Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Geoffrey wrote: "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?"

It would be better if most of these threads were talking about The Great Gatsby and not Monty J, but he keeps trolling and his quotes keep popping up in front of me. So I have a question for Geoffrey:

I don't know either Feliks or Monty J, or anyone else on this thread for that matter, but you keep coming to Monty J's defense, even when he is clearly wrong on a point. Monty J has been saying all along it has to go back to the text, what matters is between the covers; he insists on it; but when that is brought to his attention, he denies he ever said it. This is the crux of the problem with him. His arguments about the book aren't based on solid reasoning, and neither are his responses when challenged about that. He is wrong on this point. It is as simple as that. Yet, you feel a need to defend him, anyway. Is there a reason for that?

I don't defend his ideas. I outlined my objections way back and on other threads. However, I do believe several posters are haranguing him. I object to the tone of dissent. That is the complete truth.
I let it go without browbeating him. I made my suggestions and allowed time for them to sink in.But when you beat someone repeatedly with the stick of criticism, and that is how I take it and I assume he does as well, after all that is what he has been saying all along, then he will only retrench and circle his wagons.
More flies can be caught with honey......

Geoffrey wrote: "I don't defend his ideas. I outlined my objections way back and on other threads. However, I do believe several posters are haranguing him. I object to the tone of dissent. That is the complete tru..."

Fair enough. But I don't see how defending him on an issue where the fault clearly lies with him helps anybody, including him. And it might be worth bearing in mind that those who are dissenting are not a band of like-minded people ganging up on him. A reason exists that this has become a widespread problem. The tone of dissent has devolved. I think that is evident. But I also think it is evident that it has devolved in direct relation to his intransigent behavior. You can go back and review his posts to see the simple fact that it takes but one disagreement for him to start haranguing or responding in an uppity or dismissive manner. From my viewpoint, as a new person on this board, I think he has been treated with far more courtesy than he has deserved, and the devolving tone is something he has invited upon himself. And no matter how angry you are, posting the kinds of comments he has been posting shows the true person underneath. And it is certainly not someone for whom I will hold up any respect.

Let me put it this way. If you start beating a dog with a stick, don't be upset if it bites your ankle and doesn't let go. You may have reason on your side and are more convincing than him as any one coming on to the thread will see, but if your intent is to convince him that his reasoning is wrong, you're going about it the wrong way. Make your point, back off and let it sink in. Whether it is courtesy or not, it is hardly going to convince him.
There's an Irish saying....may the wind be to my back.....and have the wisdom to know what I can't do...to truncuate it. Leave it be. Go on. If his theory has any merit or its argument somewhat plausible it will get published. It will have its detractors at that publication as well. And perhaps to the best because perhaps Monty's article will evoke some further thought and it will garner a better understanding of the novel. Heck, it is a very complex one and I agree with Monty on his contention that it needs further analysis. I just don't think he's on the right direction and neither do you, but, yes, there has been a serious lack of civility.
I did read a post from Feliks in which he said that essentially Monty was a dilettante, that he had only 5 years of studying literary criticism, the unstated implication that he Feliks has spent a lifetime, that Monty had a maniacal obsession, that Bloom was a reknown literary critic and Monty was but a rank amateur.....those are personal attacks, not attacks on the ideas themselves. By the way, Feliks's post that I have cited has been removed.
And yes, Feliks does go for the jugular. He did with me several years ago and I flagged him. He has detested me ever since. Doesn't bother me in the least as I don't know the guy.

Geoffrey wrote: "Let me put it this way. If you start beating a dog with a stick, don't be upset if it bites your ankle and doesn't let go. You may have reason on your side and are more convincing than him as any o..."

What I hear is that you have a problem with Feliks. How does supporting Monty J when you know he is wrong helping? Reinforcing his own bad behavior helps who? If you have a problem with Feliks, then why not take it up with him?

As for my own experience with Monty J, my take is that his behavior is that of a bully. I have no time for bullies, no need to convince them of anything except being a bully isn't acceptable behavior. No need to step back and give him time. And his reaction has been what I have come to expect from a bully: playing the victim and whining like a spoiled child when someone stands up to him. And his tasteless comments like bagel-breath, and worse, reach a despicable low that define him for what he really is.

It would be difficult to get the thread 'back to talking about The Great Gatsby' because the original premise of the thread, was based on a deeply shoddy recipe. That threw everything off-kilter. We tried to digest it. Wouldn't go down. The OP "stonewalled". He wants his dish 'swallowed whole'. Lashes out, when challenged.

As, here:
MJ wrote: "You make a mountain of assertions, but fail to support them with evidence. Opinions without support are hot air.."

He insists we cleave only to his own method to repel his findings (via his same 'cherry-picking'; thinnest of all analysis). He won't accept real-world, robust procedure.

So what he's got here is a 'hothouse flower'--his conclusions don't survive outside the glasshouse he built for it.

If his findings were strong--if they were simple, reasonable, & well-grounded; we would hardly be able to raise any counters to them at all. But they're so fissured that whole mountain ranges of objection pile atop them.

No, none of this constitutes 'attack on Monty'. It's merely insisting on proper conscientiousness and diligence on his part. He *is* an amateur--so integrity is all the more vital in his approach.

James wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "Let me put it this way. If you start beating a dog with a stick, don't be upset if it bites your ankle and doesn't let go. You may have reason on your side and are more convincing ..."

And my take on Feliks is the same. He is a bully. He bullied me several years ago and I flagged him. Now he's reluctant to respond to my posts. And I to him.

Yes, I was offended by bagel breath as well. But I was even more offended by Feliks's attacks.

I've followed Monty's posts through more than a dozen threads. He,more than anyone else, has helped me to evolve my understanding of TGG. Feliks has done nothing at all in that regard except flower the threads with witty banter and put downs. That is why I am partial to one over the other, regardless of the fact that Feliks may have the better take on the novel. However, don't rush to judgment as sometimes an erroneous analysis can lead to a greater understanding of an issue. As I wrote before, perhaps by considering Monty's flawed analysis we can actually come up with a better understanding of the novel.

I have for several years toyed with the idea that perhaps SF was pulling a Lolita on us, but in his wildly inarticulate manner, hardly cogent, was contradicting the apparent partiality to the Gatsby character, so what some of Monty says makes some sense to me. I just think he's got only part of it right. I addressed exactly this issue about 3 years ago in a series of posts but it went nowhere in the discussion. I am not convinced of its veracity as I am convinced that SF wasn't sure of it himself.
As with Lolita, we are initially drawn into Humbert's ranting about Lolita, that cock teasing wench intent on exciting his prurient interest, but only later on the novel do we realize that he's a false narrator. I read the novel when I was 16 or 18 and was duped by the pedophile's description of his lust's object. I have occasionally wondered whether SF is doing something similar and by plugging in a few choice items about Jay's formative years, ie. that he cavalierly and indiscriminately bedded a multiple of women without regrets or sympathy for their unhappiness, later in the novel, is doing the same as Nabokov did in his novel, in that he is attempting to change our opinion of the story's protagonist. If so, I find this may be the problem I have with the novel and SF's writing, but I am not sure of this. I think Christine's take on the novel is the safest and for that I am appreciative.
I hope this makes sense. As I said, I find this story extremely complex, ambiguous and difficult to understand completely. That is why I welcome the opportunity to discuss it on GR. Yes, there's been hard feelings all around but I hope that as we gain a better understanding that we agree it has been worthwhile.

Feliks wrote: "Hours and hours. Right there.

Bogus. Neither the words nor the implication appear in what you cited.

You're losing it, Feliks. Has someone been spiking your egg nog?

Feliks wrote: "'All other methods', you label 'Neverland'. This is lunacy."

Another miscontruction of my words. You need some fresh material. Straw Man arguments are starting to smell like wet garbage.

Feliks wrote: "And so this is why archeology always trumps 'Bible Studies'. "

I'm impressed. You can spell "archeology" soused on spiked egg nog.

Monty J wrote: "Bogus. Neither the words nor the implication appear in what you cited."

It very clearly is right there in your own words. I quote: "It started over a year ago". If it never amounted to an hour, why would you even remember it? Why boast about it? D'oh.

You talk about 'being struck by lightning in slow motion'. Certainly this kind of long-lasting, profound transformation implies 'hours'.

Disagree? Fine. But of course all this proves our point once again; about how silly your Gatsby court-case is in the first place.

Look here:
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.

You still don't get it, apparently. 'What Fitzgerald actually wrote'...ISN'T what he actually wrote. Not when it's 'according to you'. You're re-processing his words; filtering his words for us through the leaky sieve of your own judgment.

You're not trained, you've got a religious slant a mile wide, and you're not even going about your task competently. Your appraisal skews every single one of the exhibits you raised.

Why does Fitzgerald mention 'Chicago'? There's two dozen possible reasons besides the one which 'seemed right to you'.

It's the most laughable case of observer-bias ever seen on Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ. Ludicrous, freshman-level fumbling.

Really, I need hardly say anything more. From now on it's strictly a duck shoot on my part.

This is what I mean by a 'duck-shoot'. Letting you tangle yourself up, in your own statements. No ill-will on my part, no strain, no antipathy. No distemper. Just look at this kind of thing:

post 266
Monty J wrote: "I'm genteel until I'm mistreated. Then, "Watch out.""

post 311
Monty J wrote: "Wrong, bagel-breath. You couldn't be more so. The pattern emerged after multiple readings. I knew something didn't feel right from the beginning, but it didn't come together until I read that essay from one of Bloom's books, which will be revealed later...."

So when someone speaks to you with continual politeness, you follow some inner rulebook which makes it alright for you to start hurling personal slurs. That's your definition of 'genteel'? Or 'mistreatment'?

The open disrespect for your audience, the disdain for people you want to accept your theory...that this is how you would respond to anyone, is staggering. Penn State? Sheesh

If a year ago someone --some stranger on Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ--had told me Monty J was descending to this mean, base level, I would have shouted them down as a mere 'hater'. A liar or a malcontent. I would have figured them for some disgruntled spoilsport. That's how much faith I had in this guy's character. I would have backed Monty to the hilt. That's what astounds me today. To be forced --however unwillingly--to recognize that this guy resides down among the lunatic fringe, lives at the level of utterly berserk psychos like ...'Geoffrey'. My god.

Glenn wrote: "Eloquently put, my friend. Bravo! ."

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

Stephen Glass was eloquent, too. And he also had a problem with realty, just like Feliks. Feliks spouts off like he's some kind of expert on TGG, yet he doesn't even own a copy.

Facts, Feliks, come from the novel. Not the movies.

(In case you haven't heard of Stephen Glass:

Monty J wrote: "Facts, Feliks, come from the novel...."

Your incompetent re-interpretation of the novel to suit your views? A guy who has read 155 books? That's not 'facts from Fitzgerald' by any means. That's 'slow-motion lightning', egad. That's senility or something; obsession, hubris, shinola..whatever it is, it's not fact.

Go ahead, try to 'put the scare' into more innocent readers around here. Spread hogwash. I'll simply follow up with a quiet word in their ear afterward, to let them know what's what. Maybe it will be 5 minutes out of my week. No big deal.

Geoffrey wrote: "And my take on Feliks is the same. He is a bully. He bullied me several years ago and I flagged him. Now he's reluctant to respond to my posts. And I to him.

Yes, I was offended by bagel breath as well. But I was even more offended by Feliks's attacks. "

I suppose I could understand more readily you criticizing both of them then. Not go after one for something you find offensive, and at the same time, defend the other for something he is clearly wrong about, and, in my opinion, who is probably the source of most of the antagonism on this board.

I'll think about that one. It's not my take. There was an over reaction when Monty first laid out his ideas.

Geoffrey wrote: "I'll think about that one. It's not my take. There was an over reaction when Monty first laid out his ideas."

Well, I know I didn't overreact to his first aggressive responses. You can go back and see that for yourself. That didn't stop him from becoming confrontational and irrational very quickly into it.

Geoffrey wrote: "I'll think about that one. It's not my take. There was an over reaction when Monty first laid out his ideas."

Where is the over reaction?

More and more inconsistencies in the original proposal.

1
Monty J wrote: "you can go to the moon and back if you like, but eventually you must tie your argument to what Fitzgerald actually wrote...."
2
Monty J wrote: "Facts, Feliks, come from the novel. ...."

3
Monty J wrote: "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...."

So you contradict yourself from the first paragraph of this thread.

What F Scott Fitzgerald said about his book--the jumping-off point from which you begin your method, is not 'facts which come directly from the text'. It's biographical information. It's an author's spoken comment, or something he wrote in correspondence.

Therefore later on in this same thread, when we contribute similar items (and you dismiss them because they are not lines of text Fitzgerald wrote in TGG) you're asking us to follow something which you yourself, did not even do.

This is what I mean by the sloppiness--the amateurishness-- in the original scheme.

Another Monty error, even more damning:

Monty J wrote: "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...."

This statement from Fitzgerald came out in the 1920s --after the book failed. The book was a dud for 20 years.

Fitzgerald is thus not whining at all, that there was 'romantic skewing' of his story going on; he was simply complaining that the reviewers didn't see good quality in his writing. If the romance in the storyline had made more of an impression on reviewers, he would have been overjoyed. He desired that they see just that very thing.

Harold Bloom wasn't born until the 1930s and was not publishing books or reviews at Yale until the 1950s.

Scott Fitzgerald died in 1940. So Fitzgerald could not have been complaining that anyone was viewing his work as a romance. 'Mistakenly' or otherwise. That simply hadn't happened yet.

He could not have been concerned about Harold Bloom's appraisal of TGG, in the slightest. That hadn't happened yet, either.

So you've taken Scott's remark entirely out of context. As the very basis for your investigation. You started building on an error.

Only when the book was issued as a cheap take-along for soldiers in WWII, and only when (completely on their own) thousands of men came back from the war with genuine, spontaneous admiration for it as a romance, was a trend begun which reviewers like Bloom, Trilling, and Troy would later examine.

Trilling is someone worth reading. Google him up, fellow Gatsby enthusiasts. You can find some of his writing about the novel online.

Feliks wrote: "You're re-processing his words; filtering his words for us through the leaky sieve of your own judgment."

Yes, just like Lionel Trilling did in his essay, "F. Scott Fitzgerald," (first published in The Nation in April, 1945, and reprinted in F.J. Hoffman's The Great Gatsby, a Study, Scribners, 1962.)

Fitzgerald was a moralist to the core and his desire to 'preach at people in some acceptable form' ...and he was gifted with the satiric eye; yet we feel that in his morality he was more drawn to celebrate the good than to denounce the bad.

From the same article,

Thus, The Great Gatsby has its interest as a record of contemporary manners, but this might only have served to date it, did not Fitzgerald take the given moment of history as something more than a mere circumstance, did he not ..seize the given moment as a moral fact.

...the wealthy and brutal Tom Buchanan haunted by his "scientific" vision of the doom of civilization, the vaguely guilty, vaguely homosexual Jordan Baker, the dim Wolfsheim, are treated ...as if they were ideographs ...a method of economy ...reinforced by the ideographic use of the Washington Heights flat, the terrible "valley of ashes," ...Gatsby's incoherent parties and the huge sordid eyes of the occulist's advertising sign. (It is a technique which gives the novel an affinity with The Wasteland, between whose author and Fitzgerald there existed a reciprocal admiration.)

It is abundantly evident that Trilling, a classmate, friend and accomplished literary critic, picked up on Fitzgerald's talent for moralistic satire in TGG.


In the same article, Trilling quotes Fitzgerald:

...'The test of a first-rate intelligence,' he said, 'is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind, at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.'

Readers could take a lesson in this, for within Jay Gatsby lie two opposing ideas: a romantic dreamer and a criminal who steals indiscriminately. Comprehending two opposing thoughts is apparently too great a challenge for a few posters on this thread.


Another reference to Fitzgerald's moralizing in TGG appears in Henry Dan Piper's essay, "The Untrimmed Christmas Tree," (Hoffman, 34):

The short story ["Absolution"] is especially important because it makes explicit the religious considerations that served its author as the basis for the moral judgments that he made so conspicuously in its sequel, The Great Gatsby.
"Absolution" is the story of a ten-year-old boy's first encounter with evil, whereas The Great Gatsby is the story of the consequences of that boyhood encounter.

Monty J wrote: "In the same article, Trilling quotes Fitzgerald]
...'The test of a first-rate intelligence,' he said, 'is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind, at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.'

Readers could take a lesson in this, for within Jay Gatsby lie two opposing ideas: a romantic dreamer and a criminal who steals indiscriminately. Comprehending two opposing thoughts is apparently too great a challenge for a few posters on this thread. .."

This is also expressed in Keats' "negative capability," and by others before him. I think we've been trying to do this, but anytime the romantic dreamer aspect came up, the conversation quickly turned in the other direction. It's been somewhat difficult to discuss any but one of the opposing ideas. But that's all right. I doubt there are many of us who need to take our self-affirmation from a website. I have the impression that most of us, whether outspoken or reticent, are educated people and look to a site like GR for enjoyable, companionable conversation.

AnnLoretta wrote: "Monty J wrote: "In the same article, Trilling quotes Fitzgerald]
...'The test of a first-rate intelligence,' he said, 'is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind, at the same time, and st..."

Well said. I suppose the comment "Does a criminal deserve anything but jail" in direct opposition to a poster who shows sympathy for the romantic side is more second-rate intelligence from Monty J.

Interesting that Monty can read Trilling but not understand what Trilling is saying about the novel as a whole, instead picking and choosing which bits support his narrow reading. It's the same blindness I just referred to on the Frog Prince thread. Monty should identify best with Gatsby but instead he's George Wilson, blind to what's going on in front of his eyes and clinging to a moral view of the universe that doesn't exist in his world.

God sees everything, says the deluded George.

That's just an advertisement, Michaelis tries to helpfully tell him, but George doesn't get it. He keeps peering out into the darkness. Then he goes and commits murder.

Feliks wrote: "Fitzgerald is thus not whining at all, that there was 'romantic skewing' of his story going on; he was simply complaining that the reviewers didn't see good quality in his writing. "

(I stood up and applauded when I read this, Feliks, you're actually discussing the book again. Bravo!)

But we disagree, again, for it was Fitzgerald's glowing prose that reviewers praised most heavily. The criticism's I've read had more to do do with structure. Do you want me to cite you some?

And your fundamental premise, " that there was 'romantic skewing' of his story going on" contains a logical flaw. I neither stated nor intimated that was Fitzgerald's complaint. All that can be inferred from my opening quote from Fitzgerald is that not even the most favorable reviewers got it right. You're leaping to conclusions by making assumptions again.

...'The test of a first-rate intelligence,' he said, 'is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind, at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.' ..."

Whoever said it, this really goes back to the Greeks. Someone in the school of Athens coined it. 'Entertaining the opinions of others without reacting to them' is what gave the Greeks adaptability; whereas their rivals were rigid.

post #364
Monty J wrote: "All I've done is defend myself...."

Errm, yup...

MJ: "...I'm just giving MY opinion the precedence it deserves"

Feliks wrote: "MJ: "...I'm just giving MY opinion the precedence it deserves"
"

(He says, as he slides back into the pig pen.)

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...."

You can be just as wrong staring straight at Fitzgerald's words as you can anywhere else you look. It's to our disadvantage: because you're not giving us his words, you're giving us the false meaning you place upon them, with phrases of your own.

And what is this fetish about 'his direct words' anyway? Unfortunately, words are what all of us use to communicate. Truth & accuracy aren't segregated by a printer's press. Would you read 'Mein Kampf' today simply at face value? Limit analysis only to what AH seemed to express?

We know better what a book represents by being allowed to communicate about it with words of our own. Logic is universal. Whatever FSF wrote, it still must yield to logic --both in the writing, and later--in the understanding. No one's words are better than anyone else's if they don't adhere to rational sense.

Feliks wrote: "We know better what a book represents by being allowed to communicate about it with words of our own."

As long as we don't go the route of Stephen Glass. Well, we can, but there are consequences. He ended up spending a few years in prison.

I have said countless times that there are a myriad ways to interpret a scene, and people get out of a book what they bring to it. I don't place my interpretations above (nor below) anyone else's, but you keep asserting I do, which is indefensible, except from someone's imagination.

No one, that I know of, can read someone else's mind.

^^^Preaching one thing while practicing another...

Monty J wrote: "Feliks wrote: "You're re-processing his words; filtering his words for us through the leaky sieve of your own judgment."

Yes, just like Lionel Trilling did in his essay, "F. Scott Fitzgerald," (fi..."

As incarcerated murderers reverently listen fixedly to hours of opera. Come to think of it, didn't Hannibal Lester.........

A significant difference exists between interpretation as a tool of book criticism and interpretation that claims it is only reporting on the text written by the author. The first should be closely examined for an underlying code that may cloud its judgment. The second is despicable.

Susan Sontag was really onto something here:
By interpretation, I mean here a conscious act of the mind which illustrates a certain code, certain “rules� of interpretation.

Huh. Monty J Hey-something (I don't know his last name) sure ain' no Lionel Trilling. Not with no measly 155 books to attest to his experience of literature.

Hey boys and girls. Here's a hard word for today. Can you say 'pseudo-analysis'? Good! I know that you could...

That's exactly what this whole thing has been.

And now for a garnish:

Monty J wrote: "as a bit of trivia, I used to manage money for Texas Instruments. Once a month I'd have lunch with my peers at Halliburton and a couple of other Dallas multinationals, and we'd compete with each other forecasting interest rates. The month I won (got closest to the prime rate) I was awarded...."

Just so perfect. This take on F Scott Fitzgerald is better than the Edmund Fitzgerald.

What astounds me is that this guy--at the end of a long career in finance--adopts this pet literary hobby, okay, that's at least conceivable for an old guy with free time on his hands.

But he whips up this cockamamie theory, comes on this website, delivers it like a Moses --naturally it's full of amateurish holes--but the key thing is, he doesn't even deport himself with academic behavior. No courtesy, no decorum. Unwilling to admit his grand solution is in any way, flawed.

True or false? He ramrods his pet theory down our throats, and then--under debate conditions--he is spluttering, red-faced, & derogatory? Cusses people? Lashes out?

Are you kidding me? That's what I saw. His game was that shoddy and he blames us?

Over. Gloves off. This guy is finished forever on Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ.

Feliks wrote: "He ramrods his pet theory down our throats, and then--under debate conditions--he is spluttering, red-faced, & derogatory? Cusses people? Lashes out?"

That's right, prep school puppy. I have teeth and I bite. Only a junk-yard dog like me would stoop to wallowing in the pig pen you created.

Feliks wrote: "...an old guy with free time on his hands."

Scary, isn't it?

When I'm 90, I'll still be running circles around you.

Tell you what, Feliks, I'll challenge you to a decathlon anytime you want. Push-ups, weights, javelin, anything you want. And I'll embarrass the hell out of you on the field just as I'm doing here.

Monty J wrote: "Christine wrote: "Funny though, his desperate longing for Daisy is what people (myself included) notice most about the book. Whatever F Scott was trying to portray, he managed to get across Gatsby'..."

In my mind one view of the book is that Gatsby and Daisy are quite silly and shallow people, like two stupid high school kids or any two random silly lovers and the thing that draws us in their wealth, beauty, and glamour. If they were in a trailer park or camping in the woods or something, we wouldn't be interested in their dumb love story and we would condemn them for being so shallow and stupid. But we project on them some notion of correctness or tragedy because of their wealth. Perhaps the trick is on the reader to get dazzled by such stupid characters in the way that Gatsby is drawing people in to his criminality through his dazzling parties.

Mayor wrote: "we wouldn't be interested in their dumb love story and we would condemn them for being so shallow and stupid."

VERY interesting. I hadn't thought of it this way. And the trailer park analogy is brilliant.

It makes me think that a movie or TV series along the lines of Oh Brother, Where Art Thou parodying The Great Gatsby could be a phenomenal success.

(I'm afraid it would cause heart attacks among a few Gatsby snobs though.)

VERY interesting. I hadn't thought of it this way. And the trailer park..."

yes, could see this being a great Netflix series for a couple of seasons

Mayor wrote: "If they were in a trailer park or camping in the woods or something, we wouldn't be interested in their dumb love story ..."

Well, there are plenty of trailer trash type shows if people like that sort of thing. But the essence of TGG is money -- because if, for example, Tom, Daisy and Jay had been on equal monetary footing from day one -- let's say, all trailer people -- Daisy would of course have chosen Jay and there would not be a conflict.

Christine wrote;
"Well, there are plenty of trailer trash type shows if people like that sort of thing. But the essence of TGG is money -- because if, for example, Tom, Daisy and Jay had been on equal monetary footing from day one -- let's say, all trailer people -- Daisy would of course have chosen Jay and there would not be a conflict."

Exactly Christine- and there wouldn't be the story we love!

Karen wrote: "Exactly Christine- and there wouldn't be the story we love! .."

Yes. If they don't like Gatsby maybe they should try Honey Boo Boo or something of that merit :D :P ;)

Christine wrote: "Karen wrote: "Exactly Christine- and there wouldn't be the story we love! .."

Yes. If they don't like Gatsby maybe they should try Honey Boo Boo or something of that merit :D :P ;)"

Lol. Or Mary Poppins.

Christine wrote: "Honey Boo Boo "

Never heard of it. I'm out of touch with popular culture. No TV since 2008, and loving every minute.

I was thinking more along the lines of Tortilla Flat. In a poverty-stricken ghetto, the symbols of affluence are on a different scale--like a vacuum cleaner that doesn't work.

This from the Preface to Scribner's 1995 paperback edition of TGG, written by Matthew J. Bruccoli, The University of South Carolina, 1992.(emphasis mine):

"Jay Gatsby's criminal activities are kept mysterious, but it is evident that he has been a bootlegger. The Twenties were a time of stock-market speculation and peculation--though penny ante stuff compared to the Eighties--and Gatsby is involved with stolen securities. On 3 September 1929 the Dow-Jones Industrial Average reached a high of 381; it fell to 261 on 28 October....What Fitzgerald called "the most expensive orgy in history" was over.

...An essential aspect of the American-ness and the historicity of The Great Gatsby is that it is about money. The Land of Opportunity promised the chance for financial success. Gatsby, who makes his fortune in ways never envisioned by Benjamin Franklin, does not understand how money works in society.

...It has become convenient to refer to The Great Gatsby as "the great American novel." If this phrase means anything, it means that the novel is the great work of fiction with defining American thematic qualities and that James Gatz/Jay Gatsby is the great American character. ...Gatsby is the American self-made--indeed, self-invented--man. He believes in the American Dream of success ("the orgastic future"); he fulfills it; he confuses it with Daisy; he is betrayed by it. The appellation great as applied to Gatsby reverberates with irony. He is truly great by virtue of his capacity to commit himself to his aspirations. Yet at the same time the adjective indicates the tawdry and exaggerated aspects of his life.

And this from the same edition's Explanatory Notes:

174.23 "handed the bonds over the counter"
An indication that Gatsby was involved in handling stolen securities, as Arnold Rothstein allegedly was. In December 1924 Fitzgerald reported to Perkins from Rome on the revision of his novel: "anyhow after careful searching of the files (of a man's mind here) for the Fuller Magee case + after having had Zelda draw pictures until her fingers ache I know Gatsby better than I know my own child."
Stockbroker Edward M. Fuller and his partner William F. McGee declared bankruptcy in 1922, with $6 million in debts. Fuller, a Great Neck resident, and McGee were indicted on twelve counts of fraud. During his four trials Fuller's close connections with Arnold Rothstein were made public.

Fitzterald, while living in Great Neck, might easily have attended one of Fuller's lavish parties and learned about bond scams.


Incidentally, another reference to Fitzgerald's moralizing in TGG appears in Henry Dan Piper's essay, "The Untrimmed Christmas Tree," (Hoffman, 34):

The short story ["Absolution"] is especially important because it makes explicit the religious considerations that served its author as the basis for the moral judgments that he made so conspicuously in its sequel, The Great Gatsby.
"Absolution" is the story of a ten-year-old boy's first encounter with evil, whereas The Great Gatsby is the story of the consequences of that boyhood encounter.

Uh...yes?

Pretty sure everyone on this thread knows that Gatsby is involved in money, bootlegging and securities fraud. We've all read the book. That's why we're discussing it.