Catching up on Classics (and lots more!) discussion

How do we not have a spoiler thread for this book? Let us know what you think.

“There must have been moments even that afternoon when Daisy tumbled short of his dreams -- not through her own fault, but because of the colossal vitality of his illusion. It had gone beyond her, beyond everything. He had thrown himself into it with a creative passion, adding to it all the time, decking it out with every bright feather that drifted his way. No amount of fire or freshness can challenge what a man will store up in his ghostly heart.”
― F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby

Gatsby loved so hard he could not see fault. When his death came he was at last happy.

What was up with making Nick a chronic alcoholic in an asylum in the Leonardo movie? Where did that come from?

Preferred the movie to the book, I'm afraid. I found the film version so much more accessible, and the costumes were marvellous!

I found the book rather lacklustre. I understand the points it makes about society and money and so on, but...I duno. It just didn't speak to me I guess. The movie felt a little hollow too, I thought..
But I do love that quote at the beginning:

“Whenever you feel like criticizing any one...just remember that all the people in this world haven't had the advantages that you've had.”

And the sentiment about the green light is relatable and beautiful in a subtle way.

I just finished this a few days ago, it's one that I've been putting off for a looong time as I've seen both movie versions and was fairly put to sleep by them and... well... the book wasn't any better.

First off I find the characters completely unrealistic, in particular Nick, as if they're just marionettes, there to serve the author's purpose. They're not just shallow, they're one-facetted images that reflect how little Fitzgerald was able to understand other people.

Secondly, it's as if Fizzy tries too hard to put meaning into every single sentence, I feel he completely fails, exactly because he tries so hard. As if he's mimicking the greats and comes up with all sorts of ridiculous expressions and symbolism that are just so obvious as to fall flat on their face.

And as a minor point, the story simply bores me. The only time I was remotely interested was in the last chapter and that was only because of Gatsby's father.

This is just my opinion of course, I know most people disagree with me.

Aleta wrote: "I just finished this a few days ago, it's one that I've been putting off for a looong time as I've seen both movie versions and was fairly put to sleep by them and... well... the book wasn't any be..."

I feel similarly, Aleta. But your 'minor point' ("the story simply bores me") was a main one for me and it was the reason I only gave it 2 stars.
I didn't think the characters were necessarily unrealistic so much as they were caricature-ish, which didn't actually bother me much. I found it a bit like how characters in fairytales are described flatly but hyperbolic. However, it did make it difficult to care about them or their stories/fates.. And, now that I think about it, the rich/OTT language did feel a little at odds with the flat characters (though I didn't dislike the writing style).

I adore this book! Was not bored for a moment, unlike when reading a lot of classics. I loved the "over-the-top" ness of the language and everything else.

The movie was on over Xmas and I watched it for the second time, but I really don't care for it very much. I didn't have a real complaint with it, just that it lacked the life of the book for me.

This books has been on my TBR list for a long time. And now it was the first book of this year and of my classic challenge.
I had really high hopes for it, since I have heard so much about it...maybe my hopes were just little too high.
I just didn´t enjoy it that much. It was an OK read I guess but I didn´t like the characters. They were not likable at all, there were couple times I thought there was some hope but it died with the decisions the people made. And I didn´t understand why it was alright to everybody that Tom had relationships outside marriage. All the female characters seemed vapid or annoying.

Desertorum wrote: "This books has been on my TBR list for a long time. And now it was the first book of this year and of my classic challenge.
I had really high hopes for it, since I have heard so much about it...may..."

I don't think the characters needed to be likeable for a book to be good/enjoyable. In fact, I'd say there was a point to be made in the fact that they weren't. As for everyone ignoring Tom's infidelity, it seemed to be a point about his privilege as a young white man with ridiculous wealth.

I actually liked Gatsby. Granted the writing was a little pretentious, but I try and except different writing styles as part of the book. Doesn’t always work, I had a hard time with Melville’s Moby-Dick. I agree with you about the characters. Again I think Fitzgerald planned on people not liking the characters, except for Nick and the mechanic (George?). Both being working class, though one was white collar and the other was blue collar. The wealthy well to do characters he went out of his way to portray in an immoral light.

I liked the idea of the book (to write a kind of parody on society) and its message, but struggled with the actual writing. Somehow the style was not for me...

I so could not believe Daisy to go back to normal just like that after Gatsby's death.

Nicole wrote: "Aleta wrote: "I just finished this a few days ago, it's one that I've been putting off for a looong time as I've seen both movie versions and was fairly put to sleep by them and... well... the book..."

"Caricature-ish" is a good word for it. They did fell like that, and while you expect it in fairy tales, I don't think it fits in a book such as Gatsby. And Nick himself wasn't even that but rather a mere string of observations put together.

The fact that the story was boring, I wrote as a minor point, mostly to make it clear that the one star isn't because I wanted to be entertained, but rather because of actual literary critique. I've found that people can otherwise be extremely protective of well-loved books like this :)

Nicole: you are right, they don´t need to be likeable. For me it makes it easier to get into the book through some of the characters (I usually read with great emotion). But in this one I just could´t. And since it´s fiction and a story it should somehow entertain or make you feel something, maybe? Not sure if that´s the right way to say it. But for me this just didn´t make anything. There wasn´t this wow effect or any emotion really…And still about the characters, even if I don´t like them there usually is something that even interests me. They make me angry/sad/something so I can think why that is. But this time I just didn´t actually even care that much.

The reactions here seem to mirror the reactions of the reading public when the book came out which was fairly unfavorable. Fitzgerald died 15 years later believing his work to be a failure.

That is sad! I don´t think that anything that causes this much discussion is a failure. It´s great to read all these different angles about it.

It wasn't really read widely and discussed until after WWII and he died in 1940, so he didn't get to see how important his novel became as an indictment of the excesses of the Jazz Age. Truly his life was pretty sad with the mental illness of his wife and his alcoholism.

Now I almost feel bad, not liking the book more ;) Maybe I liked it a little after all :D

I didn't really like it either. I will be reading Tender is the Night this month with another group, and I hope I like it better.

I just completed this book approximately an hour ago. I found it to be boring. Thank heavens it is a short read.

ALETA: I really love your description of Nick as "a mere string of observations put together" haha very appropriate. And I know what you mean re: wanting not to step on any toes by expressing less than favourable opinions of much-loved books.. The one book I'm probably guilty of being like that with is Brave New World...hah

DESERTORUM: I agree with you: characters should at least be interesting even if they are unlikeable....or maybe be tools to move forward an interesting plot. But in this case, the plot was (like it seems for many classical books) more a device to reveal things about the characters (or the phenomenon of those characters I guess..?) and I wasn't fussed about any of them one way or the other either...

LAURIE: Aaaw...well, although I think it's sad that the author of such a significant piece that has affected so many people would consider himself a failure, I can't bring myself to feel differently about the book..hah... I don't feel like it's a terrible piece at all...but as a piece of literature, I just found it OK. So I'd absolutely give him an A for effort! That's probably a terrible consolation prize...but I feel there are probably different books that would tackle the same topics and do for me what Gatsby does for its fans...

Hm, I'm pretty surprised this book got such bad reviews, it seems no one really liked it. Well, I read it some time ago (maybe 2-3 years) after seeing (and liking!) the movie (the one with Robert Redford and that guy from Law & Order), so I knew the plot, but I still remember enjoying it. I don't remember the details though, maybe I should reread it but there are simply too many good books I haven't read, and too little time for re-reading anything. Anyway, I also read This Side of Paradise and I liked it even more than Gatsby. Last year I started reading Tender Is the Night but never finished it - it was either boring or I wasn't in the right mood for it, so I returned it to the library.

Stipe, it's true that Gatsby didn't agree with me, but you enthusiasm for F. Scott's other work has put me in mind to try something else he has written.

Just because one title didn't work for me, I don't put an author on my "bad list" yet.

This book has a special place for me. I read it in my twenties and it was the first book I'd read for years, the first proper classic outside of school. I loved it and it re-introduced me to reading, especially classics. However, I have never re-read it, as I suspect that I wouldn't like it quite so much. I have seen the old and new film versions and liked them both in different ways.

Pink wrote: "This book has a special place for me. I read it in my twenties and it was the first book I'd read for years, the first proper classic outside of school. I loved it and it re-introduced me to readin..."

It is one of my favorite books, I re-read it every three years, and love it more with each reading, This last time I paid more attention to Nick's character, and wrote a review based on this, if you would like to read it, please do!

Blueberry wrote: "What was up with making Nick a chronic alcoholic in an asylum in the Leonardo movie? Where did that come from?"

In the book there was a reference that Nick was writing it all down, a hint at a book.

Nicole wrote: "ALETA: I really love your description of Nick as "a mere string of observations put together" haha very appropriate. And I know what you mean re: wanting not to step on any toes by expressing less ..."

I love reading the classics, but it seems that with American classics I tend to be quite contrary to the general consensus lol. Brave New World I did like though, but more due to the "prophetic" nature of it, which always awes me in old sci-if, than to actually enjoying the story.

@Stipe, I still plan on reading at least one of his other works. I often give authors like this more than a few chances. I've read four Twain classics although I only really cared for one of them. I did already read another Fitzgerald though, "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button", and that was a one star for me as well.

I haven't seen the movie. When I like a book, sometimes it isn't worth it for me to watch the movie, as I'll never enjoy it. Did anybody see the movie and what did you think about it?

I have never seen any of the film adaptations, and this is the first time I've read the book. At first I was skeptical - I wondered if this was going to be like The Sun Also Rises (which to me felt like an endless litany of alcoholic beverages and party locales). But by the end, I loved this book!

Apparently some of you thought the writing style was OTT, but I thought it was rich and beautiful. Some of the characters were very shallow and vapid, but I think that was the point. And the end of Gatsby's story was so horribly tragic. He seemed to have constructed this whole mythology around Daisy and his love for her in his mind, so that even the idea that she had ever loved her husband could not be tolerated. Then after the accident, she just ran away to let him take the fall for it. The funeral scenes and the scenes with his father were so horribly sad.

Christine wrote: "I have never seen any of the film adaptations, and this is the first time I've read the book. At first I was skeptical - I wondered if this was going to be like The Sun Also Rises (whi..."

You got it, I also thought the ending was horribly sad- one of my favorite books!

Personally, I thought this was a fantastic book. The hollowness that echoes throughout the three-dimensional characters only fills them and paints them into their roles as spoiled, rich folks. The ricochet of the beautiful prose off of the intensely dark, dramatic plot was fantastic as well. I really love Fitzgerald, and thought he did a fantastic job in Gatsby.

Allison wrote: "Personally, I thought this was a fantastic book. The hollowness that echoes throughout the three-dimensional characters only fills them and paints them into their roles as spoiled, rich folks. The ..."

You should write a review and say what you said above, perfect.

It's really interesting to see how one person can be profoundly affected by something that doesn't move another person at all.

Maaybe I'll try rereading it a few years from now and see if my opinion changes..

I read this book when I was in high school (many years ago) and found it kind of boring but read it again now. I liked it better this time around. I think it really spoke about the emptiness of the pursuit of wealth and material things. Even though Gatsby was surrounded by so many people during his life, when he died he was alone.

Allison wrote: "Personally, I thought this was a fantastic book. The hollowness that echoes throughout the three-dimensional characters only fills them and paints them into their roles as spoiled, rich folks. The ..."

I agree completely Allison and Christine!

A fantastic book, and the final pages are perhaps one of the loveliest descriptions of human striving I've ever read. I liked it when I read it the first time, and I liked it even more when I read it recently.

Did anyone think that there was something wrong with the narrator? I don't think that he was very bright.

I thought that he was nuts for agreeing to get in between Gatsby and Daisy by setting up their "meeting."

Also, I thought that he was crazy for pursuing a closer acquaintance (dating) with the Golfer (I've forgotten her name.) when he pointed out the "problems" with her character.

What does all of this say about the narrator?

Andrea (Catsos Person) wrote: "Did anyone think that there was something wrong with the narrator? I don't think that he was very bright.

I thought that he was nuts for agreeing to get in between Gatsby and Daisy by setting up ..."

It says Nick was an unreliable narrator- I wrote a review from Nick's point of view- I like your review of Lolita, it was intelligent and thoughtful.

Why thank Karen! I don't consider myself to be a strong reviewer or much of a writer, but I consider my review of Lolita to be my best effort.

I'll have to read you review of this book.

If Nick is an unreliable narrator, this casts him in a different light.

Andrea (Catsos Person) wrote: "Did anyone think that there was something wrong with the narrator? I don't think that he was very bright.

I thought that he was nuts for agreeing to get in between Gatsby and Daisy by setting up ..."

I think he was very passive and too willing to play the role expected by his era. Character flaws, absolutely, but nothing to do with level of intelligence.

Nick strikes me as remarkably perceptive. He just rarely follows through with any concerted action. That's a flaw that many in his circle share.

What about Nick's narration is unreliable? I didn't notice anywhere that he lied or distorted the facts much. In fact, he seems fairly clear-headed to me. His actions (or lack thereof) might be ill advised, but his narration doesn't seem amiss.

Are there particular points in the story where you feel he's lying?

There were some odd things that made me think he was unreliable. The only one that's coming to mind is when he said Mrs. Wilson walked "through" her husband to get to Tom.

Sarah, I think maybe he meant that in a metaphorical way .. basically that she had to trample her husband's welfare to be with Tom .. also maybe that her husband was a weak and insubstantial man, which he was. Do you remember which chapter that was in?

I think maybe I know what you're getting at though - Nick does have a tendency to describe things in lyrical, metaphorical, and sometimes colorfully vernacular ways, such as the gorgeous extended metaphor on the last couple pages of the novel. I don't know if that makes him unreliable exactly, but it does perhaps set him apart. Perhaps it could also make the narrative feel odd.

It does work in a metaphorical way but he's actually describing and objective action. This makes it look like his perceptions aren't entirely in keeping with what is really happening. I think this is what makes him an unreliable narrator. I tend to get somewhat frustrated with unreliable narrators because I want facts. What "really" happened. Yes, I know it's fiction. Occasionally though, an unreliable narrator really adds to the work, as I think it did here. His descriptions and slightly cockeyed views made it far more interesting. Even the example I gave of her walking through her husband to get to Tom was almost hallucinatorily vivid for me. Another example of the unreliable part might be the way he was alternately appalled by Gatsby but then he would be his stoutest defender and only ally, or he'd be singing his praises.

I think one of the most perfect examples I've seen of an unreliable narrator was Hermann Koch's The Dinner.

It was very early in the book when Tom took Nick to meet "his girl" that this scene happened. I think I noticed three oddities and one was before this.

Does anybody else wonder how in the hell these people kept anything from their spouses? or society? They were unbelievably indiscreet.

Desertorum, how would your perception of the novel have changed if one of the characters was likeable?

Also for Desertorum, I felt that Tom's acceptable involvement outside of marriage was a sign of hypocrisy since he freaked over Daisy's. I thought that was more about him personally since nobody else seemed to care about affairs.

Sorry about the number of posts but did anyone else think it was weird when that huge scene is going on in the hotel room and Nick's like "Ohh, today's my birthday".

Sarah, I agree that Nick's metaphorical way of speaking makes things more vivid .. and more interesting to read too! That's one of the things I think I like most about The Great Gatsby. Your description too, "hallucinatorily vivid," is wonderful; there's truth to that! I'm not sure if these quirks of language & expression add up to an unreliable narrator for me, but I understand what you mean.

Sarah wrote: "Sorry about the number of posts but did anyone else think it was weird when that huge scene is going on in the hotel room and Nick's like "Ohh, today's my birthday"."

They were all getting a bit too drunk :)

Sarah: a good question. I have been thinking about this "liking the characters" business...and it´s a hard one. Like I mentioned (somewhere above) that it is not always a must, that I like them. But I need to feel something (angry/sad/even frustrated). And in this case, I felt everything was just shallow (and somebody pointed out that it was probably the point) and I didn´t feel that much at all. Like you said that you are a sentimental reader (right?), I´m the same. I want to be hooked in the book in emotional level. With this book it didn´t happen. Maybe it is about expectations. I was expecting something great or profound idea about this book, a reason why it is a classic. Even something tragic. And it was tragic of course but not in unexpected way and also I thought that they got what they expected. So I wasn´t sad about it. There wasn´t great Gatsby, just a person who is not honest to others or himself. And Nick just needed to be there, because there had to be somebody to tell the story (so boneless guy!).
I´m rambling! Sorry!
And yes, Tom was hypocrite for sure. Maybe all this was a game played by Tom and Daisy. They wanted something to spice up their life and all the others were just means to an end?

I felt quite a bit for Gatsby's father Desertorum. I thought the part when he spoke with Nick after Gatsby's death was extremely touching.