The Great Gatsby
discussion
Why I tried to love this book and instead ended up hating it.
I was having a conversation with a "bookish" friend of mine as were were walking in to see the movie "The Hobbit" when we saw the larger-than-life cutout poster for the upcoming movie of Gatsby. It was there that he admitted he had never read it. My reaction was, without pause, "You must read it immediately." Yes, it is a book that people both love and hate. It is a controversial book that is often found on the banned books list. Whether people like it or not, whether people believe it has merit, or not, it should be read. It is a part of our common culture and allows English teacher, rappers and everyone else have a common experience. We don't have these much in the US.
Ann wrote: "I was having a conversation with a "bookish" friend of mine as were were walking in to see the movie "The Hobbit" when we saw the larger-than-life cutout poster for the upcoming movie of Gatsby. I..."Banned?!? Seriously?
I was surprised to learn, like I've posted, of how many TV and Movie plots were literally stolen from the pages of The Great Gatsby that was penned in the 1920s.
..and 'The Great Gatsby' itself --as idiosyncratic as it is--is just one of a string of novels which are said to have been spawned by "Swann's Way"
Yes, you`re absolutely right, the editing in the novel is incredible, so much so that we get orgiastic or is orgasmic, oh never mind, it doesn`t really make that much difference, and that bit about one of the characters coming from the midwest but that was really from SF, and oh yes,and it appears that some of the books the novel references couldn`t have come out when they did...or that Daisy was pregnant, oh my, she had it out of wedlock....Well, as you were saying Feliks, just keep boosting the book, it needs a strong defense against those mealy-mouthed detractors who just don`t know superior writing when they see it. Anyone care to analyse the metaphorical significance of the billboard? Pass the salt.
I had to read this book for school and while reading I thought it was boring at parts but other times I got really into. Although I didn't really love it until I finished it and now I realize it's one of my favorites!
To those who haven't found the gold yet in Gatsby: great books don't fail us. We fail them.Try again.
Shelley, Rain: A Dust Bowl Story
http://dustbowlpoetry.wordpress.com
i was bored. i figured i was just too young to enjoy "a great work of literature"
For years I thought I was all alone. It's a classic, everyone said. "One of the greatest," etc. But I did not like it. I tried it again a couple of years ago to see if I overlooked its "greatness." No, I still could not understand why all the accolades. I used to ask people to explain to me why it always is at the top of America's best books. But no one could. So, thank you, all of you, for letting me know I was never alone.
Ditto, Barbara. Well said.
What can I say, Gatsby is my favorite all time book. The book plays a key role in my own novel Elysian Dreams. I understand that most people either love or hate the book, while many just don't 'get it'. I think Fitzgerald would love this discussion. The Sunday funnies can entertain us... books should also move, inspire, challenge and even upset us, that is when the author has done his or her job well. Like most of us writing today, Fitzgerald was trying to reflect the world he lived in, the world as he saw it, full of irony and misdirection. Love story? Sure, on many levels... but beyond that, Daisy was a symbol to Gatsby of what he believed was right about the world, a world into which he wanted desperately to fit. At the same time, Fitzgerald used Daisy as a symbol of what he perceived as everything wrong with the world. Again I go back to the argument that we, as readers, often take books from another period out of context. 'Classics' withstand the test of time because they are timeless. Today we may equate Daisy as perhaps the rebellious teen girl fighting the demons of anorexia and a pressuring mother because its 'what society wants', while Gatsby is the anti-social misfit trying too hard for acceptance.
Fitzgerald loaded his stories with symbolism and allegory, and his favorite trick... irony.
But, like all good things, great literature is totally subjective... and that's a good thing.
BJ
Okay, let`s make this clear all the boosters out there, we detractors do "get" the novel, we get what F is trying to say, but we are saying in rejoinder, so what? It simply is not a great book, but one filled with too many faults.
Barbara wrote: "For years I thought I was all alone. It's a classic, everyone said. "One of the greatest," etc. But I did not like it. I tried it again a couple of years ago to see if I overlooked its "greatness..."Well said, exactly how I feel.
Just one note: Fitzgerald uses colors to convey meaning. You really need a color code book to fully appreciate this novel. However, I don't think you need to "get" everything to understand the book's greatness. The prose really does stand on its own. Just forget all about Gatsby, read tons of other books and then reread it in ten years time. Chances are you'll love it.
BJI have posted numerous criticisms of the book on a multitude of posts, both on this thread and the other, which has what,,,,800 plus postings. Please read them and you will see that I have many gripes about the book. It just has too many faults.
So give me a break. Orgiastic or orgasmic, faulty theme developement, how is it the little bit about America the pure, now defiled at the end of the story is well thought out. Try reading George Eliot or Sinclair or Dostoyevsky, and you will see some serious philosophizing. Fitzgerald is way out of their league.
I will return to the faults of the novel with addenda, but gotta go. I am doing a scholarly article about education and reading, and frankly, I am getting tired of the cheerleading for such an interesting, but flawed novel.
I haven't finished it yet but I'm forcing myself to end this bore. I haven't seen anything particular in the book, if I see I'll let everybody know.
B.J. wrote: "What can I say, Gatsby is my favorite all time book. The book plays a key role in my own novel Elysian Dreams. I understand that most people either love or hate the book, while many just don't 'get..."I felt the same way about most of what he wrote, I "got" it. But really, I'm sorry, to me it's just a social commentary, and nothing beyond that. Did he do a great job depicting society and the lower class wanting to fit in? Sure. But were his characters bland and insipid? Yes. I felt no emotion for them at all. And I cannot love a book that's just totally uninterested in its characters.
It's a good book. But it's not "amazing."
Thanks for the honest and frank comments. I think Fitzgerald would be loving this discussion for several reasons. None the least would be because he wanted readers to dislike his characters. I also feel if, everything thing else being even, F Scott were alive today as a young writer, he too would have some pretty strong feelings about Gatsby. Perhaps the best and maybe only answer to what makes a classic is simply that it is still be discussed, debated and talked about 100 years later... for better or worse.BJ
It is so amazing the posts on this book, every time I log on there are more! I didn't like the book at all but obviously it has caused a lot discussion down the years, so you have to ask yourself is it all bad?
PennyYes, I am beginning to see the validity of adding TGG to a course curriculum as it steams up the discussion. But a great book, heck no. Compare it to the real greats and it comes up short.
What I don`t understand is why BABBITT or MAIN STREET did not domoinate the 20`s list. They are both better conceived novels and address like issues of crass materialism. Perhaps it has to do with how sordid GG is that makes it so popular? Interesting, GG as pulp fiction!
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..."
I absolutely agree, Anthony. The greatest American novel of the 20th Century in my opinion. And, yes, it is perfect.
My my, intellectuals can be soooo touchy when one doesn't agree with their opinions. :)~ (Oh, sorry, that's not a very intellectual thing to do now is it?)BJ
BJ, I think mostly everybody's touchy because of the reactions received when we admit we don't love this book. It came up once during a discussion held online on my language(creative writing) group.This is the immediate response of my seniors:
"If you didn't love Gatsby then you need to read it again in a couple of years."
"Its pretty great for under the surface references actually so a one time read is not enough"
"Blasphemy"
"It's Fitzgerald...how can you not love Fitzgerald's writing? :O"
So basically, the only reason I possibly couldn't like Gatsby is because I didn't understand it. Not possibly for all the reasons mentioned in above posts. Screw them. If I can understand Kafka, Fitzgerald can go suck it.
I think that's what irks most people.
Thanks for your 'gentle' reply. I meant no malice, just some good nature ribbing at how worked up some people get. And I understand and agree with you. Your seniors' responses remind me of my brother-in-law trying to get me to like Scotch, "It's an acquired taste, you have to keep drinking it." Sorry, not gonna waste my time trying to like something I don't like... and no, if I read a book... any book... that I didn't like I would not go back and read it again. And there have been many, classics and otherwise.Peace,
BJ
I may have commented in here at some point, but I came across this topic today, so if I am repeating myself, please forgive my middle-aged brain.To touch on what the OP started, I don't think there's anything wrong with not enjoying/liking any book, classic or not. But that's somewhat different from not appreciating its technical, historical, social, or artistic importance or merits. We could get into a philosophical discussion of the purpose of literature, but I'll leave that for now for the most part. But as a writer, I have a strong belief in the validity of reader response. So, it's perfectly OK to NOT LIKE a "classic," IMO. See my review of To Kill a Mockingbird ,for example.
I will admit I have a somewhat on again/off again, love/hate relationship with Gatsby. Like any writing, I think it has its strengths and its weaknesses. I think its important, though, to at least partially approach a book on its own terms, setting aside some aspects of modern judgement or comparisons to other books. Just let the book be the book.
Gatsby can be a tough book to love. The references are going on a century old. Most of the characters are unlikable and shallow.
For me, at least for now, what brings this book up from its soap opera plot to greatness is its technical deftness (Fitzgerald can turn a word; it's not a style for everyone, but still) and big themes about love, loss, and the superficiality of the American Dream in the period between the wars.
To circle back around, I think something is lost or lacking when you only, exclusively read in what I call "light entertainment" mode. I.e.- was this fun, did I like it, did I like the characters and enjoy my time with them. There's a place, I think, in everyone's literary diet for books that make you think. I think there is also plenty of room for books with unlikable characters doing things that are selfish and ill-considered. (Of course, I like books that mkae me think, so it should be obvious that "like" is a very subjective thing.)
One thing, technically, I really appreciated the last read through, was the deft hat trick Fitzgerald pulls with his prose. He was savvy enough to know people remember beginning and endings best, and he knocks those out of the park. He uses some brilliantly evocative and memorable prose and situations in the bookending chapters to cover a bit of a flabby and wandering middle.
To wrap, I'm not going to put down or call anyone stupid, ignorant, immature, unsophisticated, etc. for not lacking a "classic" or any other book that I do. What I am critical is when people don't approach books with an open mind a compassion for what the author is trying to communicate. Too often I find people biased against "classics"---they're old, people don't talk/act like that today, they're "hard", it feels like school, etc. etc.
All I ask is that people give them a fair chance. Heck, I never thought I would ever enjoy a romance novel until my wife introduced me to a few authors that connected with me.
You don't have to like every new thing you try, but you should try new things occasionally to expand and refresh the mind. There's room in everyone's diet for comfort food and new experiences.
Couldn't have said it better myself... and I think I did somewhere...Thanks, and Gatsby remains my favorite.
BJ
Robert wrote: "I may have commented in here at some point, but I came across this topic today, so if I am repeating myself, please forgive my middle-aged brain.To touch on what the OP started, I don't think the..."
Well said Robert, you are exactly right there.
Still trying to find a theme...seriously why did Fitzgerald even write this??? And, I'm just saying here, who thinks oh I'm going to write a story about a guy who lives next store to this other guy and that other guy lives across the water from this couple. And the guy in the couple is going to have an affair with a lady and the girl in the couple is going to have an affair with the guy across the water and the girl is accidently going to kill her husband's mistress and the mistress' husband is going to kill the guy across the water. oh and the guy who lives next to the guy across the water will be the narrator...because that makes sense of course. No I'm sorry if you love this book but it is really stupid. my teacher said the theme was something with the American dream and how it not being true. Well, I don't even think there is a set "American Dream." I've heard the American dream being owning a house, having a job, ect. I just don't see how Gatsby and the American dream relate... is the American dream if you are married and have an affair the person will die? Cause that's all I see happening in this story...
Geoffrey wrote: "Okay, let`s make this clear all the boosters out there, we detractors do "get" the novel, we get what F is trying to say, but we are saying in rejoinder, so what? It simply is not a great book, but..."Sorry, but you're wrong. No one here in this thread has yet made a case that 'flaws' are anything but subjective frustrations on the part of each of the individuals catcalling. The shape and weight of your combined criticism is uneven and mealy. Example: one person whines that they dislike the characters; another whines about the lack of action. Get it? Its just a collection of individual peeves.
No one in this thread has shown any depth in their criticism (depth to match that supporting the praise directed towards the novel). The complaints are thin and vexatious; rather than informed. None of the whiners speaks about how the structure of the book might be unsteady or shaky--or in what way; gripes are 'personality based' (example, "I didn't like this character", etc)
No one in this thread who is snubbing the novel has demonstrated through their remarks that they are well-suited to weigh in so negatively towards the title. Example: someone asking us 'what Fitzgerald meant when he likened a sidewalk to a ladder'. [Bzzzz! Thank you contestant, and Johnny has a home version of the game for you..][
The first step to take in damning this book is to show that you can acknowledge the positive things which it objectively exhibits. Its a standard, really: if you want to float a hypothesis you need to show how existing hypotheses are flawed; and start from that point.
Example: use of imagery, yes or no? Is it there or is not there? Whether you dislike or like the story, you have to be able to acknowledge that plentiful use of color and imagery is present. Its visible to too many people; so you have to admit this.
Then, admit the presence of theme. Then, symbol. On and on. Proponents of the work have examples in spades to draw upon.
Saying, 'you get it' without doing this much due diligence reveals hollow ground under your feet.
The book is unique in assembling a wide and varied number of writing strengths. If your response is to shrug your shoulders--then no--you aren't getting it.
Its the same as saying ..something like.."ah yah the New York Yankees..27 World Championships..we get that.. but so what?"
So what? So--if all else fails--you start counting. Count up the wins in baseball and if we're talking novels, count up the strengths of what TGG does and then look around at the competition. Its self-evident that its in a very narrow class of novel which does everything it does.
Makayla wrote: "Still trying to find a theme...seriously why did Fitzgerald even write this??? And, I'm just saying here, who thinks oh I'm going to write a story about a guy who lives next store to this other guy..."QED. I wish I could say this kind of thing was atypical. Please stand over there with Geoffrey..
Alexandria wrote: "I have done literary criticism on it, argued with both colleagues and students on it's merits, however, it still didn't change my mind. "I Hate this Book!!! Lol, and it has nothing to do with whether or not I "get" it; because I most certainly do.I have a Masters in British/American Literature, a BA in Mythology & Anthropology, and minored in Sociology. ..."
I'm not impressed by your credentials. Or anyone's really. For many reasons. I was too long in university myself and know all about err, let's call it, 'showmanship'. Claim of 'pedigree' is never an excuse for not stepping up and actually laying an argument down on the table. You've got two degrees; so all argument should simply stop? Sorry, no way. That's not the way it works. Make some valid points and support them. :)
Your remarks so far, (although I haven't read all the way back; I'm just glancing at your one post on this page) don't yet indicate that you're willing to distinguish between your opinion vs more objective arguments as to why the book is so flawed. That should have been the first task you attended to.
For example: I can't stand the flavor and texture of spinach. You can bring in all the health experts in the country; all the chemists; agricultural experts; psychologists. I could listen to cogent arguments from a dozen fields. They're still not going to make me enjoy spinach. But on the other hand, hating spinach as much as I do; I can still not argue that it should be wiped out and exterminated from the planet. Because all the points raised by the scientists are way more valid than my mere subjective dislike. I have no answer for them other than my tastebuds.
Same thing with regard to this novel. If you lecture against it, let's hear some points you typically raise when you attack it? Or, do you simply sit there at the end of class and re-affirm that you are still unaffected by it? After your opponents anatomize and systematize the work's strong points?
There's a heckuva lot of lit-crit which does offer praise methodically; proponents who do provide detailed rationale in support of the book's merit. If all the students and colleagues you 'argue with'-- 'still don't change your mind' --but you never destroy their points then, you are not justifying your view; you are not providing a view that anyone else outside yourself, could take up.
I'm sure you're aware of your duties..its mystifying why you didn't jump in right away with more ammo; up above. If you want to turn the tide against this book; by all means give it a try. Its really on you to do the convincing; rather than the other way around.
My high school class recently finished it and I think that this book is one of the best books i had ever read. In my "Top Books and Series List", The Great Gatsby is ranked number two. I love how Fitzgerald embeds things in the words that is hard to see at a simple glance, but after a close reading, it was increadible! The words just connected! It was flowing and very well writen.
Well, there is hope for the future, and you, Willie are that hope! It does my heart good to not just see someone connecting with Fitzgerald, but a young reader at that. I am curious, Willie, what are your other top reads? Also, I'm not sure if you have read the other comments above, but I'm afraid you have reopened this (sometimes smart-sometimes silly) can of worms, just when it looked like the lid was securely sealed. Thank you :)~BJ
I read this book in HS, as most people did, and I thought it was fantastic. Reading (or listening to) it now, some 4 years later i find it horribly pretentious. Maybe it's because I listened to its audio-book instead. If you actually HEAR what this book is saying, it sounds almost laughable. Reading it is better, but that calls other questions to mind
Well why would ever listen to a classic, renowned book like this, friggin' via audio? And then --you blame the book? Are you out of your ever-lovin mind?Gee, its just too bad that you couldn't take time out from your exotic lifestyle, to give your attention to great novels, eh? You can't fit them in any other way except multi-tasking them. How unfortunate.
You capitalize the word 'HEAR' in your summary. Poignant irony! You're not supposed to HEAR books in the first place, and you're certainly not supposed to HEAR this novel.
Geezuz! Such incompetence rarely comes my way..miss, you are the one who is laughable.
Stop with the abuse Feliks. You`re way out of line.
I think this book is seriously overrated!! I didn't like a bit of it. I have to admit, I was really mad while reading it...
I thought I was a dumb person when I sort of hated this book after reading, like what's the point? is that it? I was expecting kinda more, I hated the story, but to be fair with Fitzgerald, I love that it was short. I love the fact that I felt I was just watching a movie while reading this one, but what I really don't like is the story itself. I picked this book when I watched the trailer of this, Di Caprio is one of my favorite actors but after reading the book, I was having a doubt if I even want to watch the film despite of its cast.
There's an immediately perceptible vitality about this book that keeps the nerves of a reader's body continually smouldering. I suspect not everyone can draw meaning from such amazingly artistic, even poetic, language...not at every stage in their life anyway. To me this is "masterful" writing...although admittedly it can require additional maturity to appreciate. There was a time when linguistic artistry didn't entirely feed my own appetite for action and for what happens next, but it comes eventually. I guess I learned to sense the subtleties a bit more and be patient as to how it would all come out.We have to remember that the connection of a book with a reader requires that both be up to the task of fulfilling their roles. We can't just always blame the book out of hand...and I salute Aditya for acknowledging the possibility that she may be missing something instead of Fitzgerald. Try his work again at age 50 or 80 and see what you think--give the guy one more shot at you. :)
> why does he have to explain every single thing...
> Why can't he just say that man walked away along
> side the wall into that room or wherever.
Saying it that way certainly wouldn't put me there with them, hearing the hurried steps, seeing the ashen dust, noticing the sideways slide of the wife. Taking it all in and absorbing the subtle things does amplify what we come to know. For example, the wife moving next to Tom isn't just empty calories; it's meaningful--we're to sense something from that. So Fitzgerald is very much "showing" us something there. Imagine it as a film, and the camera just momentarily lets us see her move closer to Tom. We sense what's going on with her a little bit.
> the Writer only tells about Gatsby's astonishingly
> unique nature. He almost never shows it.
Well, from my perspective, it's a narrative, as told by a first-hand observer. Consider that we're in a room with Nick, and he's sharing his recollections--little things that have stayed with him, little glimpses. It's a valid literary device; I think it works.
Certainly Fitzgerald feels the human condition and paints it with great skill. We can gaze at his mural when we're ready.
Nicely put. I think some readers, probably most of us, are 'trained' from youth in the third person past tense. When something different comes along it can be difficult to accept and even follow at times. As you said, put yourself in the room as if it were conversation. My book Elysian Dreams is actually three interconnecting stories. And I use different tense and person for each for various reasons better left for another thread. But it works perfectly from Third Person Present Tense to Third Person Past Tense to First Person Past Tense. As writers we need to experiment and find the voice that fits the mood of our work.BJ
Good point BJ. We're all used to seeing literary devices (such as 3rd person, past tense) that "feed" events at us without necessarily engaging us. A narrator is a level of additional personal engagement...a relationship between reader and narrator...that one has to get used to. We have to trust the person who's talking. And to make matters worse, if we begin to suspect that that person is less than reliable, an even less comfortable dynamic starts to take hold.For an author it can be quite difficult to decide on which voice or tense to use, too. My debut novel ARCHANGEL chose the more common 3rd person past, even though I had a great deal more experience with first person. I found the anonymity powerful in some ways, limiting in others. My 2nd novel (OPEN DISTANCE), which is being released on May 4th, selected first person past...a narrative...and to be honest it did so because a single line at the climax was much more dramatic that way. Funny how everything can hinge on a pinpoint. And as you put it, one must "find the voice that fits the mood of our work."
Fitzgerald's work often has me re-reading lines, trying to follow, but I don't mind--there's a lot there, and the effort always yields a reward. His style is somehow extreme without feeling forced. I don't think it's the style of the age, as some have suggested; I think he must have been a rare find even then.
- Mike
Michael wrote: "There's an immediately perceptible vitality about this book that keeps the nerves of a reader's body continually smouldering. I suspect not everyone can draw meaning from such amazingly artistic, e..."Aditya is a 'he'. By calling me a 'she' I guess you are just trying to show through example how a first person narrative works. We are seeing through the eyes of the narrator.
Now, this whole story is an interpretation of a person. Now, what does that tell about the story? That it's a Story about Gatsby or about the narrator? It must be about the narrator. Then why is it named Gatsby? Because Gatsby is the one under examination? Who is this story about? What should we learn about the story? About the peculiarity of Gatsby or about the peculiar vision of the narrator? Or more, about how we see other people? Or about how we have to see other people?
You see, vagueness beyond a limit is as rude as talking to oneself endlessly after inviting others for a conversation.
Why do we have to 'learn' anything from Gatsby? Or from any book for that matter? Was I out joyriding the day my writing teacher said when you write it MUST be to teach and inform?BJ (stirring it up again)
B.J. wrote: "Why do we have to 'learn' anything from Gatsby? Or from any book for that matter? Was I out joyriding the day my writing teacher said when you write it MUST be to teach and inform?BJ (stirring it..."
No, I mean, when I said, "What do we have to learn?" it didn't say it in a sense of philosophy or something. What I meant is, "What are we supposed to read about in this Story?" It's not a philosophical urge, but there should be some point that the author has to make in every story. We don't read a story and feel satisfied just by reading some events. What's the point in it.
You see, two people are talking to each other and if one of them rambles on without any significant meaning, surely the question that comes at him is, "What's the point?" It's not that Fitzgerald has no point to tell in his Story. The reason I created this thread is to find out what's the point he's actually trying to make out of this story. (Please don't tell me, "Should the writer certainly make a point out of a story? Can't he just tell a nice story?" What makes it nice if it doesn't point anything? He has to make some point. Need not be philosophy, but some clear idea he has to convey.)
Ok ok I promised myself no more stirring....but...ever read Waiting For Godot? (Or is that a whole different discussion?)
(God I hate myself sometimes)
BJ
B.J. wrote: "Ok ok I promised myself no more stirring....but...ever read Waiting For Godot? (Or is that a whole different discussion?)
(God I hate myself sometimes)
BJ"
Ha ha. :D Reading the notification I received about your comment, I almost read, "B.J. stirring another argument on the thread: Why I tried to love this book and instead ended up hating it." Just kidding.
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...
Yes, but formal, learned criticism--literary criticism--can present very cogent arguments as to why a book is great compared to other books; and that kind of discourse is hardly just a 'man in the street opinion'. Not everything said about a book can be dismissed as 'publicity hype'. Not every view which opposes ours, is just "someone else's opinion" to be brushed aside.
What I disagree with in the OP's comment is the insinuation that Fitzgerald is over-rated; or that he 'didn't know what he was doing'; or that the reputation of the book is being padded by mysterious and unknown forces in the literary world.
Even if any of this speculation has ever been even slightly true--at certain times--in the decades since the book was published--none of it is a better replacement for the much more straightforward explanation which is that the OP is just not ready for this kind of material.
He's not able to tune into it. Its perhaps just not the kind of writing he is most familiar with. The nuts'n'bolts of Fitzgerald's word choices..he's not seeing their second, third, and fourth purposes. 'Gatsby' is a book which you get a lot more out of, if you can discern the stuff going on, 'under the hood'.
Every word is supremely well-chosen, rest assured. Its simply not an action-based story of the type modern readers are more used to these days. It's a thinking-man's novel, a feeling-man's novel: thoughtful; meditative; moody; its all about atmosphere and characters-slowly-coming-to-realizations-about-other characters. Cerebral.
The plot is less compelling compared to the themes; the references, symbols, imagery, color, and psychology which FSF wields. But if a reader is stopped by the baseline vocabulary; by sentence-structure which they can't make heads or tails out of...well, there you are.
Its really nothing to be embarrassed about. The style, language, phrasing, vocabulary, and techniques deployed by Fitzgerald put him 'out of reach' of some individuals. Its even worse in his 'This Side of Paradise' which --although his most elevated prose--I find the most opaque and off-putting; its a book I'd never read twice.
'Gatsby' is much better than TSoP; but its still FSF writing at a high level..its bound not to affect everybody. All readers are not alike; this shouldn't be so hard to swallow. We all bring our own capacities to what we read. This is why many people are also turned off by 'Moby Dick' and the works of Shakespeare.
I've spoken heatedly to some other OPs in these Gatsby threads..my basic position is, "hey, if you didn't like it, fine". But what gets my dander up is this insecure effort to put the blame for this predicament back on anyone else but themselves. As if you want the support of others to make you feel better about being left out.
Well, sorry--but its not a conspiracy, its not a mirage. Fitzgerald does pull off something great with this book and if it just doesn't reach you; then please just shrug your shoulders and admit it.