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

[Geoffrey]

And that is but another reason why I fault SF if your comment is true. In fact I don´t see much articulation of a philosophy of life at all in the GG. The closest SF comes to using a soapbox is at the end of the novel when Nick speculates on America´s beginnings, and the soliloquoy is much too brief for my taste. He had just started on the best roll of the novel and he could not sustain and advance the thought.

[Robert]

So, an author should have a clear agenda or "philosophy of life" expressed, rather than allow readers to draw their own conclusions based on the characters and situations presented?

Isn't that type of "here's the moral of the story" approach a little simplistic?

[Geoffrey]

No, it is not imperative. But since he started the essay, he should have been able to finish it. My point was an addenda to Limindanu´s point ie.

"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......."

My point being that he could not particularly articulate what Nick was trying to say about the loss of innocence/purity of the American spirit and that is why those statements were so brief.

And actually there are a great number of writers who do articulate their vision exceedingly well. George Elliot comes to mind and her novels are hardly simplistic. So does George Orwell. But if that bothers you, then we stand on other sides of the fence.

You might as well add Thomas Mann, Dosteyevsky, Sartre,Upton Sinclair and Herman Hesse to that list. Each quite eloquently waxes philosophic. And again, if that is not to your liking then you will not be able to appreciate their books on that account.

[Lumindanu]

Well, it's just my opinion (I don't have any degrees that would lend authority to my opinion *smile*)but it seems that as an author, you want to portray something clearly, and accurately.

I think Fitzgerald did that, but in doing so, he drew so clear a picture that the rest of us see things even he didn't...

Some great writers can write and have an explicit moral vision and use their writing to make their point. Others are just good observers and communicators... they report what they see, and sometimes its more than they realize...

[Snapback.Sapphic]

The people in the novel are all metaphors for the types of people in life.(why does he have to explain every single thing in the book so much? Why can't he just say that man walked away along side the wall into that room or wherever. Just because he can explain things, he shouldn't explain every single thing.) Wilson is a man who has already given up on life - he is already dead - Fitzgerald explains this because it is symbolism. You don't read the book for its plot, you read it for the metaphors and themes. The white room, the green light, the characters, the unattainable American dream! You're not supposed to connect with any of the characters because they (except for Nick) are all terrible people. When Fitzgerald was writing this book he modeled it after his whole life and is trying to get the reader to understand how not to live. Gatsby was his sacrifice - he gave up a large part of himself (being that it is a model how not to live like him i.e. Gatsby) so that the reader could understand his message.

[Geoffrey]

R2geek2
message 373
No, Nick may not have been a terrible person but he certainly was not the best. His moral character was on the level of the Parker woman, she cheated at golf, he cheated on his self-identity. He was not the partial observer he claimed to be.
The father, Mr. Gatzby, was the only one who came out clean. I admired him only.

[Lumindanu]

WARNING -- OFF TOPIC

Everyone posting here is so thoughtful... the thread is a GREAT READ!

[Beth]

I didn't absolutely hate this book it was just OK. I think I just couldn't relate to any of the characters. All the women seemed airy, naïve, and weak. Maybe this was just the way women were during this time, but it didn't give me any connection to them.

[Chrissie]

Thank you for this thread! Seriously, thank you. I read this more than three years ago - I didn't like this at all. I can't even remember the names of the characters. I must have deleted the experience from memory. All I could remember was during that time, for some reason, this reminded me of Count of Monte Cristo and Wuthering Heights, which are two of my favorite classics. That alone was enough to turn me off. I even went as far as thinking that maybe I'm really dumb, as I couldn't understand the prose much of the time; like I was always lost in the middle of a sentence. Not to mention that I only read this because this is the favorite book of one of my favorite fictional characters, so yeah, I felt cheated and traumatized.

However, reading this thread and seeing all the points raised, maybe it was just the wrong time for me to read this. Maybe in the future, I'll like this book better, and maybe understand this for the genius people say it is. So I'm keeping my copy to save for twenty years later :)

[Robert]

Geoffrey wrote: "No, it is not imperative. But since he started the essay, he should have been able to finish it. My point was an addenda to Limindanu´s point ie.

"Honestly, I don´t think he would have articulated..."

I don't think it's imperative that an author do one or the other. You can build a story either way. I agree that Orwell, Dosteyevsky, Sartre,Upton Sinclair, Hesse, etc make a message much more apparent and not in a simplistic way. (Haven't read Elliot. Though Middlemarch is on the TBR stack.)

I just don't think that one approach is better than the other. It is possible to express a philosophy or viewpoint without necessarily explicating it.

Individuals may find one method personally preferable or enjoyable, but that preference doesn't doesn't equate to a de facto superiority of technique or style. It is simply reader preference and may help guide each reader to books that share similarities which they may enjoy reading.

[Erik]

I think it's a good book, but it's not the titan it's made out to be. It raises a lot of interesting ideas, and I actually think it's quite relevant to the highly stratified American society of today, but as a work of literature, it's not that great. I agree that the writing is a bit muddy at times, and the characters can be a bit thin--even though some of them are supposed to be thin (like Daisy and Tom). All in all, I'd say it's a a mediocre reader's idea of a brilliant piece of literature. Possibly because so many of us are introduced to it in junior high or high school, when we haven't really gotten a lot of great reading under our belts. And, so, it's built up, and remains stuck in our minds, as a really brilliant work.

But I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Gatsby explores a lot of interesting questions about our ability to invent ourselves, revise/relive our past, accept our fate. And I think it's a thoughtful look at class and social stratification in America. These are all notions that are worth thinking about and examining closely; I'm glad Gatsby gives the opportunity to do that. My own conclusion is that this is a quintessentially US-American novel, and a good introduction to these ideas for non US-Americans.

btw, I always really wish Jordan Baker were sketched out more fully. There are hints of a really interesting character there, maybe the most complex and interesting person in the book.

Also btw, I do think the original edition of Gatsby has some of the best cover art in literary history!

[Geoffrey]

Erik
I`m with you all the way. I did not however like the original front cover, but it certainly is an eyecatcher which is the intent as writers are competing with each other, "Read me, read me". An alluring front cover sets one`s novel above the rest before the general public.
Yes, JB was the most fascinating character. She`s most cognizant of her own self-destructive urges, unlike the Buchanan`s dimwittedness. What she tells Nick at the breakup says much about her effect on others as he admits that at that point he realizes he`s half in love with her. But he is wise enough to realize that his bridge has been burnt and he has too much pride to apologize. Besides, I believe at that point he`s probably seriously considering leaving for the Midwest.

[David]

This article by Kathryn Schultz that appeared in New York Magazine earlier this year really captures my feelings about the book and why many people hate the book rather than just putting it aside with others that they just don't care for.

http://www.vulture.com/2013/05/schulz...

[[deleted user]]

Very interesting article, David. I think this captures the core of the contradiction that Gatsby poses.

"There’s a reason Gatsby contains the best party scenes in American literature. But when you combine the two—when you apply a strict moral code to the saturnalian society to which you are attracted—you inevitably wind up a hypocrite. Jonathan Franzen once described Gatsby as “the central fable of America.” If so, it is the fable of the fox and the grapes: a story about people who criticize precisely what they covet.

That’s an interesting tension, common to most of us and great fodder for fiction. But rather than explore it, Gatsby enacts it."

[David]

I think she really addresses the heated debates about the book. To be critical of Gatsby is blasphemy, and those that don't like it must not be intelligent enough to understand the message it brings. After all...its a "classic".

In my opinions Nelson DeMille's Gold Coast explores the same territory and has a much better plot and characters.

[Taylor]

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 loved reading this thorough review, I agree completely, plus loved the book for the story

[Gregsamsa]

It's not my favorite book and I don't mean to pull rank here, but as far as appreciating Gatsby goes, you may have to be a product of The States to get it.

[[deleted user]]

Gregsamsa wrote: "It's not my favorite book and I don't mean to pull rank here, but as far as appreciating Gatsby goes, you may have to be a product of The States to get it."

I don't think being a "product of The States" has anything to do with it. I'm born and raised in NY, close to Long Island. I've read Gatsby twice. Once in high school where I "had" to read it. I didn't get it then and told my teacher I didn't but I figured maybe I was too young to understand. So I read it again recently. I'm in my early 40's now and STILL didn't understand or "get" this book.

The time period in which Fitzgerald is writing is a period in American Literature I enjoy very much, but I truly believe this is not his best work. For many of the reasons stated in this excellent article we all just read.

Thank you for sharing the article with us. I really enjoyed it and my share it with one of my co-workers who tells me I'm "too young to understand the novel".

[[deleted user]]

I was raised in NYC and LI where Gatsby was required reading. After all, his mansion was supposed to be on LI. I didn't care for the book in high school either even though I did like other Fitzgerald novels & stories. I've come to see the popularity of Gatsby as also wrapped up in its flaws. The American material society is fascinated by Gatsby's excesses even as they make it impossible his feelings for Daisy can be taken seriously.

The depth of a novel can be measured in the depth of its characters' feelings. For a tragedy to register with the reader, it has to register with the character, but the characters in Gatsby are made of cardboard.

[Judas]

I started reading this when I was a teenager and gave up. Not out of boredom but out of busy schedule.
Now that I've read some of the above quotes from the book, I may want to read it again* for the first time. I understood the quotes, and to a person of literal and less symbolic mind they would be confusing. It's not a bad thing, it just means that you're probably more mathematical than philosophical.

[Aaditya]

Toni - I really don't think these characters are made of cardboard. They have depth and none of them is idealistic. All grey, no black and white.

[Dale2314]

when i was younger i could not get my head around this book but now that i have read it now wow what a book love it i am from ireland and i think we should have kids reading it in our schools pure classic

[Amy]

I found the "Great Gatsby" tedious, trite and written as if Fitzgerald wrote (as he did with all his books) with intent for legendary greatness in posterity. To make matters worse, once I read Nancy Milford's biography of Zelda Fitzgerald and studied her life, I came to believe SHE held greater talent than F. Scott who, in essence, greedily competed with his wife's literary talent and witty prose, absconded with her diaries and pulled material straight from them for his own books. Moreover, he often prevented her from receiving credit for her own writing, ensuring his name received acclaim alongside Zelda's and by interfering with editors who showed true interest in Zelda's gift for writing with grand style.

For a young vivacious southern debutante, I believe F. Scott Fitzgerald was the worst things that ever happened to Zelda. She emotionally and psychologically deteriorated as their relationship evolved or, rather, devolved. From my perspective, Zelda's life became a living hell after marrying this oddly celebrated alcoholic author for whom I have no respect.

[Gregsamsa]

I must admit that it was a stupid thing I said, or at least stupidly put. By "get" I certainly did not mean like (much less love), but friends of mine have led me to believe that the character types in Gatsby as well as the cultural tension between the Midwest and the East (among other things) translate with difficulty. One friend of mine had the unfortunate task of teaching the book in an intro to American Lit class in France. She said that most of her students thought that readers were expected to think that Nick was naive but they themselves thought the whole book was naive. Another friend read the book for an Am Lit. class in Istanbul, and says that the only people in the class who enjoyed the book also identified with Gatsby, and thought that he should have been the narrator. A guy I worked with who had tried to teach it in Spain said a lot of the students asked why, if the glamorous people were so morally bankrupt, aren't there any jokes? He had a hard time convincing them it wasn't really a satire. I'm not sure, but I think he might have been stumped if they had then asked Then what is it?

[Nawel]

I ended up thinking that maybe I wasn't meant to read this book at this time/age. It's too "profound" for me. For now, I don't see the ingenuity of this kind of books at all.

[David]

If anything Gatsby is a cautionary tale about letting your girlfriend drive drunk.

Did Daisy run over Myrtle intentionally, or was it just serendipity?

Why would Gatsby let her drive in the first place?

[Amy]

Gatsby seemed to be just plain weird--throwing parties where he knew few and didn't participate, his obsession with Daisy who, in my opinion, was a woman of NO substance and a fool, he was so insecure that he never experienced "real living." He resembles F. Scott Fitzgerald immensely-a man who ran from his true self and lived the life of a coward.

[Jack]

I liked the book a bit when I read it for the first time, but i definitely didnt understand the hype surrounding it. There are a ton of metaphors and descriptive details that are hard to understand/ notice the first time through the book unless you spend 5 minutes on each page. When I reread the book I liked it a lot more. If you read it again youll notice more details, pick up on more themes, etc. I find that in a book with so much detail and description I have to read it multiple times before I completely get it

[Jack]

a side note: Lots of the prose in gatsby is only meaningful or interesting if you spend time thinking about it and analyzing it. Otherwise its meaningless mumbo jumbo.

[Amy]

See! I think we are obsessing about Fitzgerald as he precisely desired us to do once he kicked the bucket. Once again, he wrote for posterity and perhaps this discussion ought to cease...

[Judas]

^Don't believe the lies! Fitzgerald couldn't possibly have known that he would grow even more powerful in death if we believed in him more... by believing that we give him more power over us by dismissing him. The paradox gives him power!

[Amy]

The paradox you speak of appears to be in-sync with mine although I'm sick of debating Fitzgerald at this juncture. No one knows that what he or she writes while living will make them "immortal." Enough said. I call it quits on F. Scott and let the world do what they want in this (now seemingly) petty regard.

Moving on,
A

[Amy]

Dear Bill,
You are right-on with your descriptive portrayal of F. Scott in reality AND the Bright Young Things of the 20's. BRAVO! Now I feel more at peace w/this subject matter.
Good day to you, A

[Tom]

I never got it. Loved Faulkner, dug what Hemingway was doing, I just never saw much in the style, characters, or message of the book. The descriptions did nothing for me, Thomas Wolf, Faulkner, Proust, those guys could draw me a picture. None of the characters were interesting or likable, even in any ironic way. As some sort of comment on America, I'd rather go re-read some Henry James.

[Natalie]

I absolutely loved the book. Fitzgerald's style of writing is so magical and the way he puts words together is fantastic. I also disagree when people say that ''not much happens'' in the book.
1) SO MUCH HAPPENS ARE YOU KIDDING?!Death, affairs and parties. What more could you want?
2) You have to remember that it is a very short book. From what I remember, less than 200 pages. So how much do you expect to happen?

[[deleted user]]

Tom,
The writers you mention - Faulkner, Wolfe, Proust, James and Hemingway - are just far better than Fitzgerald. These are writers with music in their prose and gravitas in their soul.

[Amy]

Bravo Tom--very well said!

[Dana]

I liked this book but I absolutely HATED Daisy! My most hated book character!! She was such a coward in the end and never genuinely loved Gatsby. He was chasing a dream that never existed

[Amy]

Agreed. Perhaps she never DID exist.

[Elaine]

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 ..."

The passages you quote are ones I think are written brilliantly. I'd suggest you stick with comic books with characters saying exactly what they mean directly in very, very few words. Had Fitzgerald just said that she was high strung, it would have been boring. Ditto with your other "suggestion." A novel is an art form, with word usage the elements of the art. It is not supposed to be trite, without metaphors and other figures of speech. Hmm. Mickey Spillane might be your cup of tea

[Geoffrey]

Elaine, that was a bit of nastiness coming from you. As you have so strongly put down Aditya, would you at least have included in your last posting the message post number of hers so that we can see what you and she are talking about.
Regardless, you need to pull back.

[Elaine]

Geoffrey wrote: "Elaine, that was a bit of nastiness coming from you. As you have so strongly put down Aditya, would you at least have included in your last posting the message post number of hers so that we can se..."

The message is under the discussion entitled something like "Why I hated The Great Gatsby.--it's at the start of the thread, maybe 5 or 6 down. I have no quarrel with Aditya's not liking the novel. It's not among my favorites. However, she cited passages of brilliantly crafted prose & dismissed them by saying SF should have just said, "he went to the party" (or some such.) It's one thing to hate a novel. It's quite another to fancy yourself a reader and not to have the faintest glimmering of what constitutes artistic prose. My message is 412. Read Aditya's and then tell me I was nasty. Her "corrections" of his prose WERE on the level of comic books and Mickey Spillane, and that's what I said she should stick to. Why should she have to suffer though what she considers an excess of verbosity when there are books in which the author tells the story in plain prose, using short sentences and no esoteric words or imagery?

I have a sharp tongue at times, but I am never gratuitously nasty. I merely responded to the words she used, asking, "Why couldn't he have just said..." (or the like) I would not recommend Pynchon to her, nor Dostoevsky nor St. Aubyn....

[Elaine]

Oh, and Geoffrey, I would never go online and call someone "nasty" without knowing what the person is responding to. That's nasty.

[Aaditya]

@ Elaine - I like Dostoevsky's works a lot. Crime and Punishment is my favorite book. I found it deep and brilliant. I also like 'In search of lost time' by Marcel Proust. I totally get what he says. And you said comic books. Don't rate comic books as something low ever again, please. Alan Moore revolutionized the status of comic books.

And then, one thing that bothers me a lot. I find in Goodreads many people believe Aditya is a she. How did you come to that conclusion? Did you read a lot of Russian works which have got many female names ending with 'a' (Alyona, Avdotya etc)?

[[deleted user]]

Aditya, In my opinion, (whatever your gender), if you're reading Dostoevsky and Proust, you're in better company than with Fitzgerald. I'm not going to split hairs over passages, Fitzgerald is a mere stylist compared to Dostoevsky and Proust who are far far greater writers. (BTW, Crime and Punishment is one my favorites as well and Proust is simply a literary feast I could never grow tired of.) I'd say, stick with your instincts.

[Geoffrey]

--[He] was standing with his hands in his pockets regarding the silver pepper of the stars.--

To tell you the truth, this sentence strikes me as being overly literary and pretentious. Come on, "the silver pepper of the stars". That`s nothing more than bad imagery.

"Unlike Gatsby and Tom Buchanan..." is a brilliant line. I do agree with Ayidta in her criticisms with the exception of the above.

[Geoffrey]

--[He] was standing with his hands in his pockets regarding the silver pepper of the stars.--

To tell you the truth, this sentence strikes me as being overly literary and pretentious. Come on, "the silver pepper of the stars". That`s nothing more than bad imagery.

"Unlike Gatsby and Tom Buchanan..." is a brilliant line. I do agree with Adita on the whole in her criticisms with the exception of the above and the line about her high strung nature. I got them one. Aditya did not. Big deal.

No, Elaine, your comments were nasty whether merited or not. Mine were not.

As for comic books if I were you I would open my mind and horizons some of the best, some of which are better than 90% of the novels spewed out there in the marketplace. I cite Art Spiegelman`s MAUS for one.

And Elaine, why o why did you wait for more than 400 postings before you directed criticism of Aditya?

[Gappy]

The first time I read 'The Great Gatsby', I found myself thinking about reasons to like this book, too. Unfortunately, they were only few reasons to describe that I really liked 'The Great Gatsby' after I finished reading it. I didn't mean that Fitzgerald is not a good writer. He is, indeed. But I think the way he described the views and surroundings in the book wasn't strong enough to get some attentions from the readers. The things he wanted to tell the readers were much better, in my opinion.

I also found this problem during reading 'Tender Is A Night' but this one was easier to understand if you compare this with 'The Great Gatsby'. Maybe it's because of 'Tender Is The Night' is based on a true story of the Fitzgeralds. It might be easier for the readers to understand and relate to the story.

[Robert]

Elaine wrote: "I'd suggest you stick with comic books with characters saying exactly what they mean directly in very, very few words. Had Fitzgerald just said that she was high strung, it would have been boring. Ditto with your other "suggestion." A novel is an art form, with word usage the elements of the art. It is not supposed to be trite, without metaphors and other figures of speech. Hmm. Mickey Spillane might be your cup of tea ..."

It is possible to have reading tastes that encompass an appreciation for Fitzgerald and Spillane, Dostoyevsky and comic books, Umberto Eco and Stephen King, etc etc.

While I agree that style is one of the things that makes Gatsby stand out, you don't have to go casting aspersions at Spillane and comic books to prove your point.

[Robert]

Geoffrey wrote: "--[He] was standing with his hands in his pockets regarding the silver pepper of the stars.--

To tell you the truth, this sentence strikes me as being overly literary and pretentious..."

I've read some purple prose in my time (both brilliantly florid and thuddingly overwrought), but this simple metaphor seems neither overly literary nor pretentious. Unless you consider all metaphors overly literary and pretentious. Heck, I know some people who prefer their prose with minimal to no adverbs or adjectives, so those stars better not even twinkle while he regards them. ;-)

Still, to each their own.