people and the fact that he described young black men as 'bucks' that i fell out of favour with him. If I had not been reading it again with a book club I would't have bothered.
Hmm? I reread it just a few months ago. I could swear that comments of that type were restricted to bigoted characters like Tom Buchanon and others like him?
No the descriptions themselves were quite bigoted. 37% in on the kindle, as they're passing a car driven by a white chauffeur.
I know the passage you are referring to:"A dead man passed us in a hearse heaped with blooms, followed by two carriages with drawn blinds and by more cheerful carriages for friends. The friends looked out at us with the tragic eyes and short upper lips of south-eastern Europe, and I was glad that the sight of Gatsby's splendid car was included in their somber holiday. As we crossed Blackwell's Island a limousine passed us, driven by a white chauffeur, in which sat three modish Negroes, two bucks and a girl. I laughed aloud as the yolks of their eyeballs rolled toward us in haughty rivalry.
"Anything can happen now that we've slid over this bridge," I thought; "anything at all… ."
Even Gatsby could happen, without any particular wonder."
I believe this phrase is meant as a comment about the excitement and wonder that was possible in 1920s New York City. In middle America, seeing a car of young, black people with a white chauffeur would have been quite outside the realm of possibility of anything he (Nick) would have experienced. (Indeed we know great headway for Civil Rights would not come until the 1960s) Fitzgerald uses the car passage for Nick to experience wonder and delight. HIs reaction is to laugh. To me, the laugh is not a derogatory laughing "at" the young people, but laughing at the feeling of stepping into a place where social norms and society's confines were tossed on their ear. He had been making tongue in cheek references to the gaudiness of Gatsby's car and cracks another silent joke about it brightening the somber Europeans holiday. He had been trying to figure out the mystery that is Gatsby. He sees the car and chauffeur and immediately connects the one wonder with the Gatsby phenomenon and realizes that Gatsby is really no 'wonder' in that magical place and time. I believe it is one of the experiences that makes Nick step Through the Looking Glass and begin to believe that anything is possible. As we know from the novel the wonder and excitement will be short-lived and the magical world will reveal it's ugly secrets, but Nick's naivete or innocence is the lens we get to experience the world through. It's too bad that the terminology may mean something different today, because I believe F Scott Fitzgerald was an observer of the human condition and that his understanding was not limited to one color of skin.
The term "buck", or young buck, may be derogatory today but I don't believe it was during this time period. In 1920s, it was literally a term that came from the excited, ready for anything state like a young buck (male deer). I found the same term used as late as 1987 in a newspaper describing young up and coming players on a popular sports team. Regardless, I do not believe a negative racist connotation was intended by Fitzgerald.
Here is a reference from Zane Grey's "30,000 on the Hoof" published in 1940 (20 years after Gatsby) using the term 'buck':
"Dances were the only means by which the older folk got acquainted and the youngsters had a chance to court each other...
So the time had come when Lucinda was reluctantly compelled to attend an occasional one of these functions. Logan enjoyed them immensely. He talked cattle to the other ranchers, and watched the young folk dance. It did not seem to worry him that the young bucks fought over Barbara. She was the prettiest and most popular girl between Flagg and the Matazels. Logan took vast pride in that. Nevertheless he did not encourage young men to call at Sycamore Canyon."
The racist/anti-Semitic language in Gatsby is a reflection of the time it was written and the setting it portrayed.I don't know enough about Fitzgerald to say whether he was personally bigoted, enlightened, or considered average/moderate in his views (for the time).
The average person and American culture in general were more bigoted and more casually bigoted in that era. This does not excuse it, but it is what it is.
If you want a real eye-opener on how casually racist and bigoted people were, try sampling some of the pulp fiction of the era. You'll get a real feel for how common this vocabulary was among the "common" folk, as opposed to literary circles. As enjoyable as the action can be in Burroughs' tales, Conan, or The Shadow, the language can be a real stumbling block.
I get how some might look elsewhere for their entertainment. Personally, I think the thinking and discussion it prompts is valuable.
We shouldn't shut our eyes to the past, or pretend that racism and bigotry were solely the province of extremists. Racism was rampant in mainstream America and part of the thinking of those we would probably otherwise consider "good" people. We gain nothing by sanitizing or ignoring this fact.
Robert, I agree, absolutely. My comments above are in reference to the cited paragraph. In that circumstance, I believe the words used then vs. their connotation today clouded the author's original intent. My thoughts are in no way a commentary on ignoring racial prejudices or ignoring racism as a part of American history. There is plenty of blame and yes there are hundreds of thousands testaments in literature, periodicals and newspapers of that day with rampant racism and derogatory terminology. This particular term though "buck", look it up on snopes, has been erroneously circulated and as a result it means something different today. That was the point I had hoped to make.
There is so much true about racism, but that does not preclude me (I hope) from sharing one instance where it may not have been intended.
I agree with Robert, that passage was just one case, I didn't like the book because it was racist, and as I stated before was the mindset of most people and paved the way for the atrocities which were to come.
Robert wrote: "Laura-lou wrote: "does anyone agree with me that this is the worst and most boring book of all time?"Not even close. Try The Bridges of Madison County."
Robert, bridges of Madison County WAS the worst book ever written!
The Great Gatsby is partly a depiction of the times- there are racist elements that are shown for that time period. I would hope people's lives and views are not so constricted that they can't read any literature from before 2013. Is literature supposed to be politically correct and always non-offensive? If so, go read Bambi.
In high school I read this book, which the point was to see the author's opinion about the american dream, and if it could be achieved. He says it can't be achieved, but obviously it could've been achieved if Gatsby never died, or if Gatsby never served in world was one in the first place
I agree completely. This book was forced on us this year, and it was so bad that I literally didn't even read the book. I just went off summaries from other sites so I could pass the test. Near the end of the book, as a class, we did a discussion. I literally was so uninterested in the book that I had no idea who any of the characters were. I literally didn't even know who the narrator was at that point. After the discussion, I realized I needed to try and reread it, but it was just so bad that I decided to go off summaries.
Ahh wrote: "I agree completely. This book was forced on us this year, and it was so bad that I literally didn't even read the book. I just went off summaries from other sites so I could pass the test. Near the..."Forgot to mention that I normally love to read.
Robert wrote: "The racist/anti-Semitic language in Gatsby is a reflection of the time it was written and the setting it portrayed.I don't know enough about Fitzgerald to say whether he was personally bigoted, e..."
Yes, Fitzgerald was a racist, just as were 90% of the American public of that era, who were almost universally homophobic and highly antisemitic as well. We have come a long way since then. The novelis a testament to how far we have come since it was written.
Fitzgerald was writing about a social class whose characteristics included those traits, so for him to have written them any other way would have produced characters that no one believed. He was selling his work to a contemporary market, not one that had evolved 100 years later. Hell, when Fitzgerald was a boy, an African was on display in a New York zoo!:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaKgD...
Fitzgerald was not responsible for the social mores he was born into. He simply held up a mirror so society could take a good look at itself--and future society on a retrospective basis, which is what we are doing.
The novel did, however, have considerable impact as a social critique of the corruption and moral decay associated with the blind pursuit wealth--an observation that holds true today, exemplified in Donald Trump.
As Monty has found himself out on a limb, albeit one that is correct about the social ramifications of the novel, I wish to make one that is even more controversial.As many posters have noted, the characters in the novel tend to be simplistic and not particularly well rounded in complexity. They are but merely cardboard cutouts. We learn of their most harmartiac traits, but their lack of depth in well roundedness is disturbing, not to say the least their lack of character. Jay and the narrator are the best drawn of the lot with Daisy a close third, but nowhere do we see the complexity of their depth that we would see in an Edith Wharton or Theodore Dreiser novel, and critically short of the complexity of a Dostoyevsky novel.
Several have noted this as I do. Perhaps we don´t want to learn anything more about any of them, as they range from mildly distasteful to absolutely repugnant.
I haven´t read any of the other novels of SF but have only seen the Benjamin Bottoms movie.
But I would hazard to guess that SF´s own character mirrors that of his fictional children. If so, then deduce his own extreme narcissism and lack of empathy and compassion.I would venture to guess he, too, was a shallow cardboard cutout of a man.
If it were not for the similarity, he would not have created his ¨masterpiece¨.
No way. I found a copy that had every single color underlined. For some reason, this really opened my eyes to how well written the story is. Gatsby is such an optimist...thinks he can rewrite history but gets crushed by the old money. Sad but compelling. Love it.
Ahh wrote: "I just went off summaries from other sites so I could pass the test. ... I literally didn't even know who the narrator was at that point."First off, that's some impressive thread necromancy. One post in 5+ years, and that one was 2016. I always like it when threads come back from the dead. It makes me think that there's some sort of life after death not just for books and authors but for readers and commenters too....
Second, were you looking for material to spoof your English teacher? Is that how you came to dust off this thread? I ask because you mentioned you didn't even know who the narrator was, and if that's the case you might want to look at this also dead thread, just for shits & giggles:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
That stuff should either get you up to speed or completely tank your grade, but it'll make for an entertaining classroom experience either way.
Geoffrey wrote: "As Monty has found himself out on a limb, albeit one that is correct about the social ramifications of the novel, I wish to make one that is even more controversial.As many posters have noted, the..."
Yes, the characters are so thinly drawn the novel becomes almost a fable, giving it an eerie fairy tale essence. We all remember fairy tales--Goldilocks, Little Red Riding Hood, Rumplestiltskin... . Jay Gatsby fits right in. When he died, no one cared but Nick, who worshipped him. Why? Because Gatsby didn't care about anyone but himself. Daisy was a trophy, a reward for making a pile of money, not someone to cherish and honor. The reflection on Fitzgerald, Gatsby's admitted doppelganger, is self-evident, res ipsa loquitur.
Geoffrey wrote: "I would hazard to guess that SF´s own character mirrors that of his fictional children. If so, then deduce his own extreme narcissism and lack of empathy and compassion.I would venture to guess he, too, was a shallow cardboard cutout of a man.
Agreed. I'm almost through reading Fitzgerald's first novel, This Side of Paradise, and his doppleganger main character, Amory, (similar to Jay Gatsby) is one of the most arrogant, narcissistic characters I've ever come across. At every turn, Amory is going off about how he comes across to other people. His assessments of other characters, women in particular, are superficial. His assessments of people focus on social standing, wealth and physical appearance. His assessments of other works of literature are largely dismissive. But at least he professes his love to his romantic partners, something Jay Gatsby never did.
The popularity of this novel when it first came out is a curious testament to either a thin market of contemporary reading material or a culture untethered from moral values--either of which could be due to the war. Stein called it the "Lost Generation." Apparently she was right. Hemingway's contemporaneous novel The Sun Also Rises deals with similar issues.
But despite its shortcomings, with The Great Gatsby Fitzgerald lifted himself above almost any other American novelist with his satire of American society. If Jay Gatsby personifies the American Dream, Fitzgerald exposes the corruption--"the foul dust that follow(s) in (the) wake" of that drea--and gave Gatsby the punishment he deserved--death and rejection, by his purported love Daisy and by society in general.
It's a shame how Hollywood has twisted the novel into a latter-day Romeo and Juliet.
Monty J wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "As Monty has found himself out on a limb, albeit one that is correct about the social ramifications of the novel, I wish to make one that is even more controversial.As many poster..."
perhaps the social commentary implicit in the GG comes too close to Hollywood´s home.
Geoffrey wrote: "Perhaps the social commentary implicit in the GG comes too close to Hollywood´s home."Bingo!
The same, I suspect, is true of the literary mainstream, especially those, like Harold Bloom, connected with Yale University, bastion of free-enterprise and Wall Street. For the crooks of Wall Street to make their millions unfettered by bothersome regulation, the trust of a naive public is supremely important. Through Gatsby, Wolfsheim and Nick, Wall Street was exposed as corrupt, eroding that trust.
Therefore, the novel's social satire had to be downplayed and papered over by the novel's romantic tragedy motif. What more powerful way to accomplish this than with the help of Hollywood?
I've seen the original flic two or three time. I found Masterton weak casting, but find Mia Farrow amazing. She nailed the part best of all. Even Redford, an over rated actor, couldn't do Jay to perfection.
I agree. I thought it was garbage. Pretty hard to feel sympathetic towards well-to-do indulgent douchebags
I would love for Monty (or anyone really) to comment on the one line in the first chapter that just bugs the hell out of me. It's the one about Nick enjoying the war. "I enjoyed the counter raid so thoroughly..." I mean, really - who says shit like this? Sociopaths? Obviously someone completely unable to empathize. At first I went with "self centered", but it's got to be so much more than that. WWI was so so very awful to millions...but Nick had fun?? Perhaps I'm reading it all wrong. Since I subscribe to the idea that Nick likes men, perhaps it was the sexy times in the trenches he was remembering. I don't know...someone please help. I really hate Nick.
Paula wrote: "I would love for Monty (or anyone really) to comment on the one line in the first chapter that just bugs the hell out of me. It's the one about Nick enjoying the war. "I enjoyed the counter raid so..."I think a lot of us hate the whole cast of them. The only character without flaws is Mr. Gatz, Jay's father. Maybe SF had a good relationship with his father, but I doubt it considering how messed up he was.
Monty J wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "Perhaps the social commentary implicit in the GG comes too close to Hollywood´s home."Bingo!
The same, I suspect, is true of the literary mainstream, especially those, like Haro..."
Don't single out Harold Bloom. I was in a literature program at the university and found several of the profs, deficient in the social conscience category. Just loved the professor who spent a whole class on the imagery of the grape vines in the novel, SANCTUARY by Faulkner. What a pompous boor he was! And the book dealt with social class issues.
Thank you, Geoffrey! I hate them too, but love the book - go figure! I'm writing a small list to myself of character attributes. My "Nick" list is like a page long (Daisy is the shortest - only one word: "prop"), but I think I'll erase it all and just go with "colossally immature."
Daisy is considerably self centered. When asked about her daughter, she very quickly turns the subject around to her own person. What a dreadful mother. She's catty about the butler. What more can we say about her? Oh yes, she's a killer, despite her lack of premeditation, nor is she particularly concerned in stopping and taking care of her victim. What a sleaze ball.
Geoffrey wrote: "I think a lot of us hate the whole cast of them. The only character without flaws is Mr. Gatz, Jay's father."My reaction to this discussion is probably colored by the fact that I am deep into John Updike's Rabbit Angstrom: The Four Novels series, which is filled with superb writing about deeply flawed characters. In fact, I am probably going to end up describing the main couple as the Tom and Daisy of their generation in at least one of the reviews. They are just as reckless and uncaring, but I don't see how this is a flaw in the writing or in the author.
Having shallow or unlikable characters was the deliberate choice of the author. They are not a sure sign of a lack of skill. They are also not a sign of the personal failings of an author. Why would we want a character without flaws? How is that preferable?
Margaret Atwood addressed this issue in her essay "Spotty-Handed Villainesses" about flaws in characters:
"Unfortunately, there is a widespread tendency to judge characters as if they were job applicants, or public servants, or prospective roommates, or somebody you're considering marrying. [...] The characters in the average novel are not usually folks you would want to get involved with at a personal or a business level."
Mickey wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "I think a lot of us hate the whole cast of them. The only character without flaws is Mr. Gatz, Jay's father."My reaction to this discussion is probably colored by the fact that I..."
Oh I agree! Well-behaved characters aren't all that interesting. It's just this particular line about "enjoying the war so thoroughly" that has my jimmies rustled. Now that I've thought about it a bit more, it's more than Nick just being naive - that's too simple and obvious. Perhaps SF was trying to convey that Nick was living in his own fantasy land every bit as much as Gatsby (SF knew the horrors of the war), so I consider this one simple line quite important. It also ties in to how Nick thinks he can acquire wealth by reading his fancy business books.
Geoffrey wrote: "Daisy is considerably self centered. When asked about her daughter, she very quickly turns the subject around to her own person. What a dreadful mother. She's catty about the butler. What more can ..."Narcissism runs wild in this book, doesn't it?
Geoffrey wrote: "Paula wrote: "I would love for Monty (or anyone really) to comment on the one line in the first chapter that just bugs the hell out of me. It's the one about Nick enjoying the war. "I enjoyed the c...".
Replying again. I'm going to have to reconsider everything. I looked up the whole 3rd Division, 9th Machine Gun Battalion for WWI. That division saw MAJOR action on the Western Front. So, now I firmly believe Nick was tongue-in-cheek when he used the word "enjoyed". I guess I have to sort of like him now. Dude must have total PTSD. Oh well, gonna have to read the whole thing again as a war novel!
Paula wrote: "I would love for Monty (or anyone really) to comment on the one line in the first chapter that just bugs the hell out of me. It's the one about Nick enjoying the war. "I enjoyed the counter raid so thoroughly..." I mean, really - who says shit like this? Sociopaths? Obviously someone completely unable to empathize. At first I went with "self centered", but it's got to be so much more than that. WWI was so so very awful to millions...but Nick had fun??"It looks to me like you've misunderstood that sentence, mostly because you're reading it out of context, and interpreting it on a tone that it has only when decontextualized. Here it is in context:
I graduated from New Haven in 1915, just a quarter of a century after my father, and a little later I participated in that delayed Teutonic migration known as the Great War. I enjoyed the counter-raid so thoroughly that I came back restless. Instead of being the warm centre of the world, the Middle West now seemed like the ragged edge of the universe — so I decided to go East and learn the bond business.Nick is not saying he enjoyed participating in WWI. He's being ironic in several ways in that sequence. First, calling the First World War a "counter raid" to a "Teutonic invasion" is both a nod to the size, devastation and futility of WWI (which, ultimately resolved nothing) and a characterization of the European migration into the United States. That is, if WWI is a "counter raid" then the immigration of Europeans to America is a "raid" and it similarly resolved nothing. One of the themes of the novel is the way European standards of wealth, social class and Society (capital S) have manifested in the United States. In many ways those standards remain identical; there has been only a transference. This is a core theme, arguably THE core theme, of the novel. It'll be repeated throughout the text, but I'd suggest that the quote your talking about fits neatly with the last sentence of the book:
So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.WWI is a "counter raid" in the same way that European civilization has invaded America, and we beat on into the past....
Second, in that context what Nick is describing with the word "enjoyed" is not that he got pleasure from the experience. He's using the word ironically to indicate how WWI affected him personally. He so "enjoyed" the war that he could not stay home and be at peace with his family that had lived there for generations. He had to leave, go to New York and try afresh, meet Gatsby, witness his elaborate (yet ultimately futile) attempt to fight the social standards of the day and the cards that he was dealt, and then die in the process. Nick was himself acknowledging those conditions—and putting himself in a version of them—right there at the beginning of Chapter 1 as part of his own experience.
Gary wrote: "Paula wrote: "I would love for Monty (or anyone really) to comment on the one line in the first chapter that just bugs the hell out of me. It's the one about Nick enjoying the war. "I enjoyed the c..."Thank you so much for this and helping me understand! I tend to suffer both from lack of imagination and taking things at face value. I've just started rereading the novel, so I'll definitely be reading your comment over and over to make sure I stay on track!
Paula wrote: "Thank you so much for this and helping me understand! I tend to suffer both from lack of imagination and taking things at face value. I've just started rereading the novel, so I'll definitely be reading your comment over and over to make sure I stay on track!"It takes a few readings to get a handle on TGG. Fortunately, it's a pretty short book....
To designate this novel --out of all the titles great or small which one might ever wish to claim is 'worst' --this is no slur on the book or the author at all. It's a slur on the hapless numbskull who ever might make such a remark. That person just defecated on themselves, in effect, then they reached down to scoop up a handful of their own slime and smeared it all over their face and body. There's few other utterances one might spew which let the rest of us know as perfectly as this, that we're in the midst of feeble dullards. Catch my drift? You just 'outed' yourself as an irredeemable moron. Take my word for it.
There goes by the grace of God, once again, the slanderer Feliks. He just loves to denigrate others. And why should we take your word for it? Are you an all supreme being?
Feliks wrote: "To designate this novel --out of all the titles great or small which one might ever wish to claim is 'worst' --this is no slur on the book or the author at all. It's a slur on the hapless numbskull..."I like the power of your language, Felix. Well crafted.
Geoffrey wrote: "She's a killer..."Daisy wasn't driving. Gatsby was. All eyewitnesses said it was a man driving. Plus, Myrtle would not have run toward the car if a woman were behind the wheel.
Why do so many people believe Gatsby, a proven liar and crook? And Nick, whose judgement is clouded with adulation? Why do people believe a wealthy crook and his admiring entourage over common everyday honest hardworking people? What is it about money that manufactures credibility and insulates against moral authority?
Paula wrote: "I would love for Monty (or anyone really) to comment on the one line in the first chapter that just bugs the hell out of me. It's the one about Nick enjoying the war. "I enjoyed the counter raid so thoroughly that I came back restless. Instead of being the warm centre of the world, the Middle West now seemed like the ragged edge of the universe — so I decided to go East and learn the bond business..."Here's the full passage (thank you, Gary):
I graduated from New Haven in 1915, just a quarter of a century after my father, and a little later I participated in that delayed Teutonic migration known as the Great War. I enjoyed the counter-raid so thoroughly that I came back restless. Instead of being the warm centre of the world, the Middle West now seemed like the ragged edge of the universe — so I decided to go East and learn the bond business.Here Nick is saying he went to Yale, then to war then returned and wanted to learn the bond business, but it's the cavalier way Fitzgerald has Nick convey this backstory that characterizes him as immature and arrogant. "Teutonic migration" is a flippant way of referring to the Germany army's invasion of Europe. "Counter raid" is taking up arms to defeat Germany. Referring to a war as "migration" and "counter-raid" is highly disrespectful toward those whose lives were lost and their loved ones.
Nick is based on Fitzgerald himself, and Fitzgerald had never experienced war except stateside in officer training. (He didn't join the Army until late 1917, a year before the war ended. Having lost his college deferment, he'd have otherwise been drafted.) Having Nick express himself in this way is consistent with Scott himself, reflecting an immature, pampered, arrogant world view.
The book was published when Scott was 26. He'd only been shaving a few years. He drank and partied his way through two years at Princeton before dropping out. He had to be a writer because he'd never held a job before. (After college he briefly wrote copy for an ad agency before returning to live with his mother and write This Side of Paradise.)
He was brilliant but he'd grown up in a marshmallow bubble. His rich, beautiful, highly educated mother had pampered him into a social butterfly. I think Fitzgerald was aware of this and shaped Nick's personality from the mold he knew.
Monty J wrote: "Here Nick is saying he went to Yale, then to war then returned and wanted to learn the bond business, but it's the cavalier way Fitzgerald has Nick convey this backstory that characterizes him as immature and arrogant. "Teutonic migration" is a flippant way of referring to the Germany army's invasion of Europe. "Counter raid" is taking up arms to defeat Germany. Referring to a war as "migration" and "counter-raid" is highly disrespectful toward those whose lives were lost and their loved ones.Nick is based on Fitzgerald himself,... Having Nick express himself in this way is consistent with Scott himself, reflecting an immature, pampered, arrogant world view."
Your conclusions as to the intended effect are not necessarily accurate. War vets are known for their black humor. There is even a separate section under "Black Comedy" on Wikipedia that deals specifically with military humor. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_co...) Referring to the war as "migration" and "counter-raid" is not intended by Fitzgerald to be read as "immature and arrogant" by the audience.
Judging the characters and the author based on this standard that all war vets should be respectful of those who died by referring to the war by its proper name only won't lead to an accurate picture of how many veterans refer to their war experiences.
If you read this book as if the characters are supposed to be clean, humble, well-mannered, respectful, etc and any deviation from this standard shows a fault in the characters and by extension the author, you aren't ready to read it yet.
Mickey wrote: War vets are known for their black humor."Scott Fitzgerald wasn't a combat veteran. He'd never been less than ten thousand miles from a combat theater and been in uniform only a few months, as a trainee. He entered service in November, 1917. In July of 1918 he was still in training when he met Zelda. The war ended in November 1918 before he was deployed, barely long enough to learn some terminology and a few concepts and names of battles.
Monty J wrote: "Scott Fitzgerald wasn't a combat veteran."So Fitzgerald created a character that had different experiences than he did and gave that character realistic responses to those experiences that someone who had been through them would recognize. I don't see the problem here. That's what good writers do if they want to have more than one character (themselves).
The purpose of reading is not to sit in judgement of the characters or the author. It always surprises me that a negative response is considered more reasoned or in-depth.
What I do think is the problem is this idea that a war veteran (as Nick was) referring to the war he served in as a "migration" or "counter-raid" was intended to show immaturity or arrogance. That opinion doesn't show much understanding of war veterans on the part of the reader. The author appears to have a better handle on it.
ETA: If you are looking to understand war experiences and how a soldier might refer to war as enjoyable, a good book to read would be The Things They Carried by Tim O'Brien. Here's a pertinent quote: “War is hell, but that's not the half of it, because war is also mystery and terror and adventure and courage and discovery and holiness and pity and despair and longing and love. War is nasty; war is fun. War is thrilling; war is drudgery. War makes you a man; war makes you dead.”
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Rabbit Angstrom: The Four Novels (other topics)
The Bridges of Madison County (other topics)
The Bridges of Madison County (other topics)
The Time Keeper (other topics)
More...
John Updike (other topics)
Mitch Albom (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
The Things They Carried (other topics)Rabbit Angstrom: The Four Novels (other topics)
The Bridges of Madison County (other topics)
The Bridges of Madison County (other topics)
The Time Keeper (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Tim O'Brien (other topics)John Updike (other topics)
Mitch Albom (other topics)
