The Great Gatsby
discussion
worst book ever!
It certainly made an uninteresting opera. But the movie was interesting and it brought to life some of the less-interesting bits in the novel. It's a good novel, but vacuous people can be hard to write about in an interesting way. There's just no "there" there to stimulate interest.
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."Agreed.
I made a comment about not liking this book in high school to an old teacher of mine, and this is what she said in return when I wondered if I should re-read it, "You really must reread. When you do so, look at the way Fitzgerald uses imagery like a poet, instead of plotty-narrative descriptive detail like a novelist. He creates mood and suggests significance with color especially. You can almost read it like a painting."
I wonder just how illustrative it would be if those who found Gatsby 'one of the worst books ever' would mention what books they consider underrated. Just out of curiosity. The fact is that for a modern reader Gatsby probably lacks context. But then again that, too is a function of the readers imagination. You see the disillusionment in Gatsby - it's everywhere - a product of 'The Lost Generation' but unless you directly connect it to the disillusionment of the present you may think these people are worthlessly selfish, narcissistic and meaningless. I suppose it's hard to connect the crushing meaninglessness of 'tween war America, pre depression, in the middle of prohibition etc with anything resembling us. It's the age old 'rage of Caliban not seeing his own face in the mirror.' The funny thing is - which i've said before - it's not the mirror's fault.
And i suspect some of the future readers of this thread are barking up right now: "who's this Caliban guy? Was he in the book? I don't remember him..."
How can you complain about this book when in the same semester they assign "The Mill on the Floss"?
Joshua wrote: "Olivia wrote: "I'm 14 years old, and I assure you that I understand a great many things about classics. I do get your point though, but I'm sure it's not just teenagers who can't understand them." ..."Haha, nice analogy:). And very true, thanks a lot. Probably the only reason I can tune into classics is because i like them, or at least certain ones. Some I don't understand at all, like "Gone with the Wind" and "Jane Austen," other books in the same genre. It's not the length, it's because I can't relate, so I can't get into them. And if a teenager, or an adult for that matter, isn't tuning into a classic, they won't like, or get it as well as they could. Glad you see my point of view, I hate thinking something and realizing no one else agrees, lol. Cheers!
I liked this book because it shows what will happen when the american dream goes wrong. Gatsby's devotion has both beauty and tragedy. One of my favorite books by a great author, F. Scott Fitzgerald
I intensely dislike this book. Not because I don't have the intellectual capacity to understand it, but because I find it's impossible to like any of the characters and that is my primary mode of enjoying a book. If every single character is unlikeable, I don't engage in what happens to them. And yes, I can pick it apart, analyse, relate it to modern problems in a meaningful way... but I still don't like it. The writing is well-done, but that just doesn't cut it for me.
Amanda wrote: "Some I don't understand at all, like "Gone with the Wind" and "Jane Austen," other books in the same genre. It's not the length, it's because I can't relate, so I can't get into them."Austen's a tough one. I've read almost all of hers now and i love (most) of them. But i know i wouldn't have when i was fourteen. Being able to relate is important, very important, to enjoying the book which is what i've been getting from this thread. But relating can come with time. Some of these books are hard, but very enjoyable work. If you know how to look at them they can teach you how to relate to them.
Like Gatsby. I hear a lot of people on this thread saying that they find the characters uniformly unlikeable. To this day i still have a hard time trying to figure out why Gatsby was so set on Daisy - whom Nick realizes isn't worthy of Gatsby even a little bit. Let's face it, Tom is horrible. It's painful watching Nick pal around with Tom and have a grand old time. But if you start to contextualize a little - remember that half of what the author intended ISN'T there by design. You start to UNDERSTAND the characters. (using caps because there is no italics) Once you start to understand them, you may not condone them, or even approve of them, but it informs something about your own judgements. It can help make you a less judgmental person as a whole. It can make you more compassionate as a human being.
Who knows why Gatsby loved Daisy so much he literally followed her to his death? But he did. And it was his sisyphian (and quixotic) efforts that are important. The lengths that he would go through to obtain and secure someone who isn't worth securing or obtaining. Tom is a judgmental ass - racist, disgusting, pig. And yet he drinks Gatsby's liquor (which was illegal at the time.) Who know's why Nick is able to follow these characters with such a jaundiced eye, except that the "Great Teutonic Migration" of World War One has effected everyone in some fundamentally damaging way.
Anyway. I've been carrying on forever on this thread - it's absolutely one of my favorite books ever and i think it's gorgeous for many of the reasons those on this post hate it so much. It took me a while to get to that understanding, and i hope with more readings that understanding will improve even more.
Oh please, sometimes even intellectuals hate "good" books. You can't love every classic you read.I happen to be 42 years old and majored in Literature and I still hate this book; not because it was difficult or because I didn't understand it, but because I did not find it pleasurable to read. The only redeeming quality about this piece is it's capacity to work as a sedative. It put me to sleep every time I opened it.
Norman wrote: "To love The Great Gatsby, you need to appreciate Fitzgerald's craft. His use of language is amazing when you stop to consider all shades of meaning that his descriptions (especially of character) ..."Yes. I also feel that Fitzgerald wasn't talking about character, but the lack of it -- the waste of energy and talent and drive in pursuit of Fool's Gold and those of us who are helpless observers to the tragedy.
I'm going to say this plain and simple...I think. The story is told from the wrong perspective. It should be third person. This third person told through the first person is just weak in this case. Hemingway would have written this story much better. The story itself was romanticized to be more than it was. Out of all the revisions, Fitzgerald could have used a few more. And his prose really aren't that good. Really they're not.
Shelly wrote: "I was forced to read it in high school and I hated it. I don't generally hate books, but this one I didwell,Oscar Wilde once defined books as being relativistic,you just cannot point them as good or bad.you like it or not..America faced its problems at the time this book was written,so I guess it stands for that period of time.Just like Newton's laws,just like everything.I personally liked it,though there had passed some years..it had something ,it showed something,it kinda proved that something called "man".and that surpasses the objective and who knows,the subjective??
Ioana wrote: "Shelly wrote: "I was forced to read it in high school and I hated it. I don't generally hate books, but this one I didwell,Oscar Wilde once defined books as being relativistic,you just cannot poi..."
Funny, but yeah, he wrote through the wrong perspective.
It wasn't the worst, but I did hate it.
Amanda wrote: "I find that when most people say something is "like, totally the worst EVER haha" or refer to a classic as "overrated," what they really mean is that it's difficult. Sometimes, people don't like us...""Thinky bits"
Good one!
I really liked it. I think the problem is too many people start reading it thinking it's going to be the most exciting/fun novel they've ever read. Gatsby isn't a light read, it's not suppose to be a feel good fun trip where you just love all the characters. Gatsby is about money, power, and society. If you didn't like it, try to read it again and really try to see the places, time and people being written about.Oh and don't compare it to Austen. Just because two books are considered classics, does not mean they should be lumped in together.
Read it for the second time, or maybe it`s the third and I still don`t like it. The fact that there is not one honorable character in the entire book with the possible exception of Nick, who blows it by his unethical treatment of the Parker woman, also spoils the book for me. The author`s pervasive cynicism disgusted me. I felt the same way about Tom Wolfe`s BONFIRE OF THE VANITIES.
:O You take that back. I agree that it is not one of the best books ever, but out of those I read in high school, it was definitely one of the better.
Amanda wrote: "I find that when most people say something is "like, totally the worst EVER haha" or refer to a classic as "overrated," what they really mean is that it's difficult. Sometimes, people don't like us..."But doesn't a really great creative writer address that problem by firstly telling an engaging story, and using the story to stimulate the "thinky bits"? If the story becomes subordinated to the "thinky bits", maybe the writer should be writing essays.
I think it was good writing and a decent story. It explained a part of an era. It was nice to see the times through the authors eyes, but this is not even close to one of my favorite books. I found it to be a slow read and a very frustrating story. On a scale of like and dont like, I would rate it a "meh".
Amanda wrote: "Karl- What is "engaging?" To you it means one thing, to me it means another. I found Gatsby to be completely engaging. I totally agree with you- an author out to get across a Message is better serv..."Everything you said, Amanda. Except I think Gatsby was mostly surface level. Or, as people like to say, it wasn't for me. I knew what the core of the story was very early on and it didn't change. It only added sort of interesting details. Not really interesting details. Just kind of interesting. I've been on this thread a few times and, well, I'll say it again. Nick is the wrong person to see the story through and Fitzgerald's style isn't that great.
Very boring! Second only to dickens's Great Expectations!
I hated it! Boring, boring, boring .............
AmandaI disagree heartedly. It is definitely a beach book. It was one of the easiest books I have read in my life. The insights are not deep. I would suggest you expand your reading repertoire if you think that GG was a deep book.
I never read it until I was 44 years old. I loved it, but I know that I would have not liked it at all if I had read it in my early 20's. I would have hated it if I had been forced to read it in high school. My perspective on lots of things have changed as I have aged/matured: movies, food, people, politics, philosophy, etc.
i could say that it had it up an down an yeah the ending was really bad an i wouldnt read this agin lol but all in all it was a ok book i do think it could of been better
Amanda wrote: "Geoffrey...wow...what a snobby thing to say."I agree with you Amanda!
Emily wrote: "Amanda wrote: "Geoffrey...wow...what a snobby thing to say."I agree with you Amanda!"
I've been following the discussion and I feel the same way. One of the good things about the world is how different everyone is. We can all read the same book and come away with something different- and some of us will come away with nothing.
Everyone- and their ideas- should be welcome.
I actually liked this book when we read it in high school. Later I read a -sort of- retelling of it (Bodega Dreams) and I liked it too.
It was pretty boring. But the worst book honors easily goes to Moby Dick!!!
How can you not appreciate this book?I always enjoyed Fitzgeralds idea of the Golden Girl and this books nostalgic view on what could have happened if I had married her instead of this woman......I disagree with all of you, this is one of the best.
Sinclair's The Jungle was the worst....yeah, let's just completley drop the plot in the last four chapters and have instead use those chapters for socialist propaganda...
Diane wrote: "It was pretty boring. But the worst book honors easily goes to Moby Dick!!!"I agree about Moby Dick and probably said it on this thread several months ago!
You may take it as being snobby but then you must consider seriously the depth of the book. Or more accurately, it`s lack thereof, so I will double down and stand by my words. It`s definitely a beach book-an easy read. Try bringing a book like Ulysses to the beach for casual reading and you will get my drift.
Geoffrey wrote: "You may take it as being snobby but then you must consider seriously the depth of the book. Or more accurately, it`s lack thereof, so I will double down and stand by my words. It`s definitely a bea..."Just because a book is easy to read doesn't mean it is shallow, lacking depth. Just because Moby Dick or Ulysses is hard to read and understand doesn't make it worth reading.
Emily wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "You may take it as being snobby but then you must consider seriously the depth of the book. Or more accurately, it`s lack thereof, so I will double down and stand by my words. It`s..."It's not necessarily the author that makes a book easy or difficult to read. The state of mind the reader brings to the book is of equal importance. I struggled for years to get more than a few pages into Naked Lunch, and then one day, in a very different state of mind, read it cover to cover.
I studied this at school and loved it!!
True enough, Karl. But really what is the heavy significance of GG? That the American Dream is elusive? Considering that Gatsby was a counterfeiter accomplice, a Chicago gangster, and a bootlegger, (the latter being the least immoral of his criminal activities) why wouldn`t any self respecting citizen have qualms about befriending him. We have an author who takes cheapshots against the wealthy by drawing the blackest portrait of their characters, and literary critics consider it a masterpiece. The lack of depth is that morals are nuanced-even the most abject of us have positive qualities, a fact that eludes Fitzgerald. In his all encompassing indictment of the indolent rich, he neglects to use a Q-tip to etch in the positive qualities of his characters. This is what I call a lack of depth. Nor does he understand the moral of his own tale, but to that I will add in a different posting.And Emily, you have missed my point entirely. I have not disparaged reading MD nor U because of its difficulty. What I have said is that it`s difficult to casually read them in tandem with spotting the sun`s rays. These are not easy reads. You must be focussed to read either and the beach, with its leisure activities, would make for a difficult read of either, whereas the GG could be easily absorbed in a beach lawn chair.
Joseph Kennedy was a bootlegger, Wall St. manipulator...and ambassador who raised a family devoted to public service. So if Gatsby had been modeled on Joe Kennedy, FSF would have been forced to explore character more deeply. But then his subject wouldn't have been the indolent. J. Paul Getty (once the richest man in the world) attributed his vast wealth to luck (his oil leases hit gushers, but he had no idea of the geology when he bought them). So if a certain percentage of the super-rich get there by luck, can't we expect them to be indolent? And if they are indolent, the author might be wasting everyone's time trying to find positives. Some people do lead lives that are a waste of good oxygen.
I believe the people who were denizens of the EGG were those with inherited wealth. Yes, JK was a bootlegger, but his monies were from real estate as was his father Fritz. I have heard this time and time again, but I don`t believe for a minute that the family`s riches were mainly gotten from bootleg liquor or that even that aspect of the business was a significant part of his wealth. Regardless, bootlegging is only illegalized liquor store ownership and other than that it throws youin with a group, the Mafioso, if done on a scale,is hardly criminal.Gatsby`s criminality extended to possible betting infractions which I would consider to be more immoral and of course, his trafficking of counterfeit bond certificates. This is where I fault the man, not the bootlegging.
Yes, most people who amass fortunes are manipulators and work hard to get there. Some even retire and become indolent.
Your contention,Karl, that Fitzgerald would have "been forced to explore character more deeply" had the character been modeled after JK, is a silly notion. It`s the responsibility of an author to create characters with depth, whether fictional or not, whethere strictly from one`s imagination or modeled after a real person. And with so many millionaires, why would JK necessarily have been the model?
Getty may have attributed his immense wealth to luck but luck is not what it is all about. One makes countless business decisions,one does one`s research into the markets, and when luck enters the picture, the small profits become immense. To attribute one`s fortune to luck does not negate the efforts one makes to get there.
So the indolent have no positives. Wow, so you have personal worth only as a working stiff. That certainly is a male viewpoint. And if you are female, there is no worth in procreating. That doesn`t take much work-in fact it can be quite passive. And what about friends, or contributing to charities? So if the indolent wealthy contribute to UNICEF, that doesn`t count, since after all they are completely shallow, useless people.
Interesting topic you have going there, Geoffrey and Karl. It seems i may have heard that old chestnut before: 'depth'. I hate to be barking up this tree, honestly, but you're talking about philosophical differences and getting waylaid by particulars. The argument over Gatsby's criminality is and always has been window dressing, though it perennially pops up in discussions of the book. Was he a bootlegger? Unquestionably. In the twenties - who wasn't? You seem to forget that in the twenties the act of consuming Gatsby's liquor was also a crime, making those indolent wealthy also criminals. In short you're speaking about an age in which it was frequently difficult NOT to be a criminal and one in which there was a rank subversion and flip flop of morality. WW I was a disgusting tragic waste of humanity and those who lived through it clearly knew it. Prohibition was just the insane icing on an already toxic cake. Keep in mind that one of the quickest ways to become one of the 'indolent rich' was to be a bootlegger or a supporter of bootleggers. But again. Window dressing. Oh and for the record - Daniel Okrent in his large tome on Prohibition "Last Call" details the rumors of Joe Kennedy's bootlegging or lack thereof. What he did was perfectly legal - though barely so.
Much of what, in my opinion, is so attractive about the authors of the twenties is that they provide a glimpse of a world stripped of illusions. You look for depth. I'm certain Hemingway would have loved to find depth somewhere and maybe you as a reader find it in Hemingway but i doubt he put it there. Gatsby, Carraway, Daisy, Nick et al have no depth because they can't afford to - and yet they can afford anything else. Gatsby is guileless. Carraway is nearly so. Only Tom and Daisy, born rich, can afford the illusions that have been removed from everyone else. (And they buy them at the expense of Myrtle and Gatsby's life.)
But really - i guess - for me it just comes down to my opinion. It's a beautiful book. I love reading it. I don't require a postmodern or modernist analysis to make it enjoyable. I don't need it to prove my superiority of taste. And what's so bad about readin on a beach? It's nice. And warm. Better than reading in some monastic cell high up in the intellectual cloister. (not trying to be nasty. My favorite place to read is on my porch in the sun.)
BTW - I don't think Fitzgerald ever took cheap shots at the wealthy. For him, in the long run, they were pretty expensive shots - and hard on the liver. Remember, Zelda began as a very wealthy lady, and he clearly admired the rich very much. They pretty much were the foundation of everything he wrote. But maybe it would be best to take things into context before we feel bad for the wealthy of the 20s. There was a lot of wealth to be had if you knew how to move a bottle from one end of the country to the other, or if you were one of those who could help move it. (or could pretend you didn't see it being moved)
Are you serious?! The Great Gatsby was one of my favorite books in highschool! What a tragic generation!
Geoffrey wrote: "You may take it as being snobby but then you must consider seriously the depth of the book. Or more accurately, it`s lack thereof, so I will double down and stand by my words. It`s definitely a bea..."It was easy for me to read, yes. It took me hours to read. But I just want you to know, people understand things at different levels. Just because you "get it" definitely doesn't make it simple to get. Get off your high horse, please. :(
Joshua wrote: "Amanda wrote: "Some I don't understand at all, like "Gone with the Wind" and "Jane Austen," other books in the same genre. It's not the length, it's because I can't relate, so I can't get into them..."Very true. It's interesting to watch how the characters unfold. But what I found puzzling was that we never got to see enough about Nick's emotions. I didn't really understand him, as a character. Also, about Daisy, she was a peculiar character. Sometimes it seems she has more to her then the shallow rich girl we usually see. ButFitzgerald kept focusing on her negative qualities, so it was hard to analyze her positive qualities; her virtues. But we were always supposed to know that Gatsby was a good person, and he was beautifully loyal to her until the very end. She didn't deserve him, you're right.
I read the book in high school and felt it was the worst book ever. I still stick with that opinion though I keep thinking that one day I'll give it another shot. I'm hoping that time and maturity will help the book have some meaning.
Joshua wrote: "Interesting topic you have going there, Geoffrey and Karl. It seems i may have heard that old chestnut before: 'depth'. I hate to be barking up this tree, honestly, but you're talking about philoso..."Gatsby was chosen by the Met Opera to be the work it commissioned to celebrate James Levine's 25th year there. So that's a big endorsement considering the Met had all of American Lit. from which to choose. I didn't like the opera, personally. But note that the tenor role went to Gatsby. The baritone went to Nick. In general, the tenor is the good guy in an opera, and the baritone is the villain. (Daisy is the soprano while the other female roles are mezzo-soprano.) The Met, a highly sophisticated, artistic bunch, put millions of dollars and a season into choosing Gatsby to honor their conductor. That's a pretty strong endorsement of the book.
the first chapters of the book i felt it was waste of time, i hated it i just wanted to stop, i dont know why i didnt XD i guess i was waiting for something interesting to happen, but then i guess in chapter 6 i started to like it, too late? when i reached chapter 6 i didnt want to stop till the end.in general it wasnt so bad, it was alright.
This book is so timeless. I think a lot people don't like it because it was forced down their throats in high school. I thought it was so so in school and when I picked it up almost 10 years later I had a much deeper appreciation for the book. Not having to write papers usually has a lot to do with that :P
By some quirk in my personal history, I'd never read Gatsby. It has many beautifully written, poetic passages, and Gatsby's demise retains an ineffable sadness that moved me in the final pages. The absence of mourners at his funeral was particularly poignant. Fitzgerald's theme of pursuing an incompletely realized dream is universal, with the corollary that if one's timing is off, the dream may forever remain out of reach. Add to this a crushing irony: in order to win Daisy, Gatsby strove to make himself a member of her wealthy Long Island society, but she is shallow and frivolous and her husband is brutish and racist. The others in their group show no loyalty to Gatsby, the man who'd thrown them lavish parties, by deserting him in death. I'll comment briefly on the poetic nature of Fitzgerald's prose. He uses two metaphors involving water that are linked inextricably to the action of the novel. At the beginning of the story, the narrator, Nick, notes that "Conduct may be founded on the hard rock or the wet marshes..." comparing conduct to an edifice that can be built on a solid base ("hard rock") or a tenuous one ("wet marshes"). Foreshadowing is at work here as Gatsby's springboard into affluent society turns out to be a yacht in a dangerously shallow mooring. Unfortunately, Gatshby is floating in his pool at the end when he is shot to death. The novel concludes with another "wet" metaphor in the justly famous line "So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessy into the past." Humans are boats struggling to row into the future, while all the while carried backward by Time's river. Figures of speech are only effective if they complement the surrounding language and action.
Another vivid display of language occurs at the beginning of Chapter III with a 2 1/2 page description of the preparations for and beginning of a typical Gatsby party. "On buffet tables, garnished with glistening hors d'oeuvre, spiced baked hams crowded against salads of harlequin designs and pastry pigs and turkeys bewitched to a dark gold." Later, the narrator notes, "The bar is in full swing, and floating rounds of cocktails permeate the garden outside, until the air is alive with chatter and laughter, and casual innuendo and introductions forgotten on the spot, and enthusisatic meetings between women who never knew each other's names." A milieu built on the "wet marshes" indeed.
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)
Cheers to you and congratulations! I suspect you're probably very right about it not being just teenagers who can't understand them. These things take work, and reflection, and life, and the willingness to reflect on that life. Gatsby grew on me, slowly, over time, as i learned things i didn't know i was learning. But far too often people choose NOT to reflect - or even understand - old and young alike. If that were not the case the classics would be a lot more popular than they are and chewable pop trash would be a great deal less. But unfortunately (or fortunately - if you're brave enough to take up the challenge) the classics require a willingness to engage with what is inside yourself. They require honing the imagination and reaching out with it. You don't just 'read' a classic. You experience it and it sends you (if you're willing) on a transport of investigation, imagination, interest and engagement.