On Monday, you will receive a transcript from an NPR special on Fitzgerald's Gatsby. Your assignment is to read/listen to the interview and decide one aspect/topic to discuss. Because I would like for everyone to share his/her blog on Wednesday, I'm asking for no more than two students to write about any given topic. Please keep in mind, you can select a topic addressed in the packet as a starting point and add your previous knowledge or expand to the topic by researching additional information. In addition, you can disagree or criticize with the position/topic addressed.
Assignment specifics: Respond to (reflect, agree/disagree with, speculate about...) a topic addressed in your packets . Responses should be 200-250 words and must include specific quotes from the article. In addition, unless you are the first student to respond, you should address a comment made by one of your classmates. (What you choose to address from your classmate does not necessarily need to be directly related to your topic of discussion.) As always, follow the conventions of standard written English. This is an academic assignment, not a Facebook posting...
Due date: (prior to class) Wednesday, September 24, 2014.
*Post your blog in the comment space on this page.
Assignment specifics: Respond to (reflect, agree/disagree with, speculate about...) a topic addressed in your packets . Responses should be 200-250 words and must include specific quotes from the article. In addition, unless you are the first student to respond, you should address a comment made by one of your classmates. (What you choose to address from your classmate does not necessarily need to be directly related to your topic of discussion.) As always, follow the conventions of standard written English. This is an academic assignment, not a Facebook posting...
Due date: (prior to class) Wednesday, September 24, 2014.
*Post your blog in the comment space on this page.
This is where your comments will appear...
ReplyDeleteI think the most interesting aspect of the NPR program on The Great Gatsby was a concept that they mentioned multiple times in the interview, the concept that most intrigued me was the fact that throughout all of Fitzgerald’s life, his novel was never a success. Similar to many other artists, writers, and painters, lots of their most valued work was considered garbage at the time that they were created. The notion that books are more popular after the author dies is sort of similar to something that the ladies said in the first few minutes. Corrigan states that even though she is now obsessed with the novel, she did not like it at first. When reading it in High school, she thought the novel was dry and boring. It is interesting how people charge their opinions on a book, after a certain amount of time has passed. It is similar to how we as a society look at Gatsby. When the novel originally came out, it was extremely unpopular but now after many years, it is considered one of the greatest American classics.
DeleteIt is interesting how both Greg and Chandra mention the time period that Gatsby was written in. At the time, the novel seemed a bit risque so it was unpopular, but now, in a different time with different beliefs and views, Gatsby is considered one of the best. The main point of my blog entry is to comment on the interesting ways that people’s opinions can change over time, whether it is a single person’s views, or the views of an entire society. I think the way Gatsby became popular many years after it was written is similar to an aspect of the novel itself, over a prolonged period of time, Gatsby falls deeply in love with Daisy, more than he ever did when she was his. Gatsby’s love for Daisy is the same as our love for the novel, too late.
It was interesting how the author of this book focused on how Fitzgerald had a definitive tie to the lower class even when he was in the halls of the rich and mighty. I thought it was very interesting how, throughout the novel we see Gatsby trying so desperately to be this thing he isn’t - a rich by birth person, and struggling with his poor roots.
DeleteThe speaker talked about how Fitzgerald came from a poorer house in a high class burgh of Minneapolis and how he never really left behind that feeling of inferiority to his neighbors. The author spoke about how, to his dying day, he always was comparing himself to the works and acts of others. Even in the letter the speaker shared as a powerful quote characterizing his work, he’s seen as being snide towards modern authors “bearing his mark”. The idea that the speaker got across, how he never really felt he was one with the social group he was hanging out with, really was what drove much of the action in Gatsby, and we see that sort of idea and opinion expressed through his “everyman”, Nick.
While he couldn’t of known this was what lay down the road for him when writing gatsby, it’s interesting to me that the novel ends as his life did, with the main character being removed from the life of the east upper class. However, what the speaker made clear, was that Nick left of choice and Fitzgerald did not.
A prominent motif that appears throughout The Great Gatsby is self-transformation. This motif is most notably evident in Gatsby himself. Gatsby’s initial love for Daisy was strong, and through his eyes, maintained its fullness throughout his time serving in the war. However, when he returns, he is stuck between Tom Buchanan and the upper class privilege of old money. Gatsby was both optimistic, and eagerly driven to win back the love of Daisy. His attempt to win her back was through materialistic objects and the high life, which ultimately led to him committing illegal affairs such as bootlegging. Proceeding, the reader can see that he has accumulated enough wealth to obtain a mansion, a shimmering car, and able to throw extravagant parties. But nonetheless, something still didn’t fit. As much as Gatsby tried to become old money, the fact was that he is new money, and thus cannot compete with Tom. As Maureen Corrigan describes Gatsby in the NPR interview, “Someone who’s pretending to be something that he’s not. We’re fascinated with the freedom that America allows us to forge our own identities.” This exemplifies the rational of Gatsby changing his identity; he wanted to win Daisy’s heart, but in the end his attempts only accounted for a striving effort. All striving has its limit, as Gatsby reaches a dead-end, he fails to realize the past will always carry with him. Gatsby’s self-transformation was only an effort, and like Fitzgerald, he can never escape his past and upbringing.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Greg’s comment about how Gatsby wanted to change himself for Daisy. It really goes back to whether or not he’s a tragic hero, and if so, why is he one. The extent to which Gatsby goes just to get Daisy back is something that is a very important theme to this novel. However, despite Daisy’s love for Gatsby, she can’t really leave Tom because she has everything that she needs with Tom, and being the materialistic girl that she is, she can’t leave it. And in the end we see how everything that Gatsby has tried to achieve goes to waste, even though his death was foreshadowed. As Corrigan points out, “There’s a very fated feel to Gatsby”. From the beginning the readers can get a sense of what will happened to the tragic hero, and how his hopeless dream will never happened no matter to what lengths he’ll go to.
DeleteOne thing about Gatsby is that he doesn't in fact change throughout the entire novel. Greg's analysis of the supposed change that Gatsby goes through in his 'search for Daisy' is what at least attracted my attention to this fact. Gatsby certainly changes his outwardly appearance, though he hasn't changed personally. Gatsby retains the same fundamental aspects of himself throughout the book, especially his all consuming affection toward Daisy. Gatsby never changes, simply pretends that he does, a fact that will only get him so far and will ultimately be one of the things to fail him.
DeleteThe time aspect of The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald is a fundamental part into understanding this novel. Inside and out, time has had a major part in it. In the novel, the plot was set in the early 1920s, a time that was booming economically along with the Prohibition Act. For example, Fitzgerald portrayed the lavish life of Gatsby by showing how he threw parties daily, spending money to get Daisy’s attention.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to the time of the novel, part of the reason it didn’t sell so well is because many of the topics that were mention in the novel were very taboo to be written about at the time. Fitzgerald touch bases on infidelity, people having affairs, crimes, to three violent deaths in the span of 50,000 words. Along with this, many of the readers were females and the novel didn’t have a female character they like and they can relate to. As Maureen Corrigan stated in the NPR interview about female consumers, “In fact, that’s one of the reasons why Fitzgerald thought it didn’t sell well in the 1925 because there are no likable female characters and women drive the fiction market”. Lastly there are the reviews the novel received. Many critics were not too pleased with the novel, thinking that Fitzgerald could’ve done better with it.
However in the end, time did work out in his favor, and sooner or later the book he considered his best is now considered America’s best novel.
I agree with Chandra’s comment on the time aspect playing a role in the late success of Gatsby as a novel. As shown by the time period of when Gatsby was written, there was nothing comparable to it. Gatsby exposed such crimes of bootlegging and explicit sexuality to emphasize on the importance of the period. During the 1920s, when prohibition took place, many of ways distribution of alcohol took place was through parties and speakeasies. Likewise, Fitzgerald introduces the character Tom Buchanan, who is intended to gain readers disgust. Tom displays the social differences between old money and new money when foiled with Gatsby, and further shows that despite the title of old money, he is no better than Gatsby.
DeleteTom also has an affair with his mistress Myrtle, who Nick meets at Tom’s love nest in Manhattan. Such taboo subjects ultimately led to the unpopular selling of the novel. However, when Gatsby appeared on the Armed Services Editions program by the Red Cross, the pace of selling finally sped up. As Maureen Corrigan notes in the NPR interview, “You couldn’t even get it in bookstores in the early 1940s- by 1945, over 123,000 copies of ‘The Great Gatsby’ were distributed by the armed forces.” If it weren’t for this program, Gatsby wouldn’t have been widely recognized. Indeed Gatsby was a revolutionary novel, but featured topics that were beyond its time. It is for this reason that the success of Gatsby gained fame later than Fitzgerald had anticipated.
One thing that I found interesting is the apparent antithesis posed by the raciness of the novel simultaneously interposed with the portrayals of women and minorities. As Chandra pointed out, "The Great Gatsby" "doesn't feature any likeable female characters" (Corrigan). (Though I disagree with this, seeing as I really enjoyed Jordan's character.) In addition, you don’t have to look very far to find racism. When Gatsby and Nick drive into New York in chapter 4, Nick describes, “As we crossed Blackwell’s Island a limousine passed us, driven by a white chauffeur, in which sat three modish Negroes, two bucks and a girl” (Fitzgerald, 74). Furthermore, when Nick meets Mr. Wolfsheim: “A small, flat-nosed Jew raised his large head and regarded me with two fine growths of hair which luxuriated in either nostril. After a moment I discovered his tiny eyes” (75).
DeleteHowever, as both Greg and Chandra noted, this novel dealt with some indecent material, for its time. There’s implied sex, drugs, infidelity as both normal and the correct or sensible choice, and women who seem liberated and lacking in traditional values (such as how Daisy barely has any contact with her child). All this goes towards exemplifying the theme of changing moral views, which is huge in this novel. I think this is kind of telling of Fitzgerald’s thoughts and feelings. He was a part of the generation that lived in excess and generally lacked a sense of moral responsibility. He greatly enjoyed this lifestyle, and so would not view it poorly. Even so, it would not have been so easy to let go of ingrained prejudices, especially without any incentive to do so, as would become the case in later years.
One point addressed early on in the daily regular talk show, “FRESH AIR” had pertained to Terry Gross introducing Maureen Corrigan. I had found the part, concerning the setting of the novel, The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald to be most intriguing. Gross introduces Corrigan by explaining, “not near Gatsby’s mansion but near an area in Queens, New York that the characters . . . the valley of ashes because it was a dump for coal burning ashes.” The significance of the location, sense of the symbolism and the experience and understanding of Corrigan’s expertise are vividly explained through this sentence. The metaphor of the ‘valley of ashes’ represents in hindsight the region of Queens, New York as it is today. Knowing hopelessness and poverty are symbolized; it seems quite ironic that the area in Queens, New York “that the characters drive through” showcases the poverty located heavily in that region. Then the sense of the lack of colors, when the symbol was first described in The Great Gatsby by Fitzgerald, had further embodied the depressing tones associated with the phase. The surroundings that were also explained in the description had metaphorically described as well the state of mind in which individuals often feel when considered lower class or highly poverty-stricken.
DeleteI agree with Chandra’s initially comment pertaining to the time aspect of the novel. I feel as though the events that occurred during the Jazz Age directly correlate with the events occurring in today’s New York society.
One point made during the interview which I found particularly interesting was what Corrigan explained about how Gatsby thinks of Daisy. When I read the novel, I assumed that the problem was that Gatsby, in spending so much time away from Daisy and in his own head, had built her up into something she could never measure up to. Essentially, Gatsby thought of Daisy as being such an incredible thing that Daisy could never be what he had twisted her up into. However, Corrigan says, about Daisy, “She’s something everybody’s chasing. But she doesn’t measure up.” I hadn’t previously considered that, maybe, Daisy was equally at fault here, if you could say her character flaws are really her fault. Despite being introduced as a thoughtful, authentic character, Daisy is later shown to be just as shallow and superficial as her husband. But this isn't the woman Gatsby knew - he knew her to be lovely, perfect, down to earth. He even confides in Nick that she’s the first high class person who’s given him any attention. This clear misjudgment of character might be due to blinding infatuation on Gatsby’s part; it might be that Daisy simply changed over the years that she and Gatsby were apart. Either way, Gatsby’s expectations of Daisy were too fantastical, and Daisy just naturally would be someone Gatsby wouldn't like.
ReplyDeleteI don't wonder if part of the difference in the way Gatsby sees Daisy comes from his own social status. As Taylore mentions here, Gatsby first meets Daisy and thinks nothing but the best of her. At this point, Gatsby is in the military; he has no money himself, and aspires for the dream of reaching the upper class. But when he next encounters Daisy, she falls short of his expectations- she's not quite what he dreamed of, not quite as perfect as his memory reduced her to. As Taylore points out, this could be due to Gatsby romanticizing his memory, or because she's changed in the five years that they were apart. But another notable difference is that for their second encounter, Gatsby is now in the upper class. He may still be stratified by how he acquired his money, but I don't wonder if part of what makes Daisy less perfect to him is that she no longer holds the allure of the upper class, but does hold the resentment that the old money crowd felt for these new money counterparts.
DeleteI think the most interesting aspect of the NPR program on The Great Gatsby was a concept that they mentioned multiple times in the interview, the concept that most intrigued me was the fact that throughout all of Fitzgerald’s life, his novel was never a success. Similar to many other artists, writers, and painters, lots of their most valued work was considered garbage at the time that they were created. The notion that books are more popular after the author dies is sort of similar to something that the ladies said in the first few minutes. Corrigan states that even though she is now obsessed with the novel, she did not like it at first. When reading it in High school, she thought the novel was dry and boring. It is interesting how people charge their opinions on a book, after a certain amount of time has passed. It is similar to how we as a society look at Gatsby. When the novel originally came out, it was extremely unpopular but now after many years, it is considered one of the greatest American classics.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting how both Greg and Chandra mention the time period that Gatsby was written in. At the time, the novel seemed a bit risque so it was unpopular, but now, in a different time with different beliefs and views, Gatsby is considered one of the best. The main point of my blog entry is to comment on the interesting ways that people’s opinions can change over time, whether it is a single person’s views, or the views of an entire society. I think the way Gatsby became popular many years after it was written is similar to an aspect of the novel itself, over a prolonged period of time, Gatsby falls deeply in love with Daisy, more than he ever did when she was his. Gatsby’s love for Daisy is the same as our love for the novel, too late.
I find it interesting, like Alex Lavoie, that The Great Gatsby was found to be very unpopular until many years later. Like many people, Corrigan found it to be extremely boring in her first reading; however, the style in which it is written and the craft that F. Scott Fitzgerald uses in this text makes it obvious to her why this story eventually became a beloved book in American literature.
ReplyDeletePart of the reason why the story was a failure back when it was first written is because the morals emphasized in The Great Gatsby contradict the morals emphasized in most works of fiction from the time period Fitzgerald wrote it. One of these differences is how the novel has no likeable female figures. Corrigan made it clear that Fitzgerald used this as the excuse to why the book was a failure, seeing as women are the main buyers of fiction writing. As time went on and the audience of the book shifted to men serving in the armed services during World War II, this view was justified because of the fact that it was men who were the main audience instead of women. The men would obviously have different views in literature than women, if you base it off of how this piece of literature gained in popularity.
I agree with Nicholas’ comment on how the book wasn't a huge success until many years later and after several hundred thousand copies were sent over seas to troops serving in the military. I believe that this was a major reason in why the book became a success. There are so many aspects of the book that one can relate to. Whether it be the search for love or not having what you want most in life that the troops could have connected to. All of the troops that lived through WWII and had read The Great Gatsby, would have had some sort of sentimental connection to the novel seeing it was one of the only thing that they could use to get their mind off of where they were and what they were doing. At one point in the discussion it was brought up that every man on every landing craft on D-Day had a copy of Gatsby in their pocket. When these soldiers returned home they would have told family members and friends about the book which vastly increased the books popularity. Like Nicholas said, the fact that it was being read by so many men probably had a profound effect on its popularity. While it is said in the interview that most fiction is bought by women, I feel as though this book is more relatable to men seeing most of the characters are men and told from a mans point of view.
DeleteI agree with Alexander Lavoie on the whole idea that Fitzgerald was never fully successful during his lifetime, especially with his book The Great Gatsby in which at first the book was viewed as a failure because it did not sell as much as Fitzgerald hoped. I also agree with the idea that Nicholas mentioned in which the story did not have any likeable female characters and women are the ones that drive the fiction market.
ReplyDeleteWhat I thought was the most interesting aspect of the NPR program was the idea that “…film noir, hard-boiled detective fiction and The Great Gatsby, they’re all stories that are obsessed with the presence of fate.” To me this seemed rather important because it shows that no matter what the characters try to accomplish their fate is already sealed. The problem that Gatsby had was that he wanted Daisy to be his own but even when he had her he was not fully satisfied and never had the chance to because soon after his death came. Corrigan discusses the idea that no matter how much you try to jump higher, swim faster, and go farther you’ll only get so far before your dragged down by fate.
I agree with Damien about it being interesting that Corrigan and Gross mentioned the fact that many of the stories Fitzgerald wrote dealt with fate and how it was almost impossible to run away from. In Gatsby’s case, however, one must wonder whether his fate was simply changed by his untimely death/the running over of Tom’s mistress, or whether his fate was to never get the girl of his dreams or even if his fate was to let go and move on. This subject is interesting altogether because it was fate that had Nick being Gatsby’s neighbor and therefore bringing Gatsby closer to Daisy so one may ask why it was fate that tore them apart in the end.
DeleteOne of the points I found interesting in the interview with Maureen Corrigan is the fact that she mentions him getting all that he had truly “just to impress” Daisy and that “All he really wants is her”. This is a point I disagree with for more than one reason. The first reason I disagree is that before meeting Daisy, Gatsby has a sort of mentor by the name of Dan Cody. He worked on Dan Cody’s yacht for about five years and during those years, his eyes began to open to the world of the wealthy. This is important to note because it seems as if Corrigan’s interpretation of it was that being wealthy was all part of a scheme to get Daisy whereas it was most likely something Gatsby wanted that was magnified by Daisy’s expectations of him.
ReplyDeleteThe other reason I disagree with Corrigan’s belief that Gatsby’s life had all led up to getting the girl is because she specifically uses the words “but the more of these things he gets (money/houses/etc.), the less meaning they have”. This was just an interesting thing to say in general because this leads to the assumption that almost everything he did was selfless leading to Nick’s own interpretation of Gatsby in which Gatsby is an angel type person, utterly innocent because of his almost outrageous amount of hope. In reality, almost everything Gatsby did was selfish due to the fact Daisy was more of an expected bonus to his wealth and therefore something he ended up yearning for when he realized wealth wasn’t in fact the key to getting her anymore.
I completely agree with Lola. Gatsby aspired to be wealthy before he met Daisy, when he was a young boy. I feel that yes, Daisy did make him want to achieve this goal even more, but she was not the initial motivation. Also, Gatsby was indeed selfish in all of this. He sort of saw Daisy as the bonus that came along with all of these luxuries, such as Lola said.
DeleteI also disagreed with Corrigan when she made these statements because there is enough evidence in the novel to prove that Gatsby wanted to be wealthy long before Daisy, this was a goal of his that he planned to achieve for himself, that just so happened to be what he needed to get the girl as well. It was a win, win for Gatsby, which ultimately ended up with him losing it all.
One point which I found to be interesting is that Corrigan didn’t trust Nick as a narrator. Upon reading the novel, and also discussing it with my grandfather who had done a lot of work with the novel as well and in fact created a seeded copy of it, I found that in the introduction Nick makes a point that he will not judge others based on their class and or economic status. Also he is “inclined to reserve all judgments…” This does not mean that he will never judge anyone. In fact the quote from his father which inspires this statement is “Whenever you feel like criticizing someone… just remember that all people in the world haven’t had the same advantages that you’ve had.” This in fact means that he shouldn’t judge the people of lower class because they have not received the same up. Only after Nick has had experiences with the characters does he judge them. Also in making the statement that Nick makes judgments as a narrator, this book is written in retrospect Nick states out right “Only Gatsby, the man who gives his name to the book, was exempt from my reaction- Gatsby, who represented everything for which I have an unaffected scorn “This relates to Greg and Chandra’s previous point about self-transformation which so clearly fails in the case of Gatsby. However in the end this failure in self-transformation left Gatsby the only person from the East who didn’t leave a bitter taste in Nick’s mouth. Nick then goes on to describe positive things about Gatsby and how unique he was. However, I personally find the ending of this passage to be most important. “No- Gatsby turned out all right at the end; it was what preyed on Gatsby, what foul dust floated in the wake of his dreams that temporarily closed out my interest in the abortive sorrows and short-winded elations of men.” This quote confirms the fact that Nick was a reliable narrator; he was able to reserve his judgments so that in the end he could see that Gatsby was all right in the end.
ReplyDeleteAfter reflection and further discussion, I come to find that in the third paragraph on the last page, just after Nick goes on about being unbiased, he admits that there are limits. “And, after boasting my tolerance, I come to admit that it has a limit. Conduct may be founded on the hard rock or the wet marshes, but after a certain point I don’t care what it’s founded on. Corrigan says Nick does a lot of judging throughout the book where as if she had just looked to the next paragraph she would have seen that he admits his ability to reserve judgment has a limit. Over all, I wouldn’t say Nick is an untrustworthy character but he does have time where his morals could be called into question. For example, at the end of the novel Nick allows Daisy to get away with the murder of Myrtle. This is truly immoral because he is fully aware that Daisy had committed murder and Tom, acting as an accessory framed Gatsby for that murder. In the end it comes down to personal belief for if Nick is a trustworthy narrator or not.
I agree with Alex that it is a personal belief that Nick is a reliable narrator. I personally believe that Nick is a fairly reliable narrator because though he does judge a person rather quickly, for example when he finds about Tom's pretty open in-fidelity he initial reaction is that he should get out of there, but yet he side and reluctantly agrees to go to New York with Tom. When there was something that he didn't like he wouldn't subtlety say that he didn't like it, he will blatantly state his opinion.
Delete
ReplyDeleteI had many points in which I thought were interesting and fascinating; however, I’ll condense it to two of the most intriguing and mentally puzzling for me. For one I’d have to say I found it interesting, like mentioned by Damien and Alex, that The Great Gatsby never sold as well as Fitzgerald had thought it would. This makes me question about the American dream. It makes me wonder if society at the time, because of the fact that many writers did not write about sex, drinking, illegal bargaining, and acts of violence, people were sensitive or uncomfortable with the concept of “new”, or in the sense of the “American dream” if you can think it, you can make it a reality; take risks.
I also found that in the interview with Maureen Corrigan, she mentions that Gatsby was obsessed with Daisy, and that he strives to gain her love. Lola also mentions this, but unfortunately I have to agree and disagree with her. I agree that while Gatsby was working for Dan Cody, yes he did fall into the trap that is money. With this he strove to gain immense amounts of wealth. I disagree, however, when he did meet Daisy everything changed. My perspective on Gatsby is that he is a very conflicted character within himself. He changes rapidly, either he wants or doesn’t want. It seemed to me that before Daisy he wanted wealth and after meeting her he didn’t want anything but her, and used wealth to gain her attention and acceptance as someone of value in her eyes. From the point where he meets Daisy he puts himself on a road to failure. Gatsby has a great sense of imagination, which emphasizes the theme of the American dream, but he lucks out because he pins his dreams on a woman who falls everything short of even his petty daydreams.
One of the comments that Corrigan stated “They’re that kind of rich, privileged, entitled couple”. I must say, I agree with her wholeheartedly. The Buchanans come into a city making a lot of noise and will leave a city making a lot of noise. For example, Tom didn’t just come into the West Egg moving into a gorgeous house. He bought a string of polo ponies and other unnecessary luxury, Then he goes to the city and he gets a mistress; he has a apartment with this mistress. Tom has parties with her and everyone know about the relationship, including Daisy. Daisy also mention that the reason that they needed to leave Chicago is because of his mistress that he had there.
ReplyDeleteComing to the end, Nick see Tom in the jewelry store learning that it was Tom that told Wilson that it that it wasn’t Tom’s car, it was Gatsby. And it was that moment that Nick was able to see that Tom doesn’t care. Even though Tom knew that Wilson was in emotional distress, he only wanted to make sure that he out of hot water. And even though that Daisy was “in love” with Gatsby, she still didn't go to his funeral, even though she was the caused of the Gatsby’s death was her fault. Daisy and Tom just packed up and moved on to another city to allow things to settle.
Expanding on Javier's point, the Buchanans, Tom especially, epitomize the higher class of the 1920s. Old money often took it upon themselves to use their wealth to their advantage shamelessly, and Tom/Daisy exemplified this when they picked up their lives and ran away from Gatsby's death, and, consequently, their old lives. When Nick meets Tom in the jewelry store, he comes to the realization of how little depth people like Tom have; it's almost incredulous to him though, really, he should have expected it knowing the type of character he is. It really evinces the "rich, privileged, entitled couple" that Corrigan is talking about, especially with the word "entitled'.
DeleteFor Tom, it's as though he believes that, due to his wealth and status, he was not meant to take the fall for Myrtle's death. His thought process told him that he was old money and deserved more. Fitzgerald was trying to parallel this behavior with the behavior of actual rich people from the time period, and that's explicitly shown through Tom's lack of concern for anyone but himself and his wife. The regressing theme of social stratification plays a huge part throughout the novel and comes to a sum at this point.
One interesting thing I found after re-reading the transcript, like Alex had stated previously, that Corrigan had originally found the book to be a bore and a tired story, while after reading it in her later years finding the insightfulness between the lines of the book, after reading the story.
ReplyDeleteThough one thing I personally disagree with, was the message that Corrigan, had come to understand as the major theme of the book, she specifically stated “the doomed beauty of trying, that's what this novel is about.” (Corrigan), where as personally I feel as though the novel was about the distinction between love and infatuation or lust, and how Gatsby transforms from truly loving Daisy, to being infatuated and lusting for not daisy but the concept of having daisy, and also building off of what Lola brilliantly expressed, was the idea that Gatsby did not accumulate wealth for the explicit purpose of daisy, but rather though his own desires he accumulated wealth, and the concept of achieving success by stealing daisy away form Tom was just going to be a by product of being wealthy, not the explicit purpose of being wealthy. If the idea of lust and infatuation versus love is further explored, I noticed an interesting possibility, could Tom be in love with daisy, and the sole purpose of Fitzgerald’s inception of Gatsby is to serve as a warning for what happens when someone has confused love with infatuation?
While the in the interview, Corrigan brought up many thoughtful points, one item that I found particularly striking was that, in her explanation for why Gatsby initially didn't sell well, Corrigan mentions the lack of likable female characters: "And Gatsby also famously is a novel that doesn't feature any likable female characters. In fact, that's one of the reasons why Fitzgerald thought it didn't sell well in 1925, because there are no likable female characters and women drive the fiction market". The first thing that I find thought provoking about this is what exactly makes the female characters unlikable.
ReplyDeleteThe cast of Gatsby is small, leaving us only three women to look at. Now, looking at Daisy, Jordan, and Myrtle from a modern view, few people would think highly of any of the three. Daisy is shallow, Jordan is a cheat, and Myrtle is a partying affair. But in the 1920s, were these women not supposed to represent the people around Fitzgerald? I can't help but wonder if these woman were considered unlikable, at least at the time, because the readers didn't see themselves in the characters (or didn't want to see themselves).
The second thing I find striking about what Corrigan says is that by saying "[Gatsby] doesn't feature any likable female characters", she implies that there are likable male characters. But who might that be? Certainly not Nick, who- as Corrigan also mentions- "does a lot of judging in this novel" for someone who is "inclined to reserve all judgments". There's Gatsby, who runs away from his family, amasses a fortune via bootlegging, and then flagrantly spends his fortune in hopes of catching the eye of his married beloved, and then not only demands that she denounce any affection she might have held for her husband when he does in fact catch her eye, but also refuses to settle for anything short of that. Speaking of Daisy's husband, there is also Tom, the racist, angry, hulking brute of an old money man. He is controlling- why, when showing off his house to Nick, Tom insists on forcefully turning Nick this way and that, rather than letting his guest choose where to so much as look. One could argue that Wolfsheim and Wilson could be considered likable, but Wolfsheim's short appearance is nothing but loose, selfish morals, and Wilson is hardly ever seen outside of his anger and grief after Myrtle's death. Reasonable emotions, but not enough to determine if a character is likable.
Is that what this is, then? A novel of characters that can't be liked- with only one having that possibility out of an ambiguity? While it's not something that I've considered before, Corrigan's two sentences have made me think that this is, indeed, the case.
Corrigan includes in her analysis of The Great Gatsby the fact that Nick isn't a trustworthy character. This fact was one of the first things that I had noticed about the book. Being that Nick specifically states, "I’m inclined to reserve all judgments...", makes it a point that he does not do this, otherwise there would be no reason for him to state it. And more fundamentally, is that a narrator is typically assumed trustworthy, and it that it is not until they prove themselves otherwise, or bring special attention to what wouldn't be an issue, that the extent of their trustworthiness is analyzed.
ReplyDeleteThe specific inclusion of this beginning, rather than Fitzgerald having introduced the narrator Nick in some other way, is to highlight the fact of Nick's untrustworthiness in narration. Fitzgerald was required to do this since there would otherwise be little reason not to trust Nick's narration. And though this introduction doesn't necessarily make it that none of the recollections that Nick has throughout the novel are inaccurate, it does establish that Nick is placing personal judgment on other characters that he interacts with without being keen to the fact that he is doing so, and likewise that other inaccuracies, specifically via omission, may be established by Nick simply by him not realizing their importance.
Although there are many points of interest that were brought up during the interview with Maureen Corrigan, this comment focuses on the topic of sexuality that is seen in “The Great Gatsby”. In reading the novel, the reader gets the impression that the 1920s was an era of the crime of bootlegging, death, and a lot of sexuality. Now, during Fitzgerald’s time period it was not the “norm” for author to write about such sensitive topics. One of the most significant topics that Corrigan discusses is the amount of sexuality that is implied in the writing. For example, when Tom Buchanan and Myrtle Wilson hosting a drinking party in their love shack implies the idea of people cheating on their spouses. An interesting point that is brought up by Chandra is the fact that the novel was not considered popular among most of the females due to the fact that there were no likable female characters. This is true because most of the normal women that are seen in the novel are only portrayed as common flappers or a cheating mistresses such as Myrtle or the random women that show up to Gatsby’s parties. This put a negative view on the female gender as a whole and led to the failure of novel. So because Fitzgerald decided to diverge away from the regular writing that was seen as “acceptable”, it resulted in his novel being viewed as lesser than great until after Fitzgerald’s death.
ReplyDeleteWhat piqued my interest was when Corrigan said, “He [Gatsby] throws these great parties - all things just to impress her [Daisy]. And he once thought he might want these things, but the more of these things he gets, the less meaning they have. All he really wants is her.” I disagree for a multitude of reasons. Daisy was merely one of Gatsby’s pursuits; as a dreamer, he constantly needed a new dream to chase. And, after he gained his massive wealth, a beautiful home, and a well-known name, all that was left for him was to obtain the woman of his dreams. Gatsby entirely objectified Daisy, and though the parties were for the purpose of seeing her, Gatsby’s real desire cannot be traced to her.
ReplyDeleteGatsby’s pursuit for wealth began as a young boy; when Nick met his father, he heard the story of Dan Cody and the ambitious James Gatz. Lola elucidated on this prior to me and made the valid point of saying Daisy merely amplified Gatsby’s desire for wealth. As soon as Gatsby had a taste of money, he never stopped wanting it. This was the root of his desire, not Daisy. She came later. If it really was true-- that all “he really wants is her”-- then, when Daisy told Gatsby to run away with her, he would not have rejected her and told her about all the wonderful things he’s acquired. Without question, he would have said yes and begun packing his bags. Since this was not the case, the notion of Gatsby’s ultimate goal and only desire being Daisy can be disregarded.