The Great Gatsby
discussion
Why I tried to love this book and instead ended up hating it.
Aditya:You might find this video enlightening: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xw9Au9...
I think he does a decent job summarizing what is valuable about the novel and also covers the qualities that make Gatbsy unique.
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..."
Very well said! I agree. I found the Great Gatsby, like a lot of classics, an acquired taste. Some may find it a little dry or even a little bitter, yet to others it may just be the right wine with the right course. My boyfriend detested it, why? Because he wanted a good story, one he could pick apart and relate to. I read it purely by accident, and was affected by the writer's prose and description. How everyone sounded and felt so raw, so lyrical, their emotion splayed before us..
Maybe I was saddened by the way it ended. But then again, I think I was too distracted by the whirlpool of words themselves. Instead of a genius plot, No,..I would rather say...a legendary style of literature.. set in a time superfluous with glamour and glitter, serving not exactly to tell us a unique tale, but rather, to teach us of an age we never met. Thanks to writers like Fitzgerald, we can at least taste it.
Theresa, beautifully put. And I just LOVE "whirlpool of words" wonderful imagery to say nothing of the alliteration! F Scott would approve!BJ
Second that...and I quite enjoyed this viewpoint as well:"a legendary style of literature.. set in a time superfluous with glamour and glitter, serving not exactly to tell us a unique tale, but rather, to teach us of an age we never met."
- Mike
I think you can't properly appreciate this book unless you're obscenely rich.Which is probably why so many people can't stand it.
Josh wrote: "I think you can't properly appreciate this book unless you're obscenely rich."But...rich by inheritance, or from bootlegging?
Let me know so I can put the right strategy in motion.
- Mike :)
Thank you Anthony. I need not say more.
Brittany wrote: "Believe it or not, I wish I read this book for school. I read The Great Gatsby a couple of months ago and I was expecting it to be my next favorite book. But, I was disappointed by it. It was okay,..."High school is the worst place to go to if you want help finding deeper meanings behind books, and I think everyone here can agree to that. High school, for the most part, does not encourage reading. Actually, quite the opposite; it makes kids hate reading.
Michael wrote: "Josh wrote: "I think you can't properly appreciate this book unless you're obscenely rich."But...rich by inheritance, or from bootlegging?
Let me know so I can put the right strategy in motion.
..."
It doesn't matter. Inheritence, bootlegging, business expertise, rapping (which is much less respectable)... I just mean wealthy.
That is, of course, my personal opinion of the book. The writing style is excellent, if a bit flowery (though I'm a major Stephen King fan, personally. He has a dry sense of humor and a familiar dialect, like an old friend). The thing is, I just couldn't care about the struggles and woes of people who could literally buy their way to happiness. In fact, were I in a more insulting mood, I would compare to The Great Gatsby to Jersey Shore; it's exclusively about obnoxious rich people and their "strugglers" and you just don't care (difference is, though, that Daisy is a bit of a dimwitted golddigger at heart, and Snooki just needs to be shot).
I apologize for the Jersey Shore comparison.
> High school, for the most part, does not encourage> reading. Actually quite the opposite; it makes kids
> hate reading.
Probably very true overall. I attended a different kind of place, run by Jesuits and intent on instilling the general love of intellectualism. There can be two sides to that, of course, but I found their sentiments overall true to their methods, and I walked out of there loving great lit (and loving writing too, which was an added plus).
Maybe their plan worked because they had us reading the kinds of things boys want to read, like tales of Himalayan climbing adventure, classic tales of early baseball, etc. Of course we also had to wade through tedious stuff, such as Melville's and Solzhenitsyn work, but the hard-to-swallow titles didn't seem to put us off of the ones we liked. But that high school experience was an exception I'm sure.
>> But...rich by inheritance, or from bootlegging?> It doesn't matter.
Agreed; I was just kidding.
Although...someone who beats financial odds through personal choices may be able to appreciate the have-not life more that a silver-spooner could. And so maybe we have-nots can relate a little more to those folks. To me Gatsby seemed at least a little easier to relate to than the others did. Probably just me....
Michael wrote: ">> But...rich by inheritance, or from bootlegging?> It doesn't matter.
Agreed; I was just kidding.
Although...someone who beats financial odds through personal choices may be able to appreciat..."
And there you have the crucial element: beating the financial odds. Not everybody can do that. Hell, so many people are leaving in poverty or near-poverty (I, myself, and struggling witth my roommate to maintain our lower-middle class lifestyle), that nobody cares if this rich guy wants his girlfriend back.
I will openly admit, however, that my hatred of this book may be biased.
Yeah, well, I kinda see it this way: All fiction is an escape of some kind--a chance to sink into another experience for awhile. For me, it's not that I care whether a fictional character has a girlfriend or not, it's more an appreciation of the vividness with which an author lets me take a look into some world. I was able to get a feel for Herzog's Himalayan experience in a similar way, in "Annapurna." The crucial element is the realism, for me anyway...almost irrespective of which "world" a book paints.Bottom line, I appreciated Gatsby even though I was never in that world and don't aspire to be. I hate some books too, but it's because they're vapid and give me nothing to think about.
Michael wrote: "Yeah, well, I kinda see it this way: All fiction is an escape of some kind--a chance to sink into another experience for awhile. For me, it's not that I care whether a fictional character has a gir..."You are my opposite, then. There are three main elements I look for in a book.
The first is writing style. I can't respect an author that needs to use big words to sound intelligent (which is probably why I hate Stephanie Meyer). Nor can I tolerate a book that was deliberately written badly, such as Huckleberry Finn or The Catcher in the Rye.
The second is familiarity. I appreciate books with a setting that's familiar to me, such as Stephen King's Under the Dome (having grown up in a small, rural town in New York called Lansing, Chester's Mill felt like a real place to me. Even with the Dome). I can really feel the book if I can understand the pop culture or the public opinions of the era.
The third is characters. I like a realistic character with problems. Wife gone, farm animals's dying, kids off in college. Odd Thomas is a perfect example. Disregarding the paranormal ability, he's a frycook with a questionable relationship with his parents. Now compare it to Holden Caulfield, a rich kid who just can't accept how good he has it and justifies the use of physical discipline on a child.
Oddly enough, I love science fiction as well. Go figure.
I do agree, however, that reading is an escape. That said, however, a book that you need to struggle to understand or find meaning in isn't for casual reading. Actually, I think books like that are the reason so many kids these days hate reading.
While my criteria differs from yours (and probably my definition of what "written badly" means), I'm with you 100% on the personal criteria concept. We all have them.There's no way an author can write to all those individual tastes, which is probably why I can't bring myself to disparage a book that would clearly have some merit somewhere, to someone. I could not finish "The Gulag Archipelago" but I know it was a tremendous work and that the failing was my own.
So I'm quite willing to say a book wasn't my cup of tea, but I cannot down-rate a book for that reason. My enjoyment of it isn't the point. How well is it done? Is it what it was intended to be? Did it do that, and do it well?
(I know you're stating your own tastes and not condemning Fitzgerald here, Josh, so I'm not really commenting on your point of view when I say all this. You have every right to acknowledge that a book didn't reach you. I do that myself whenever it's true...and then I give credit to what the author still did well, just to keep myself honest.)
How is it that a young man in his twenties, goes to war, is a gunner in Montenegro, gets awarded a medal that is written IN ENGLISH, doesn`t take any war booty, ends up with only his uniform for attire, makes it to Waldsheims office, gets mentored and in three years amasses enough money as the gamblers sidekick to buy himself a plush mansion in West Egg? This is but another ridiculous Horatio Alger story rehashed, unbelievable but extremely well written.So if the guy was so shrewd as to get picked to head a criminal organization, how is it he never was a war profiteer. There have been many shrewd men of war who have amassed considerable fortunes or even nice dividends as booties of war, but somehow JG manages to avoid that fortuitious pitfall. I suppose he only foresees possibly sucking up to wealthy people and getting money off them, but he leaves the corpses on the battlefield intact with their worldly possessions. You go figure what was going through Fitzies head when he wrote this ill-conceived novel.
Ok, time to stir things up again I guess.The entire book, Gatsby's entire personality, persona and make up are explained nicely at the end with the conversation with Gatsby's father. Gatsby longed to be a gentleman. Perhaps he saw being a "gentleman" as a means to wealth and popularity... perhaps not. But Gatsby's goal in life was acceptance... and that to him meant being a gentleman and doing all the things and having all the things a gentleman has and does. IE: a gentleman does not deal in war booty. Remember, all the things said about how Gatsby got his wealth and stature are speculation forwarded by those who don't know him. Everything Gatsby owns and desires are merely a means to an end... being accepted as a gentleman. And that includes Daisy.
Does JG love Daisy? Perhaps, perhaps he even believes he loves her. But she is simply a symbol, like everything else, of what a "gentleman" possesses that make him a gentleman.
Fitzgerald's story, along with being an inditement of the times, is a cautionary one.
A gentleman does not achieve his wealth either by being a bootlegger, World Series fixer, nor a fence in stolen bonds. If anything, JG put himself clearly in the eye of the indolent inherited wealthy as a parasitic wannabe whose talents they well utilised, whether it be swilling his liquor, cavorting at his parties, or buying stolen corporate bonds. Give me a break!
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..."Very nicely explained.
I myself am not a great lover of Fitzgerald. I always thought "The Great Gatsby" was overhyped, but even so, I greatly appreciated the book. Personally, it was the romanticism and poetry of the writing that spoke to me, although I also found it to be frustrating at times. The story itself is an interesting one and I found myself relating to Nick a great deal.
I read that in high school and then again for a Modern Lit class in college. I also read Tender is the Night and some short stories by Fitzgerald in that class and The Great Gatsby is the only of his works that I can really remember. But maybe I just need to reread Tender is the Night...
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'm finding out how lots of praised English/American classics are simply overrated. This is one of those books.
Overratedness...I don't think a book's "rating" matters. For any book, no matter how well done, there are too many people who just don't get it, or don't get it yet, at that point in their lives. Again, a writer cannot write to such individual tastes. If we're to be fair, we have to identify whether the author's own goals were well met--whether the book is what it was intended to be. Whether we enjoy it may matter to ourselves, but it's not an indictment of the book. Who am I to declare the intrinsic value of Fitzgerald's work? Raters add up, but I notice they're always skewed heavily toward the side of those who have something to complain about, or something to second-guess. Well, that's what I've noticed anyway. So I ignore ratings. >> I always thought [Gatsby] was overhyped, but even so, I greatly appreciated the book.
>> ....romanticism and poetry...found myself relating to Nick a great deal.
I'm with you on nearly all that, Shirley. The book may have been tedious at times, but I take the position that that just says something about my own staying power; the book was written well overall, and I find many things to appreciate about it. And Nick as a vehicle for telling the tale was an excellent choice, IMO. Nick was us, and that was quite well done.
>> when the teacher was not looking I sucked it.
Thanks a lot, Rodney; I sneezed coffee on my keyboard when I read that. :)
- Mike
Let`s review this response once again and make it clear, it`s not that people don`t get it but they don`t think the points to be particularly important. I would take Brothers Karamazov to be the far superior novel, and guess what, I get the points of both. It`s a matter of priorities Michael, or how we perceive how astute the author is. I think, like Hemingway, that SF was a bit of a naive fool. Yes, I get the points, and I pluralize it because his book is not single faceted, but I don`t particularly think the story is well conceived because of his numerous faults in the the story telling. I`ve listed those faults many times and people enthusiastic about the novel have refrained from refuting them sufficiently. Interesting book, yes, chagrined that the American dream is not realized, in this case I didn`t give a damn that JG didn`t get the girl. She wasn`t worth it nor was he.Do I get the point that it was SF`s point that it was a dying shame that JG didn`t get the girl, yes, I understood it the first time I read the book but as I said, SF was a fool.
Easy there. I don't agree, Geoffrey; I don't think he was a fool. But you and I can hold differing opinions. I didn't single out you nor anyone here; my observations are general, and are still that most people who denigrate a book could easily own much of the reason for not connecting with it. True of me, certainly. It wasn't a finger pointed at anyone in this crowd; if I'm not the one to state whether Fitzgerald's work is worthy, then I'm also not going to make such claims about you.I know there are aspects of any complex tale that will rub individuals the wrong way.
You say you've listed things about "Gatsby" that you consider faults. I personally haven't elected to try to refute them. But if you want to go through that, I guess we could do one at a time...put out your first one...and I'll either agree with it or pass on it or perhaps disagree.
But just note that if I agree with them all, I can still like and praise the book. Your must-haves may differ from mine.
Also, even though I like this book, I may still not "get" it. That works both ways too, and I'm well aware of that possibility.
- Mike
I liked the story and his writing style: the book as a whole was over-all great! Some of the characters are just infuriating!
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 feel exactly the same. I didnt read this book in HS but my sister did and she loved it. She said I had to read it before i saw the movie. Well, after reading this I probably wont be seeing the movie. I wasted perfectly good hours of my life reading this novel and I dont wish to repeat the experience with the movie. He was too discriptive the characters were horrible and not very in depth. I swear I skimmed the last 60 pages because I couldnt stand reading it anymore my eyes were starting to bleed i think.
I feel exactly the same. I didnt read this book in HS but my sister did and she loved it. She said I had to read it before i saw the movie. Well, after reading this I probably wont be seeing the movie. I wasted perfectly good hours of my life reading this novel and I dont wish to repeat the experience with the movie. He was too discriptive the characters were horrible and not very in depth. I swear I skimmed the last 60 pages because I couldnt stand reading it anymore my eyes were starting to bleed i think.
OkayI`m going to add a few logs to the fire.
Here goes. I`ve been saving this ammo for big time.
I have a very recent copy of GG. It`s a paperback with notes and preface by Matthew J. Broccoli. Included in the book are several appendices, publisher`s afterwoods, explanatory notes, etc.
For those of you who have a copy check out page 214. It refers to page 181.12 of the text and makes this correction.
181.12 "Hopalong Cassidy"
This cowboy character was created by Clarence E. Mulford in 1907, but Hopalong Cassidy was not published until 1910 (Chicago:McClurg). Therefore the 1906 date on Gatsby`s copy is anachronistic.
For those of you who have forgotten, the copy of Hopalong Cassidy was what Jay`s father showed Nick, along with the notation Jay had written, dated September 12, 1906.
Keep that one under your belt and I will add a few more.
Josh wrote: "Michael wrote: "Yeah, well, I kinda see it this way: All fiction is an escape of some kind--a chance to sink into another experience for awhile. For me, it's not that I care whether a fictional cha..."I agree with you on all three. Those factors determine if I read and finish a book. It determines the likability. And most recently, I've made it a point to stop forcing myself to finish books that I find absolutely rubbish (Great Gatsby being one of them) and I've stuck to that. No more feeling guilty about it. The same goes with movies.
And for me, high school didn't kill books the books killed themselves. I would have never read any of the books I disliked on my own time and till this day I still wouldn't.
In general, high school gave me variety and my favorite books from high school were books like Their Eyes Were Watching God, Animal Farm, The Heart of Darkness, Night by Elie Wiesel and Cry, The Beloved Country. These books were brought to light by lit classes like World lit, which was my favorite lit class in high school and college. World lit brings many flavors to the table and has shaped my love of books. I try to make it a goal to read more especially of that variety. So in the next few months,I will make time to read The Art of War (Sun Tzu) and The Prince (Niccolò Machiavelli). Two books that I've been wanting to read for a long time.
I HAD to read this book in High School, in the 70s when the last remake of the movie was just out,and I hated it. On a recommendation from a HuffPost blogger I actually re read it not too long ago. I grew up in RI where the 70s remake was filmed, ans the stars eclipsed the movie in those days. Now that I have re-read it with post 50 year old eyes, I find that maybe I've grown up/matured.The book is what it is: a treatise on the Jazz Age by a man who was a jaded playboy. At least I could READ it this time. FSF was an aging alcoholic playboy and in a lot of ways so is every character in the book IMHO
Please, accept it for who wrote it, when and why. I'm glad I did but won't again
Sorry if any of my points have already been commented on. I haven't read every single post. And I am by no means a professional book critic. But I digress…I personally did not like the book. I understand that many people do, and in a way, I can understand why they do. Fitzgerald has a unique way of writing as we all know. He is very descriptive, in every way. His style is almost poetic in the way he changes a simple sentence into a descriptive masterpiece. I think this is why a lot of people like the book. The amount of description helps a person develop a complete story/picture in their mind, IF they can somewhat understand his sentences at least. I think this is why some English teachers use his book as study material. It's not so the students can learn a lesson from the book- money doesn't always fix your problems, yata yata yata. It's to show them how to take any old boring sentence and make it interesting for the reader. This is good knowledge to have when getting ready for college English and writing courses.
But…style is not everything in a book. A good book needs multiple components to be successful in my mind. Style is one important component while the story itself is the other. There are many pieces to the puzzle but these two hold utmost significance in my eyes. And if I had to pick one, the story would be the most integral part to a book. A horrible story written in a poetic beautiful manner, is still a horrible story, anyway you look at it. And that's where I think Fitzgerald failed. In a good book, I want a story to give me characters I can connect with, some that I like and am rooting for, and others that I don't like but keep me guessing as to why they are the way they are. I want the story to provoke some type of emotion: happiness, adventure, suspense, comedy, etc. I do understand that not all people like happy-go-lucky endings, but if I wanted to read something sad and disheartening I'd read the newspaper or watch the news. I want to be taken away from the sadness of reality. (Maybe being a fireman has a little to do with this). If I had to pick characters from this book to be on my team, I'd be up a creek without a paddle. Tom is a prick (nicest word I could think of). Nick is a spineless coward. Not until the end of the book does he ever show any real opinion about anything. No man watches another man hit a woman and walks away. He lost any respect I had for him right there. The females are all pretentious, superficial manikins. And that leaves Gatsby. The closest thing to a main character I could find. But I still could not connect with him. Initially, he seemed to maybe be a person with values. But then he turns his back on his parents, his home, and most importantly, on himself. His values all change when he falls in love with one of the many atrocious females in the story. He tried to change who he was to be somebody he's not, if that makes any sense. His love for Daisy was unhealthy and almost psychotic. And that's who I'm supposed to root for? Sorry, I got to a point where I really didn't care to finish the book. I only did because I new that it was a surprise ending. I knew someone was going to die, but honestly I didn't care who it was going to be. When a reader gets to the end and doesn't care who lives or dies, the book has failed. I like happy endings, but I'm ok with the main character dieing at the end, as long as feel like a noble person died for a good cause, braveheart style. This was the exact opposite, a love-struck child dieing for a foolish cause. I give it an A for style and an F for story. It gets a D overall because bad style can be saved with a good story, but the opposite is not true. I've read many kids books that were good with a third grade writing style because the story and characters were well developed and thought out. Unfortunately, Gatsby was not.
Hurrah, excellently written review of a book, that although you are a bit harsh, I essentially agree with.Now for Luke´s benefit I am going to include the item about the Montenegro medal of honor given to JG.
"He reached in his pocket and a piece of metal, slung on a ribbon, fell into my palm".......
To my astonishment the thing had an authentic look. Orderi di Danilo, ran the circular legend, Montenegro, Nicolas Rex.
" ´Turn it.´"
Major Jay Gatsby, I read, For Valour Extraordinary."
The latter is English if I am not mistaken.
So now we have a country, Montenegro, where a Slavic idiom is spoken, which has bestowed a military honor to JG by way of a medal, that is written in English. Yeah right, and the Pope is a Muslim.
> like the book...I can understand why they do. > Fitzgerald has a unique way of writing as we all
> know. He is very descriptive, in every way. His
> style is almost poetic in the way he changes a
> simple sentence into a descriptive masterpiece.
Lando, thank you for acknowledging a plausible basis for appreciating this work even though your personal overall conclusion was not positive.
> I give it an A for style and an F for story.
> When a reader gets to the end and doesn't care
> who lives or dies, the book has failed.
My personal reaction to that opinion would be: "Yes, maybe that could be said to be true...unless."
The "unless" idea that still nags me is that a book might be able to INTEND that we realize we're apathetic to the characters...it may be that there's a statement in that. Eliciting any emotion, even apathy (if it's a determined apathy and can't be said to be just an absence of emotion) is an accomplishment for a literary work. If the statement is the undeniable meaninglessness of all the social jostling and all the empty dreaming, the meaninglessness of the lovestruck child dying for a foolish cause, then it may be that the book has succeeded. I mean, here we are arguing over it even now, in 2013. If that's apathy, it's a determined apathy.
Anyway those are just thoughts I'm considering. I remember a Peter Weir film, "Gallipoli," in which a very young Mel Gibson and Mark Lee starred. Every weighty thing that happened was senseless...and that was the point.
Myself, it is enough for a book to be written descriptively and poetically. I can say "it's good" on the basis of some elements, without being able to prove it has them all. Well, that's just me.
On the other hand, I hated the film "The Piano," because I couldn't relate to the spineless main character. I guess I should appreciate the cinematography and theme, even if the story left me flat. Maybe a "flat" story we care naught about feels like a story with no protagonist...thus, a setting and venue and social backdrop, but no story at all. I suppose I can see that...and even if that's the intent, the presence of a portrait of a society doesn't make up for the fact that there's still no story.
I'm going to re-read your thoughts and absorb them again.
- Mike
"Why I tried to love this book and instead ended up hating it."This can be said of so many books, not just classics or Gatsby in particular.
While I've found this thread intriguing as people weighed in on either side, I wonder why, in general, people feel the need to defend a position either way. What you like or don't like in a book can, at its roots, be traced back to subjective personal taste. What you value in fiction.
Arguing over what position is right or wrong is as silly as arguing over whether you like to eat mushrooms or not.
What I think is illuminating is the discussion that's been had here on what you like or don't like and why.
Some people like FSF's elaborate, almost poetic, descriptiveness, others find it overdone and not sparse enough. Some decry the lack of a good, heroic character to identify with and root for, others appreciate the steely-eyed portrayal of seriously flawed characters.
In the end you like what you like. I may feel you're missing out on something by not appreciating book A, while you may equally feel I've missed something because I do not absolutely love book B. But that's OK. There's plenty of books to appreciate in life that I don't think anyone needs to feel bad for what they do/do not appreciate.
I just think everyone, fairly regularly, needs to stretch outside their expected comfort zone and try things without presuppositions on what they will or won't like. you may surprise yourself. I've tried books I didn't expect to like, and didn't (Twilight), books I didn't expect to like, but did (Outlander), and books everyone told me I'd love, but ended up being lukewarm on them (Game of Thrones).
It's important to try new things, but that doesn't mean you'll take every new experience into your heart.
I really tried to like this book but I didn't! I wanted to read this classic becsause of the new movie out with Leonardo D'Caprio, but I was very disappointed. I was so distracted by all the wordiness of the story. I have to say that since it was a library find, I trudged through it. But there was a part of me that wanted to give it back early - unfinished.
I read The Great Gatsby first a few years ago in school and I really didn't get it, but because of the new hype around it with the movie, and because of how I've grown to love Fitzgerald's other writings, I decided to give it another chance. Just like the topic of this thread I really want to like this book but I can't see why it's been so widely praised when I find his other books, like Tender is the Night, so much better. It might be one of those stories that you have to read at a specific point in your life to really get, and I might give it a third try in a few years, but I agree with the statement that it's a bit overrated. - Charlotte Eriksson author of Empty Roads & Broken Bottles; in search for The Great Perhaps
Geoffrey- I know it seems a little harsh, but my opinion is one from a person who likes adventure and excitement, and usually, a good ending. This book is kind of the opposite of that. I'm just on one end of the spectrum while Gatsby is on the other. Michael- Thank you for the insight. I agree that apathy and meaninglessness can be an intention of a writer or director/producer in a book/movie. Lots of odd (in my mind) movies and books become cult classics with people either loving or hating them. I did not like the movie "No Country for Old Men." Many people did. I don't regret reading the book. Any book good or bad can leave a person with something valuable to take away. How else can we expand our horizons?
Lando,> "No Country for Old Men"
Yes, great example! Such a non-climatic string of dismal events. I finally just decided to like that film, because I assumed it was saying the chain of such events has no end, and that the "end" is only when an individual who cares just gives up--lives the rest of a despairing life haunted by having seen too much and having not been able to stem the tide. But although it was riveting, I didn't enjoy any single moment of the story. I think it probably did what it intended to do though.
I didn't enjoy "The Hurt Locker" either, for similar reasons. I did remember it though.
> Any book good or bad can leave a person with
> something valuable to take away. How else can
> we expand our horizons?
I salute you for pointing that out. Myself, I cannot say I "enjoyed" the painful depression of Gatsby's story, but I also can't call Fitzgerald's other books "better" or this one "bad." I'd rather choose to appreciate his tremendous linguistic skill, and meanwhile to keep an open mind as to what he must have been going after in "Gatsby."
Personally I think that because "Gatsby" inspires incredible feeling (not all of it good, per this thread), that Fitzgerald absolutely knew that, and so the reactions have to be in line with the intent (else he would have re-written it after his inner circle of reviewers made it clear).
I see a lot of comments on (other) books wherein a reader has some reaction, and then jumps to the conclusion that it must be a mistake the author made. "This section was boring," and "that section didn't move along." Well, guess what? The protagonist was in indecision at that point in the story...in limbo...and we're meant to feel that limbo. No accident; no mistake. We're waiting for something to happen just like the protagonist is. It's part of the craft of suspense. No accident; no mistake.
I (maybe choose to) hold the opinion that the despairing/condemning apathy so popularly felt with "Gatsby" is no accident, was no surprise to Fitzgerald, and was part of the effect he was after. I choose to believe it rather than to assume he was oblivious or inept.
But agreed, this is all just opinion; and my listening to yours helps "expand my horizon," as you point out.
For me, as long as none of us here sink to the level of abusing an individual (such as Fitzgerald, who was, after all, a person like the rest of us), I'm very content to accept that there are a wide array of differing, but still well-meaning, opinions on the topic of enjoyment versus less enjoyment of a particular work. There are plenty of works I cannot appreciate. (But I own it, in those cases; I'd almost never pin that result on the book.)
- Mike
Michael- I think you make some very good points. I don't think Fitzgerald intended for his book to appeal to a "majority" of people. I too dont think he made any mistakes per say. If he was writing his book to appeal to me specifically, then yes, he made some mistakes. But we know that is not the case. Writers have an idea, put it on paper, and then they publish it for the world to consume and fortunately or unfortunatley, judge. It's a risky business, but I think that is why going to the library or the local bookstore is so intrigueing. You never know what world you are going to imerse yourself in. Im guessing Fitzgerald's pleasure came out of knowing that at least some people "got it." And to his credit, I think more than just SOME people "got it" based on the fact that we are still talking about it today. I respect him as a stylistic writer. And you used an appropriate word, appreciate. It's hard not to appreciate Gatsby for what it is. And what it is, is completely up to you.
Great points Lando. > If he was writing his book to appeal to me
> specifically, then yes, he made some mistakes.
I had a hearty laugh at that! And yes, that encapsulates it well. I could say the same for Solzhenitsyn although in that case it was I who came up short, not him.
> what it is, is completely up to you.
I can very much agree with that. I never forget that when I write a review I'm trotting out my own foibles--reviewing myself, really, at least as much as the book.
Can I still call people "Old Sport"?
- Mike
> I don't think Fitzgerald intended for his book > to appeal to a "majority" of people.
Forgot to add that I think you're right about this as well...or at least he knew what the book was and knew it would never appeal to the majority. He had to have known.
- Mike
Aditya wrote: "Troy wrote: "I think they're fine: Much clearer than many others I could think of. His use of metaphor is appropriate, and creative. Sorry, I just don't see the problem. "Thanks for replying. I f..."
the only thing i could say for you not understanding the meaning and what exactly the author was trying to say, is that this book was written in a different time, when people spoke differently and words had different meanings. its easy to see why people now cant understand it because it was hard for me to understand some things also.
I loved Fitzgerald's style of writing. It was captivating. The diction was tantalizing and wondrous, even though I did not care for the plot. The story was boring and not what I am really interested in. It was scandalous and gossip-y, and that is just not what I like. Still, I read this book faster than most books I read. I read constantly. I lost sleep because I could not stop reading this book. His way of writing is enthralling. I was in its tight, unforgiving grip.Referring to what you said about Fitzgerald talking about Gatsby great character as opposed to demonstrating it, I think that was intentional. I think that he Gatsby was supposed to be a charmer - winning your adoration even when he didn't deserve it. He was involved in questionable business, held extravagant and boastful parties with guests whose name he didn't even bother to ask, and sought an affair with a married woman. However, Nick did not see it that way. Nick saw him as a hard-working gentleman determined to succeed, generous and compassionate to grant people the luxury of bragging association with the Mysterious Jay Gatsby, and admirable for his longing to save poor damsel in distress locked in a horrible marriage. Nick was under his spell. I think this was a technique to restate the prevalent theme of "materialism is over-rated".
In finality, I do not regret reading this book. I think that everyone should for the experience. It is considered a classic and Fitzgerald is considered one of America's greatest classic writers. However, this book did leave me with that sense of accomplishment, sadness, and content that comes with closing the back cover of a great novel. I do not plan on reading another of Fitzgerald's books, and I would not re-read this one. I wouldn't mind watching the movie just because I have read the book, and I like to compare movies to their books. I would recommend it but only because I think everyone should read as many classics as possible but if I was asked, "Didn't you just love The Great Gatsby?!" I would have to answer with, "No, in fact, I didn't like it much at all. It was well-written for such a poor plot, though."
Tuesdi-joH.L. Mencken said about the same. It was a tawdry tale in his estimation, not particularly good. I found it but a different twist on the Horation Alger story, redundant all the way up to Cameron´s TITANIC, at best a hackneyed story told many times again over.
I am a huge fan of F. Scott Fitzgerald in general, part of it being, I'm a romantic myself. I can understand not understanding. Everyone understands different things. I personally hate Wuthering Heights, I think it's awful but many people love it. I love The Great Gatsby. If you hate it now, give it a chance in 5-10 years and if you still don't like it, you don't like it. Who cares? You like what you like. I also hate Catcher in the Rye and everyone says that it's amazing etc. I find it whiny and annoying. To each their own. Find your own happiness in the written word.
I like to think I am a open minded reader. I will read anything once,in all my life I can barely believe that this book "The Great Gatsby" literally put me to sleep. Please note I had a good night sleep and woke early to read this book. I really struggled finishing this book.
> If you hate it now, give it a chance in 5-10 years> Find your own happiness in the written word.
I'd call that very good advice Faith. And I hope to never blame my inability to find my happiness on the place I'm looking. Instead I'll just wait those 5-10 you recommend, and check again. After all, I'll be someone different every new decade. At least, I'd better be....
- Mike
^Aww, well thank you sir :)I think we change much more than we realize.
Troy wrote: "Read it for High School English, and hated it. Read it again at 40, and thought it was wonderful.Just looking at the pieces the OP sampled, I think they're fine: Much clearer than many others I..."
I agree. I love his prose so much. I think those sentences are so beautiful. Silver pepper of the stars? That's some sweet imagery. In high school I was too caught up in thinking Daisy was a selfish idiot and having no idea why anyone would go through trouble to be with her to appreciate the style of writing. When I read it voluntarily not long after undergrad, I found myself in love with the sentences themselves. I wish I could write like that.
Read it in high school, didn`t like it.Read it again after retirement and now I know better why I disliked it.And yes, I have changed considerably. No longer find MY ANTONIA boring, but one of the best novels I have read.
Fitzgerald isn't a deep thinker. His career was spectacular during the go-go 1920's and he lived as high as it got in those heady days. Gatsby is a romantic fantasy; dazzling wealth, dazzling parties and all of it for the love of a woman. Daisy Buchanan is clearly Zelda Fitzgerald, F. Scott's passion and his undoing. The book was wildly popular.
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...
I don't personally imagine any major truth absorption requirement in reading any novel, although in Fitzgerald's mind he was no doubt intending to illustrate many things, in the presenting/nurturing of his characters. But whether his intent was the same thing as what's actually there (or the sum total of what's there), isn't even guaranteed.
I learned something major about the fundamental motivations of one of my main characters a full 1.5 years AFTER the book had been published. It was right there in the pages, woven into how he did what he did, and it had come out of my pen, but yet I hadn't planned it or understood it. I hadn't even known it was there. And yet it was stunningly illuminating, once it hit me, and pulled all that character's actions together. He had become real behind my back. I think this is common; so too it probably was for Fitzgerald.
The characters become real at some point in a book's development and take on lives of their own. After that, they just do what they do, and we watch them and experience their experience. No doubt Fitzgerald was hoping to illustrate the beautiful fatalism about 2D dreams and blind love...but there's a lot more in that book, or a lot more that I think I personally see anyway, including the destructive power of cowardice, the appeal of childlike oblivion, and more. A lot more that I haven't noticed yet, I'm sure.
If we don't "get" a book that others rave about, one good plan could be to just walk away from it and come back a decade later. We can often see both the book and ourselves in a different light. I've re-watched movies that had bored me long before, and the second time marveled at the fact that I hadn't noticed something I now found mesmerizing. The film was the same, but evidently I had changed.
Personally I think the book is about Gatsby, the crowd of upper-crust folks, and yes, Nick too. Nick plays the part of us, similarly to how Antonio Banderas played the part of us in the film "Evita." Personally I find Nick a reasonably trustworthy surrogate for the reader, in Gatsby. All my opinion, of course.
I LIKE this thread! So glad you had the guts to launch it long ago.
(Incidentally, I've never heard the name "Aditya" before, so please pardon my ignorance on gender. Having lived in Italia for awhile long ago, I guess I must be conditioned to assume names that end in the letter "a" are feminine. And I've never lived in...India? is that where the name hails from?...yet. So again, my apologies for that error.)
- Mike