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

[Marguerite]

*** torturous

[Sarah]

I also went into this book with high hopes and felt somewhat let down, although not for the same reasons as you.
I loved the prose, everything seemed soaked in the glamour, glitz, excitement and vulgarity of 1920s America. Despite this being some of the best prose I've read, I found myself feeling apathetic towards or disliking most of the characters and as such not really caring about their fates, which lessens the power of the book. They all seemed rather shallow, cold and self interested and I couldn't warm to them. Perhaps it's not the job of an author to create likeable characters, but it inevitably meant I wasn't fully drawn into the story

[Geoffrey]

Ultimately, Sarah, that is basically my take as well. I could have cared less what happened to Gatsby.

[C. J.]

Anna-Kathrin wrote: "A general opinion:

People should never think they're dumb because they do not understand a certain book!
You're free to like and dislike whatever you want.
I've heard a lot of people call others d..."

Awesome comment, Anna-Kathrin. I do agree with that. There are so many books out there, some are deemed "classics" and there are billions of people who each have different tastes. That always influences how people will see the works of others.
I would not be surprised if every "classic" had at least one person that completely disliked it.

[Heather]

I'm not going to lie, I too don't really "get" what is so amazing about the book. I understand that it is a personal taste thing, but one of your comments bothered me. I don't think you should be classified as an "immature" reader because you don't "get" Gatsby. Honestly, it may just not be your thing. It's not that you don't like classics, it's that you don't get this one. You tried and it wasn't your thing. You aren't alone. I'm so glad I saw this post because I got verbally attacked in a college class where I voiced my semi-negative opinion of the novel and I felt like enemy number one. I can believe that others find this book amazing, but I am more of a Pride & Prejudice kind of girl, and others hate that book, even those who want to love classics. Basically this is just a pathetic soap box to say I wish you the best with what you're trying to get out of Gatsby, but please don't think you're not a mature reader because you can't.

[Lily]

The whole ranking system that we apply to books here on Goodreads seems to be oriented towards one of "likely" or "disliking", so we are given a method of inherently registering our response to a book on that scale:

It was amazing
Really liked it
Liked it
It was ok
Didn't like it

Is it appropriate to bring one's own reactions into our discussions here? Of course it is. Might our ranking say something about who we are, including as readers? Sure, but for those of us with access to freedom of speech, don't we accept that as what goes along with that freedom?

I happen to have ranked at least one and perhaps more than one of the most widely lauded of the classics as "didn't like it." To my mind, that in no way entitles me to belittle them as literature -- or at least if I do, that in itself says more about me than it does about those works. I am pretty darn sure most people don't have the time or the interest to read Goodreads discussions to learn my predilections, although there may be some interest in what shows up as seemingly a pattern among multiple readers.

I was trained in technical and scientific fields. Any formal training in how to discuss literature probably goes back to high school, too many years ago now. In the meantime, I have loved to read and read and read. I have been a member of a F2F book club or more than one for many years. But, I am still learning how to discuss what I read.

One of the most challenging views in my face right now is from someone much closer to the world of writing and literature than I ever will be. His gauntlet runs something like this -- a classic is a classic. Discussion of "liking" or "disliking" doesn't interest. But discussing a book or work as literature does.

I'm afraid I still am learning what that means. I suspect it may well include what some readers find troubling, inconsistent, even distasteful, about a work, as well as what some other readers find pleasurable, exciting, challenging, and what still others or some of those same readers can bring to the table about the writing, the milieu in which it was written, the use of various techniques, how the conditions of first exposure to the story impacted.... But I also suspect "good" discussions can include all sorts of things that we can continue to share with and even perhaps "teach" each other.

(And some examples for us of such discussions are embedded in the passions of "like"/"dislike" here.)

[Lily]

Geoffrey wrote: "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 strenuously tries our loyalties and has us betray our morals. Shame on you Fitzie baby. You are a crass manipulator...."

Does he? Or does he lay it out there in the open so we can look at what we do too easily, too unconsciously? Is Nick's assessment of Gatsby really ours? Are we that easily swayed, or do we hold Nick in the equation as well.

His insights are tenuous as his naivete to the darker side of life is too bourgeois.

I find this comment tantalizing. Can you say more or perhaps suggest a contrast with another writer? (Given Fitzgerald's background, I suspect you are right about bourgeois naivete, although I'm not certain whether that has made Fitzgerald's insights tenuous.)

[Troy]

Lily wrote: "The whole ranking system that we apply to books here on Goodreads seems to be oriented towards one of "likely" or "disliking", so we are given a method of inherently registering our response to a b..."

I absolutely agree with Lily that it would be more interesting to talk about books on another level than the like/dislike spectrum. I say that with a couple of caveats in mind:

1. It is much easier to have a more analytical conversation about a book you've just read and discussed in your book club. Most of the books I've commented on in Goodreads I read somewhere between 10 and 30 years ago.
2. You open a can of worms when you say "Discussion of 'liking' or 'disliking' doesn't interest. But discussing a book or work as literature does." I say this because the concept of literature doesn't work well for me. First of all, the concept is fluid. The "canon" is always changing. Did you know, for example, that Sherlock Holmes-which had always been considered genre fiction, is now being included in the literary canon in many places? Second, literature is often contrasted, as you can infer above, with this so-called genre fiction (sci fi, mystery, historical, romance, etc.). As someone who reads widely in both areas without distinction, I find the concept of literature to be incredibly elitist. Literature is merely that which a certain group of English professors, literary critics, publishers and booksellers say it is. Frankly I'd much prefer to think of the entire set of such works as merely texts, thereby leveling the playing field. Then we could have a discussion of the author/narrator, characterization, the use of scene and description without all the literary baggage. But then, of course, several professions would have to be eliminated.

People really do come to this website to find out whether more people like a book or dislike it. It is part of the whole "culture of review" that the internet has fostered. Why should Goodreads be any different than Best Buy? :)

[Lily]

Troy wrote: "...Why should Goodreads be any different than Best Buy? :) ..."

Troy--
Why shouldn't it be? The Internet and this media and this site have so many potentials far beyond five star ratings -- I say as someone who helped make this media happen long before it existed, so I have perhaps unreasonable passions on the topic.

Yeh, I don't think "literature" has to be a magic or boundary creating term, although I don't disagree that it is often used that way, sometimes usefully, sometimes not. Your suggested term "text" may indeed be much more useful.

"As someone who reads widely in both areas without distinction..."

Don't want to quibble, but as someone else who also reads just about anything that is within reach while at the same time respecting Mark Twain's "Don't read good ..., there isn't time for that. Read only the best", discernment seems to me one of the prima facie reasons for reading widely. And that one of the things these conversations do well at their best is aiding us in making distinctions.

Most of the books I've commented on in Goodreads I read somewhere between 10 and 30 years ago.

Also, many of those we aren't interested in re-reading, so that does impact what we can legitimately say and be faithful to our own standards of integrity. Yet, I will posit the possibility that there is often still more there to be shared if the text has made enough of an impact to be remembered across that period. The mind is more efficient at clean-up than some of us are about our desks.

[Troy]

Lily wrote: Troy--Don't want to quibble, but as someone else who also reads just about anything that is within reach while at the same time respecting Mark Twain's "Don't read good ..., there isn't time for that. Read only the best"..."

Lily, "I hear you, but..." Twain didn't live in our world. The "best" could be a manga like Eden: It's an Endless World, or a fanfic satirizing Twilight, a Neil Gaiman graphic novel, a Murakami short story in the New Yorker, a post by The Bloggess, a Youtube poetry-slam, or anything else in any media you could think of--or that you or I haven't thought of.

The idea that Literature in the form of the novel somehow equates to "the best" seems to me both limiting, and dubious. Don't get me wrong: I'm as tied to my dusty old novels as the next person. I am, however, less sanguine about their relevance.

[Lily]

I don't know the context in which Twain said those words or the extent to which he was referring to novels.

Among my friends, we often laugh and joke about the meaning of "best." For us, it is very time and place specific, and wouldn't necessarily qualify as "good," let alone "literature," by probably anyone's standards!

[jewelofthecrowne]

Heather wrote: "I'm not going to lie, I too don't really "get" what is so amazing about the book. I understand that it is a personal taste thing, but one of your comments bothered me. I don't think you should be c..."

I loved, LOVED, this book. However, one of the things that attracted me are specific place and cultural references that I could identify nearly a century later that provided a richer context to the story. Truthfully, I don't know if the story would have resonated with me but for they layer added by those references. Place is almost a character in this story, and if you don't have your own impression of the places being used (or fictionalized), I don't know if the story has the same power.

Given that the reason for my attraction is somewhat narrow, I can see why a wider audience wouldn't be as interested. I think part of the 'popularity' of the book, is from 'experts' telling us that the place and cultural references are accurate and therefore an interesting layer to the story. If I couldn't see that first hand: snoozville, every HS student's worst nightmare coming true -- worse as an adult -- a book someone else has to tell you is relevant and important. If that is the sort of impression this book left me with, I wouldnt like it either.

[jewelofthecrowne]

Jamesepowell wrote: "There are several strands of thought in this thread. I'd like to pull on two: the judgment of the novel and the use of the novel in teaching literature in high school.

Whether one likes or dislike..."

I like that you offer your students choice! I read some of the greatest classical and contemporary literature for school (Gabsy I read later). Some I was surprised to really enjoy, much of it was a huge turn off, frankly for no other reason than I was being forced to read it(and often didn't do so very carefully, because someone was there to feed us pat conclusions on why the work was so great.) There was always the stuff I liked to read, and the "SAT books", stuff I was reading so that my hs could report I was well-read. With my children I have seen that mixing in some self-selected books has made them more invested in learning and more thoughtful readers and writers.

[Pixie]

I read the "The Great Gatsby" in high school...and I graduated 1977 so that was quite awhile ago!! I hated it. Maybe if I read it now, I'd have a different opinion. I also did not care for the required reading of "Catcher in the Rye" or "The Horse's Mouth" (which I **really** disliked). With the many years that have passed since I read those books, maybe I should try again. Or maybe not, considering I only have so much time left, lol! I'd like to spend my time doing that which I enjoy!

[Alexis]

i loved this book and would definitely read it again.

[Lesley]

Like many of you I too read this book in high school, and I hated it. I haven't reread it why would I reread something that I hated. Its funny how our perceptions of books can change over time. I recently reread Wuthering Heights which I loved when I was 15 but now (30 odd years later) I wonder why I liked it so much. I read Henry James' the turn of the screw a few years ago & it completly did my head in. I couldn't get that book & started asking people if they had read it & if they liked it. The people at work thought I had gone mad because I would just blurt it out at odd times but I couldn't find anyone who had read it & could shed some light on that book. It made me feel very stupid.

[Matthew]

Lesley wrote: "I haven't reread it why would I reread something that I hated. Its funny how our perceptions of books can change over time."

Are you asking that rhetorically? Because otherwise, you just answered your own question. You're perception of this book is likely to change because those very perceptions change with time. And chances are, you're likely to notice things you didn't before - the symbolism and such - which is really the only way this book is entertaining at all :)

[Geoffrey]

Lily

I have made many contributions to this post and have outlined my reasons for saying what I have. You can cherry pick them and it will answer your last post. I appreciated your interest.

As for others, I have not yet read much response to my specific comments other than that they like the book, etc. etc. and have pointed out what it is they do like.

Again, Lily, I don`t believe Fitzgerald ever understood how organized crime figures work. G is too bumbling a figure, too transparent in his pretensions at inherited wealth, to be a character that Wolfsheim chose for his protege. A man with the acumen to throw the 1919 World Series is a heavy, savvy player, not a dumbass who doesn`t know when real wealth is not staring him in the face. And to bribe the cops, manipulate the judges, and essentially be a key player in a criminal organization requires more than a GEE WHIZ, I bought rubies and hoppèd from this country to that country when younger with all my bucks, sorry doesn`t cut it with me. This is what I call a naive, assumption on Fitzies behalf that his character is at all believable.

[Taryn]

Just because it is a classic doesn't mean you are forced to like it or try to reason your dislike. I agree with another poster here, I read it in high school and hated it. I have read it several times since then and with maturity, life experiences and wisdom came to love the novel. I recently read Lolita for the first time and don't believe that I would have enjoyed or truly comprehended, even appreciate it fully had I read it at a younger age. In the end though, we like what we like...

[Kanti]

I found it the same way either. This book was a compulsory when I attended a summer creative writing course in Oxford. I tried to love it so badly, I even watched the movie with Harrison Ford and Mia Farrow in it, but still couldn't get the essence of it. I wondered why this book considered as classic. My tutor says, most of the time a novel can be a classic not because the art within it, but the one that represents the situation during the time when the novel is written. And Gatsby really depicting the Jazz era and the rich society in 1920's.

[Ross]

I read this book in high school and it made no real impact on me. I thought perhaps the fact that I am Canadian was part of the reason as it was often stated to be "The Great American Novel". The book is well written but didn't resonate with me. I decided to look more into Fitzgerald's works and discovered Tender is the Night which is one of the best books I have ever read. I would suggest to anyone that did not care for Gatsby to try Tender.

[Becky]

Thank you to everyone who honestly replied to this thread- very enjoying to read! This topic caught my eye because I remember reading Gatsby in 10th grade English, I remember; liking it a lot. so now the question is why/I like it whereas alot of readers didn't? I think 'll have to receive agaimn

[K]

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..."

[K]

Thank you for sharing. I love the novel.

[Geoffrey]

There are a lot of titans out there. Fitzgerald is not one of them. We´ve got Dreiser, Wharton, Hemingway, Steinbeck, Malamud, Ellison,.....the list goes on. Why do we only count the ones who´ve been dead more than 20 years?

As for style, if that is all that makes for a genius, I´ll eat my socks.

[Amelia]

I'm currently in high school and read Gatsby for my final exams. I absolutely loved it, and re-read it throughout the year, although I know that some of my classmates struggled with it just because they had no interest and some of them didn't read it at all.

[Maddie]

I'm currently reading this book for an A.P. English class and I, too, am finding it boring and hard to follow. I can connect to one character, unlike others posting here, but the rest of the book is dull in comparison. I think the problem (this is what my teacher told me, not what I've surmised on my own) is that it is character driven rather than plot driven; rather than be filled with a wonderful plot, The Great Gatsby is filled with wonderful characters (or characters intended to be wonderful).

This just reminds me of Great Expectations from Pre-A.P. English last year. Even if I tried I couldn't like that book but that may be mainly because it is associated with my first struggle to maintain an English grade.

[Rusty]

Ya I honestly had to read that book due to my language class, this book was just telling me it wasn't good by the cover

[Edward]

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 ..."

I think you have to be in a similar frame of mind to really appreciate this book. I'm not wealthy like Gatsby, but can easily understand where he's coming from. Rich or poor, if your head's in a bad place, these things will follow...

[Fatin]

All right, so I'm joining this thread quite late so I won't be reading all of it, like mostly everybody else, I did really like Anthony's story.
As for the book, I..I didn't think it was great. The main reason being I did not care at all for any of the characters. I think my review covers what I thought of it:
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...

[Imran]

yeah.. It was boring..

[Ash Ebrahim]

It was terrible.

[helena]

Uh wow. I'm amazed that I found this thread. When I finally read the book, my head was full of amazing reviews from what I think are smart, well-read people. And a lot of people describe it as one of their favourite books.
I didn't get what the whole fuss was about... From all the simbolism discussion I figured at the time that I didn't understand it well enough. I read it in Portuguese - how much value do you think the book might have lost over translation? I'm guessing the way it is written accounts for much of its fame? I currently have a hard time understanding why this book is famous to this extent.

[Geoffrey]

Helena

Join the crowd. A decent book, yes, better than most, but a classic? Ya gotta be kiddin´.

[Andrea]

I expected this book to be spectacular the way people still talk about it. I did find it a bit boring, too.
In those times, I guess the book made more sense (as far as how words are used) and the theme mattered more.
You can take just about any book and disect it for meaning. You can take a McDuff book and look for all of the subliminal messages and then call the book genius.
I feel that some people may just jump on the bandwagon and say that The Great Gatsby is amazing because they don't want to appear ignorant. They want people to know "they get it".
It's a classic and it's a classic for a reason....it's just not my style of book.

[Hannah]

I am currently studying The Great Gatsby in A level English. Initially i liked it however upon more in depth analysis i have realized how truly awful it actually was. Our teacher has made us read it four times now and each time i dislike it even more. This may be a blatant sign of dictatorship but i do not care: WHEN I COME TO POWER THIS BOOK SHALL BE BANNED!

[Penny]

I felt much the same Hannah. I read it when my son was doing his A level English and he had to read it for that. I just didn't like it. And my son had read it, re-read it, read it again and was thoroughly sick to death of it too.
Not badly written, but just so totally boring, it is hard to see why it is such an iconic book.

[Geoffrey]

It sums up the roaring 20`s, I suppose in all its dissolution. But I agree, Penny, I don`t get its fame.

[Fatin]

I think the book is written beautifully. There are layers and layers of messages. But honestly, that doesn't mean I enjoyed the book, because I didn't. I didn't give a damn about any of the characters.

[Robert]

Being born 29 years after 'The Great Gatsby' was written, I easily recalled the dozens, if not hundreds, of TV and movie plots that had re-used T.G.G. Although since age six I've been reading books like Michael Moore devours Big Macs, I'm still not certain what 'great writing' is.

I know that Hemingway's 1939, 'For Whom the Bell Tolls' stands out in my mind. And I've read and enjoyed Gore Vidal's 1954 'Messiah' and John Hersey's 1965 'White Lotus' two or more times and believe they, instead of Stephenie Meyer's books should be on high school reading lists. (And yes, in Arizona, and most likely Utah, the Twilight series of books are on high school reading lists.)

[Geoffrey]

Fatin
It is of interest to me that so many people praise it for similar reasons such as yours as "there are layers and layers of messages" but they never get around to discussing the profundities of the novel. Please do.
As for Meyer`s books, Robert, I would say if it is anything in quality to the movie, I wouldn`t have to stick my finger in my mouth to puke.

[Silverpiper]

I confess, I love The great Gatsby. Fitzgerald's prose is typical of that time period. He was writing about a generation of lost children who grew into vain, selfish, irresponsible adults and he had no love for these useless people..

Sometimes when we read iconic novels for the first time we expect the greatness to be glaringly apparent. Fitzgerald has a subtlety that requires careful reading and patience.

[Jean]

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..."

Great discussion Anthony! Your story is similar to mine, except i am not a teacher, but mature age avid reader. Read it years ago and found it hard to comprehend and skipped over the bits i found challenging. Read it years later and loved it...being a romantic myself, I found over the top description of situations and perception of things facinating and sometimes beautiful, second time round...so real that I felt stronly the atmosphere and emotion in the story. I also felt a great deal of sadness for Gatsby, among other emotions, I guess that comes from having lived a lifetime. Yes my advise to anyone having trouble with this book too, is to revisit it later in life, to see if your attitude and understanding of the book has changed.

[Pam]

Jean, I strongly agree that sometimes even the most avid readers are not at a time in their lives when they can appreciate certain books. That is why I don't think English teachers should assign specific books, but provide a list of books for students to choose from. I still cannot believe that in high school, I was struggling through Benjamin Franklin's autobiography when I could have been reading "Catcher in the Rye" (probably too controversial for my provincial small town).

[Sandra]

Troy wrote: "Aditya,

I think you're struggling a bit with an issue that many of us have: The transition from the realist novels of the 19th century to the modernist/post-modernist novels of the 20th.

The pr..."

[Sandra]

I think the Great Gatsby is one the worst books I have ever read. It's a classic cuz we've been told it is. It's classically poor writing, absolutely no real story line and there was no way to even like or relate to the characters. F Scott Fitzgerald has been heralded a "great American" author. After reading about him I see nothing great or American about him. Sorry, but As I Lay Dieing was worse. Different author but I couldn't get past page 10.

[Esmeralda]

I did read The Great Gatsby in high school and wasn't particularly impressed by it. I read Tender is the Night as an adult and liked it a little better. I guess Fitzgerald is not my cup of tea.

I do recall liking some of the classics that I read in high school: Ivanhoe, Moby Dick, and The Octopus by Frank Norris.

I was in high school many, many, years ago. Back then many students had trouble relating to some of the classics. I shudder to think about how students receive them in this electronic age.

I think there should be more emphasis on modern literature and less on the classics. Students who want to read them on their own can. For those who go on to college they may be required to read them if they major in English.

As someone mentioned there are many good novels being written for young adults. Sometimes I enjoy them more than adult fiction. If you can get students to enjoy reading you might be able to throw in a classic or two. If they are turned off by reading, forcing classics on them is not going to help the situation. I think it might just increase the sales of Cliff Notes.

Maybe School Districts need to reevaluate the school curriculum and decide what students need to learn, other than how to pass a test.

[Geoffrey]

Esmeralda

Yes, I agree about lessening the emphasis on the classics and more on modern literature. I have said it before and will repeat it until doomsday-there is still too much emphasis on the novel as well. Bring the short story into the classroom with a vehemence. To subject students to a single novel for a month and more when half might dislike it is a travesty. Reading literature in the classroom should be as much about instilling the love of reading and that is hindered when students read 3-6 novels a year, only one of which might be of strong interest to any student.

By giving them 20-40 short stories a year as a supplement to a more limited number of novels would certainly expose them to more authors, and those which are of strong interest to them, they can go on and read more of their works..

I recall liking 1984 immensely and went on to read several more of Orwell´s works. The same for THE GOOD EARTH.

[Pam]

Geoffrey,

Great idea about assigning short stories to students. I remember being so impressed by Hemingway, Dorothy Parker, Poe, Cheever, and, yes, Fitzgerald. People's tastes are so different that force feeding someone "Moby Dick" can be counter-productive. Maybe assign a chapter from that, or read a chapter aloud.

[Edward]

While not an action-packed thriller (thank God), or a relentlessly plot-driven page-turner, Gatsby is a masterpiece because no one wrote about people better than Fitzgerald. Every word is meticulously chosen and appropriate, from the opening page.

"Whenever you feel like criticizing any one," he told me, "just remember that all the people in this world haven't had the advantages that you've had."

These words have stayed with me a lifetime, causing me to hold my tongue many, many times.

I grew up next door to some of the people who were models for the book - Harrison Williams, the richest man in the world in his day, and his wife, Mona, the most beautiful and best dressed woman in the world - who, like Daisy, was born in Louisville, incredibly beautiful and rich, and utterly unobtainable.

Fitzgerald knew them in the years before he wrote Gatsby, went to their crowded and uninhibited weekend-long parties and used some of their characteristics in the book; Harrison never went to the huge parties he threw, although Daisy's personality is based more on Zelda than my neighbor.

My aunt and uncle, the screenwriting Hacketts ("It's a Wonderful Life," "Thin Man," "Seven Brides," and 33 others,) were also close to Fitzgerald (and had an autographed 1st ed. of Gatsby), and their insight into him is important in my thinking about his oeuvre.

So, what the hell, eh, I wrote a book about Mona and her world, she was a truly fascinating character - daughter of a horse trainer in Kentucky who became Countess von Bismarck. We used to prowl their estate when she was away in Paris and Capri, and coming-of-age in the psychedelic 60s is a big part of the book too. Many figures of the era, Bobby Kennedy, Harper Lee, Jimi Hendrix, Dexter Gordon and more appear, all drawn from life.

I have gotten good feedback from various agents and editors I know after 30 years in the book trade, so if any of the readers of this thread would like to know more about that era and those people, I would be happy to email you a copy of my novel, free, of course (until it hits the stores, heh heh). You can contact me here at Goodreads - I have posted the preface on my page - or one of the social media sites for the book: https://www.facebook.com/MonaTheBook (join the group!) and http://pinterest.com/younged/oak-poin....

Well, thanks for hearing me out, and my apologies for the blatant plug. On the other hand, you will be able to say you know "the rest of the story" behind the Great Gatsby, and that you read the number one bestseller "Oak Point" for free months before it was released~

Happy reading,

Edw. Young
author, "Oak Point"