The Great Gatsby
discussion
Who Was Really Driving: A Comprehensive Analysis
Ellen wrote: "Fitzgerald is telling us, those of us with perception, that you have a personal, psychological obsession with Jay Gatsby. Are you all right? I'm just asking, because it would be irresponsible of me...":)
(Actually, it's Fitzgerald, not Gatsby.)
Ellen calm down please. You've given good postings and have thought to think these issues through so please stay in the thread. Monty also has been more than thorough going through this. Yes, Monty has some bias towards Tom. Goodness knows why, you and I both find the creature slimy.As for the two witnesses, neither is reliable.
One says the car was doing 30, the other sixty. Which is it. There's a considerable difference.One says the color is cream, the other green. The car is actually yellow. SF is adding smoke to the verity of the story in his all consuming intent to make differing viewpoints one of the themes to the story.
It is Tom who claims the driver is a man. He has more than enough reason to lie.He doesn't want a hit and run charge brought against his darling wife. Nor is he hesitant in pinning a murder rap on Jay. Tainted witness there, Monty.
Tom is an accessory to murder. Had the courts discovered that he would be up on felony charges. It would be reasonable to assume that he knew that Wilson would plug Jay as he was waving a gun. He made no attempt to inform the police of the"madman" bent on murdering an erstwhile, upstanding member of the elite classes, nor did he phone Jay. Outside the jewelry shop where he is buying gems for Daisy to get back into her graces, he admits as such to Nick.
So let's add to more charges to Tom's lack of moral fiber. He's a white supremacist and accessory to murder.
Monty, Nick was there at the scene, you and I were not. SF clearly writes that Nick guessed the truth and that was why he suggested that Daisy was really the driver.You can't argue that Nick didn't believe Jay as at the beginning of the scene it says he was angry with Jay.He's angry because he believes Jay was the driver. But he accepts Jay's explanation. And the rest of us do too. It goes to the point of love and the sacrifices its tolls beset us. Jay is taking the rap for the woman of his dreams besotten as he is.
Geoffrey wrote: "One says the car was doing 30, the other sixty"You're not reading carefully. There's no conflict, in car speed or color.
The guy who said thirty said that's how fast the car was going at the time of collision. The guy who said sixty was coming from the opposite direction, after the collision. The car sped up. Gatsby himself said they "stepped on it.
"One says the color is cream, the other green. The car is actually yellow."
Nope, not yellow. It is clearly stated in the book the first time the car appears is that it is a Rolls and is a cream color, but people refer to it carelessly as yellow. Later, it's green leather upholstery is revealed, the day of the accident.
"It is Tom who claims the driver is a man." Show us where you get this. I cited from the book exactly what Wilson and Michaelis said. The cop also said "son-of-a-bitch," which refers to a man. S-O-B is not a term used in reference to a woman.
Geoffrey, it's okay- none of us are reading this book correctly. Only Monty. Just one- one person out of so many who have read this several times or more- so many lit critics and scholars; they haven't read it correctly either. Baffling, isn't it? And it goes on and on. Sad.
These are old vehicles from the 20s Monty. The pickup from 30 to 60 is almost a minute.As for the color read your quote again. Michaelis first told the police officer it was light green. Then later he changes the color. Comeon. What do you need, Monty, a pointer?
At a 150 feet and the driver is behind the wheel, come on, you couldn´t tell what the gender was especially with the fading light. If the car was travelling 60 mph, it would be impossible. There was a bend in the road immediately after, which Daisy drove around at which point Jay pulls the emergency break.
Whatever the cop said had no bearing as to his knowledge as he was not there when the accident occurred. He is relying on witness testimony which is suspect.
Light cream would appear as white, not yellow to those whose color sense was fading as was the light at that time of the late afternoon.
Geoffrey wrote: "As for the color read your quote again. Michaelis first told the police officer it was light green. Then later he changes the color."Nope. You've just illustrated the Iceberg Principle again. Nowhere in the book does Michaelis change his mind about the color. Nor in my quotes.
Monty! I see what you are doing here. You are trying to END the ninety year love affair that America has been having with Jay Gatsby!I doubt it will work. See -- if Hollywood had gotten a smarmy type to play Gatsby, you may have had a chance. As it is, they got Robert Redford and Leo DiCaprio!!
In this quest it is like you are trying to take down Rhett Butler. (Who was like, a war criminal. Or something.) It is like you are trying to take down Atticus Finch! (Who by today's politically correct standards, would be a negligent parent. Or something.)
Also, there are two points:
1) You cannot be entirely sure F Scott was trying to create a loathsome figure in Gatsby.
2) Even if he was, America did not read it that way. The reader's interpretation is just as valid as the author's original intent.
Geoffrey wrote: "Light cream would appear as white, not yellow to those whose color sense was fading as was the light at that time of the late afternoon."Here's the complete description of Gatsby's Rolls Royce (Ch.IV, p.64) [Nick, narrating]:
I'd seen it. Everybody had seen it. It was a rich cream color, bright with nickel,swollen here and there in its monstrous length with triumphant hat-boxes and super-boxes and tool-boxes, and terraced with a labyrinth of wind-shields that mirrored a dozen suns.Wilson called it yellow when the party stopped for gas ("It's a nice yellow one," said Wilson, as he strained at the handle.) Tom called it yellow at the crash scene, as did others. The car was a cream color which people by convention referred to as yellow.
Christine wrote: "Monty! I see what you are doing here. You are trying to END the ninety year love affair that America has been having with Jay Gatsby!"Not at all. I have no agenda other than to honor Fitzgerald's words as he wrote them and to learn from people's responses how he accomplished what he did.
The issue of who drove the car is this novel's fulcrum, with two interpretations at play. The vast conventional world says Daisy drove, making it a (yawn) romance novel with class conflict, and corruption is hardly noticed.
Whereas if Gatsby drives and lies about it, the novel becomes a statement about the corruption of the Jazz Age that led to the Crash of '29, with an uber-romantic central character.
Michaelis wasn´t even sure of the color-he told the first policeman that it was light green. That is the exact quote from the book Monty. If you check lines 51 and 52 from your very own posting #1 you will see that you are very much mistaken.
Geoffrey wrote: "Michaelis wasn´t even sure of the color-he told the first policeman that it was light green. That is the exact quote from the book Monty. If you check lines 51 and 52 from your very own posting #1 ..."Where does it show in either place that Michaelis changed his story? In what way was I mistaken? I quoted what's in the book, which is exactly what you said above, "he told the first policeman it was light green."
You're making me dizzy going in circles.
"Not at all. I have no agenda other than to honor Fitzgerald's words as he wrote them and to learn from people's responses how he accomplished what he did."LOL!!! No one can honor Fitzgerald's words except for Monty.
Monty, r u thinking? You´re disappointing me.What is the definition of ¨is¨?
Karen wrote: "No one can honor Fitzgerald's words except for Monty."I think I have amply demonstrated more than a few of Fitzgerald's words that have been overlooked.
Ellen, please tone it down. This is not a message thread for the venomous. You have legitimate issues, granted, but the slice to the jugular was not called for. We are all trying to decipher a novel that is less than transparent. You have successfully discerned that Jay and Wolfie didn´t know the difference. That was astute of you. Monty has been astute on many points as well, but these that are in contention leaves him in an unreasonable light. He needs to think them through and not force them to conform to his own morality.
Geoffrey wrote: "There was a bend in the road immediately after, which Daisy drove around at which point Jay pulls the emergency break."The guy coming from the other way would have seen them stop. He said they were going 50 or 60 miles a hour. There wasn't enough time to stop the car, change drivers, then accelerate to 60 before encountering the oncoming driver.
>Geoffrey wrote:"Whatever the cop said had no bearing as to his knowledge as he was not there when the accident occurred. He is relying on witness testimony which is suspect."
Are you serious? Judges and juries rely on cops and witnesses. Sometimes they get it wrong, but to assert that these impartial witnesses and a trained professional are somehow less credible than a mob-connected liar and thief with a motive for lying to impress Nick strikes me as a tad prejudiced.
Geoffrey wrote: "...the slice to the jugular was not called for."I heard a gnat buzzing.
Geoffrey wrote;"Ellen, please tone it down. This is not a message thread for the venomous. You have legitimate issues, granted, but the slice to the jugular was not called for. We are all trying to decipher a novel that is less than transparent. You have successfully discerned that Jay and Wolfie didn´t know the difference. That was astute of you. Monty has been astute on many points as well, but these that are in contention leaves him in an unreasonable light. He needs to think them through and not force them to conform to his own morality."
Really?? You are asking Ellen to tone it down? If Monty would like to start a Gatsby thread where one has to be invited to join, and that is private to everyone else, let him. But he hasn't. Therefore, we can come on here and feel free to interact, which is what Ellen is doing. She is not the unreasonable one. The one who claims, not in so many words, to be the superior reader of us all is the unreasonable one. Morality? The person who rails against immorality constantly is the one with the problem.
Monty J wrote: "The vast conventional world says Daisy drove, making it a (yawn) romance novel with class conflict, and corruption is hardly noticed.Whereas if Gatsby drives and lies about it, the novel becomes a statement about the corruption of the Jazz Age that led to the Crash of '29, with an uber-romantic central character. ..."
Monty, no matter who drove, this novel cannot be considered a romance novel in the traditional sense. It does not follow the plot of boy-meets-girl, boy-loses-girl, boy-gets-girl. Gatsby obviously does not get Daisy in the end.
Also, regardless of who drove, I think the novel already IS the other things you state.
Maybe the question is -- Was Gatsby capable of love?
Karen wrote: "If Monty would like to start a Gatsby thread where one has to be invited to join, and that is private to everyone else, let him. But he hasn't. Therefore, we can come on here and feel free to interact, which is what Ellen is doing."Precisely. And no one's twisting anyone's arm. If they don't like what I post, they don't have to read it or comment on it.
Karen wrote: "The one who claims, not in so many words, to be the superior reader..."
Methinks my "superiority" is all in your head. I've never claimed to be superior or demeaned anyone's comments, despite a deluge of oncoming disparagement. (Bring it on. I'm a rhino.) Nor have I said my view is the only one possible. To the contrary; I've consistently maintained that many interpretations are possible.
I've simply posted my position and remained open to any and all comments. If someone challenges what I've said, I refute the challenge, citing directly from the book. Something I've noticed rarely occurs on the part of others.
This isn't some totalitarian regime, where only one point of view is allowed.
No one, except maybe a child, would come here expecting everyone to agree with him/her.
Christine wrote: "...regardless of who drove, I think the novel already IS the other things you state."Yea!
Christine wrote: "Maybe the question is -- Was Gatsby capable of love?"
Sounds like an interesting topic.
It's not all in my head, look over your posts and you will see (maybe) that you think you are the only one with the correct interpretation. You don't have to come out and blatantly claim it to be- it's easily inferred by your postings.
Karen wrote: "It's not all in my head, look over your posts and you will see (maybe) that you think you are the only one with the correct interpretation. You don't have to come out and blatantly claim it to be- ..."Nope. I will not be cyber-bullied by you or anyone else. Engaging in cheap shot personal attacks like this instead of discussing the book is a sign not only of poor character but a weak argument. And it simply doesn't work with me.
You presume to know what is in my head and try to hold me accountable for what is in yours as if it were mine. You are responsible what what you infer; not me.
Stick to the topic instead of trying to make me the topic and we'll do fine.
I never cyber-bullied or attacked you. And why are you accusing me of that and not others? Think about it- and you are the one who said I show poor character? Laughable. You are the one who showed this when you defended the woman beater in this novel, TGG. Complain to goodreads if you think I am cyber-bullying, see what they say. Ridiculous.
Back to the topics, get off the personal. These flame wars are like GOP politics
Monty J wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "There was a bend in the road immediately after, which Daisy drove around at which point Jay pulls the emergency break."The guy coming from the other way would have seen them stop..."
If they passed him he wouldn´t have turned around to see them stopping. At this point, they turned the corner and the other driver did not see Myrtle´s corpse as he hadn´t reached the bend, so he would have not had reason to turn his head around to see if they stopped. Under my scenario, it is quite possible to fit all the details.
Michaelis clearly changed his opinion of the color of the car. It is stated clearly. If the police officer is honest in his testimony, he would admit that was the initial impression, albeit erroneous. But yes, considering that once Tom makes it public knowledge his dirt on Jay, the court´s would have been prejudiced against our hero and the DA would have primed both Michaelis and the police officer to lie about the color of the car under first testimony. All this is conjecture of course, because the novel doesn´t take that turn, but had it did, this would have been an acceptable resolve to SF´s critique of American society.
Geoffrey wrote: "Michaelis clearly changed his opinion of the color of the car. It is stated clearly."Show us then. Post the quote.
Here, one more time, is the only time Michaelis mentions the car's color, paraphrased by Nick after apparently attending the inquest (Ch. VII, p.137.) [Nick, narrating]
The "death car" as the newspapers called it, didn't stop; it came out of the gathering darkness, wavered tragically for a moment, then disappeared around the next bend. Michaelis wasn't even sure of the color--he told the first policeman that it was light green.
(Note Nick's use of the pejorative extraneous "even," showing bias by implying his personal dis-inclination to believe Michaelis.)
Monty, go back to your original quotation from the novel and tell the rest of us whether you believe that Nick thinks that Jay was the hit-and-run driver?Yes, you can argue that Nick´s naivete and blind hero worship leads him to think Jay innocent, but the rest of us will argue that Nick wasn´t that naive. His moral code is one that contravenes most readers. He is not shocked by the sale of stolen bonds, he´s not put off by Jordan´s cheating at golf, he´s not put off by Tom´s white supremacist attitudes, nor even by a hit- and-run driver´s actions
The question is as to what does offend him? By the most extreme account, he is offended by the welchers who come to Jay´s party but don´t show up at his funeral, a business partner who doesn´t want to attend because he might get ensnared in the law´s dragnet, by something Jordan did which we can´t discern....perhaps that she called him dishonest....was she referring to his latent homosexuality??I wonder. Those are the most ambiguous lines in the entire novel.
Nick returns to the Midwest in disgust, we might conjecture, at the loose morality of the East Coast, and yet he has a whole closetful of black kettles. He may not be as morally challenged as the other principal characters in the novel, but neither is he a saint.
Geoffrey wrote: "If they passed him he wouldn´t have turned around to see them stopping. At this point, they turned the corner and the other driver did not see Myrtle´s corpse as he hadn´t reached the bend, so he would have not had reason to turn his head around to see if they stopped. Under my scenario, it is quite possible to fit all the details."Possible, yes, with a bit of mental gymnastics. They could have accelerated to 50-60, gone around the bend, then passed the oncoming car, then stopped to switch drivers.
That's quite a bit of delay. But Gatsby didn't indicate any such delay in pulling on the emergency brake. He just said Daisy "stepped on it" and he pulled on the emergency brake, not indicating any hesitation. You're supplying something not supported in the text--the implication of delay.
Speaking of delay, think of Fitzgerald's timing in revealing the detail about the green upholstery so the reader could link it with Michaelis' testimony. Why else would he time it this way? The place to cover the color of the upholstery was sixty pages back when the car was first described. First the inquest, then the accident, then the detail about the car's green interior. Why mention the green interior at this point if not to support Michaelis' testimony?
Also, having all the eyewitnesses at the scene contradict Gatsby sends a message that can't be ignored. If Fitzgerald wanted to discredit their testimony, he'd have provided tools on the page for doing that, like making making them drunk or showing them to have lied or been unreliable in some way.
He does just the opposite. Michaelis is almost Christ-like in his attentiveness toward the aggrieved Wilson. Wilson's manipulated and cuckolded by his wife. He's no mental giant, but he's never shown as a slacker or to have poor vision or a tendency to lie. To discredit either of these witnesses requires the reader to make up something.
Geoffrey wrote: "...once Tom makes it public knowledge his dirt on Jay,"
It's not Tom's dirt. Gatsby's history is of his own making. (But getting readers to hold him accountable for it is like trying to catch a greased pig.)
Christine wrote: "1)You cannot be entirely sure F Scott was trying to create a loathsome figure in Gatsby."I don't see Gatsby as loathsome. I see him as a complex anti-hero. Many see only black or white. I see shades of grey.
I see realism in someone so tunnel-visioned and driven they lose sight of the rest of the sentient beings with whom they share this planet.
By spotlighting Gatsby's corruption, all I'm doing is restoring the Gatsby Fitzgerald actually wrote.
Geoffrey wrote: "Monty, go back to your original quotation from the novel and tell the rest of us whether you believe that Nick thinks that Jay was the hit-and-run driver?Yes, you can argue that Nick´s naivete and blind hero worship leads him to think Jay innocent, but the rest of us will argue that Nick wasn´t that naive."
It's a no-brainer that Nick wants to believe Gatsby. That could be the whole point of the novel, with Nick representing the naive (delusional?) general public that is so mesmerized by the concept of the American Dream they cannot accept the realities staring them in the face, hypnotized by the headlight of the train bearing down on them at the end of the tunnel.
Fitzgerald begins the novel by having Nick say how unbiased he is, "inclined to reserve all judgments," then admits to a reversal of his tolerance, "I wanted no more excursions with privileged glimpses into the human heart." EXCEPT (my empasis) for Gatsby, "who represented everything for which I have unaffected scorn" yet "there was something gorgeous about him, some heightened sensitivity to the promises of life, ...an extraordinary gift of hope, a romantic readiness such as I have never found in any person and which it is not likely I shall ever find again." Then he excuses Gatsby's corruption, truncating him from it with "Gatsby turned out all right at the end; it is what preyed on Gatsby, what foul dust floated in the wake of his dreams." Gatsby's not responsible for his actions; it was those dust thingys that chased after him, like Wolfshiem.
By declaring Gatsby to be so dear to Nick, Fitzgerald has put the reader on notice of his bias toward Gatsby. Nick goes through the novel making allowances for Gatsby by failing to notice one flaw after another, by believing Gatsby's obvious lies, by not being repulsed by Wofsheim, by even becoming Gatsby's intermediary on behalf of Daisy.
Yes, I DO believe Nick has a gay crush on Gatsby, largely because of his tryst with McKee at the end of chapter II. If Nick went down to McKee's to look at his portfolio, he could have done so without McKee crawling between the sheets in his underwear. And with McKee sitting there "with a great portfolio in his hands", where else could Nick be to view this great portfolio but sitting there next to him?
How does Nick's homoerotic fling fit with the plot? It explains Nick's lack of judgment regarding the gorgeous Gatsby and, given the prevalent social mores against homosexuality, it marks Nick with a heavy stripe of corruption consistent with the novel's core theme of moral decay.
To me the novel screams "Wake up, America! You're being had by all these wealthy crooks!" In his failure to hold Gatsby accountable for his corruption, Nick exemplifies the gullibility of the American public who are sheep to be sheared by the wolves of Wall Street (as in Wolfsheim.)
Ask yourself one question: if Jay Gatsby were being tried for securities fraud, would you want Nick Carraway on the jury?
Fitzgerald makes Nick's poor judgment regarding Gatsby so obvious that he must mean for the reader to take a step back after the Slagel phone call, if not sooner, and say, Wait a minute, Gatsby's a crook! What's wrong with Nick? Why doesn't he wise up? And the reader, long after putting down the novel, wakes up one morning with a light bulb pulsing in his/her head, going, "Jesus-H-criminy, Nick is me!"
Karen wrote: "I never cyber-bullied or attacked you. And why are you accusing me of that and not others? Think about it- and you are the one who said I show poor character? Laughable. You are the one who showed ..."Wikipedia: Cyberbullying is the act of harming or harassing via information technology networks in a repeated and deliberate manner. According to U.S. Legal Definitions, "cyber-bullying could be limited to posting rumors or gossips about a person in the internet bringing about hatred in other’s minds; or it may go to the extent of personally identifying victims and publishing materials severely defaming and humiliating them."
This includes repeated insults, such as implying someone is mentally impaired or has some ulterior motive. You, Ellen and Petergianquinta have crossed the line more than once. Ellen by far, pushing me to the point of zero tolerance. I don't care to go back and itemize.
Disagreements are expected in a discussion forum. But personal attacks are out of bounds.
I'm not guiltless myself. I used to call people out, sometimes rudely, when I suspected them of cyber-trolling for attention or for money. I thought I was doing Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ a service. I suspect most of my targets were trolling, but I stopped doing that a couple of years ago when I discovered one case where the person was quite young and I had hurt her feelings.
I will say no more about it.
I believe you are wrong about this, and as I said before, complain to goodreads then.
KarenYou are out of line. You need to apologize to Monty.
Geoffrey wrote: "KarenYou are out of line. You need to apologize to Monty."
Lol
Lolololo...Curiouser and curiouser, I'd say, and as far as kettles go, you (Monty J) are guilty of the same online behavior in response to Cosmic's kooky single-minded interpretations of Catcher as anyone else you've mentioned here in response to your own oddball view of who was driving. And yet here you go charging at the same windmills as Cosmic and then get your panties in a bunch when folks point out how unhealthy you are becoming on these threads. Simmer down, buddy. You're like Gatsby in the pool, waiting for a phone call that's not coming. And we all know what happened to poor Gatsby...
What's more interesting to me about the "light green" mistake (which your hobby horse won't allow you to understand means Michaelis doesn't have a very clear view of what has happened on the road) is the way Fitzgerald links Myrtle and her foolish dream to Gatsby and his. Myrtle is drawn to the car (light green???) in the same way that Gatsby is drawn to the green light at the end of Daisy's dock and the same way the fresh green breast of the New World drew those Dutch sailors so long ago. Fitzgerald is pulling it all together in another brilliant stroke of the pen by transforming the car to "light green."
And that's another reason why that poor Christian school kid with the over-involved mother should read Gatsby. Main Street won't give him the same rich reading experience. The sheer artistry at work in Gatsby alone makes it worth the read. And it's that artistry you're missing, Monty, when you reduce the novel to some sort of goofy whodunnit the way you are.
Well said Peter. And to me, TGG is one of the most beautiful books ever written. Reading it solidified my commitment to read as many gorgeous books as I can.
Petergiaquinta wrote: "...guilty of the same online behavior in response to Cosmic's kooky single-minded interpretations of Catcher."That was over a year ago. I've reformed. Besides, I've always given Cosmic, and still do, credit for responding to Catcher in her own unique way. She's onto something that I can't put my finger on and I don't think she communicates well.
For example, Ed Bankey, the football coach, having a name similar to Earnest Bankey, who became ace-in-a-day at the Battle of the Bulge, where Salinger was serving as a sergeant in the Counterinteligence Corps. A coincidence? Perhaps. Perhaps not:
"Fitzgerald is pulling it all together in another brilliant stroke of the pen by transforming the car to "light green."
You sound a bit like Cosmic yourself here. (But I'm willing to try and see it that way.)
" Monty, when you reduce the novel to some sort of goofy whodunnit the way you are."
I'm just getting warmed up. Wait 'til I post what I'm working on about Chapter IX.
""Fitzgerald is pulling it all together in another brilliant stroke of the pen by transforming the car to "light green."Monty wrote; "You sound a bit like Cosmic yourself here."
In what way?
Monty wrote;
"That was over a year ago. I've reformed."
Reformed?? A tad self righteous I would say.
Petergiaquinta wrote: "What's more interesting to me about the "light green" mistake . . . Is the way Fitzgerald links Myrtle and her foolish dream to Gatsby and his..."What a very astute observation, Petergiaquinta! Thanks for pointing that out. I had never picked up on that.
And the "fresh green breast" of the New World?Well, what happens to Myrtle when she goes running toward the car? It's a bizarre type of injury, isn't it? Again, Fitzgerald is doing so much here with the language, the symbols, the motifs...if Gatsby is driving the car, none of it makes sense. That's the biggest flaw with your theory; it destroys what Fitzgerald is doing with the novel as a whole.
Thank you, Cindy, but I have to share some credit with my friend Joe McKeown for that one. We were just having a conversation about the color of the car yesterday...and Joe has his own interesting spin on Gatsby...he's God, you see...Gatsby, I mean. Not Joe.And I know that mother would hate for her child to hear some of that blasphemy in a class discussion of the novel...Gatsby shouldering his air mattress as he slowly walks toward his Calvary in the pool!
Petergiaquinta wrote: "Thank you, Cindy, but I have to share some credit with my friend Joe McKeown for that one. We were just having a conversation about the color of the car yesterday...and Joe has his own interesting ..."I would definitely bring that up in my class--and will, now! You and Joe have some great insights into this novel. I know there's a ton of lit crit out there, and I've read some but can't remember coming across these particular points before. So glad you're my friend! :)
Karen wrote: "Reformed?? A tad self righteous I would say."I'm serious. I am much more tolerant. (But I have limits.)
Cindy wrote: "Petergiaquinta wrote: "What's more interesting to me about the "light green" mistake . . . Is the way Fitzgerald links Myrtle and her foolish dream to Gatsby and his..."What a very astute observa..."
I agree Cindy, I also did not think of that link but I like it.
Karen wrote: """Fitzgerald is pulling it all together in another brilliant stroke of the pen by transforming the car to "light green."Monty wrote; "You sound a bit like Cosmic yourself here."
In what way?
Mon..."
Tone it down Karen. These tantrums don´t put you in a good light and you have a lot of good things to say.
Petergiaquinta wrote: "And the "fresh green breast" of the New World?Well, what happens to Myrtle when she goes running toward the car? It's a bizarre type of injury, isn't it? Again, Fitzgerald is doing so much here w..."
Exactly
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The following text reveals Gatsby's lie about Daisy driving (Ch. VII, p.143.) [Underlining mine. Gatsby speaking]
Notice the following:
A. Corruption-- Both Gatsby and Nick are complicit in concealing a vehicular homicide.
B. It is Nick who suggests that Daisy was driving. Gatsby only agrees.
C. Time--An hour or more has elapsed since the accident, plenty of time for Gatsby to prepare an explanation. The accident happened "a little after seven" P.M. in late August, during the extended twilight of New York's northern latitude.
D. Conflicting Testimony--Gatsby said Daisy drove and he stopped the car, both of which contradict all other eyewitness testimony.
E. Implausibility--Getting behind the wheel of a car while emotionally aroused is unsafe, probably the last thing Daisy should have been allowed to do.
F. Motive for Lying--Gatsby had a reason to impress Nick by appearing heroic. Twice he had tried to recruit him into his illicit bond sales scheme, and Wolfsheim opened that door a third time at their first meeting in New York.
F. 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?
Let's examine eyewitness testimony. At the scene of the accident, Tom addresses the cop (Ch. VII, p. 139.) [Cop speaking] A, the cop could only have gotten this information from eyewitness accounts, and B, "son-of-a-bitch" indicates the driver was male.
A "negro" at the scene told the cop the yellow car had passed him down the road doing fifty or sixty miles an hour, indicating the car accelerated rather than stopping.
At the inquest, Wilson's neighbor Michaelis' gave sworn testimony, which Nick paraphrases (Ch. VII, p.137.) [Nick, narrating] Michaelis got the color almost right. The car was a cream color referred to colloquially as "yellow." Michaelis saw a moving open roadster with green upholstery in dim light. The color mistake was minor, given the circumstances, and doesn't impugn his testimony.
So Gatsby's Rolls is a cream-color, dubbed colloquially as "yellow," and has green upholstery. Viewing a moving open roadster during an emergency, Michaelis' eye could have easily fixed on the green interior.
Fitzgerald then adopts an semi-omniscient point of view to give us more details about the morning after the accident [George Wilson speaks to Michaelis] (Ch. VIII, p.159.): [Wilson] Note the gender was not female. Nick/Fitzgerald then has Michaelis corroborate Wilson's observation: It wasn't by any means dark at 7:15 in the evening in the extended twilight of New York's northern latitude. Wilson and Michaelis both indicate the gender of the driver was male. George Wilson may have been emotionally overwrought, but even from the window of his garage, George could tell the difference between a man and a woman at the wheel of an open roadster doing only thirty miles an hour by their outline, size and clothing.
The witnesses the cop interviewed aid the car didn't stop and saw a man at the wheel. Wilson and Michaelis saw a man at the wheel. None of these eyewitnesses had a motive for lying, nor had they been drinking.
Gatsby said he stopped the car. Gatsby said Daisy drove. He is contradicted on both counts by all other eyewitness testimony. And his story is flimsy. If Daisy's nerves were shot, it isn't logical she would want to drive or for him to allow her to.
Why would you believe Gatsby over impartial eyewitnesses?
Nick believes him, but does this mean you have to?
Fitzgerald wrote this, not me. What is he telling us?