The Great Gatsby
question
Do you think Gatsby was telling Nick the truth about Daisy being the one behind the wheel?
Em
(last edited
Jul 14, 2012 04:51PM
)
Jul 14, 2012 04:49PM
I think he was, and I think Nick believes he was, but since he is a proven "con" man, I think it is fascinating that I automatically had more trust in Gatsby's version than Daisy's. Cleverly done, Fitzgerald.
reply
flag
Yes, because it exemplifies his obsession with Daisy and the absurd lengths he goes to in protecting her, in being an unnecessary "knight in shining armor" to her. Perhaps his relating the story to Nick was to paint himself as an honorable partner to Daisy in his own eyes. The reason I think it was Daisy behind the wheel is that she was less accustomed to driving, especially under the influence of alcohol, and more likely to have hit a pedestrian than someone who drove more often. Although, to be fair, Gatsby did not drink often either. The other reason I read it as Daisy having been behind the wheel is that quote near the end about Daisy and Tom smashing things up and leaving others to clean up. Also, it's clever irony that Daisy accidentally kills Tom's lover. Brilliant observation though! Well done Fitzgerald! And well done Em! Wow! You have given me a lot to think about!
of course Daisy was behind the wheel. If Gatsby would have been driving the car, he would have stopped and helped the lady. He wanted desperatly to be loved by Daisy, he needed her approval and that would have been a perfect scenario for that!
That's the entire point of the novel. Tom and Daisy are careless people. They live lives with carnage in their wake, but their money allows them to sail on. It's not hard to find these people. They're all around us.
Gatsby throws parties, and opens his doors to the world, and they come, live riotously, then go away gossiping about him. Gatsby was an honest to goodness war hero, and a fellow who had made his own way in the world. He was not a "con-man". His fault was his love for Daisy, and whose fault is that?
Gatsby throws parties, and opens his doors to the world, and they come, live riotously, then go away gossiping about him. Gatsby was an honest to goodness war hero, and a fellow who had made his own way in the world. He was not a "con-man". His fault was his love for Daisy, and whose fault is that?
Interesting prompt; it never occurred to me that she wasn't. I agree with Cynthia's insight: He remained Daisy's gallant knight to the end.
And Daisy's carelessness ties into the picture painted throughout the novel of an irresponsible, self-indulgent leisure class. Remember the drunk fellow at one of Gatsby's parties who drove his car into a ditch ("But the steering wheel's off!" they told him.), and Jordan almost hitting a man, then telling Nick she relies on other drivers to be careful. And as Cynthia suggests, Gatsby remained aloof from the drunken carousers at his parties. Gatsby is, among other things, a competent person, and I would think him a competent and responsible driver.
Remember, Nick tells him at the end, "You're better than any of them." (not verbatim, I know).
What a book!
And Daisy's carelessness ties into the picture painted throughout the novel of an irresponsible, self-indulgent leisure class. Remember the drunk fellow at one of Gatsby's parties who drove his car into a ditch ("But the steering wheel's off!" they told him.), and Jordan almost hitting a man, then telling Nick she relies on other drivers to be careful. And as Cynthia suggests, Gatsby remained aloof from the drunken carousers at his parties. Gatsby is, among other things, a competent person, and I would think him a competent and responsible driver.
Remember, Nick tells him at the end, "You're better than any of them." (not verbatim, I know).
What a book!
I think it's a central element of the story that Daisy was behind the wheel when the accident occurred. At first Gatsby covers up for her, but when it comes out, he is resigned and thinks he can trust Nick with the truth, for surely they both love Daisy. Ironies abound in this scenario. She has killed her husband's lover and Wilson kills Gatsby, not Daisy, sure it was Gatsby that killed his wife. Daisy becomes almost poisonous in her 'carelessness', her voice typically 'full of money'.
Daisy and Tom, both deprived off their love cause of this very accident. I never felt like Gatsby was telling lie about Daisy being at the wheels. Thats where the apex start. Gatsby owns Daisy's action just to protect her and she abandons her so easily.
Was it so much money or social position? After all Gatsby was filthy rich to have bought a mansion in New York`s poshest neighborhood.
I think he's telling the truth. Gracious, I hate that Daisy woman!
Em, you make a really good point about Gatsby seeming so trustworthy even though he is a conman. It means we're almost as taken in by Gatsby as Nick is. Which could even be a red flag to warn us that Gatsby isn't telling the truth. If he had, by pure accident, hit Myrtle, he would scramble to maintain his perfect person image. It's plausible that he would lie to Nick to still seem good to him, and there is a tenuous reason that Daisy might have hit Myrtle--though that relies on Gatsby and Daisy knowing that she's Tom's mistress. Do you think Daisy recognized Myrtle?
Of course, Daisy was behind the wheel. And I agree with Randy, Gatsby was not a conman. He tells Nick the truth of his entire past, why would lie to him about Daisy being behind the wheel?
Em wrote: "I think he was, and I think Nick believes he was, but since he is a proven "con" man, I think it is fascinating that I automatically had more trust in Gatsby's version than Daisy's. Cleverly done, ..."
A good question, although Daisy never expressed "her version" of who was behind the wheel.
Nevertheless, everything Gatsby says should be open to question because he's lied about so much: his name, his family history, his initial shading of the truth about being "an Oxford man." The owl-eyed man's exposure of Gatsby's library stocked with books that haven't been read was the first clue of a facade.
Gatsby's proclivity for exploitation through deception was revealed in their first meeting when he allowed Daisy to believe he was from a family on financial par with hers in order to seduce her. Nick overlooks this, but should't the reader be more alert?
Remember the scene in Gatsby's new yellow car on the way to town where he's grooming Nick to exploit his family relationship with Daisy? He shows a photo that could have been faked; he says he's from old inherited wealth; he says he had amassed a fortune in jewels traveling about Europe--a fantastic story that raised Nick's suspicion; then he avows he's a war hero and pulls a frat boy trick by flashing a war medal anyone could have bought at a pawn shop and had engraved. When he first met Nick, he pretended that he recognized him as being in his military unit during the war three years earlier--a deliberate and superficial, almost comical, attempt at flattery. Without ever meeting someone, how does a face among thousands stand out so that you remember them 3 years later?
But it works, because yet Nick bubbles over with admiration, enamored perhaps, and never attempts to corroborate anything Gatsby says. How gullible can you be?
Readers should have been tipped-off about Nick's lack of reliability in all things Gatsby by the near worshipful way he describes him from the novels first page. And yet so many of us swallowed Nick's tainted view until the very end.
There was no corroboration of Gatsby's accusation that Daisy was behind the wheel. On the contrary, there's abundant evidence to the contrary. And yet we take the word of a confirmed liar and con artist. Nick did because it supported his biased vision of Gatsby as a hero. What's the reader's excuse?
That Gatsby is obsessed with Daisy as a trophy signifying his acceptance into the cream of society was made clear in the climax hotel scene in sweltering heat, when he looked for a moment "as if he had killed a man."
But Nick, along with many readers, interprets Gatsby's passion as love. In the same scene, Daisy comes out of her trance and rejects Gatsby, earning Nick's sympathy and taking most readers along with him.
But isn't this time time for readers to come out of their trance?
Fitzgerald could have had a witness corroborate a man was driving the death car. He chose not to. With a mere few lines Fitzgerald could have had Daisy thank Gatsby for taking the fall for her. He chose not to. He could have had Tom corroborate that Daisy was driving, but he chose not to. How are we to interpret this deafening silence over such a key issue as who was driving?
Fr an unbiased reader, the missing corroboration infers that Gatsby is lying about Daisy being the driver. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice... .
Why do so many readers accept the word of Gatsby the con man? Because we see him through the vision of Nick, who's been swept away, like Gatsby's legion of party-goers. "He threw dust in your eyes just like he did Daisy," Tom Buchanan said.
If an essential part of Nick's role as narrator is that of a foil, to set readers up for being fooled so that we can wake up at the end to the superficiality and false promises of capitalistic greed, he has succeeded, at least for some of us.
ADDENDUM 6/27/15:
At the top of page 159 in my 180-page paperback edition is the compelling evidence that Gatsby was driving. The grief-stricken George Wilson is speaking to Michaelis around 3AM the morning after Myrtle was killed.
(For context, the citation dialog begins at the bottom of page 158.)
Wilson: '"He murdered her."
"It was an accident, George."
Wilson shook his head. His eyes narrowed and his mouth widened slightly with the ghost of a superior "Hm!"
"I know," he said definitely, "I'm one of these trusting fellows and I don't think any harm to nobody, but when I get to know a thing I know it. It was the man in that car. She ran out to speak to him and he wouldn't stop." [Not SHE wouldn't stop; HE wouldn't stop.]
Michaelis had seen this too, but it hadn't occurred to him that there was any special significance in it. He believed that Mrs. Wilson had been running away from her husband, rather than trying to stop any particular car.'
Here in omniscient third-person mode, first-person narrator Nick is delivering the testimony of two eye-witnesses that a man was driving at the time of the accident. There was no mention of a woman even being present in the car, let alone at the wheel.
We have the word of a confirmed liar and con artist Gatsby, who's trying to polish his hero image with Nick, a bond-salesman whom he has twice tried to recruit into his counterfeit bond scheme, against two reputable eye-witnesses who have nothing to gain by lying.
Two honest men against a confirmed liar and con artist with a motive, to impress Nick so he'll join up with Wolfsheim's bond scam.
It is baffling why so many people insist on believing a greedy lying con artist over two credible eyewitnesses. Do they honestly think that if Fitzgerald had wanted us to believe Daisy was behind the wheel of the death car he would have supplied such strong evidence to the contrary?
Gatsby was behind the wheel of the death car, not Daisy.
A good question, although Daisy never expressed "her version" of who was behind the wheel.
Nevertheless, everything Gatsby says should be open to question because he's lied about so much: his name, his family history, his initial shading of the truth about being "an Oxford man." The owl-eyed man's exposure of Gatsby's library stocked with books that haven't been read was the first clue of a facade.
Gatsby's proclivity for exploitation through deception was revealed in their first meeting when he allowed Daisy to believe he was from a family on financial par with hers in order to seduce her. Nick overlooks this, but should't the reader be more alert?
Remember the scene in Gatsby's new yellow car on the way to town where he's grooming Nick to exploit his family relationship with Daisy? He shows a photo that could have been faked; he says he's from old inherited wealth; he says he had amassed a fortune in jewels traveling about Europe--a fantastic story that raised Nick's suspicion; then he avows he's a war hero and pulls a frat boy trick by flashing a war medal anyone could have bought at a pawn shop and had engraved. When he first met Nick, he pretended that he recognized him as being in his military unit during the war three years earlier--a deliberate and superficial, almost comical, attempt at flattery. Without ever meeting someone, how does a face among thousands stand out so that you remember them 3 years later?
But it works, because yet Nick bubbles over with admiration, enamored perhaps, and never attempts to corroborate anything Gatsby says. How gullible can you be?
Readers should have been tipped-off about Nick's lack of reliability in all things Gatsby by the near worshipful way he describes him from the novels first page. And yet so many of us swallowed Nick's tainted view until the very end.
There was no corroboration of Gatsby's accusation that Daisy was behind the wheel. On the contrary, there's abundant evidence to the contrary. And yet we take the word of a confirmed liar and con artist. Nick did because it supported his biased vision of Gatsby as a hero. What's the reader's excuse?
That Gatsby is obsessed with Daisy as a trophy signifying his acceptance into the cream of society was made clear in the climax hotel scene in sweltering heat, when he looked for a moment "as if he had killed a man."
But Nick, along with many readers, interprets Gatsby's passion as love. In the same scene, Daisy comes out of her trance and rejects Gatsby, earning Nick's sympathy and taking most readers along with him.
But isn't this time time for readers to come out of their trance?
Fitzgerald could have had a witness corroborate a man was driving the death car. He chose not to. With a mere few lines Fitzgerald could have had Daisy thank Gatsby for taking the fall for her. He chose not to. He could have had Tom corroborate that Daisy was driving, but he chose not to. How are we to interpret this deafening silence over such a key issue as who was driving?
Fr an unbiased reader, the missing corroboration infers that Gatsby is lying about Daisy being the driver. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice... .
Why do so many readers accept the word of Gatsby the con man? Because we see him through the vision of Nick, who's been swept away, like Gatsby's legion of party-goers. "He threw dust in your eyes just like he did Daisy," Tom Buchanan said.
If an essential part of Nick's role as narrator is that of a foil, to set readers up for being fooled so that we can wake up at the end to the superficiality and false promises of capitalistic greed, he has succeeded, at least for some of us.
ADDENDUM 6/27/15:
At the top of page 159 in my 180-page paperback edition is the compelling evidence that Gatsby was driving. The grief-stricken George Wilson is speaking to Michaelis around 3AM the morning after Myrtle was killed.
(For context, the citation dialog begins at the bottom of page 158.)
Wilson: '"He murdered her."
"It was an accident, George."
Wilson shook his head. His eyes narrowed and his mouth widened slightly with the ghost of a superior "Hm!"
"I know," he said definitely, "I'm one of these trusting fellows and I don't think any harm to nobody, but when I get to know a thing I know it. It was the man in that car. She ran out to speak to him and he wouldn't stop." [Not SHE wouldn't stop; HE wouldn't stop.]
Michaelis had seen this too, but it hadn't occurred to him that there was any special significance in it. He believed that Mrs. Wilson had been running away from her husband, rather than trying to stop any particular car.'
Here in omniscient third-person mode, first-person narrator Nick is delivering the testimony of two eye-witnesses that a man was driving at the time of the accident. There was no mention of a woman even being present in the car, let alone at the wheel.
We have the word of a confirmed liar and con artist Gatsby, who's trying to polish his hero image with Nick, a bond-salesman whom he has twice tried to recruit into his counterfeit bond scheme, against two reputable eye-witnesses who have nothing to gain by lying.
Two honest men against a confirmed liar and con artist with a motive, to impress Nick so he'll join up with Wolfsheim's bond scam.
It is baffling why so many people insist on believing a greedy lying con artist over two credible eyewitnesses. Do they honestly think that if Fitzgerald had wanted us to believe Daisy was behind the wheel of the death car he would have supplied such strong evidence to the contrary?
Gatsby was behind the wheel of the death car, not Daisy.
deleted member
Jul 27, 2015 08:13PM
0 votes
I never even considered that Gatsby was lying to Nick about Daisy driving. It's a possibility. It isn't even Gatsby who first suggests it was Daisy who was driving. It's Nick and Gatsby agrees. It's also odd that Daisy would ask to drive the car, at least I thought.
But I don't see what Gatsby would get out of the lie. He wasn't going to turn her in and he even tells Nick he's going to take the fall. (Though, he could've of course been lying).
I had the feeling that Daisy told Tom she was driving and Tom got her to agree to put the whole blame on Gatsby. The scene Nick witnesses through the window supports this to me:
Daisy and Tom were sitting opposite each other at the kitchen table, with a plate of cold fried chicken between them, and two bottles of ale. He was talking intently across the table at her, and in his earnestness his hand had fallen upon and covered her own. Once in a while she looked up at him and nodded in agreement.
They weren't happy, and neither of them had touched the chicken or the ale - and yet tbey weren't unhappy either. There was an unmistakable air of natural intimacy about the picture, and anybody would have said that they were conspiring together.
Tom had already said that his mistress meant nothing to him and I can definitely see him getting his revenge on Gatsby by covering up his wife's crime. If the truth came out that Tom was having an affair and Daisy was driving no one would believe it was an accident. Tom would be ruined and image is everything in their world.
But I don't see what Gatsby would get out of the lie. He wasn't going to turn her in and he even tells Nick he's going to take the fall. (Though, he could've of course been lying).
I had the feeling that Daisy told Tom she was driving and Tom got her to agree to put the whole blame on Gatsby. The scene Nick witnesses through the window supports this to me:
Daisy and Tom were sitting opposite each other at the kitchen table, with a plate of cold fried chicken between them, and two bottles of ale. He was talking intently across the table at her, and in his earnestness his hand had fallen upon and covered her own. Once in a while she looked up at him and nodded in agreement.
They weren't happy, and neither of them had touched the chicken or the ale - and yet tbey weren't unhappy either. There was an unmistakable air of natural intimacy about the picture, and anybody would have said that they were conspiring together.
Tom had already said that his mistress meant nothing to him and I can definitely see him getting his revenge on Gatsby by covering up his wife's crime. If the truth came out that Tom was having an affair and Daisy was driving no one would believe it was an accident. Tom would be ruined and image is everything in their world.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
