Why I tried to love this book and instead ended up hating it.

[Geoffrey]

I happen to agree with both Toni and Monty on this one. I believe Toni you misunderstood what Monty wrote. He did not imply the book to be deep thinking but that a reader had to be to understand all the book´s nuances. I too, upon reading this initially came to the same conclusión, but Monty was merely pointing out that one has to do some careful literary analysis to understand the book in its entirety.

This book although insightful, is shallow almost as much as its characters. This is the curious dialect of the novel in that although SF was perceptive in his understanding of the rampant corruption of the wildly materialistic 20´s, he had a limited understanding as to why. Nor does he particularly take exception to that era´s transgresses on a moral plane, but solely points out its bad consequences. SF´s own moral charácter was particularly weak and it shows in this novel. Nick, acting as his surrogate stand in, never is horrified by the actions around him until his beloved ends up clorinated in his back yard pool. That is the outrage that sparks the only condemnatory remark that his god was worth more than all the others put together. But Myrtle getting her nose busted, not a Word. A fence selling stolen bonds, hey that´s business. A bootlegger pretending to be a scion of a wealthy family-he´s simply reinventing his past for his proper placement in society.

[Geoffrey]

Toni, I also believe Monty to have made an oblique criticism of the other posters, whom he believes not to be deep thinkers. He is pointing out that the book requires more analysis than what they have exercised.

[Monty J]

Geoffrey wrote: "Toni, I also believe Monty to have made an oblique criticism of the other posters, whom he believes not to be deep thinkers. He is pointing out that the book requires more analysis than what they have exercised."

I meant not to be critical of others, but to emphasize the book's complexity, for it is more so than any other American novel I have read, including Steinbeck's. I have read most of Steinbeck's work--including the posthumous Journal of a Novel, two biographies and many critical papers of his work--and engaged heavily on his behalf here on Goodreads.

Steinbeck is a different kind of writer, and at his best, head and shoulders above most others here in America. He's in a class of his own, if for no reason other than the way his work slowed the growth of communism during and after the Great Depression. Steinbeck's focus was on the poor, the working class being crushed under the heel of an aloof wealthy class with whom Fitzgerald was so obsessed.

Fitzgerald's canon isn't in Steinbeck's league, but The Great Gatsby was a leap forward for him, a wobbly first attempt at social critique. A stylist, perhaps, but the evidence shows he strove for more. He deserves more credit for that effort than has been to date forthcoming.

The Great Gatsby is a different kind of writing than Steinbeck's because of its heavy reliance on symbolism to support a critique of the corruption that can accompany blind pursuit of the American Dream. Fitzgerald admitted that he largely failed at that because of how the novel was initially received by critics and, posthumously, in the way the novel's abstraction allowed Hollywood to submerge or downplay Gatsby's corruption while showcasing his glitter, charm and "romantic readiness."

Because of this, instead of reading the book closely, many people see the movie and take the story as a romantic tragedy, a modernized Romeo and Juliet.

Others, at varying levels, have seen the things I have commented on. Except maybe the part about Gatsby driving; I seem to be out on a lonely limb on this issue.

Despite my love for Steinbeck's work, I think we need more novels like The Great Gatsby--more novels about corruption in the ranks of the wealthy--for they've been getting better and better at exploiting the poor and destroying America's middle class.

[Geoffrey]

What about Tom Wolfe´s Bonfire of the Vanities, Monty? He satirizes Wall Street via the commodities market company the anti hero works at.

[Monty J]

Yes. That's on my reading list thanks to you Geoffrey.

[Tom]

I found the book far less complex or "deep" than either Thomas Wolfe or Hemingway (both of whom shared an editor with Fitzgerald), or Faulkner who followed shortly thereafter.
Having done much deep thinking and research in grad school on American literature of the era, I just never saw it.

[Monty J]

Tom wrote: "I found the book far less complex or "deep" than either Thomas Wolfe or Hemingway (both of whom shared an editor with Fitzgerald), or Faulkner who followed shortly thereafter.
Having done much deep..."

And your point is what? What are you trying to accomplish by merely stating an opinion? Everyone has likes and dislikes. Unless you provide a basis for arriving at your conclusion, we have no grounds for discussion.