The Great Gatsby
discussion
worst book ever!
I think most people hate it because they read it in high school. First of all, in high school , for the most part, you don't relate to anything except pop music, mtv, magazines, mall. Reading about someone who had none of it made it a drag. Secondly, it was forced. There were due dates, paper coming up, class discussions. There was no pirates, vampires, zombies and so the first impression stuck and most people call it worthless. But really , think of it as someones story. Imagine that you are related to one of the people and you dont live here and now. You live there, when roads suck , cars suck and love is the onyl thing people romantisized about because there wasn't Netflix. They had to make up their own tales. I think that is why this book a special. Yes it defines the era but more importantly it is about people who don't have much to live.
A nice insight into the minds of people that were all about money and thrills, you get the sense that they believe they are going to last forever and their pleasure is always priority number one. Definitely wouldn't recommend this to anyone in high school. But it was an OK book to read, mainly because of the style it was written in.
Geoffrey,I adore Kafka and Camus both of whom are great novelists, I grant you. The problem is that in both cases you are reading translations: odds are that you don't actually know how good they really are and how much of the credit goes to their translators. In dealing with the Mother Tongue no one beats Joyce in the genre of the novel and if you compare his body of work in "Portrait of the Artist", "Finnegan's Wake" and "Ulysses," all which I have read and studied for decades, then no one comes even comes close to his genius. Sorry but as great as existential Kafka and Camus are, neither can hold a candle to the luminosity of Joyce's pure genius in making a literary contribution to the genre of the novel. Further, it is the mark of great art that the artist is willing to suffer for it and you can't cavalierly just blow off this virtue: Joyce wrote nearly blind with one eye during the latter years of his life -- he was the ultimate Cyclops of Homer within "Ulysses." Nora Roberts writes a best-seller in eight weeks -- three drafts are edited thoroughly by her private corporation. Geoff, if you consider Camus and Kafka to be your literary paragons, you may want to consider extending your range. Sorry but Proust, Tolstoy, Pynchon, Faulkner, Gaddis, Hemingway, Bellow, Dostoyevski, Cervantes, Galsworthy and Balzac all easily out-shine Kafka and Camus in the genre of the novel. Maybe consider taking up the "1001 Books to Read before You Die" on Goodreads.
That is pure poppycock. granted you are enamoured with the book because it has become your raison de literary etre, but that remark that it is the greatest is way over the top. More makes a masterpiece than style and experimentation. After all would you deny shakespeare his due because his plays were not so much different in technique that was contemporary to his age?Don`t patronize me nor the other posters, David. i didn`t mention the others because frankly, I am not interested in name-dropping. Yes, I have mentioned the others as being in top form on other posts, specifically tolstoy, dostoyevski and Balzac, and neglected to mention Hemingway and Faulkner, but what you have merely done is tooting your own horn by adding to the lustre of your life`s research by putting your man on the top of the list. Shame on you. That`s just too much self-aggrandizement for me.
And Galsworthy? That one is a stretch.
Geoffrey,I don't mean to patronize you but are you aware that John Galsworthy won a Nobel Prize for Literature in 1932. You might want to check out "Forsyte Saga" as a good read. Is it really such a sin ardently to favor a writer who is widely recognized as a literary genius like James Joyce for his stylistic innovation? Isn't stylistic innovation a hallmark of literary genius? If I have so sinned, then please -- I beg you, my dear Geoff -- pardon my self-aggrandizement and tooting of my horn as I'm afraid I misunderstand the purpose of this web site devoted to good reads and to encourage others to read those whom one has already enjoyed. You may want to consider backing off the insults and name-calling as it really isn't helpful in a germinal discussion about great writers among other posters for whom I have the greatest respect.
Barbara wrote: "I need to read Wuthering Heights again...it's been a long time and I remember really loving it... thanks for the reminder!"Did you see the movie with Laurence Olivier? It was so good. I read the book because of that movie.
One of the most purely enjoyable books I've ever read. No need to justify it, I've read it several times with great pleasure. When it comes to reading, pleasure is its own justification.
What struck me about "The Great Gatsby" is it did all the things that today's writers are told not to do. I wonder by today's standards whether it would have found a publisher. But that was back then.
Ron, I have a feeling it would find a publisher today only if there were twice the pages, and most of those focused on Gatsby's personal relationship with his mother.
Yes, I have read Galsworthy (three of the Sagas, and I am not so very interested in reading anymore of them) and am aware that he got a Nobel. But so have about 100 plus other authors (approximately), many of whom are now in the literary dustbin. David, how doesDostoyevski rate as a 20th century writer? Let me quote from your initial posting to which I immediately responded.
"Ulysses" is the greatest literary accomplishment of the 20th century and nothing else even comes close.
Cordially,
David
We were specifically discussing your posting that included that quote. Then in a later posting, carrying the argument on, you cited several writers with their graves in the 19th.
Your remarks are a bit of poppycock. It reads as so much namedropping as in the regional upscale magazines, i.e. Chicago magazine, Boston magazine, Houston magazine, etc. etc. with their lists for everything such as the 10 best schools to send your children, the 10 best beauty salons to get your hair done, etc. etc.....and the winner goes to Slidell....you get the drift.
And now to top it all of we have a book "Ulysses" that you have dubbed the greatest masterpiece of the 20th century from who knows where you get that idea. Did you take a poll of literary critics, publishing editors and literature professors. How can you substantiate your opinion as fact when it is only opinion and we all know what opinions are worth...need I be so crass as to remind you of the adage about their worth......
And how can one adore Camus and Sartre? Please be more careful with your choice of verbs as with your choice of endorsements.
at the top of the list
I disagree with everyone who claimed this to be the "worst book ever". I think Fitzgerald has really brought out the essence of the 1920s. Although it is not for everyone, it truly is an unforgettable novel.
Honestly, any Charles Dickens novel deserves the title of worst book ever. My eyes start glazing over whenever I'm forced to read them.
This book is so much more than the characters and the story line. It's everything Fitzgerald says between the lines, everything he says with the green light and TJ Eckleburg and the valley of ashes. It's the concept of vast carelessness and the American Dream and its value. This book is about being "simultaneously enchanted and repelled by the inexhaustible variety of life." This book says something new to me each time I read it, and I feel that it holds something for every reader who is open and receptive to listen to what it has to say, regardless of whether or not they enjoyed the story or the characters or even the poignancy and brilliance in Fitzgerald's writing.
David wrote: "Yes, it's a great American novel. But you must be old enough to understand the point of it. If you read it in high school or college, then odds are that you are not seeing the bigger picture. Fitzg..."I read this book in high school and didn't like it either - I think I'll give it another try based on your post.
I didn't like this book at all, but hated is a bit strong. I read most of it....Sparknoted the rest, but while the characters were interesting, the plot itself did nothing to keep my attention. I read it as a sophomore so maybe I could try reading it again and giving it another chance, but my initial read proved boring.
Like most people, I hated every novel I was forced to read in High School, including The Great Gatsby. Luckily, I've read most of them again for enjoyment and found that, in most cases as in this one, they were amazing pieces of literature. In fact, the only novel I still don't like that I was forced to read in school is A Separate Peace.
Bo wrote: "I've never liked it. Hated all the characters and think it's totally overrated. I don't know why it's forced on students year after year."I know right! I was forced to read it just last year for my jr. year and I couldn't even stand it/
I have read Gatsby 3 times because immediately after I finish reading it, I cannot remember anything about it.There's just something about that book for me that promotes a mental numbness.
I don't dislike it, I just respond with utter indifference even when I set out to embrace it. I've never encountered that before - perhaps that's his genius as a writer, but if it is it's not my cup of tea.
Simone wrote: "I have read Gatsby 3 times because immediately after I finish reading it, I cannot remember anything about it.There's just something about that book for me that promotes a mental numbness.
I don'..."
:)
Karen wrote: "Barbara wrote: "I need to read Wuthering Heights again...it's been a long time and I remember really loving it... thanks for the reminder!"Did you see the movie with Laurence Olivier? It was so..."
I saw the film and recently read the book. I magine my surprise to find that the book is only half the film and that Heathcliff (Laurence Olivier) is far from sympathetic in the book but twisted with a thirst for vengence so great that it destroys everyone and everything in its path.
read it in high school, hated it then. read it again when i turned 30 and loved it. it was written for introspective 30-somethings and requires having done some living in order to fully appreciate it. for that reason alone it should be eliminated from high school AND college required reading.
I read it in High School and didn't really understand it. Maybe I will when I'm older. Not a BAD book, but I feel as if I missed something.
Geoffrey wrote: "Yes, I have read Galsworthy (three of the Sagas, and I am not so very interested in reading anymore of them) and am aware that he got a Nobel. But so have about 100 plus other authors (approximatel..."Dear Geoffrey:
You complete me.
Cordially,
David
I read this book as a high school freshman and loved it! If anyone has the courage to re-read it, pay attention to colors and symbols. I got so much more out of the book once I looked deeper into the words of text to find the figurative meaning. What is a daisy? A flower (delicate & easily crushed) with white petals (appearing innocent & pure) and a yellow center (corrupt on the inside). I can list plenty of other examples but this my favorite. Yeah, maybe some people don't enjoy looking for symbolism and figurative depth, etc. I can understand why you wouldn't like this book - b/c that's the best part! Anyways, I read A LOT of books I didn't like as well in high school that made me appreciate this book even more! Some on the list include: Heart of Darkness, So Long A Letter, The Awakening, The Bell Jar, Madame Bovary, The Tempest, A Raisin in the Sun, etc.
As an English teacher, it's disheartening to hear that there are people who automatically hate a book because they were assigned to read it in high school. Where else are students going to be introduced to great, challenging literature in a structured enough environment to help them understand? Some won't go to college, and most college courses I've taken simply assign texts and leave you to read and make sense of them as best you can. Granted, some books are more suitable for students to read than others. For instance, I was assigned to read Babbitt by Sinclair Lewis in high school, which I still think is a poor choice to give to high school students. How could we possibly relate to a man's midlife crisis? It is like the movie American Beauty; it's for a certain audience.
That said, I think Gatsby is particularly suited for adolescents. At the heart of the story, it is about a man (Gatsby) who reinvents himself in order to fit in. It's about image and fantasy. Gatsby is fixated on not just building a future, but changing the past. These ideas are easily accessible to many people, including young people. I think it might be a stretch for some students to get there by themselves, but with enough support, I think that they can recognize Gatsby's struggle.
Mickey wrote: "As an English teacher, it's disheartening to hear that there are people who automatically hate a book because they were assigned to read it in high school..."i didn't automatically hate it because it was assigned, i hated it because i didn't feel it spoke to me, and there are many a teacher out there who fail to make the cannon of american literature relevant to young people.
as a former english teacher myself i would like to think that there has been a more recent book – perhaps within the last 25 years instead of from 1925 – that could be introduced as part of the cannon that underscores a similar message. so much of what is taught in this country are books from before 1950 that turn off young minds toward exploring literature because, honestly, if you're teaching a 85 year old book you send a silent message that nothing more recent is of value.
i don't deny gatsby's value, only that perhaps it's time to retire it from the curriculum.
I like it, but it's a bit of a sacred cow. I get the same reaction when I tell people I really hated Wuthering Heights and Tess of the D'Urbervilles.
David wrote: " i would like to think that there has been a more recent book – perhaps within the last 25 years instead of from 1925 – that could be introduced as part of the cannon that underscores a similar message. so much of what is taught in this country are books from before 1950 that turn off young minds toward exploring literature because, honestly, if you're teaching a 85 year old book you send a silent message that nothing more recent is of value."That's an interesting idea, David. Gatsby is one of the most modern books on the curriculum in my district and one of the few that don't present language issues or wide cultural differences as barriers. Do you feel the same way about books from less recent authors then? Shakespeare? Twain? Dickens? Aren't some books universal and timeless or is there always an expiration date attached, in your opinion?
Lots of people whose taste I respect love this book. I didn't hate it, but it was one of my least favorite high school books. I didn't enjoy exploring the symbolism, because it didn't reveal beauty, but vanity. It reminds me of Ecclesiastes in the Bible, except without any hopeful conclusions.
Ruminating on the superficiality of people trapped in their excesses of self-focused emotionalism is sad and depressing. Maybe Fitzgerald's writing is brilliant, but just like when I listen to Radiohead for hours, my heart feels a lump of weight towards the bottom afterwards.
Do you feel the same way about books from less recent authors then? Shakespeare? Twain? Dickens? Aren't some books universal and timeless or is there always an expiration date attached, in your opinion? gatsby first started appearing in college curricula in the 1950s when it was recent and relevant to that generation. by then it had been recognized as part of a wave of modern literature that was presumably still evolving. it appeared in high schools by the 1960s and was still relatively "modern." in either case, it represented an acknowledgment of a change in the american literary tradition.
surely american literature has evolved since then. we occasionally see a vonnegut or a kerouac in the classroom, but our schools haven't been very good at recognizing or acknowledging cultural changes or tastes in literature. in this and many other ways our approach to education is provincial and stilted. yes, gatsby is a classic, along with dickens and twain and the rest, but it is no longer "modern" much less contemporary and i think we shortchange the intelligence (and education) of younger readers by not recognizing or teaching todays "future classics" to teens...
unless there are no contemporary books that are worthy of the classroom.
Laura-lou wrote: "does anyone agree with me that this is the worst and most boring book of all time?"Never! It's a classic and it always will be.
David wrote: "it represented an acknowledgment of a change in the american literary tradition.surely american literature has evolved since then. we occasionally see a vonnegut or a kerouac in the classroom, but our schools haven't been very good at recognizing or acknowledging cultural changes or tastes in literature."
I've heard this argument before. Personally, I'm just not comfortable with the idea that literature is progressing or evolving; there are too many different authors at any time to pretend that there is any general 'trend'.
I wouldn't be opposed to including contemporary works into the mix, but I don't agree with the idea that students will automatically find any more relevance or connection with books that are more recent. Also, it seems to me that if we take away all language and cultural differences, we are not preparing them to go beyond their own culture's frame of reference. Most students tend to be very confident about the views that they've adopted from modern culture, because they haven't been exposed to anything else. While I don't think the canon is great at showing other viewpoints, it has a wider range than what students see on television or in the movies.
Of course, without the general consensus that most people confer (however grudgingly in individual cases) on a book that is in the canon, there would be debate about which books would be good enough or suitable to study. I'm thinking about what contemporary authors I've read, and I couldn't come up with many names that I think would make the cut. Jeffrey Eugenides' writing is brilliant, but there isn't enough theme to study. I think William Vollman would probably be a hard sell to students; his writing is so dense. A common problem would be explicit sexual content, which means Mary Gaitskill, Milan Kundera, Gloria Naylor,and Margaret Atwood would be out. Mohsin Hamid would be too controversial. I won't mention Dean Koontz or Stephen King because their critical reputations are so (undeservedly) terrible. I think Kazuo Ishigaro, Tatyana Tolstaya, and Annie Dillard could work, but I don't foresee the majority of the students loving these books any more than what they read now.
The idea to focus on contemporary literature has already been tried on a massive scale...in middle schools. Personally, I don't think it has resulted in better readers or more interest in literature than if they had been reading older books. As a matter of fact, the drive to read more current books that are relevant to the students has resulted in the kids reading books that are largely disposable, too trendy, and will be forgotten in a few years. Now, there are newer books that are being incorporated that will be studied twenty years from now.
Sorry this is such a long post and off-topic as well.
Mickey wrote: "As an English teacher, it's disheartening to hear that there are people who automatically hate a book because they were assigned to read it in high school. Where else are students going to be intro..."I loved reading books in school. It did stink to have to read the one book I hated ("Ethan Frome"), but I loved analyzing so it didn't matter.
I remember it being very unpopular to admit liking to read the books in class though. That made class discussions painful, and even nerve-racking--wondering if you'd be considered ridiculous afterwards because you participated. Maybe that uncomfortable feeling taints the books we read in school.
I remember a lot of people liking "The Great Gatsby" more than any other book we read. I always figured that was because it was shorter than other classics we read. I think people can be lazy in high school too, so they don't get as much out of the books they are assigned. If we hadn't had such a demanding teacher, they might not have even gotten as much as they did. Keep up the good work Mickey!
I don't think it's the worst book ever. It's certainly not the best, maybe not even one of them. But I think it's a great discussion book. There are so many symbols and motifs illustrated within the novel that it makes it kind of an interesting read, searching for them all and what not. And the characters are so fun to analyse. Maybe the people who didn't like this book are just people who don't like to think too hard about what they read.
Not an awful book, but a book about horrible people. I do not like this book, but it's not awful. It's about a time in American life, which is why it lives. It does suck. Gatsby sucks, as does Daisy. In fact, they all suck. I remember reading it and thinking, "Why bother?" It's about how much people suck. Read something else, please. The Great Gatsby is not great and that's the point.
Laura-lou wrote: "does anyone agree with me that this is the worst and most boring book of all time?"True I do agree that this book suck and it not worth reading at all
Great Gatsby, not so great, Tender is the Night - far worse!
Jessica wrote: "Mickey wrote: "As an English teacher, it's disheartening to hear that there are people who automatically hate a book because they were assigned to read it in high school. Where else are students go..."You and I definitely think the same. I loved reading and found a number of wonderful books through school assignments (Voyage of the Kon Tiki was the most unexpected) but I, too, hated Ethan Frome. I also didn't like Hardy's Tess, but I just found out it's an fav of an old friend so I may give it another try.
Gatsby, however, comes close behind Frome.
Agreed. This book was...boring...and the movie was so-so.
Kelly wrote: "Honestly, any Charles Dickens novel deserves the title of worst book ever. My eyes start glazing over whenever I'm forced to read them."Oh God, I'm not alone!
I know I SHOULD like Dickens, but I find the books to be massive blocks I simply can't get into.
There are a lot of great points of view expressed on this book, but what shocked the heck out of me when I came to it when I was young was how much I enjoyed it. I don't think the characters were very admirable, but I understood them. I was shocked by some of the backstabbing/betrayal, and at the same time, understanding is not condoning.And in the end, I find Gatsby himself interesting. I don't need likable characters but I do need interesting ones, and he was.
The final image has never left me. That's something many books praised as great works of art have never achieved with me, that connection to life--not identifying with someone, but empathizing with a person whose life and beliefs are so alien to my own.
And again, it was just very enjoyable.
The most interesting points covered in this digression are those centered over what is appropriate reading material for teenagers, our own personal biases aside.I don`t think that THE GREAT GATSBY was the worst book I have ever read, there are so many others that deserve that accolade. But it is decidedly in the bottom 20% of my list.
The worst is Nadja by Andre Breton, and despite my interest in surrealism, this book was without merit for me. I had to read it in my MODERN NOVEL class in my undergraduate years. The second worst book was THE POWER AND THE GLORY by Graham Greene, the most overrated of all contemporary writers, with the possible exception of Don DeLillo.
Vollman and Mary Caponegro are my two favorite contemporary authors, perhaps because of the erotic quality of their subject matter, possibly because their brilliance as writers is an overwhelming and forbidding challenge for my more limited understanding.
Which brings us back to the initial point I was making.
How about SECRET LIVES OF BEES. A book about adolescence. I would nominate it for a high school reading list automatically.
THE COLOR PURPLE by Alice Walker. Here`s another one I would put on the list.
Short stories by Ray Bradbury and Cisneros. Here`s a neglected literary form, both by the reading public and high school readers. Why spend two months sloshing through a single novel half the class hates and the other half tolerates, when in the same time you could cover 8 short stories of which maybe the most disinterested would like two. If we are talking about creating and sustaining interest in world literature, why not give enough stories to read so that at least a few would allure the faint of mind to reading good literature.
I am hard pressed to understand why English teachers feel they have to assign novels.
This one astonished me. There are any number of over rated so called classics out there but The Great Gatsby isn't one of them. Not only is it a beautifully tragic story of misplaced longing and lust but it has some of the most acute one line observations in all American fictions. Just consider this line from Nick when he's being greeted by Tom and Daisy: I was touched by their concern, it made them seem less remotely rich.
The book is loaded with fantastic lines such as that and, in its own way, tries to encapsulate the meaning and slow decay of the American Dream, from Ben Franklin right through to the post WWI sensual corruption and ennui.
It's one of very few books where I can't think of a single line which I would like to change.
I think we can all agree that everyone has different tastes in literature. While some might have found this book to be one of the greatest one's ever written, others might have found it dreadful. I am glad to see that most of the posts have been intelligent debate instead of dissing people for not liking the same books. :)......Also, I personally didn't like the writing style. I enjoyed the movie though, so I guess that says that I liked the plot in general.
The worst book ever is Moby Dick. After you plod through that book, you will find that The Great Gatsby is a delight to read.
Laura-lou wrote: "does anyone agree with me that this is the worst and most boring book of all time?"I'd say top ten worst for me.
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)
But nothing comes close! My goodness! I would say THE CASTLE and METAMORPHISIS, THE PLAGUE, THE STRANGER, share the pedestal. Undoubtedly Joyce put more into it in terms of labourous creativity than Camus or Kafka but in terms of philosophical significance, his is lacking a metaphysical, ontological orientation but merely narrates with hundreds if not thousands of allusions to the Ulysses story and hundreds if not thousands of neologisms created expressly for his novel, you get the picture....incredibly pretentious literary effort that yes, is a masterpiece, but does not measure up in the insights of the other authors.