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

[[deleted user]]

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.

[Geoffrey]

Is wildly popular. It did not do well in the ´20´s at all. He only sold 20,000 copies out of the initial 75,000 run. A number of posters on these message threads have commented on his alleged poverty. He may have had some bad years but in ´36 he earned $36,000, mostly from short story publications, (in Saturday Evening Post I believe). He was a prolific short story writer who was much sought after by editors.
No he is not a deep thinker. That is exactly a point I have been trying to make but his boosters disregard that fact.

[[deleted user]]

Fitzgerald was a much celebrated author in his day which is why his publisher overestimated the number of copies that would sell. He and his wife lived very high by the standards of the times in the 20's and were, by many accounts, a 'golden couple'. They certainly weren't poor, but they regularly overextended themselves and they paid for that when the lives they were living fell apart. Gatsby is a glittering tale. You can look for deeper meaning, but I don't think it was intended.

[Michael]

I don't think I've seen any challenges here to the claim that he was not a deep thinker. It's your opinion. Myself, I see a depth that acts as a catalyst for thought (and thought from which I think I benefit).

Personally I believe Fitzgerald was adept at painting with words, and that he knew what he intended to do with them, and knew the effect they had on his subset-of-the-public target audience. Some people look at a painting and find it imparts only a superficial, practical or mechanical message; to others the same canvas inspires a lot of reflection. Depends on what's there and also on what we bring to it.

Fitzgerald was a deep thinker if you find he was...and only then. Evidently you don't find that he was, and so that's one of several possible valid opinions, no less (and no more) factual than antipodal opinions. It's a good one though.

- Mike

[Francene]

I recently reread this book and had a completely different experience the second time around. If you didn't like it don't beat yourself up over it. You don't have to love a book just because it's a classic, although I do know how frustrating it can be not understanding why others think a book is so great. For me the popularity of The Alchemist is a big mystery and don't even get me started on Ayn Rand. Everyone is so different in their tastes and a lot of it comes down to timing. Pick it up again in a few years and see if your perspective has changed. You might be surprised.

[[deleted user]]

With the widest income gap in US history, including the so-called 'gilded age' at the turn of the 20th century, this actually might be a good time to read or re-read Gatsby. The emptiness of opulence is certainly on full display in the movie which takes Fitzgerald's lavish descriptions and uses 3-D effects to make them as gaudy as possible.
Here's A.O. Scott:

"The pages of “The Great Gatsby” are suffused with romance and dusted with sexual implication, but perhaps the most intensely and disturbingly erotic scene — the one that distills the novel’s seductive blend of desire and sorrow — involves clothes. Showing off his mansion to Daisy Buchanan, the great love of his life, and Nick Carraway, his diffident, dazzled neighbor, Jay Gatsby opens a cabinet in which his shirts “are piled like bricks in stacks a dozen high.” ... The movie has been faulted, not entirely without justice, for its headlong embrace of the materialism that the novel views with ambivalence. Mr. Luhrmann, though following the book’s plot more or less faithfully, does not offer a stable moral perspective from which the world of its characters can be judged. Rather, he immerses the viewer in a sensual swirl of almost tactile opulence."

The question is, what do readers come away with? Is it admiration or is it horror when confronted with Gatsby's tremendous success and utter shallowness?

[Geoffrey]

I agree with you completely about the Alchemist and Ayn Rand, but each to his own. I have tried to like this book (GG) but have been consistenly stymied in my attempt by its inadequacies.. Yes, a good book....yes I hate it....yes I am fascinated by it as well..... but then again so are the lives of serial killers. Just finished ICE MAN, now there´s a fascinating tale of human depravity. The book is nowhere as well written as GG but then again it riveted my interest in a way the latter did not.

[Michael]

> The question is, what do readers come away with?
> Is it admiration or is it horror when confronted
> with Gatsby's tremendous success and utter shallowness?

I guess we come away with what we come away with. Myself, what I immediately come away with is just the first wave of what I ultimately get from it.

And I don't get that Gatsby was shallow--I get that he was confused. Trying to reconcile a silly dream born in his more innocent days with the cynicism he had to have absorbed in a life of sordid dealings, all the while applying a natural undercurrent of pure optimism and romantic values, he was a walking tangle of paradoxical sentiment. In a way I guess he represented post-war America herself.

But I suppose readers come away with whatever each one comes away with.

> scene...that distills the novel’s seductive
> blend of desire and sorrow

I like how Scott put that.

- Mike

[[deleted user]]

Gatsby was confused precisely because he was shallow. He proves it with everything he does.

You're right Mike that he has a 'silly dream born in his youth'. And, his approach to realizing this silly (shallow) dream is to put on a massive display of material wealth that screams emptiness. It's certainly shallow and very sad because we all know that when you attract hoards of hanger-ons, in reality none of them really care about you and none of these people care about Gatsby.

Why is he doing this? In the hope that these outlandish parties will attract the attention of his adolescent love who has married someone else which is obviously a shallow approach to a shallow goal.

[Debra]

I read the book many years ago in an old hard cover and loved it. I never saw the movie, had small discussions in class about the characters, the time period, and the entire setting. Some of us even talked about it out of class. No visuals except our own. I loved this book. The garish movie adds the famous actors have completely taken away the true characters and,infact, have made themselves into the characters. Had this been part of my first introduction I would hate it also.

[[deleted user]]

There have been a number of movies made from this book over the years, starting with a silent version. None of them were especially successful at depicting the book and none of them went over well with audiences.

Robert Redford who I've often enjoyed, made a surprisingly lifeless version in 1974 that wasn't at all well received. Gatsby is such a larger than life fantasy of Fitzgerald's he presents a number of problems when trying to translate the book to the screen. Some critics have said the task is impossible. The current film is the most faithful to the book and probably does the best job of realizing it.

[Michael]

Hi Toni,

> And, his approach to realizing this silly (shallow) dream

Looks like we both apply the word "silly," but you also apply the word "shallow." To me, if a sentiment is strongly felt by the individual, it is deep rather than shallow, despite its level of pragmatism. That's just how I see it. I rate pragmatism waaaay down the scale below romanticism.

To me a sentiment is an extension of the individual, and meaningful only insofar as it applies to the individual. And if the individual feels deeply, then regardless of what is felt, the sentiment has "depth."

> Why is he doing this? In the hope that these outlandish
> parties will attract the attention of his adolescent
> love who has married someone else which is obviously
> a shallow approach to a shallow goal.

Approaches to goals are a pragmatic concept--a concept that deals with usefulness and probability of success. The part of a goal that's a dream, not tied to or answerable to rationality, is the romantic element. In my mind, anyway. A dream has value whether it ever comes true or not--in fact, whether it COULD ever come true or not. It has value regardless of whether realizing it would be a good idea in the practical sense. I see Gatsby as someone sensing that if he did nothing else in his life, he needed to hang onto a dream. (It was getting too close to its practical realization that was his undoing...the dream itself remained pure.) And he had the guts to go tremendous distances (financial, social, temporal) in pursuit of it. There is a kind of honor and simple dignity in that. A fool? Yes, I think so. Shallow? I don't get that. I absolutely get it from all the rest (Nick excluded), but I don't get that from Gatsby. I don't know, maybe his childlike naive quality distracts and puts people like Nick and myself a bit under his spell.

All our individual definitions of depth may be part of the twelve-way disconnect in this thread, for that matter. Almost certainly in fact.

Interesting stuff,

- Mike

[Tammy]

Personally, I appreciated Gatsby much more than I liked it.
The first time reading it was last year at 45 years old. The style of writing lends nicely to the theme of the story.
It's all it the details. If you don't like details you won't like the book. If you don't like to muck through the details you won't understand it. One must read as much of what IS being said as to what IS NOT.
As for the characters they are all flat and hard to attach ones self to, which is probably why you ended up hating it.

[Geoffrey]

Yes, we end up hating it for that reason but also dislike it for its literary defects, Tammy.

[Donna]

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 never liked it either. I taught, too, and some of my students chose to read it and just loved it. I never saw the magic, myself.

[Michael]

It seems to me to be literarily excellent.

[[deleted user]]

This is very interesting Michael. Here's the disagreement.

"To me, if a sentiment is strongly felt by the individual, it is deep rather than shallow, despite its level of pragmatism. That's just how I see it. I rate pragmatism waaaay down the scale below romanticism."

I never mentioned pragmatism which I don't see playing a role here beyond Daisy not waiting for Jay Gatsby because he didn't have money at the time of their romance, so she chose a man who did.

People can be overwhelmed by their feelings which Gatsby clearly is and still be shallow. Quantity of feelings does not equal depth of feeling.

Consider Gatsby's approach to Daisy who is now married to someone else. Does he try to talk to her? No. He just tries to overwhelm her with stuff of which he has a great deal. What's tragic about Gatsby and what's emotionally wrenching about this core scene is that Gatsby's entire proposal of love to Daisy is all about wealth, not feelings. He wants his wealth to speak for him, but literally pouring stuff on someone, in this case shirts, doesn't have anything to do with love or romance, it's just stuff. There's nothing more shallow than trying to build a relationship on stuff. Marriages built on stuff fail all the time.

[Lauren]

A couple of years ago I had picked up a copy of The Great Gatsby at a vintage shop and tried reading it right away. "Tried" being the operative word. I just couldn't get into it and, two chapters later, I put the book back on its shelf. But I made a promise to myself to go back to it one day and I thought that since the movie was coming out, no time like the present. Oddly enough, I found it much more pleasant the second time around and even enjoyed it. While I admit that certain sentences or details got a little too long-winded for their purposes, I found I could see past that this time around. No, I didn't connect to the characters at all, but I liked that I couldn't; none of them were very upstanding citizens, so I feel like Fitzgerald would applaud those who couldn't connect to his characters.

Like many other books out there, this is considered a "classic." Do I agree? Sure. At this point, I feel like none of us have a right to protest what makes a classic or not, seeing as how most of the classics were written during ages we cannot understand nor appreciate today. But like James (message 50) said, "one must consider the impact of the novel on all other readers and all other writers...any novel still being read 80 years after it was published has some claim to a value beyond mere entertainment."

[[deleted user]]

First of all, connecting personally with characters is not a requirement of literature. It's a requirement of commercial fiction. This is one of the questions I often encounter in my own work. People have said to me in honest confusion: "Do you like these people?" to which I say 'No'. I don't write about people I like. That's not my purpose with writing.

BTW, Balzac is a BIG favorite of mine. His satire cuts to the bone. Liking his characters is never in question. They're not likeable. So, liking or disliking Gatsby is never at issue with my feeling about the book. I consider Gatsby hopelessly pathetically shallow. That's the tragic aspect of the story for me. He thinks he can literally throw his shirts at the woman he loves and win her heart. The fact that he does move her with this thoroughly material gesture testifies to her own shallowness. This is the core scene and I think if it were a great novel, it would deal with the issues set up by this scene.

However, the novel doesn't do that. When Gatsby gets killed through the irony of someone else's misplaced anger, Fitzgerald is using a writing twist in order to deliver the final irony that, after all those parties, no one shows up Gatsby's funeral. It's a twist, but he doesn't go anywhere with it, so there's no deep thought behind it.

Fitzgerald is a nice writer, but I don't think he's a great writer and I don't think this is a great book. However, the question of Gatsby as a classic is a different question. The definition of a classic is something that survives which this novel continues to do and, as long as it does, it will probably be regarded as a classic.

Gatsby's continuing popularity doesn't surprise me at all. We live in an age that celebrates new wealth and conspicuous consumption. e.g. Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous would definitely have wanted to interview Jay Gatsby.

[Michael]

Interesting; this is why it's so individual. I don't believe people can be overwhelmed by feeling and still be shallow. But again, my definition of depth is exactly that--capacity to feel complex (not just surface) emotion. If your definition is different, you can absolutely call the Gatsby character "shallow" if you want to.

To me there's only emotion and pragmatism. Again, that's simply how I'm going to see it, although probably not how you're going to.

I think requirements of literature are also basically in the eye of the beholder, just like all the rest of this. Myself, I don't think connecting with characters is an absolute must, because I'm able to consider the possibility that the author knew that would happen and even intended it. But absolute requirements are defined by the individual.

Any enigma like Gatsby is going to fascinate (i.e., spawn debate like this) forever...especially one with the kind of childlike (whether deluded or not) optimism that is so compelling to so many. If nothing else, it's a lesson to authors to create such debatable characters.

- Mike

[Michael]

At the risk of stirring the pot further, I'm going to ask a different question: I'm continually amazed at how many of us associate "The Great Gatsby" with high school. I mean, we were first introduced to a lot of things in high school--combination locks, bleachers, baseball spikes, vector calculus, world history, other languages...but it doesn't mean those things are synonymous with high school or that their scope and applicability are bounded by the capacities of adolescent minds.

I don't know what I'm saying or asking...I guess I'm just surprised that a book which is clearly expected to require a significant depth of life experience in order to understand it would be kept in the mind's attic in the same box with the letter jacket and cheerleading baton.

I guess maybe one's first intro to something is a powerful enough memory that we tend to automatically associate an experience with the first era of our lives in which we discovered it. On the other hand, I first read "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" in school, and I don't associate that with school...of course I re-read it later, so maybe that's why. (An interesting commentary on social forces too, that.)

Anyway...thoughts on the high school thing? I assume none of us really intend to imply that "Gatsby" is matched with the meager life experience level of high school...?

- Mike

[Nikki]

I agree that it is over rated. I was forced to read it in HS and i just remember being so bored. And I have always been an avid reader. Now they have made what looks like a boring movie from a boring book. Sorry Fitzy.

[[deleted user]]

We had to read Gatsby in my high school, but I went to high school on Long Island which is where Gatsby is supposed to have his mansion, so I always assumed that was why they had us read it. I only learned later that everyone reads it. We had to read Silas Marner, too. Never figured out why we were supposed to read that one. Huckleberry Finn which I do think is a great book, is justifiable at any age. I enjoyed that in high school and later very much. Great Expectations was another requirement I ended up enjoying though it didn't interest me initially.

[Michael]

Actually I never had to read "Gatsby" in high school (which may explain why I'm amazed when people think of it in terms of high-school-age fare). We read other, probably more unusual, works. Mockingbird, certainly, but also books like Annapurna (about Maurice Herzog's assault on Everest). I guess we deviated from the mainstream.

- Mike

[Geoffrey]

I find the choice of word "pragmatism" to be an odd one, and just got a whisper from SF, the man himself, that he would edit it out and replace it with "common sense". I believe that is the better choice.

[Michael]

Well I guess that must be Trvth then--that word, and thus my entire sentiment, must be "odd," and I must also be devoid of common sense despite what I've accomplished up to now, and no two ways about it. Wow.

I'm not at all surprised.

[Matthew]

Geoffrey wrote: "Yes, we end up hating it for that reason but also dislike it for its literary defects, Tammy."

Is it that or is the fact that its considered a literary classic? I ask because one's perception of the "defects" really depends on how minute and obsessive one chooses to get when examining the text.

[Laurie]

I have mixed emotions about this book. I didn't love it, and I didn't hate it. I know I didn't love it because it took entirely too long for me to finish it, and I didn't hate it because I did actually finish it. At times I felt my mind wandering while reading it, which isn't a good sign with regard to absorbing interest. Once or twice though I found myself engrossed in the narrative, but not nearly enough to conclude that this book was absolutely amazing. Personally I have read far better books than The Great Gatsby. At the end of the day variety is the spice of life....every single person will not love the same books. That's what makes life so interesting. So, in my opinion, it's okay to love this book, hate it or just appreciate it. None of us are wrong in how we felt about it. But it is nice to have so many perspectives about it, is it not?

[Geoffrey]

Matthew
In answer to your question-both. It is considered a classic, a mistake, because there are so many mistakes.

I challenge you to cite any other book, considered a classic, that has a multiplicity of mistakes to the extent that GG has.

remember, I have a few more doozies I have not even mentioned.

[Matthew]

Geoffrey wrote: "Matthew
In answer to your question-both. It is considered a classic, a mistake, because there are so many mistakes.

I challenge you to cite any other book, considered a classic, that has a multipl..."

I would imagine, but your persistence in this and the way you keep suggesting that people are disagreeing with you based on the books reputation makes me wonder if you're not motivated a little by the desire to simply sully its reputation. If there's one thing more appealing than raising something up, its bringing it down.

And what other "doozies" do you have? I know of the anachronism involving Hapalong Cassidy, the use of the word "orgastic", and your low opinion of many of the characters, but I don't see how that adds up to a doozie or a fatal flaw.

[Michael]

> persistence in..suggesting that people are disagreeing with you
> based on the books reputation makes me wonder if you're not
> motivated a little by the desire to simply sully its reputation.
> If there's one thing more appealing than raising something up,
> its bringing it down.

Thank you for saying so well what so many are feeling here Matthew.

I notice that there are about four kinds of reviewers:

1. Positive-minded readers who always seek what's there rather than what isn't, who weigh in to praise a work they know must have taken a lot of work and from which they got some smiles or some appreciated food for thought.

2. Positive-minded readers who didn't get much from a particular book and who admit that...but who also don't intend to put themselves forth as some kind of self-proclaimed expert (even if they may have read the author's life story in an article somewhere), and so they acknowledge that the book didn't touch them but concede it has strengths and could well be able to touch someone else.

3. Other authors who know how many years and wee hours it takes to bring a book into being, from concept inception to final published version, and who know there's no blueprint and no possible way to appeal to every taste and every ability to "get" what a book intends, and who do their best to acknowledge the good in a monumental effort, especially if it is a thought-provoking work.

4. Readers who didn't get much from a book but who DO intend to present themselves as an expert, even though they've never produced anything for public scrutiny themselves (or nothing of any quality anyway), and who are bent on proving their superiority over the author and over those who appreciate the book, mostly because they did not get it and they're damned if they'll admit that there might be something there that they're incapable of (or unwilling to) see.

There may be more types, but overall I haven't seen them. The fourth variety usually uses huge words and tries to sound like a professor. They tend to attack--whereas those disagreeing with them bend over backwards saying "everyone can see something different" and "that's just me, I could be wrong," the fourth type is always as inflexible as dry clay.

There is NO perfect book. Any book that touches a soul in even one way has succeeded; any book that can cause seven pages of debate on this forum is a classic...regardless of whether the author may have referenced a character we THINK (but are not sure, since legends are always built on legends) couldn't have existed in the time.

Authors are human beings; they struggle against overwhelming uncertainties and paradoxical "requirements." How the hell can we hold them to a standard of absolute perfection (and each one of us per our individual tastes, to boot), especially when there's no definition of perfection and no map to it?! None of us are perfect in our careers. I challenge anyone who seriously rubbishes the contributions of an author as accomplished as F. Scott Fitzgerald to put out even one work a tenth as good as the worst of his. Go for it; let's see what comes out--besides excuses.

And what's more, I for one will praise whatever comes out, even if it's from someone I may have grown to pity--not because it will be any good (because it's not likely to be), but because I have the ability to find good in any serious attempt.

The 2nd type above may be critical but I respect them, their honesty, their collaborative nature.

"Gatsby" touched many of us here. Thus, it is a great success. It was never going to touch those who it can never touch.

- Mike

[Michael]

...You know what? That was an absolute rant, and I apologize to everyone on the forum for slipping into it. I shouldn't have caved into the urge to just lay into it like that.

- Mike

[Matthew]

Michael wrote: "...You know what? That was an absolute rant, and I apologize to everyone on the forum for slipping into it. I shouldn't have caved into the urge to just lay into it like that.

- Mike"

It's cool. It was apt and eloquently put, if somewhat a bit verbose ;) Personally, and for the record, I do see what some of the hubbub is about. This book is esoteric and hard to access, especially for the high-schoolers who for some reason are obliged to read it. When I was told to read it in high school, I was completely unable to get into it and pretty much skipped right past it.

As a teacher, I was required to teach it later on and had learned to enjoy it in the interim. However, the only way I was able to make it interesting for four dozen teens was to provide a thorough primer on what to look for in terms of the books overriding themes, symbols and inherent message. Even then, most complained that it was boring and hard to follow and I knew exactly what they were talking about.

Years later, I can understand people's issue with it, especially women who claim they found no redeemable female characters and felt that it was staunchly sexist. For those who feel like its a book written by an intellectual for intellectuals, I totally see eye to eye with them. It's just a question of preference that I happen to appreciate it for those reasons, even if I don't find it particularly entertaining as a read.

[Michael]

Sure Matthew, and I agree it's uncomfortable in some key ways (verbosity [although perhaps I can personally relate!], social values, its embedded dismal statements about humanity in general, etc). Not every work is intended to be comfortable, and nothing is perfect.

I guess I just can't accept to let the author be denigrated, here, behind his back. Feels wrong. Regardless of our like or dislike for it, he gave us something complex.

Anyway....

- Mike

[[deleted user]]

If that was a rant, Michael, I have no problem with it.

[Laura]

I would like to reply to the statement that Gatsby is continually overrated. I think it was on purpose. Fitzgerald employs irony in that throughout the book, Gatsby was described as magnificent and almost radiant, but in the end he was very flawed and boring. He was the subject of endless gossip and many thought him to be a murderer, but he was just a bootlegger. As many people as came to his parties, there were only a handful at his funeral. Basically the whole point of Gatsby is to be overly hyped.

Also, to those who say that it's not about how much you like it but how 'great' the literature is, I disagree entirely. If you didn't like the book, then that's you're opinion and it's perfectly valid. Personally, I loved it, but I can't exactly say that it was the most exciting book. I just loved the way Fitzgerald wove the words together.

[Ashley]

Laura, I completely agree with you. There are very few books that I would stop and say, "Wow, what a beautiful sentence!" or "That's such an excellent metaphor" and I think Gatsby does that perfectly. I did not appreciate it until I read it when I was older though. I think of my students who like it (and I won't pretend they all do), they are more about the idea of the twenties and the bootlegger culture.

I just downloaded the soundtrack. I'm going to rock out and pretend I'm going to a party at Gatsby mansion tonight.

[Geoffrey]

It`s nice that you have listed so many stereotypes, Michael. If it somehow makes you feel so good to list them and attack the messenger, by all means be my guest. I am getting a good kick out of your so very uncritical acceptance of so many pundits and their unwavering acclamation of a deeply flawed novel as a "masterpiece".
As for other doozies, let me also remind you that the military medal of honor awarded to JG which Nick reads outloud is in English. Well guess what-English is not the official language of Montenegro, never was. No country in the world awards such medals in a language other than the one that is official to that country.
Another mistake....Biloxi is in Mississippì. There is none in Tennessee. Nor is San Francisco in the Midwest. How many mistakes do we have to see before we realize how sloppily SF was in writing his "masterpiece". Yes, he carefully edited the book for writing style...thank goodness for that and therein lies his genius. He is truly a master wordmeister. He ranks with the best of them in putting together a sentence of first rank. I have repeatedly given him credit for that. The structure of the novel also is first rate in that the unveiling of the story surpasses brilliancy. But praise aside, this is but a second rate tale. Mencken and others got that right.

So let me get this right, Michael, despite the fact that SF is a world acclaimed writer whose output collectively surpasses all of us, I should bow down and scrape the dirt that was trampled on by our SF`s boots, (and lick them while I am at it)and mute my criticism, sing his praise, alleluja, praise be the lord we have one genius in our midst, the wonderful Scott Fitzgerald. Yes, I stand corrected. I apologise profusely....SF is the greatest...SF is the greatest...SF is the greatest...See there, mea culpa.

[Matthew]

Geoffrey wrote: "It`s nice that you have listed so many stereotypes, Michael. If it somehow makes you feel so good to list them and attack the messenger, by all means be my guest. I am getting a good kick out of yo..."

You're getting a kick out of Michael's reading of this book? Wow, that's interesting because I and a whole lot of other people are getting a kick out of your handling of this book. The lengths you go to prove how truly awful it is and the vitriol you spew at the man. What is deal here?

Seriously, how many forums have you visited to make your case? How many thin-as-paper points have you tried to pass off as "doozies"? How long have you labored over the use of single words, like "orgastic", or things only you could see, like Nick's "judgmental nature"? And the fact that you're reaching so deep into the text and spending so much time looking for flaws.

The fact that you think you're some kind of messenger here instead of a single disgruntled reader is really what's likely to give people a kick. Do you really think anyone is particularly offended by what you have to say? Or are they simply tired of hearing ongoing criticisms about innocuous and meaningless details, and how that makes SF a bad writer in your estimation?

[Geoffrey]

If you are so tired of my ongoing criticisms, why even bother posting extra long messages without even addressing any of the issues. The problema is yours, Matthew, live with it. I am going to continue discussing this issue. Too bad you can`t accept opinions contrary to your own.
I hope that in real life, ie. life outside of the cloistered confines of the internet, you are not so intolerant of differing opinions.
As Harry said, "If you can`t stand the heat....." but of course you can so you keep coming back for more. So will I.
As for a "Messenger" or "a single disgruntled reader" I could care less which forms my self-identity. If these kind of issues of self-esteem are so important to you, ie. what you consider yourself to be, then I feel sorry for you. I am still pissing further than you. I am looking forward to your riposte. It`s always good for laughs but really how about getting back to the real issue about what this fórum is all about? Are you willing to do that?

[Geoffrey]

As for the flaws, half of them that I have posted are listed in the appendix of the paperback copy that I have. The book was a sloppily written one. I said it before, I will say it again.

[Geoffrey]

The fact that you think you're some kind of messenger here instead of a single disgruntled reader is really what's likely to give people a kick. Do you really think anyone is particularly offended by what you have to say? Or are they simply tired of hearing ongoing criticisms about innocuous and meaningless details, and how that makes SF a bad writer in your estimation?
Matthew

My initial reference to a messenger alluded to the expression, "If you don`t like the message, you can always kill the messenger". I can see that one went over your head.

[Matthew]

Geoffrey wrote: "The fact that you think you're some kind of messenger here instead of a single disgruntled reader is really what's likely to give people a kick. Do you really think anyone is particularly offended ..."

You flatter yourself, sir, as usual. Nothing you say goes over my or anyone else's. But don't lie about your intent with all that "messenger" talk. You do consider yourself the conveyor of some kind of truth that people don't want to hear, that's been made abundantly clear in message after message from you. But the truth is, you're criticisms are inane, your passion in arguing them misplaced, and no one cares.

But I expect you to mount that same self-defense. Much like I expect you to feign persecution with the whole "you don't like opinions other than your own". But that's just more self-flattery. The only reason I object is because you've combined pointlessness with a persistence that borders on obsession. How you hop from forum to forum and thumping your hatred of this book to anyone who will listen. It's just plain weird...

Oh, and I've addressed your so-called criticisms at length. I was there for your obsession with the word orgastic (which went on forever), your anachronisms which didn't matter, and your vehement condemnation of the characters which was based on nothing more than your own personal moral judgments of them. You keep promising doozies, but you never deliver. It's always the same crap that you alone think is significant.

But of course, you're right, it IS a waste of time talking to you. Lord knows it's hard to ignore you, since you keep popping up singing the same old tune and mounting your soap box. But by all means, keep doing it and pretend like you're dealing with an important issue. Lord knows it makes you feel smart and/or important, so I won't rob you of that.

[Geoffrey]

If it´s such a waste of time as you say, do the sensible think and stop raving. Methinks the ingrate protests too much. Tsk, tsk, quite the touchy one, aren´t you? Can´t take criticism of your hero? Again, you are unable to get back to the discussion but continue to piss in the wind.

[Lumindanu]

I love Fitzgerald... but it's his short stories I love... I never liked Gatsby...

the thing about Fitzgerald is that he is always writing about serious things but his books are populated by the shallow and ephemeral, but those people actually accentuate the importance of the serious .... Read "The last kiss" or "A Diamond as big as the Ritz"

[Michael]

> always writing about serious things but his books are populated by the shallow and ephemeral

Interesting observation, and I think you're right; at least it seems to apply to the Gatsby work. I wonder if he saw the rest of humanity in that ephemeral light? Might even be his "review" on the rest of us...he may have gotten the first laugh. :)

Seriously, your recommendations ("last kiss" and "Diamond") are a good suggestion, Lumindanu; tnx, I suspect they won't disappoint.

- Mike

[Lumindanu]

He wanted to BE those people, and superficially he was, but ... inside he wasn't, and I just think he saw the gap and it made him sad...

I've read much biographical information on his life, and Zelda's and those of his contemporaries... so perhaps that colors my perception.

[Michael]

Perhaps. Could be accurate I suppose. I'm just wondering...someone as perceptive as Fitzgerald...would he paint those he aspired to be in such dismal shades? Conversely, if the dismal shades are what he truly saw, would he aspire to be those people?

I know that people who know each other all their lives still invariably get it wrong when they try to guess who each other really wants to be. (Basically I don't entirely trust historians, biographers and analysts...well, not enough to overrule the subtle message I feel I'm getting get from the artist himself/herself, through his or her work.)

I also wonder...who Fitzgerald thought of as "those" people. I have this faint, nagging, sinking feeling that all of us are included in the bleak crowd on which his social commentaries were based.

Or maybe not; it's all conjecture. Fun to postulate though.

- Mike

[Geoffrey]

Yes, Michael, I completely agree on that one. I think the same of Tom Wolfe, that he looks down on the rest of us with great disdain.

[Lumindanu]

I think he wanted to be an idealized version of those people, but when he saw who they were, and what transpired, he saw the emptiness too...

Unless you are wealthy enough to be at a Gatsby party, you aren't one of the crowd he is watching...

He's not writing about the poor and downtrodden, he's writing about the wealthy (whether powerful or not) and he's seeing it's not all it's cracked up to be, and that at the end of the day, they are distracted by the sparklies their money buys and miss what's truly valuable.

Honestly, I don't think he would have articulated that, he just described what he saw, and he did it so well, the rest of us can see it...