The Great Gatsby
discussion
worst book ever!
date
newest »
newest »
This book sucks. I don't get how this is a suppossed "classic," or even how this book is considered appropriate for high-schoolers. First off there's Nick, the most boring protagonist I've ever had to deal with. He just keeps zoning out and talking about all these random things making it take forever for the story to actually continue. Maybe that isn't so bad though, considering how little story there is and how terrible it is. The story can be explained in one sentence, everyone is having a secret affair with each other, and then they murder each other over it. Seriously, there's some pretty gruesome stuff in this book like the unneccassary details the author gives when Myrtle is gruesomely killed by Gatsby's car. Seriously, who decided to make us suffer through this junk. I'm looking at you Mr. or Ms. whoever makes the English rubric requirements for America. Instead of giving us seriously messed up crap like this book, the scarlet letter, lord of the flies, and 1984, actually read the books you assign people and choose ones that don't make all my friends think they hate reading. I know people who are scared to even touch books because of what all you dumb schools out there assign us. Just give us an actually good book for once, it's not that hard. Believe it or not good books did actually exist in the 20th century like the Lord of the Rings trilogy or The Scarlet Pimpernel. I went to a charter school for 8th grade, and since the teachers their weren't bound by dumb rubric requirements, our teacher decided to assign us a book she actually enjoyed and thought we would like too, she let us read Ender's Game for our reading unit. And it was awesome. I saw kids who at other schools struggled with English class and hated reading, decide to read ahead of the class. A lot more people decided to do their homework for once. English class would be a lot better for so many students if you rubric writing people actually stepped up and did your jobs. Give us good books to read instead of books that scare us for life.Sorry I just needed to get that rant out.
Lizzy wrote: "This book sucks. ...good books did actually exist in the 20th century like the Lord of the Rings trilogy... "The ruling elite loves it when we bury our heads in fantasy instead of realistically confronting the ills of society.
Lizzy wrote: "The story can be explained in one sentence, everyone is having a secret affair with each other, and then they murder each other over it."Dale wrote: “The storyline is boring and half way through you find yourself saying, ‘who cares?’”
Since the majority of people who responded to this post found The Great Gatsby shallow, boring, and pointless, perhaps the questions we should be asking isn’t: "Is The Great Gatsby the worst book ever?” But: What are today’s students learning in literature class?” And: “Is literary analysis a thing of the past?”
Before answering, consider the following questions:
#1. Is The Great Gatsby REALLY about “secret affairs” and “murder’?
OR…
Is there a deeper, more complex, less black and white meaning hidden within the simplistic text? One that requires a recognition, understanding and analysis of metaphors, similes, symbolism, etc… to fully decode?
#2. Are the characters REALLY as blunt and simplistic as those in “Harlequins”? (Pani Katarzuna, message #7)
OR…
Do the blunt, simplistic characterizations reinforce the shallow, useless natures of people so single-mindedly obsessed with pleasure and popularity that we can’t help but dislike them?
#3. Is Fitzgerald merely capturing “a unique slice of American life and goals”, as Kristine (message #17) suggests?
OR…
Did Fitzgerald have a particular worldview? What events shaped his worldview? Was his worldview reflected in The Great Gatsby? If so, how? And, how is his worldview relevant to today’s world in general, and you in particular?
NOW…
If teachers aren’t asking students the second types of questions rather than the first, then I ask again:
What are today’s students learning in literature class? And, is literary analysis a thing of the past?
If it is, I personally think it's a shame. A truly great writer can fit a whole universe of thoughts and ideas inside the simplest of texts. Everyone should have a map to those universes.
Lizzy wrote: "Give us good books to read instead of books that scare us for life."Can't do both.
Kaity wrote: "Did Fitzgerald have a particular worldview?Yes, of course, and TGG reflects those views.
Kaity wrote:" What events shaped his worldview?"
Obviously his personal experience, limited as it was by his young age, social confinement and lack of work experience and travel. I've read most of his short stories and three of his four (completed) novels, recently finishing This Side of Paradise.
Fitzgerald kept company with the wealthy set who attended Princeton and the elite Catholic private and and prep schools his grandmother made possible. He had limited social reach because he didn't stray from his social bubble--the leisure set, with plenty of time for socializing among his stratum, learning all the popular dance steps, going to the right parties. The working poor to him were a hapless, repellent eyesore. He was spoiled by his spirited doting mother and had a weak-willed father who failed in business and didn't bounce back.
His Catholic religion had to have also been a strong influence, as evidenced in one of his short stories, "Absolution," and the way Gatsby is "punished" for his sins by murder.
No one in Fitzgerald's age bracket during World War I escaped being affected by it, but Fitzgerald only got to smell gunpowder on the firing range. He wore a uniform less than a year and never left the States. He read about the war in the newspaper like most Americans, but learned enough of the terminology to impress the girls.
He had a brilliant mind though, and a passion and gift for writing. And in both TGG and This Side of Paradise Fitzgerald displays an acute awareness and sensitivity to the pervasive corruption of the Roaring 1920s.
Kaity wrote: "Was his worldview reflected in The Great Gatsby? If so, how?"
Of course. TGG exposes and condemns the corruption that Fitzgerald observed and commented on in This Side of Paradise. Gatsby's rejection by Daisy and his death are the sentence passed on him for the corrupt life he lived.
Kaity wrote: "And, how is his worldview relevant to today’s world in general, and you in particular?"
Anyone who can't see a parallel with Donald Trump and Jay Gatsby needs glasses and a powerful dose of smelling salts. Fitzgerald warned us about Trump. Now we have to rise up and defeat him. Relevant? I cannot think of another novel in the history of American Literature more relevant that The Great Gatsby.
I can only surmise that these people are that are whining about having to read The Great Gatsby are aggravated only because they're being forced to confront their own corrupt lives in the social stratosphere of the wealthy.
Kaity wrote: "What are today’s students learning in literature class? And, is literary analysis a thing of the past?"Interesting question! I've found that literary analysis has been replaced by a series of checklists. Kids are taught rules about character representation (how people are supposed to behave or be represented based on things like gender and race) and they're taught to notice any deviations. The rest of the book is treated as just filler. They aren't encouraged to connect it to their own experiences or deal with the themes the author is exploring. Instead they go through whatever relevant checklists there are and judge the characters and the authors accordingly.
Monty J wrote: "To each his own. I can only speak for myself and the people I've been in dozens of writing classes and workshops with where evaluating characters and authors was/is essential. "But I said nothing of evaluating. I did talk about "sitting in judgement". It's almost as if you have a personal grudge against Fitzgerald. It reminds me of the imperious and disapproving tone middle school girls would get when they're talking behind each other's backs or even that group of people on here years ago who used to specialize in troll reviews that showed little interest in the book. I can't see how this leads to an interesting view or would help someone be a better writer.
Lizzy wrote: "This book sucks. I don't get how this is a suppossed "classic," or even how this book is considered appropriate for high-schoolers. First off there's Nick, the most boring protagonist I've ever had..."It might just show that American authors are not as good as we prop them up to be. They are ours, after all. Use the term, American Classic. Okay. But world Classic? Fitzgerald falls a long way. He's just been propped up by the American press. Mark Twain? He is world Classic.
Mickey wrote: "It's almost as if you have a personal grudge against Fitzgerald.."I can see where people might draw that conclusion because of the breadth of facts I point out, but nothing could be further from the truth. My intent is to show the truth as best I can, which sometimes may not be flattering. In spite of being raised as a spoiled social butterfly, Fitzgerald was self-aware enough to know it and used his personal insight to produce an amazing body of work.
I think Scott Fitzgerald deserves his elevated stature among American authors. He had a brilliant mind, as I've stated before, and his social insight has not been given full credit. If I have an ax to grind, it's to do what little I can to bring attention to that.
What impresses me most about Fitzgerald is how far he came in literature despite the limited social sphere he grew up in. He reached a lot of people in a powerful way. He has some good insights, made me think, challenged my perceptions. I learned a lot from him. Still am.
It is true that Fitzgerald deserves his elevated stature among American authors, but what about the world's great fiction? Surely he could not be held in as high esteem and say, Thomas Hardy, or Zola. What's your view?
Monty J wrote: "I can see where people might draw that conclusion because of the breadth of facts I point out, but nothing could be further from the truth."It's not your "breadth of facts" that's creating the impression that you're holding some personal grudge against Fitzgerald. In the internet age, listing facts on an author's life has become less impressive than in previous times. It's not the facts that I'm taking issue with. Rather, it's the dismissive and supercilious tone that you take when analyzing. I'll give an example: from message 1007, you wrote:
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.)
Saying that a war vet character referring to the recent war as "migration" and "counter-raid" was supposed to be seen by the audience (who had experienced the war themselves) as "immature, arrogant, and pampered", or that it was meant to show Nick's disrespect to the war dead or that it was a mistake in characterization since Fitzgerald was not in combat is a very serious charge. Was Fitzgerald using Nick's statements to rile up passions against him? Were we supposed to find Nick boorish and disrespectful? Funny how the contemporary audience, some of whom presumably knew people who died in the war were not offended nor driven to dislike the character for this reason. So is this really an accurate description of the intent of the passage? Or its effect?
It doesn't really matter to me where people fall on their opinions about the book or the author. Everyone has an opinion. If you recognize some of the genius of Fitzgerald, good for you. For me, that doesn't negate all the constant emphasis on Fitzgerald's personal life (all very shallow interpretations) and the misrepresentations of the book (such as the excerpt I included above).
Skip wrote: "It is true that Fitzgerald deserves his elevated stature among American authors, but what about the world's great fiction? Surely he could not be held in as high esteem and say, Thomas Hardy, or Zo..."Certainly not. Fitzgerald is no Thomas Hardy. A brilliant stylist he may be, but he was only breaking the surface of social critique, though Fitzgerald gets extra credit for homing in on a fundamental facet of American life--the vulnerability of the American Dream. America holds itself out to be a special place, where anyone from anywhere can come and pursue their dream, whatever it may entail.
In the end, Fitzgerald fizzled, but he made an important impact with this one novel, even though it's been warped by Hollywood.
Mickey wrote: "Monty J wrote: "I can see where people might draw that conclusion because of the breadth of facts I point out, but nothing could be further from the truth."It's not your "breadth of facts" that's..."
Thanks for taking the time to comment. As I said, to each his /her own. I have only one opinion--mine.
James wrote: "Monty J wrote: My intent is to show the truth, which sometimes may not be flattering.We are all so fortunate that there is someone like you who not only knows the truth, but deigns to share it wi..."
Nothing gets learned by silence. I can only share what I have to share. If I see something significant and keep silent, what good is that?
Others will see things differently. It's up to them to speak up. That's what Goodreads is for.
Monty J wrote: "Thanks for taking the time to comment. As I said, to each his /her own. I have only one opinion--mine. "Sometimes it's hard for us to see the ways in which our own biases warp our perceptions. If I'm looking at messages like 1016, 1007, or 985, I see a lot of class envy against the wealthy. Your caricature of Fitzgerald fits into a very old stereotype of "spoiled little rich boy". It is an opinion, but I would counter that it is not a very thoughtful one.
Mickey wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Thanks for taking the time to comment. As I said, to each his /her own. I have only one opinion--mine. "Sometimes it's hard for us to see the ways in which our own biases warp our..."
Fitzgerald would be the first one to admit that he was a spoiled little rich kid. One of the things I like about him is his introspection.
Mickey wrote:"Kids are taught rules about character representation (how people are supposed to behave or be represented based on things like gender and race) and they're taught to notice any deviations. The rest of the book is treated as just filler."From the comments I've read in response to the question posed in this thread, I strongly suspect you're right Mickey.
A great disservice has been done to the generations of students who have been taught to assess literature based on a particular criteria, rather than analyze it per the author's intent.
Great author's don't beat you over the head with their message, they use carefully crafted language and imagery to entice you into digging deeper.
If you don't know what a metaphor is, or how to interpret symbolism, or how external characterization offers clues to internal personality, then you're destined to travel a flat, shallow literary world instead of the three-dimensional one the author created for you.
If today's literature teachers are teaching their students to view multi-faceted literature as nothing more than black print on a white background, then their students will be a more "Lost Generation" than Fitzgerald's was.
I got a master’s in English lit in the early 90s. When I got to grad school, I was completely unprepared for the kind of analysis some of the instructors expected, which heavily influenced by French thinkers such as Derrida. Thankfully, it appears that much of deconstructionism has been defenestrated. That said, I do think it added a helpful perspective on textual analysis.
Which “was” heavily influenced. Damn it.
From that perspective, many of the things discussed here are irrelevant. The author’s intent, to the extent knowable (even to her or him), has no significance. There is no such thing as “symbolism” because there is nothing to symbolize—language does not map onto an objective external world. There is only the text, and the tensions it holds within itself, which lead to endless dialectical analysis. Therefore, there is no such thing as a “bad” book.
A “bad” book. Not sure how that word got dropped, although its omission was a happy accident.
Jimbo wrote: "From that perspective, many of the things discussed here are irrelevant. The author’s intent, to the extent knowable (even to her or him), has no significance. There is no such thing as “symbolism”..."You may want to read up on the Objective Correlative: https://litreactor.com/columns/unders...
Simply put, an objective correlative is an object in the story that serves a symbolic purpose. It’s an everyday item that possesses some thematic presence, or conjures an image, or jukes an emotional response from the reader, implying a meaning larger than what is actually there.
Understood. My point is that the kind of thinking illustrated by your link was pretty much thrown overboard in certain academic and philosophical circles beginning in the late 60s. As I said, it’s an interesting perspective, one obviously heavily influenced by leftist political thought at the time, particularly in France.
Kaity wrote: "A great disservice has been done to the generations of students who have been taught to assess literature based on a particular criteria, rather than analyze it per the author's intent. "I learned about these things from the books that I sought out in the 800 section of my library like Twayne's (Young, World, American, whichever fit) Authors Series. Even CliffNotes were helpful at that point. Those books taught me how to look for the subtleties and the abstractions that I wouldn't have been able to find on my own at that age. I don't remember ever learning such things in school, and I took every English course my junior high and high school offered.
I'm under the impression that this is a fairly standard way for readers to be introduced to literary analysis: they are fans of certain works and then read books about those books.
Monty J wrote: "Fitzgerald would be the first one to admit that he was a spoiled little rich kid. One of the things I like about him is his introspection."The problem comes when that marker "spoiled little rich kid" is the only thing you recognize. In messages like 985 and 1007, there is a definite pattern. First, we start with a character (it's been both Nick and Gatsby) who transitions to being Fitzgerald's "doppleganger" or stand in. Then the characters are dispensed with to sneer at Fitzgerald openly for being arrogant or pampered or whatnot (which are very generic stereotypes about wealthy people).
I was wondering whether it was a case of writer's jealousy, but since you've mentioned President Trump, I imagine it's more class based.
If there's a prejudice based on circumstances one is born into, I don't see how this is a considered opinion. On your end, it is not an exploration of your roots (as it would be with Fitzgerald), but a way to dismiss someone else's contribution.
Since you prize introspection so much, you might want to think about what preconceived notions you're bringing to the novel.
"the only thing you recognize."You haven't even scratched the surface of what I posted on Goodreads about Fitzgerald.
And since you chosen to attack me instead of discussing the novel, I've blocked and reported you. Adios.
Jimbo wrote: "...thrown overboard in certain academic and philosophical circles beginning in the late 60s"I wonder how many novels those folks wrote.
Come to think of it, maybe that accounts for all the vampire, werewolf and flying broom books that seem so popular.
It will be a sad day when writers start letting literary critics and academicians tell them how to write.
There have been a lot of great works informed by this form of criticism, Gravity’s Rainbow and Infinite Jest notable among them. It’s also been the source of some brilliant parody, such as by Jeffrey Eugenides in The Marriage Plot.
Jimbo wrote: "There have been a lot of great works informed by this form of criticism, Gravity’s Rainbow and Infinite Jest notable among them. It’s also been the source of some brilliant parody, such as by Jef..."
Thanks. I will look into them. I'm curious.
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)
I read it last year. It's a good read. And so is All Quiet On The Western Front. Both cases are one man's experience. During my six years on the Marine Corps Reserves I've had many personal conversations with combat veterans of Viet Nam and Korea. One of my cohorts died of cancer caused by Agent Orange while writing his book on Viet Nam. I remember one or two of his scenes, but I can't read the book. Maybe some day.
I should mention, with reverence and deep respect, a personal friend who died recently--a Former Marine and Viet Nam veteran working as a marine engineer in civilian life. I met him at my laundromat where he was nursing from a small wine bottle and had trouble sitting up straight. We connected there regularly over several months. Each time he had his little bottle of sauterne in a brown paper bag. He looked pale, jaundiced, sometimes slurred his words. Over time he told me his story. He'd met his Sorbonne-educated wife in Paris while serving as an embassy guard. In 'Nam he'd commanded a sapper battalion. He sent 98 young men down into the tunnels. Nineteen never came out. That was why he drank. Those nineteen young men.
Once he passed me coming out of a corner grocery as I was going in. He didn't even recognize me. I turned, ready to say, "Hey." Then I saw that brown paper sack sticking out of his back pocket. His AA meeting place was down the street.
Everyone has their own war experience. Most don't like talking about it. War kills long after combat is over. It takes heroic effort to write a book about combat. Which is why Nick's comments seem so naive and immature, given his dearth of experience. Wearing a uniform has little to do with knowing about combat.
"The purpose of reading is not to sit in judgement of the characters or the author" To each his own. I can only speak for myself and the people I've been in dozens of writing classes and workshops with where evaluating characters and authors was/is essential.