Actually, Jay Gatsby is a Jew passing as a Christian (his real name being Jacob Gatz). But that was dangerous as a black passing for white in those days.
Fitzgerald's novels all tend to emphasize mood and atmosphere over plot and characters. But his short stories, a field in which he was extremely prolific, are a bit more controlled and allow plot and characters to come to the fore (he had less time and room to move here); they also demonstrate the skills that would end up with him going to Hollywood to write scripts- a movie-like capture of events. Even when he was writing a wild and weird fantasy like "The Diamond As Big As The Ritz", he gave it an undertone of believable reality.
I’m commenting without even reading the article. Take this as a comment on just the headline. I’ll read the article and follow up. Maybe I will regret the comment. Anyway, here goes:
“Aesthetically overrated, psychologically vacant, and morally complacent”.
But what we are talking about is a great American novel that defines the roaring twenties. Gatsby isn’t perfection, it is a time capsule. The above quote, if it defines Gatsby, does so only because it also defines the twenties themselves.
“Aesthetically overrated, psychologically vacant, and morally complacent”.
Yes! Could there be any better summary of the 1920s?
I read Gatsby in high school nearly forty years ago, and it did not make much of an impression on me then. (Unlike The Fountainhead, which blew me away. Typical, I know.) I have toyed with rereading it, especially this month with all of the hype, but I think I'll pass now. There are too many books and not enough time, as the saying goes.
Okay, I brought myself back to read some more, mostly because I wanted to hear what you had to say.
I’m halfway through “another view” and I cannot help but think that some of these people you reference are caricatures of Gatsby itself.
Things like “anticipated Trump”. No, no, no, they’ve got it backwards. It’s like they have been told Gatsby is a great American novel, and then they tried to search for reasons why. But all they did was end up being characters at one of Gatsby’s parties, standing around sipping champagne while completely missing the gravity, despair, and meaning that is circling all around them.
It’s not that Fitzgerald anticipated Trump. It’s that he saw how shallow these people were, and yet how deep Gatsby (the character) really was.
I think whether you like it or not is irrelevant. The fact that we're still talking about it, one hundred years later, is reason enough to keep talking about it. The history of literature, I think, is less a story of the greatest works of all time and more a story of the greatest works we kept talking about. Which may or may not make them great. But the point is that a culture continues to talk about its stories, bringing new critiques and illuminations as a result of the ongoing conversation.
I just reread Gatsby, and I will quote the last line in my post tomorrow at TroyAThompsonMD@gmail.com
My father loved Gatsby. He taught high school English, and he was lured toward wealth and wealthy people.
I never appreciated the book as a teenager—and I was a sharp student. Then I aged and tried writing novels myself.
Yes the characters are thin. But the theme is the thinness of certain pursuits.
The desperate irony I see is Fitzgerald writing Gatsby. Both men pursued their great dreams and seemed to fall short.
Now I’m writing, and my heroes and heroines plunge after their desires. I feel the hunger of Gatsby and Fitzgerald. Am I pursuing a worthy dream, or beating on, back against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past?
A mindless litttle paint-by-number smartphone app called HappyColor™ just added a package of Gatsby illustrations in a vaguely beaux arts style. HappyColor would never do this with, say, Tender is the Night" (1934), Fitzgerald's last complete book whose central monstrosity doesn't lend itself to filmy gowns and dahlias. I read Fitzgerald in a brainy Modern American Lit course in college that didn't bother with Gatsby.
Most people of a certain age will remember the fatuous Gatsby with Robert Redford and Mia Farrow in 1974, with cinematography so blurry it induced a trip to the optometrist. DuPont even honored this great work of literature and filmmaking with a stunning tribute to summer flannels: "In the tradition of "The Great Gatsby" - TEFLON GOES CLASSIC WHITE (1974)."
Gatsby is mythic. You don't expect deep introversion from a mythic character -- their characters are defined by their deeds.
As for 'Aesthetically Overrated, Psychologically Vacant, and Morally Complacent’ let's take them one at a time:
Aesthetically Overrated: just a sneer. No content to address there.
Psychologically Vacant: refer to my first paragraph
Morally Complacent: she wants more GenZ presentism and more condemnation of history based on her "values."
If Hemingway called it a very fine book AT THE TIME when he knew Fitzgerald personally and was extremely critical of almost all art, that's more than good enough for me.
To read as unimaginatively as these haters do is to not read at all. This is my 4th read of the novel, this one for a book club. How careful Fitzgerald is with the metaphors and the small details and how they echo across the novel, the car and the telephone and the valley of ashes. Every scene gleams, every encounter, every character. Gatsby may be the Tycoon but he takes on complete responsibility for love. Complete responsibility. He takes the blame for Daisy's carelessness and of the class to which she thinks she now belongs.
Actually, Jay Gatsby is a Jew passing as a Christian (his real name being Jacob Gatz). But that was dangerous as a black passing for white in those days.
Fitzgerald's novels all tend to emphasize mood and atmosphere over plot and characters. But his short stories, a field in which he was extremely prolific, are a bit more controlled and allow plot and characters to come to the fore (he had less time and room to move here); they also demonstrate the skills that would end up with him going to Hollywood to write scripts- a movie-like capture of events. Even when he was writing a wild and weird fantasy like "The Diamond As Big As The Ritz", he gave it an undertone of believable reality.
I’m commenting without even reading the article. Take this as a comment on just the headline. I’ll read the article and follow up. Maybe I will regret the comment. Anyway, here goes:
“Aesthetically overrated, psychologically vacant, and morally complacent”.
But what we are talking about is a great American novel that defines the roaring twenties. Gatsby isn’t perfection, it is a time capsule. The above quote, if it defines Gatsby, does so only because it also defines the twenties themselves.
“Aesthetically overrated, psychologically vacant, and morally complacent”.
Yes! Could there be any better summary of the 1920s?
Let’s dive in to the article and find out.
I also deconstructed that phrase.
I read Gatsby in high school nearly forty years ago, and it did not make much of an impression on me then. (Unlike The Fountainhead, which blew me away. Typical, I know.) I have toyed with rereading it, especially this month with all of the hype, but I think I'll pass now. There are too many books and not enough time, as the saying goes.
Okay, I brought myself back to read some more, mostly because I wanted to hear what you had to say.
I’m halfway through “another view” and I cannot help but think that some of these people you reference are caricatures of Gatsby itself.
Things like “anticipated Trump”. No, no, no, they’ve got it backwards. It’s like they have been told Gatsby is a great American novel, and then they tried to search for reasons why. But all they did was end up being characters at one of Gatsby’s parties, standing around sipping champagne while completely missing the gravity, despair, and meaning that is circling all around them.
It’s not that Fitzgerald anticipated Trump. It’s that he saw how shallow these people were, and yet how deep Gatsby (the character) really was.
I think whether you like it or not is irrelevant. The fact that we're still talking about it, one hundred years later, is reason enough to keep talking about it. The history of literature, I think, is less a story of the greatest works of all time and more a story of the greatest works we kept talking about. Which may or may not make them great. But the point is that a culture continues to talk about its stories, bringing new critiques and illuminations as a result of the ongoing conversation.
I agree with the critics. After reading Gatsby, I thought "this was a waste of time." I was not inspired by the story or the writing.
I tend to think of myself as Aesthetically Overrated, Psychologically Vacant, and Morally Complacent. Perhaps that's why I like the book.
(Another good piece, Joel; thank you.)
I just reread Gatsby, and I will quote the last line in my post tomorrow at TroyAThompsonMD@gmail.com
My father loved Gatsby. He taught high school English, and he was lured toward wealth and wealthy people.
I never appreciated the book as a teenager—and I was a sharp student. Then I aged and tried writing novels myself.
Yes the characters are thin. But the theme is the thinness of certain pursuits.
The desperate irony I see is Fitzgerald writing Gatsby. Both men pursued their great dreams and seemed to fall short.
Now I’m writing, and my heroes and heroines plunge after their desires. I feel the hunger of Gatsby and Fitzgerald. Am I pursuing a worthy dream, or beating on, back against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past?
I dunno. I've made two attempts to read it, but I just can't seem to get into it.
Maybe Gatsby requires a second read by nearly everyone.....did for me...high school/thirties/fifties
now 95, still think it''s significant
"or high-school students grateful one of their assigned readings is so short" 😂
A mindless litttle paint-by-number smartphone app called HappyColor™ just added a package of Gatsby illustrations in a vaguely beaux arts style. HappyColor would never do this with, say, Tender is the Night" (1934), Fitzgerald's last complete book whose central monstrosity doesn't lend itself to filmy gowns and dahlias. I read Fitzgerald in a brainy Modern American Lit course in college that didn't bother with Gatsby.
Most people of a certain age will remember the fatuous Gatsby with Robert Redford and Mia Farrow in 1974, with cinematography so blurry it induced a trip to the optometrist. DuPont even honored this great work of literature and filmmaking with a stunning tribute to summer flannels: "In the tradition of "The Great Gatsby" - TEFLON GOES CLASSIC WHITE (1974)."
As Snoopy would opine, bleagh.
Gatsby is mythic. You don't expect deep introversion from a mythic character -- their characters are defined by their deeds.
As for 'Aesthetically Overrated, Psychologically Vacant, and Morally Complacent’ let's take them one at a time:
Aesthetically Overrated: just a sneer. No content to address there.
Psychologically Vacant: refer to my first paragraph
Morally Complacent: she wants more GenZ presentism and more condemnation of history based on her "values."
If Hemingway called it a very fine book AT THE TIME when he knew Fitzgerald personally and was extremely critical of almost all art, that's more than good enough for me.
Great essay, Joel. I forwarded it to my school's AP English teacher, whose students are currently reading Gatsby.
To read as unimaginatively as these haters do is to not read at all. This is my 4th read of the novel, this one for a book club. How careful Fitzgerald is with the metaphors and the small details and how they echo across the novel, the car and the telephone and the valley of ashes. Every scene gleams, every encounter, every character. Gatsby may be the Tycoon but he takes on complete responsibility for love. Complete responsibility. He takes the blame for Daisy's carelessness and of the class to which she thinks she now belongs.
Instead of continuing on past that point, in my drunken stupor I am having flashbacks of my high school English class.
Teacher: “well, we can see that Mark has read the book. Has anyone else read the book?”
Silence from the class.
Teacher: “no? Okay, can we hear from someone who hasn’t read the book? Will you tell me why you didn’t bother to read it?”
C student: “it was too stupid to bother to read.”
Teacher: “yes, well, that may be a reflection on you. Gatsby is one of the great American novels, and it defines the 1920s. Class dismissed.”