Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

"Gatsby's criminal activities have been downplayed if not largely ignored by literary critics, while, led by esteemed Yale Professor Harold Bloom, they have exaggerated his romantic side, doing a disservice to readers and students of literature. Fitzgerald complained "that of all the reviews, even the most enthusiastic, not one had the slightest idea what the book was about," a condition that apparently has not changed."

communist!!!

Lol.
Yes Monty, I can just post Lol if I want to.

Okay, I will premeditatively step into the literary quicksand and ask Feliks directly the question that Monty asked. Feliks, are you in the employ of Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ?

If I can paraphrase myself: I expressed some reservations--said I was not a huge fan of the guy--but if he's going to be named as the cause of an oilfire like this, I'll simply remind everyone that he's no slouch. Styling him as someone who has 'screwed up' American literature...compared to this thread? He deserves equal time on this thread. Nothing he did was ever as bizarre as this righting-of-wrongs which you seem (at times) 'driven' to accomplish.

Eh well. Oh and I don't see how I can possibly deserve the troll label. By your own statement, 'dead' Gatsby threads are your own warrant for launching firestorms. This whole saga is about rattling cages and tossing grenades.

Christine wrote: "Oh for god's sake Monty. Is everything with you a conspiracy theory? "

Hey, I'm just giving Feliks a taste of his own medicine. He (and others) have blasted my work with both barrels, aiming a barrage of absurd claims based on unfair and unfounded assumptions. I only showed my anger after giving repeated warnings. Yet Feliks continued to deliberately twist and misconstrue my comments. The only purpose I can think of, other than hubris and spite, is to drive up Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ' hit count by fostering controversy.

All I did was show people how it feels to be the target of unfair assumptions and accusations.

I came here to discuss literature, and he (and others) chose to make it pig fight.

Well, you got what you asked for.

Feliks wrote: "Oh and I don't see how I can possibly deserve the troll label."

Notice, Geoffrey, he didn't answer your question.

I already stated (pages ago) I would not be replying to Geoffrey in this thread; for the sake of maintaining some semblance of order.

Uh, 'that was right there in the text'...

Monty J wrote: "Hey, I'm just giving Feliks a taste of his own medicine. He (and others) have attacked my work with both barrels, aiming a barrage of absurd claims based on unfair and unfounded assumptions. I've put up with it long enough. You were all warned, yet he continued to deliberately twist and misconstrue my comments, and the only purpose I can think of, other than hubris and spite, is to create drama to drive up hit count...."

Bah. For at least the first 1/2 to first 3/4 of this thread you got a very sober, respectful, taking-you-seriously dissection of the argument you were trying to make. Everything polite and above-board. Not 'targeting you' as a speaker. (James was the only guy who got a little edgy).

In return, you needed to be deserving of our respect as the initiator of the debate. You needed to keep to the high road. You needed to keep all emotion out of it. Even if one guy had 'tone' in his voice, your mission should have been to keep honor bright.

Remember, you offered an argument which flies in the face of established, vetted, reason. What did you expect, that people would simply swallow it whole without any criticism? Any testing? Any evaluation?

Did you want us to turn off our brains for you? Just because we're in a web-based environment, do you think you get some kind of free pass? No rigor expected? Just hand you a gold star and a cookie?

'Gatsby as crook', is a zany, far-fetched proposition at best. Based only on a weak handful of supporting points. Our pressing you to extend the small shred of rationale they represent--asking you to show how your theory is comprehensive and full-fledged--is no more than boilerplate academic practice. It is ludicrous to frame our insistence as an attack on you, a twisting up of your words, or personal mean-spiritedness on our part.

Look, you have this theory, right? When you come in here with it you should let it speak for itself. You should not 'see' any personalities behind our replies at all. If I point out a conflict between one of your factoids and some more-solid Gatsby facts, you shouldn't get up on a stool, pull up your skirt and squeal. This whole discussion should have been straightforward; clinical; idea vs idea. 1-2-3. Premise and counter-premise. Considering what you expected to gain from the argument? You should be impeccably behaved in all this. You haven't been, and I'm frankly shocked.

Monty. You have fallen on sad days. As for me, I simply don't accept any spoonfuls of your medicine. I create my posts, (idea-based) --and when I see mere bluster and spluttering in reply-- I simply skim down to any paragraph where it looks like you have returned to idea-vs-idea. I don't sit here reading childish slurs and catcalls.

I just can't believe you have descended this far. Remember the debate with the Ayn Rand guy? Why can't you get back to that level? It was brain vs brain; knowledge vs knowledge. No personalities. This is why I say your Gatsby campaign can only survive here on the web.

Notice how Monty refers to it as "my work"?

Holy cow, Monty, dial it back. We're on a GoodReads discussion thread. The hubris and paranoia expressed here is getting a bit scary.

I think, in all fairness, and without being confrontational, Monty has a personal, psychological investment, an obsession, if you will, in the punishment of Gatsby as a criminal, which may be unexamined on his part. It may be a very deep issue with him, and the tenor of the discussion lately is causing him to become overly agitated. Some books do reach us in personal, almost unknown ways, and our responses are genuine, even if they appear irrational and unbalanced to those around us. But when that happens, it's sometimes a sign that there is a hidden problem that the person might want to look into. With all kindness I'm putting this forward. Withdrawing from the conversation may be a kindness to Monty, who is obviously overworked on the topic, and might give him an opportunity to study the level of his own emotional health on the issue. I don't at all mean to be patronizing. I've lost my own temper more than once, and I've been wrong. But I'm concerned that something is accelerating here that serves no one well.

# 361 is very well expressed. I appreciated these insights.

What I think got us off on the wrong foot was MJ's being so adamant that no other reading of Gatsby was creditable. "Anything else other than strictly literal reading is ivory-tower nonsense" (my paraphrase of his stance).

Uh, what? You can't start off a debate informing everyone that you have already closed your ears to anything anyone has to say.

Monty, what you should have done was this:

MJ: "...so, Fitzgerald seems to have been alluding to Chicago as the 'gangland' it was in those days, see pps 17, pps, 23, and pps 31."

Karen, Feliks, etc: "...Monty, great job, but what about the fact that there were no trains to Chicago that year due to the Illinois river floods..?"

MJ: "...thank you, I hadn't actually considered that but I will keep it in mind. My theory isn't 100%, simply posits that we look at Gatsby from a new angle. I will look into the history of midwestern flooding sometime, though I don't feel it has any direct bearing on the point I made about Chicago."

This is just maturity --and a little humility. Monty, we're not responsible for you having spent three years in your den, poring over this novel, and then emerging to preach this evangel of yours. Sorry.

Feliks wrote: ""Anything else other than strictly literal reading is ivory-tower nonsense"."

Bullshit. You are once again misconstruing my comments. This entire post is a fantasy and you know it. You're trying to paper over what actually was said to make yourself look good .

Good try.

Monty I showed you with copies/pastes of your own posts, just how much you emphasized this. What was it, 15-20 times you reiterated it? 'Text only, text only, text only'?

From the very start, you lumped us all in the same camp with Bloom. That's how you began the thread. Bloom to you, has warped everyone's judgment and taste. How do we get out of such a quarantine?

I found minimal instances where you would 'allow that other approaches to the material were valid'. Twice? Three times? But in the practice of this thread you never granted them any substance.

What is it, you just don't like other analytical methods when they come from us? They're feasible... as long as no one raises them with you directly?

Face it, you simply won't admit anything which challenges your theory. You insist we use only the exact same method you did (even though it's fraught with loopholes) otherwise you won't give us any ear.

I could start talking about Gatsby's narrative structure right now and you would scoff and tell me I'm making things up. You know you would. And you would cover up by saying, "Well, I am only giving MY opinion the precedence it deserves".

Egad.

Feliks wrote: "I already stated (pages ago) I would not be replying to Geoffrey in this thread; for the sake of maintaining some semblance of order."

Another evasion.

If you won't deny that you're getting paid by Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ, then we have no choice than to conclude you are.

Look, I don't have a problem with Gooreads' paying people to keep discussions lively. It's good for their bottom line and good for literature. But there's an ethical line you don't cross, and you (and others) crossed it.

All I've done is defend myself.

Now you're trying to put lipstick on a pig.

Feliks wrote: "'Text only, text only, text only'?"

Show me.

Monty J wrote: "Feliks wrote: "I already stated (pages ago) I would not be replying to Geoffrey in this thread; for the sake of maintaining some semblance of order."

Another evasion.

If you won't deny that you'r..."

None of us have crossed any ethical line.

Oh --and by the way, while its on my mind-- why is it in the three years we have encountered each other on Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ--seeing each other in discussion after discussion--ONLY NOW does it emerge that 'Feliks is an egomaniac' ...and 'Feliks is a troll' and... 'Feliks is in the employ of the website'. His 'opinions are cryogenic'.

What a coincidence, eh? The first time I ever question a platform of yours, all-of-a-sudden I am a loose-cannon and I am a miscreant, and I am a malcontent, and I must have some-kind-of-underhanded-motive-for-thwarting you. R-i-i-i-i-i-ght.

My god, please just get a hold of yourself..that's all I'm sayin'...

Monty J wrote: "Feliks wrote: "'Text only, text only, text only'?"

Show me."

My post #258, I believe it was. The long one.

Monty J wrote: "If you won't deny that you're getting paid by Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ, then we have no choice than to conclude you are..."

Eh? Hoot! There's certainly other conclusions to draw. How about:

1) your insinuation wasn't worth dignifying with a reply

Feliks wrote: "Monty J wrote: "If you won't deny that you're getting paid by Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ, then we have no choice than to conclude you are..."

Eh? Hoot! There's certainly other conclusions to draw. How about:

1) y..."

So...

Monty J wrote: "If you won't deny that you're getting paid by Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ, then we have no choice than to conclude you are...

A is asked if he has done something - A doesn't answer - We can only conclude that A has done it

Monty J wrote (regarding Gatsby's version to Nick of the accident that kills Myrtle): Credibility--Gatsby lies and steals for a living. How can any rational reader take his word over other impartial eyewitness testimony when he has a plausible motive, greed, for lying?

A lies about B - A is a liar - So any rational reader would conclude that A lies about C (we must ignore the fact that eye witness testimony is not reliable, impartial or not.)

See a trend here?

Brings a chuckle to my mind: Reminds me of Fox news: I'm not saying that Obama is like Hitler. But he did give a speech in Berlin. We have no choice as rational people but to see that this is interesting, right?

Circular arguments only persuade those who already agree, which is why, in my view, Monty J has not gotten any takers on GR for his "bulletproof content and logic" regarding his interpretation of The Great Gatsby.

AnnLoretta wrote: "... it's sometimes a sign that there is a hidden problem that the person might want to look into."

Right, anyone who disagrees with AnnLoretta has to be unbalanced. Perhaps you should consider the mental health implications of that line of reasoning. "Ask your doctor about Depakote."

Feliks wrote: "My post #258, I believe it was. The long one."

Yes, I remember, the one I labeled diarrhea.

(God this is fun. And to think, Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ offered to pay me. I'd do this for nothing even if I were starving. Cyber theater is the lifeblood of companies whose stock value comes from the Web-o-sphere, and I'm providing free content. Get down on your knees and thank me, Jeff Bezos, for rescuing TGG from obscurity on Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ.

But Feliks will probably take credit for all my hard work and get a year-end bonus. Maybe he'll spend some of it on a tune-up for his Porche.)

For the record, ladies and gentlemen, the phrase "text only" does not appear anywhere in my posts . What I said was you can go to the moon and back if you like, but eventually you must tie your argument to what Fitzgerald actually wrote.

What an author writes comes from the author. What others write comes from them. This is why I adhere closely to the text and don't go wandering off in to Neverland.


(Vroom, vroom! Feliks, how do you like the smell of my Honda exhaust?)

Feliks wrote: "dissection of the argument "

More diarrhea. You made invalid assumptions and argued against your own words. The "Straw Man" technique is the oldest ploy in the book of rhetoric, a cheap trick that attorneys are trained to use.




(By the way, Happy New Year! everyone. And best wishes from the Ogre of Gatsbyville.)

Get ready for another OrGatsbyism,"Eliot's 'The Wasteland,' Fitzgerald's Foundation for TGG."

Groan.......and you really don't mean Happy NY for everyone do you.

Stosch wrote: "communist!!!"

It's exciting when women talk dirty to me. You'll have to take a number though. My calendar is full.

(My apologies to any who may be offended.)

Feliks wrote: "...for the sake of maintaining some semblance of order."

That's item #3 on your Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ job description, right?

Ladies and gentlemen, you have just witnessed a longtime Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ commentator demolish his own reputation and credibility. Look for him sometime later in the year, bearded, standing along the side of the highway with a hand-written sign.

..."the 'gat' in 'Gatsby'! Coincidence?!"

It's pretty clear how 'Geoffrey' has helped you 'evolve' your thought. Moral xenophobia, paranoia and finger-pointing. Sad.

We didn't do this to you either. You crumbled under pressure. Do you think anyone is going to take anything you say seriously in these boards from now on? I told you it would happen in just this way..

Feliks wrote: "...you have just witnessed a longtime Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ commentator demolish his own reputation and credibility."

In your dreams, Porche pilot. In your dreamszzz..z.

No, Feliks is right again, and I cautioned you about it some time ago on an earlier thread that you were coming off as crazy as Cosmic and you needed to step back and think harder about what you were posting and the way you were damaging your credibility.

AnnLoretta wrote: "I think, in all fairness, and without being confrontational, Monty has a personal, psychological investment, an obsession, if you will, in the punishment of Gatsby as a criminal, which may be unexa..."

This is why I quit this group months ago. There is more than one way to interpret this book and, since we don't have Fitzgerald here, we can't ask. I checked back today and the same thing is still going on. It's not right or wrong, it's about offering your well-considered opinion and listening respectfully to others.

Truly shocking. I'm saddened to be 'right' in a case like this. We need more good minds on the internet and Monty was a leading light for a while, there. Even in a backwater like this. It was admirable.

Why on earth anyone would deliberately hole themselves up in a room alone, (presumably, in the dark) ...prop a classic novel on the desk alongside of them...and start typing the book in manually...via a glowing keypad...line by line, page after page... into MS-Word? Hour after hour; night after night. What was bound to result from such an odd pursuit? It's one of the strangest admissions I've ever heard from someone on-line.

I expect we see now, just what comes of such a thing. 'Cryptic numerical patterns', mysterious codes, and kabbalahs buried in text. Revelations of what 'the author really intended to say'. Complicated schemes, subterfuges, and intrigues. Fantastic, over-precise, 'geometric logic'.

Kids, don't try this yourself. Talk to someone, first.

Monty J wrote: "Stosch wrote: "communist!!!"

It arouses me when women talk dirty to me. You'll have to take a number though. My calendar is full."

The one thing that gives me any solace from my interactions about The Great Gatsby is that Monty J Heying is someone who would have button-holed FSF at a party or in a bar and talked his ear off about bond scams and elevator levers, and FSF couldn't have shaken him off fast enough. Monty J Heying has less polish than Wolfsheim attempted to project at his luncheon with Gatsby and Carraway.

You're not the kind of person Scott Fitzgerald would have wanted to know, Mr. Monty J Heying.

Fare thee well.

Monty J wrote: "Feliks wrote: "Oh and I don't see how I can possibly deserve the troll label."

Notice, Geoffrey, he didn't answer your question."

Yes, I did. Right away.

Feliks wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Hey, I'm just giving Feliks a taste of his own medicine. He (and others) have attacked my work with both barrels, aiming a barrage of absurd claims based on unfair and unfounded ass..."

And yet, Feliks, despite your attempt to stay on the high road, you did go after Monty with a sledge hammer and tell him that he was essentially a conceited dilettante who did not have the background of a literature degree and was not in a position to write a worthwhile paper that could be seriously considered for publication. This was but a low blow below the belt. I do notice that you deleted that message or GR did upon reviewing it.

Wow. How I love getting to rebut without losing the last word. Feliks has sworn off responding to my comments.

Geoffrey wrote;
"And yet, Feliks, despite your attempt to stay on the high road, you did go after Monty with a sledge hammer and tell him that he was essentially a conceited dilettante who did not have the background of a literature degree and was not in a position to write a worthwhile paper that could be seriously considered for publication. This was but a low blow below the belt. I do notice that you deleted that message or GR did upon reviewing it. "

Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ does not delete messages like that! They will only delete them if the post is a viscious personal attack, which Felix has not done here- none of us have.

Feliks wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Hey, I'm just giving Feliks a taste of his own medicine. He (and others) have attacked my work with both barrels, aiming a barrage of absurd claims based on unfair and unfounded ass..."

Eloquently put, my friend. Bravo!

Feliks wrote: "Why on earth anyone would deliberately hole themselves up in a room alone, (presumably, in the dark) ...prop a classic novel on the desk alongside of them...and start typing the book in manually...via a glowing keypad...line by line, page after page... into MS-Word? Hour after hour; night after night.."

Wrong again, assumption spigot. I only got through the first ten pages, but that was enough to draw me into the novel at a deeper level. Your grade school Straw Man arguments and personal attacks are tiresome and transparent. You're only making yourself look bad by attacking people instead of discussing the novel.

The sad thing is you think you're being clever, but you're demonstrating how poorly informed you are about the novel.

Monty wrote;
"The sad thing is you think you're being clever, but you're demonstrating how poorly informed you are about the novel."

No, he isn't demonstrating that he's poorly informed abut the novel. Feliks may have wrongly thought you were typing for hours and hours on it, but that doesn't mean he is not informed.

AnnLoretta wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Monty J Heying has less polish than Wolfsheim attempted to project at his luncheon with Gatsby and Carraway. "

No shortage here of grade-schooelrs bent on personal attacks instead of discussing the novel.

Well Monty, truth is what it is. You can't be disappointed with the messenger, as it were.

Monty post #99
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Monty J wrote: "It started over a year ago when, as a writing warm-up exercise, I started retyping The Great Gattsby into my laptop, hoping to learn something about writing and that maybe some of Fitzgerald's talent would rub off on me by ink osmosis.

What happened was beyond expectation. It was like getting hit by lightening in slow motion, non-stop. Typing the sentences forced me to absorb his words at a much deeper level than just reading them...."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hours and hours. Right there.

Should be a lesson to us all. Friends, don't let this happen to you.

Karen wrote: "Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ does not delete messages like that! They will only delete them if the post is a viscious personal attack, which Felix has not done here- none of us have. ..."

Aye. Why would Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ delete my messages if--as some insinuate--I work for them? This is like..hanging out with the Keystone Cops.

Feliks, if I laugh too much before going to bed I won't sleep!

There's two kinds of people on the internet: the kind who are aware when they're off-the-beam; and the kind who do not. Monty just went from one group to the other.

When I began participating in this thread I was under the assumption that Monty was one of the legitimate folks around here. Seeing the Rina thread, I thought all it would take would be a brief hashing-out of sensible facts; he would realize he was over-extended on all these Gatsby matters; and would accordingly rein himself in.

The opposite happened, in spades. The guy has gone off. My original goal was simply to curtail the browbeating of new Gatsby readers who post for help on the novel. I was worried that they would be taken in by his vehemence. Sure, he 'sounds rational'-- madmen often do. Herman Wouk's Captain Queeg, remember? But Monty's methodology all along...is utter gibberish. "Only what's between the covers" is the most sophomoric form of literary criticism. Counting up the # of times a word is mentioned? Remedial. Clownish. Harold Bloom has nothing to worry about.

Of course, there's nothing to prevent Monty from ambushing new posts with his nonsense; but when he does--either myself or someone else will be there to set things straight. All it takes is one link--to this thread--to make people understand. Nobody after viewing this discourse, would give him the time of day. Just another internet oddball. And he did it all to himself. Hoisted on his own petard.

This entire thread can be deleted, should Monty intend that--no matter, I have it saved intact from post #1 and will always be able to reprint it for anyone interested. Everything's on record. The Gatsby boards of this website will not fall under the sway of these...these..bond salesmen

Time to simply walk away from this debacle. Hard for me to close the door on this guy--being a polite person myself, I am always impressed by good manners--and I hate to have to change my mind about someone when they first strike me as legit--but there ya go. That's the internet for you. Pre-'net, these would be the guys on HAM radio warning us about black helicopters.

"Hoping that maybe some of Fitzgerald's talent would rub off on me"

You just can't even make something like that up.

James wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "James wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "Would it matter whether he was abusive or not? One is still responsible for one's own actions. I've had a number of friends whose parents were partic..."

Had he been indoctrinated to become a criminal he would have become so before his late 20's when he joined Wolfie's brigade, but there is no evidence to that.

Geoffrey wrote: "James wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "James wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "Would it matter whether he was abusive or not? One is still responsible for one's own actions. I've had a number of friends whose paren..."

It is not explicitly clear when he got involved in criminal activity, but the following quote from the book suggests it might have been age 17.

James Gatz—that was really, or at least legally, his name. He had changed it at the age of seventeen and at the specific moment that witnessed the beginning of his career—when he saw Dan Cody’s yacht drop anchor over the most insidious flat on Lake Superior.

("Feliks wrote: "My post #258, I believe it was. The long one.")

Monty J wrote: "Yes, I remember, the one I labeled diarrhea."

Yes, we noticed that. How did the label taste? You sure ate your own words that time.

Monty J wrote: "For the record, ladies and gentlemen, the phrase "text only" does not appear anywhere in my posts ..."

On the other hand, the policy appears everywhere.

Monty J wrote: "What I said was you can go to the moon and back if you like, ..."

How about the other dozen-or-so posts I collected from you and reprinted?

Monty J wrote: "but eventually you must tie your argument to what Fitzgerald actually wrote...."

Ha! Glad to hear you spout this one more time. Because this admonition is friggin' balderdash. No actual scholar would countenance it; and we sure can visibly see that it led you totally astray.

Monty J wrote: "What an author writes comes from the author. What others write comes from them. This is why I adhere closely to the text and don't go wandering off in to Neverland...."

And this is why you've made an utter fool of yourself. Because the method you chose is hare-brained; something no one ever heard of; nor would ever use in the real world. Astounding. You keep committing the same error. I call you on it --you renounce it--and then go right on and do it again.

You're restricting the viability of other literary methods. 'Text only'--like I said--and in your phrase, 'adhering closely to the text'. Same thing! What do you think I'm referring to ?

'All other methods', you label 'Neverland'. This is lunacy.

Monty J wrote: "What an author writes comes from the author. What others write comes from them. This is why I adhere closely to the text.."

Chortle. Said another way: "this is how I defend my wearing of blinders." They hide behind the same cop-out down at the Creationist museum; and anywhere else in the world where the one, true, Word of God is rigidly used to steer thought. Sticking 'close to the text' is great if you're the one who gets to hold the book and preach. Not so great for people who do the listening. And so this is why archeology always trumps 'Bible Studies'. Where is that museum, anyway--Kansas? Maybe that's a good place to pick up some employment.

Monty is hardly a fundamentalist Christian, but the text is important, Feliks, after all we are discussing TGG.

Please, at least buy the book. If you think so highly of it, why don't you have a copy?