The Great Gatsby
discussion
Why I tried to love this book and instead ended up hating it.
Tomas wrote: "If Fitzgerald's use of metaphor and metonymy escape you then you should go back to reading Twilight or The Hunger Games. You're a philistine--face it."You should've been more diplomatic. ;) Yes, even I believe that. I understand Crime and Punishment, Anna Karenina, War and Peace, Grapes Wrath and Hunger Games better than Great Gatsby. May be I'm not up to the Gatsby quality.
In school we were required to read this book. I had much higher expectations because the other books we have read seem so much more exciting and meaningful. After reading it, I found that it was boring, confusing, and highly overrated. I mean, really who wants to hear someone over explain every single little thing. I could barely stay awake while reading this book.
Tomas wrote: "And yet you rated the book four stars? "Wouldn't you rate it high if you were an insomniac?
There have been so many books and authors in my life whose reputations seemed completely lost on me -- until I suddenly turned a corner and got it. Gatsby is a great example. The whole thing seemed a bit stupid the first time I read it a an adult, and the lame Redford picture didn't help. Then,years later, I picked up a ragged copy in a hotel room for lack of any reading alternative, and it was like someone opened a window. I was suddenly alive to all of the excitement and admiration I'd always heard others express. (Had the exact same experience with Scarlet Letter and, especially, Leaves of Grass. Just wasn't ready the first time for whatever reason.)
Well here's my two cents.I read this book when I was 16 and super bored. My Dad had an old copy lying around so I just started in on it. At the time I wasn't really aware that it was a major classic (is that bad?) so I had no expectations whatsoever.
I liked it. Finished the whole thing in a day.
To be honest, I don't really get the truest essence of some of the scenes (especially the part where Gatsby throws the shirts from his closet), but I found the story fairly different and mildly amusing. When you examine it, it had similar themes as, say, Gone With the Wind, in that Gatsby spent his whole (short) life unrealistically pining for Daisy, like Scarlett was with Ashley. There were really some good ideas in there even if the story wasn't fast paced.
What hit me hardest was the tragic (and brilliantly constructed) car accident and Gatsby's subsequent death. I guess that having read very few tragedies, I had grown accustomed to having the good guy win in the end. So it was shocking for me.
All in all I think this was a pretty good story and I can assure you it stayed with me for days after.
I recommend that you wait a few years and then re read it and see if your feelings toward it change. Don't know how old you are, but maturity may throw new light on it. Or see the movie and then re read. Or its possible that its really just not up your alley. :)
I´ve read it two or three or four times, and the verdict is still out. Interesting story by a writer with shallow insights. Structurally flawed. I´ve said it before in other posts, will repeat myself ad infinitum. Minor interesting book but needed work.
The disillusionment in Gatsby is more relevant than ever in our Great Recession.Shelley
Rain: A Dust Bowl Story
http://dustbowlpoetry.wordpress.com
That all the rich are superflously vacuous.
I just read it in my high school English class, there was not a person in there who hated it. We all loved this book so much, and although the characters often bothered us (especially Daisy), we all were enchanted by Gatsby and the world the Fitzgerald crafted. The book was written so beautifully, and every word was chosen perfectly. All in all, it's one of my favorite books I've read in English class.
Yes, I have read the book three times at least just to tear it apart, I love doing it so much, Tomas, and if you have read my other posts on this message thread you would know my objections. You can plug it into any discussion about the issues that you raise, but then again, any book can be analysed on any level. So, if you think that it is of sufficient validity to the isms that you raise, when not take the ball from there. As they say in hoop, the ball`s in your court.
I'm a writer and a high school teacher, but i thank God that i teach Spanish and not English. I think I'd rather slit my wrists then try to get kids to love the so-called classics and end up having them hate the very books that i feel passionate about. Although I notice the kids in my high school read all sorts of modern classics that tie into their social studies classes. But the funny thing is, I loved Gatsby. In high school I remember being confused by the story and struggling to keep straight whether it was Nick or Gatsby who was talking. But the language, along with the social critique of the Jazz Age, which basically is a critique of the greed and emptiness in any age, was something I could really appreciate. I don't know why, and it wasn't even the thing the teacher was stressing. Maybe that was the difference. So much depends on what kind of teacher and how they put the books forward.
I was totally blown-away by 'TGG' when I first read it in 1974. It inspired me to write my own version (it's available via Amazon). Everything about it spoke to me when I was 17 and much much later it still speaks to me. I suppose I am one of those who 'get' Gatsby.As a lit teacher I have always tried to present Gatsby with sympathy and compassion. After all, he is only the boy who never grew up. When Fitzgerald says, 'he invented just the sort of Jay Gatsby that a 17-year-old boy would be likely to invent', I think it speaks to the ages. Maybe that's just me, then. But it is a common fantasy of a teenaged boy to dream up how he will be come rich and famous and attract the attention of the girl across the classroom that he secretly fears is too good for him. (See the film 'Lord Of War' for another version of the same fantasy.)
The beautiful part (and one of my favourite themes when teaching the book) is to look for all the TRUTHS about Gatsby-- he did go to Oxford, he was decorated in the War, he was generous to a fault, and he was just innocent enough, at least at heart, to not mislead anyone too far. This 'Platonic conception of himself' is the core of the whole story-- it is a pure ideal which Gatsby strives to represent, not a realistic plan. Watch how he regards Daisy's child-- 'I don't think he had ever believed in its existence before.' The child represents the physical consummation of Daisy & Tom. After this JG realises he cannot wholly expect that Daisy can just walk away from Tom, get some sort of anulment and run off with her *true love* Jay, the dashing young lieutenant she loved years ago. Once the Ideal clashes with the Real, JG has no further means to deal with it.
This is part of what makes him so lovable-- he really isn't of this world at all. When at the end Nick says, 'You're worth the whole damn bunch put together,' it's because he has finally figured out his friend and knows just why he deserves to be admired, respected and valued. He's one of a kind.
I have always tried to teach the book in those terms; and I have found it works much better as literature if you think of it as the story of a little boy from nowhere who wanted desperately to be something more than what he was born to be.
Recommended reading to those of you musing upon the significance and writing in The Great Gatsby, whether or not you agree with Mr. Yardley:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...
I always thought this book should have been called "the halfway decent Gatsby".
Yes, despite the fact that Fitzgerald paints him as the unrequited white knight, he`s not quite the lilly bloom made out to be. He`s an arch criminal in a criminal organization. I won`t mention his bootlegging activities as I don`t find them particularly offensive as everyone who is associated with him, ie. guests at his parties, but h`s a trafficker in false bond certificates. He`s an underling in a criminal cartel, the implication is that he is guilty of more crimes than those mentioned in the book.
Geoffrey wrote: "Yes, despite the fact that Fitzgerald paints him as the unrequited white knight, he`s not quite the lilly bloom made out to be. He`s an arch criminal in a criminal organization..."Well, if Gatsby is "an arch criminal in a criminal organization," I suspect he is so because Fitzgerald so paints him. I don't know who else created Gatsby's characteristics!?
I thought this was one the best reads regarding the way Fitzgerald describes every detail down to the smoke trailing cigarettes. You could smell the smoke, taste the essence of every character. Sorry you didn't care for this book, not all books appeal to everyone, and that is the beauty of being different.
I'm just getting in on this topic, but I wanted to say that I loved this novel. I even named my daughter 'Jordan' 30-years ago because of this book. I had a really great high school literature teacher who knew how to 'teach' this book; perhaps that is why I loved it so much.
The writing, the sentences themselves are lovely. Beautifully crafted. I think F Scott Fitzgerald's writing itself is magnificent, a true work of art. Gatsby was.. is... always will be stuck in my mind as a character I relate to and love. But Gatsby and sentences alone are not enought to make me enjoy this book.I had heard so much about the book that I was prepared to love it. And I tried so hard too. But I couldn't. Daisy, wasn't a passionate lover, or even a decent person. Tom was boring and unfaithful. Jordon was somewhat self centered and reminded me of someone with a perpetual pout. In the last part of the book the narrator (the one other wonderful thing about this book) throws her over and I honestly thought that was one of the better plot points in the book! Perhaps my disappoinment stems from how much hype surrounds the book.
Anthony wrote: "May I share a story? I read The Great Gatsby when I was in High School, along with the works of Ernest Hemingway and William Faulkner. Next to the two great titans of style…Fitzgerald's writing s..."
This is good advice. Books don't change, but we do. There are some books that we cannot understand until we have had certain life experiences. Until a person has had a great love affair or marriage that failed one will probably not understand Gatsby who, yes is a romantic. The Daisy in Gatsby's imagination and the real Daisy were two different people--the ideal and the real. Daisy represented everything that a poor man like Jay Gatz(Gatsby) could not have: money, prestige, material possessions, and trophy wives. In the novel, Fitzgerald holds the rich up to a lens and finds them wanting. This remains a powerful novel that is beautifully written.
Tonight I bring you...the trailer to Baz Luhrmann's version of The Great Gatsby. http://youtu.be/OULhlaX6JY4
Cheers!
Aditya, regardless of what you decide about this book, you are clearly a stellar reader. I always tell my college students: if you're reading great literature, don't ever say the book is boring; say you're bored by the book. Put the responsibility on yourself, not on the writer.That's all any writer can ask.
Shelley
Rain: A Dust Bowl Story
http://dustbowlpoetry.wordpress.com
I loved Gatsby when I read it for the first time earlier this year. I'd really been waiting to read it because I actually wanted one of my classes to take it on. I thought it would be interesting to have a discussion on but it never happened so I picked it up on my own.I love the 20s so I was really excited about reading it and once I started it, I couldn't put it down. I devoured that book in under 24 hours. It left me breathless. I suppose some people don't like the way Fitzgerald writes and that's a shame. He's really a great author. His short stories are wonderful and as others have mentioned, Tender Is The Night is a great read.
I can't explain to you why I love it the way I do (it's my favorite novel) and I guess I'll never be able to put it into words. I think it's beautifully written and I was able to laugh at parts of it and be upset at others. But as I said, I've always had a thing for the 20s so therein may lie part of the reason I adore it.
Shelley wrote: "Aditya, regardless of what you decide about this book, you are clearly a stellar reader. I always tell my college students: if you're reading great literature, don't ever say the book is boring; sa...""Don't ever say the book is boring; say you are bored by the book." That's just simply great advice Shelley. :) I'm definitely not a stellar reader right now, but when I read it, that made me smile. I get your point. :)
Yes, I too liked what you have to say about being bored, but disagree vehemently about the erroneous points you make about his destractors. I believe most of us admire his style, but unfortunately too often there`s too little sound and not much fury. He just missed the mark way too often and made too many mistakes in the novel to be called a masterpiece. His insight is shallow on some fronts, albeit strong on others. I just shrug my shoulders and agree with Hemingway in his mild rebuke.
destractors? Why it`s a Palinistic neologism.
Anyone who loved this book should read The Late Gatsby - a mash-up of the original with a classic vampire narrative. It's very different from all the other zombie/vampire mash-ups of recent years - it's well-crafted, not thrown together, and is actually a sort of tribute to the original (a lot of fun details might escape someone who did not read the original.
Webiny wrote: "What hit me hardest was the tragic (and brilliantly constructed) car accident and Gatsby's subsequent death."Yeah. That part got me too. I also admired the way that after the woman died in the gruesome wreck it seemed like everyone said how they really felt about each other (which wasn't good). It was almost like the setting to the story was symbolic of "everyone is dancing and everyone is fine" where that was more of a masque to what was really going on in peoples' personal feelings toward each other.
Different books appeal to different people. What you find dumb is the very thing that makes Fitzgerald admirable---his extraordinary ability to evoke peculiar and vibrant imagery. While you end up fervently hating it, I happen to love it so dearly that I'll re-read it whenever free just to embrace myself with his writing again. There's nothing wrong with feeling disgusted by a book; we all have the same experience from time to time. At least you finally come to realize what's for you, and what's not, which is a valuable gain from reading extensively.
Same thing with me, cant even remember what it was about when I read it in high school, but just read it at 36 and its wonderful, its the times, the roaring twenties, a great time for people to be reckless. I like descriptiveness about it... Great book...
Wow. I loved the description you put there, Jacque. I mean it. "the roaring twenties, a great time for people to be reckless." The 1920's. Full of new styles, new dances, new ways to be rebellious, and just feeling free.But I still loved that way you said it Jacque. An awesome way to describe the time.
Aditya wrote: "I don't know if this book is trash or if I'm dumb enough to not understand it's greatness. I want to admit that I genuinely tried to love this book but just couldn't and by the time I finished the ..."
Finally someone who's sharing my piece of mind! I agree with some reviewers here who don't deny a great writing talent to the author of the book but still find it vague (I agree that Gatsby's personality isn't clearly depicted), and I cannot persuade my students either to understand it or even like it. Some of them actually did like the book for no obvious reasons. If they asked me, I wouldn't be able to tell them why I recommended it except for the mere must-read reason because of the whole hype raised over it. To be honest, I prefer Lucky Jim and Winesburg, Ohio in our reading syllabus. Lot more to discuss there without any confusion.
Finally someone who's sharing my piece of mind! I agree with some reviewers here who don't deny a great writing talent to the author of the book but still find it vague (I agree that Gatsby's personality isn't clearly depicted), and I cannot persuade my students either to understand it or even like it. Some of them actually did like the book for no obvious reasons. If they asked me, I wouldn't be able to tell them why I recommended it except for the mere must-read reason because of the whole hype raised over it. To be honest, I prefer Lucky Jim and Winesburg, Ohio in our reading syllabus. Lot more to discuss there without any confusion.
Almasa wrote: "I cannot persuade my students either to understand it or even like it. ..."Almasa -- if you must teach The Great Gatsby, Goodreads might well be a place to connect with teachers who have an easier time with it. It is not among my favorite books, but it is of an acquaintance who has slowly been teaching me, through multiple rereads, to appreciate the book. Given that I am not generally a rereader, that is quite an accomplishment!
One of the books that has been helpful to me in that quest is Harold Bloom's F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby . There was at least one other in the plethora of criticism on my local library shelf that I found helpful.
I think there is much here for students to learn about, from narrator's voice to reliability of the narrator to portrayal of the contrasts of aspects of American dreams and values versus reality to sheer lush descriptions to... But, I don't suspect it would be easy to teach students how to recognize and extract such information from a text. (I don't think I had a teacher who did that for me; since I didn't go on to study literature, to the extent I can do some of that today, it has been because of reading, reading, reading and discussions over the years with those better trained than I as well as with those who also have taught themselves in close reading.)
It is probably useful for students to be able to at least begin to articulate why they viscerally react negatively to some texts.
Aditya wrote: "I don't know if this book is trash or if I'm dumb enough to not understand it's greatness. I want to admit that I genuinely tried to love this book but just couldn't and by the time I finished the ..."You're feelings are quite common. Not many people like this book because it's inaccessible and really not that fun to read. It's a Modernist classic, which means it was written by an intellectual, for other intellectuals. The only real way to enjoy it is to have a primer that tells you how to spot all the symbolism and recognize what Fitzgerald was getting at well in advance. Not to mention a good 20 minute lecture on cultural context and so forth.
That's the only way I could make a bunch of teenagers read and marginally enjoy this book. Damn Modernists were so obsessed with symbolism, originality and being inaccessible that they wrote classics which are damn near impossible to understand and enjoy by the rest of us ;)
Lily wrote: "Almasa wrote: "I cannot persuade my students either to understand it or even like it. ..."
Almasa -- if you must teach The Great Gatsby, Goodreads might well be a place to connect with teachers w..."
Thank you dear Lily, I will try it out. It is an optional work among other classics that I have chosen for my more progressive students who are interested in literature. I try to cover the basics of American and British literature and most of the time I give them many options. Still, I feel rather puzzled by The Great Gatsby, I may have approached it unwillingly from the very beginning, I will most definitely try re-reading it. You are right about students, esp teenagers, not being able to discern deeper symbolism since it requires a respectful amount of experience and maturity, I use literature for reading and articulating as much as they can at the given level. You would be surprised with some of the ideas. It's good when they talk about books even in a negative tone but with explanation. Again, thank you very much for your suggestion, I will try that :)
Almasa -- if you must teach The Great Gatsby, Goodreads might well be a place to connect with teachers w..."
Thank you dear Lily, I will try it out. It is an optional work among other classics that I have chosen for my more progressive students who are interested in literature. I try to cover the basics of American and British literature and most of the time I give them many options. Still, I feel rather puzzled by The Great Gatsby, I may have approached it unwillingly from the very beginning, I will most definitely try re-reading it. You are right about students, esp teenagers, not being able to discern deeper symbolism since it requires a respectful amount of experience and maturity, I use literature for reading and articulating as much as they can at the given level. You would be surprised with some of the ideas. It's good when they talk about books even in a negative tone but with explanation. Again, thank you very much for your suggestion, I will try that :)
Matthew wrote: "...The only real way to enjoy it is to have a primer that tells you how to spot all the symbolism and recognize what Fitzgerald was getting at well in advance. ..."Maybe it is part of why I still struggle with the book, but I don't think of it so much in terms of symbolism as a story portraying a clash of romantic idealism with crass materialism. I think most kids today experience that every time they want new Nikes or an Ipad or car.
I do think it can encourage us to look at things we don't necessarily like about ourselves or the world around us. That's uncomfortable for any of us.
Anthony wrote: "May I share a story? I read The Great Gatsby when I was in High School, along with the works of Ernest Hemingway and William Faulkner. Next to the two great titans of style…Fitzgerald's writing s..."
Love what you said. I feel the same.
Worst book I've ever been forced to read in my life. Awful, hideously boring, meaningless tripe. I would rather eat broken glass than read this book again. Pity there aren't negative stars to allow me to rate this book as negative 15 (number of hours of my life I will never get back after wasting them reading this mind-numbingly boring pile of smoldering non-literature. Admittedly, I was in high school at the time, but there are so many GREAT and INSPIRING books that I read in high school, that it must have been a depressed, suicidal English professor bent on converting all high school students to different career paths so he could protect his tenuous tenure who recommended this "stick a red hot ice pick into my eye before reading this unholy tribute to boredom" book to high school teachers everywhere.Have a nice day, and whatever you do, don't waste your time on this so-called piece of literature.
Just for the record, I liked it. I like the way Fitzgerald explains everything. I think he was a very visual-kinesthetic person, and that suits me perfectly. Never mind that it's a classic-- in fact, I usually can't stand books with that title/genre affixed to them-- I really just like this book. Though, I must confess, the plot was not fantastic. Just okay. But not terrible. ("but there was an immediately perceptible vitality about her as if the nerves of her body were continually smouldering." How is that not utterly gorgeous?)
Even people think , it is classic and boring , we dont have to forget it is writen for other times , and different reality, american dream! that ended a nightmare ,,,, i really liked it ...the story of daisy and gatsby , love , and money , the contrast , differences .... all it is same as in my country nowdays! Incredible , how many years behind the history we remain!
The fact I felt antipathy or at best apathy towards every character in the book did not help my enjoyment of it. Perhaps that's lazy on my part and the need to like or feel some kind of affinity towards a character shows my lack of understanding when it comes to literature. I've spoken to people who are amazed I didn't adore it.
Despite this book being occasionally enjoyable in small parts, on the whole I disliked it.
Adam and RickCongrats! You both have the audacity to go against the grain and tell the truth about how much you detest the book. I felt the same when I first came on to this message thread, but considering how easy and enjoyable it is to pick away at the faults in the book I have begun to like it as target practice. Fire away!
What people have not commented on are the book`s undercurrents of events not fully explained. The Wolfsheim associate at the restaurant whose initial presumption that Nick was Gatsby was the character who later called Gatsby at the house to make the arrangement for the transfer of the bond certificates. Or was it prior to the meeting? Regardless, it speaks of the octopodal activities of Wolfsheim. His tentacles are everywhere...gambling, bootlegging, sports fixing, stolen securities...his connections are widespread and the degree of involvement is left unsaid as is Gatsby`s, so that comment of the other poster "I like the way that Fitzgerald explains everything" leaves something to be desired. No, he does not explain everything...he leaves a lot to the imagination and if you don`t believe that, ask yourself what Nick sees in the Parker woman.Gatsby`s a protege of Wolfsheim as the latter claims. He tells Nick that he made Gatsby the man he was. That means that Gatsby is as dirty as his mentor. Gatsby is such a sleeze he will step on anyone to reach his pinnacle with Daisy at his side.
As for Fitzgerald`s faulty character development, there is much to be said against his talents therein. How is it that a supposedly upwardly mobile, go getter, risk taker made it through the battlefront of WWI without threads other than his military uniform. For all the gambling that soldiers do in the trenches or the headquarters, if that is where Gatsby was, how was it that he managed not to amass even a small cache of gambling loot. Or for that matter, if he was a gunner in the Montenegro front, how was it he did not pick bounty from the enemy dead. The inconsistency in characterization is bothersome. And how is it that Wolfsheim was so naive, he a nationally known gambler, to choose as his protege, a man who couldn`t even conceivably convincingly lie to the wealthy of West Egg, never mind the police making periodic inspections to the apothecary bootlegging operations.
The whole world that Fitzgerald has created is studded with Swiss cheese holes. His insights are tenuous as his naivete to the darker side of life is too bourgeois.
Geoffrey wrote: "What people have not commented on are the book`s undercurrents of events not fully explained. The Wolfsheim associate at the restaurant whose initial presumption that Nick was Gatsby was the charac..."Your knowledge of the details is far beyond mine. I've read The Great Gatsby exactly twice: Once in high school, and once again about 10 years ago--as I mentioned somewhere above.
What I will say is that I think Fitgerald has done a skillful job of characterizing Gatsby. We know Gatsby is dirty, we have both direct evidence and circumstantial.
What is interesting to me is how, by distancing these activities, leaving them vague, Gatsby is able to continue to be a hero for the reader. Even though he's corrupted himself to rise to Daisy's level, for him, achieving her is the one pure thing he will ever do.
In some sense, winning her love is redemption for all he's done--at least in his mind. The space around them when they are together has this sense of being hallowed, this weird sense of light. They are able to step out of the world where Gatsby lives in slime.
Of course this all falls apart when the outer world decides to come after him, and violates this space.
I don't see his character as somehow simplistic or false. Rather, he is more complex than we are lead to believe. He dreams big dreams while inhabiting a nightmarish landscape. The contrast is quite interesting.
I really enjoyed the book. I don't think it's a sin to dislike a classic. (All readers have different literary tastes.) People I know love Charles Dickens's books, but I just can't stand his writing. :)
I am no sure that "winning her love is redemption for all he`s done" as Troy writes. There is nothing in the book that indicates that he has a conscience. Yes, this is a book I love....to hate.... and now have read it twice this past year to tear it apart. How I enjoy doing it so, partly because I find Fitzgerald`s literary creation leaves a lot to be desired, partly because I dislike the characters as much as I do.The only two characters that come up to my liking are the Parker woman and Senior Gatz. I believe Nick gave her a bum rap. Of her character, he says that she is cynical and scornful, but we don`t evince that at all from her actions. If anything, she is a romantic as she is much taken with Gatsby`s love for Daisy and sees it as a pure form, unlike her own passing fancies for paramours soon discarded. But considering the company she keeps, who could blame her. I certainly would not stay with a "female Nick".
I would compare Gatzby to Florentino in Marquez`s LIFE AND DEATH IN THE TIME OF CHOLERA. Of the two, I am not certain as to which is the most loathsome, but if I were to take a pick, I would choose the Hispanic character as he seduces an underage child and then abandons her, she commits suicide and he feels no pangs of guilt. But Gatzby plays a similar role in the novel of his namemaking in that he is likewise a sleazeball and the author manipulates our feelings to his advantage. This is another reason for which I so heartily dislike the GG in that Fitzgerald so strenously tries our loyalties and has us betray our morals. Shame on you Fitzie baby. You are a crass manipulator.
I think that the prose is very poetic in nature. If you like poetry you'll like the metaphoric style of Gatsby if not you'll often not like the style. However that's a generalisation, I know people who found it dry and insipid. It all depends on how you find it.
Required reading for me in 7th grade. If you want to get someone to really really hate a book, make them read it! Same with Billy Bud. Tortuous.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
F. Scott Fitzgerald's the Great Gatsby (other topics)
The Late Gatsby (other topics)
Tender Is the Night (other topics)
Tender Is the Night (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Empty Roads & Broken Bottles: in search for The Great Perhaps (other topics)F. Scott Fitzgerald's the Great Gatsby (other topics)
The Late Gatsby (other topics)
Tender Is the Night (other topics)
Tender Is the Night (other topics)
More...
Best book ever.
It is also worth noting that this book was written during the age of disilusionment.